Is Irresistible Grace "resistible"?

[jbh28]

I went to outback and you won't believe what's in their menu. Bunch of outback Calvinist!

Irresistible Desserts!

http://www.outback.com/menu/menudescriptions.aspx

I guess some here think that every person that eats at outback has to have a dessert!

 

[glfredrick]

No it means I have nothing & will never have anything to discuss with you. And because your unusually thick its obvious you dont see this. youve insulted me, my faith, and my family & my friends. Thus I will never have any discussion with you. Now, leave me alone. Are we clear.

I've found that the "ignore" option works really well. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Luke2427]

Of course. God is resisted everyday. You resisted God before you were saved. Irresistible grace doesn't mean that God cannot be resisted. It's a terrible title, I'll give you that. It's a misleading title. It's not that one cannot resist, but that when God want's to save him, God will save him. At THAT moment, not before, His grace is irresistible. And it's not that you come dragging your feet. It's that God changes your hear and you want nothing more than to come to him. kinda like a dessert that's "irresistible."

Now, please represent the doctrine correctly. If it is wrong(and I know you think it is) then you should be able to accurately present the doctrine and not give a straw man. Looking at the title and giving a definition that no Calvinist would give you is a straw man.

You're wasting your time. We've explained this very thing to him multiple times. He doesn't get it. He doesn't even read our posts.

He just copies and pastes a bunch of Scriptures then colors them blue and red and thinks he has made a point.

The Scriptures he copies and pastes almost NEVER have a thing to do with what he says they are saying.

Winman is a perfect example of why I think seminary education gives one a huge leg up on most laymen.

 

[quantumfaith]

You're wasting your time. We've explained this very thing to him multiple times. He doesn't get it. He doesn't even read our posts.

He just copies and pastes a bunch of Scriptures then colors them blue and red and thinks he has made a point.

The Scriptures he copies and pastes almost NEVER have a thing to do with what he says they are saying.

Winman is a perfect example of why I think seminary education gives one a huge leg up on most laymen.

Oh, I think he gets it, but it sometimes seems as "yall" dont get that he simply disagrees with you, in a very passionate manner, much the same manner and method that you present your case. Just because someone doesnt see the scriptures through the lens of reformed theology, does NOT mean they dont get it. Certainly you reasonable and rational enough to agree with that point.

 

[John Toppass]

You're wasting your time. We've explained this very thing to him multiple times. He doesn't get it. He doesn't even read our posts.

He just copies and pastes a bunch of Scriptures then colors them blue and red and thinks he has made a point.

The Scriptures he copies and pastes almost NEVER have a thing to do with what he says they are saying.

Winman is a perfect example of why I think seminary education gives one a huge leg up on most laymen.

There must be a certain amount of common sense before the education one recieves can be of use. Too bad they cannot teach common sense 101.

 

[jbh28]

Oh, I think he gets it, but it sometimes seems as "yall" dont get that he simply disagrees with you, in a very passionate manner, much the same manner and method that you present your case. Just because someone doesnt see the scriptures through the lens of reformed theology, does NOT mean they dont get it. Certainly you reasonable and rational enough to agree with that point.

As I told Winman in a previous post, if he want's to disagree(even passionately) that's fine. The problem isn't the disagreement. The problem isn't looking at it through a different "lens." Those things are obvious. We interpret differently. The issue is misrepresenting. The problem is post a bunch of random verses that seem to prove the title wrong instead of showing the doctrine wrong.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. I think we should read the Bible and believe it. But I also believe we should represent those that we disagree with accurately. I try my very best not to say someone believes something when they say they don't. If they correct me, I apologize to them and DON'T keep repeating it.

And another note about the "lens", that is also what causes some of the misrepresentation. I'm looking at it from one point of view and you look at it with another. The issue comes is when I look at your view threw MY lens and not understand you are coming at it at a different angle.

 

[percho]

What is the percentage of possibility that both sides are wrong?

 

[The Archangel]

And conversely, Robert was the author of his blurb...so why would you have ME define what HE said? In addition, YOU decided what Robert said, which contradicts your very own words.

Not so...as this post will show. I don't think you understand, though. This has never been about what Robert said, this is about you and your disdain for all persons who are Calvinist.

Since I'm the author of what I state, I'll define what I'm called. I'm not an Arminian. I wouldn't expect you to say any different of my theology, but my theology is grounded in the same Scripture you claim. Besides...haven't I been predestined to believe what I believe?

You should notice that I said the label was immaterial. In other words, I was using "Arminian" as a metaphor for that which is not Calvinistic, at least in the current discussion.

I'll stop you right there. YOU claimed Robert was questioning your salvation, I didn't see him doing that. YOU did the same thing he did, yet you are holding him to the literal biblical definition of his use of "unsound doctrine" while you get a pass for using "darkness"?!? Not only is that unfair, it is hypocritical.

I shouldn't have to do anything...I understood what he meant. Apparently you are either the one that didn't, or are trying to hold him to your double standard of allowing the Bible to define what we mean. Like I said, if "unsound doctrine" = unbelieving, darkness = unbelieving.

Unfounded false accusation. If Robert were questioning your salvation, trust me...I'd report his post. I've reported plenty from both sides. The irony is when I report it after it's been done to me, our calvinist administrators / moderators give a hearty "Amen" to them doing so and state I serve another "god".

Here is where you have dug your hole deeper. Notice two things: 1.) Roberts' phrase is aligned with something in the poll (Signs of the last days, false teaching has arisen) and my phrase is aligned with another choice in the poll (Dumbed-down shallow Theology is being rejected) and 2.) I never complained to Robert about his statement.

I made my statement and you reacted to it--assuming that I questioned the salvation of Arminians. When you reacted to my statement (as I knew you would because you have done so at every opportunity presented to you), you immediately challenged my statement assuming "darkness" was tantamount to being an unbeliever. That is your [wrong] assumption.

Notice: I only shared my thoughts about Roberts post after you accused me of questioning the salvation of others. So, while you accuse me of being hypocritical, it is actually you who have demonstrated the double standard. How? 1.) You assumed I was challenging the salvation of others before I told you my take on Robert's post; 2.) You accuse me based on your assumption; 3.) You are the one who gave Robert the free pass. So, you have demonstrated your bias against all those who are Calvinists by doing this.

You said "if "unsound doctrine" = unbelieving, darkness = unbelieving." But, by the same token, if you assumed (wrongly, I might add) that darkness=unbelieving, then you should have also assumed unsound doctrine=unbelieving. You didn't.

Never did you say, "That's not what Robert meant." Never did you seek to give me the benefit of the doubt, as you did with Robert. Again, this is the very definition of a double standard. Unfortunately, you have never been known to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, yet you demand it for yourself and your theological comrades.

Again, this has never been about Robert's post; it is and has always been about you taking great pains to insult and castigate Calvinists simply for being Calvinists and, at the same time, turning a blind eye to the Arminians who say or do the same things. When a Calvinist makes a questionable statement to an Arminian, you come in guns blazing, insults flying. But, when an Arminian makes a questionable statement to a Calvinist, you either jump in with them or stand idly by as the bashing begins.

Now, if memory serves, I do remember you claiming or intimating that you answer in kind to people who answer you insultingly. But we all know that is not how Christians are to act. It is not "Do unto others as they have done to you." It is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So, even if people are insulting you, you should not return the insult. Now, of course, we are all guilty of this, because we are all sinners. I struggle with answering people in the same manner they have addressed me. But, there are people here, and to be frank...this includes you, who do not even seem to engage in the struggle to talk to people as you would have them talk to you. I would venture to say no one here is surprised when you tear into them. On the contrary, most people, myself included, are quite surprised when we receive a neutral or a cordial response. This is not the way things should be.

Sadly, throughout this entire exchange, you probably have never had one moment of introspection to even consider if I am right about your treatment of me and other Calvinists. You immediately chose to lash out, again, at someone simply because they hold a different theological position than you do--a lashing that someone of your theological ilk would have avoided. So, when I say "A word to the wise should be sufficient" what I mean is this: I hope you realize the error of your ways--and I'm not talking about becoming a Calvinist (I couldn't care less if you ever become a Calvinist, that's nowhere close to the point). I hope you take a step back and address people here as Christians first and not according to your disdain for their theological position. In the 17-odd-thousand post you have had, I would bet that you leave a sniping comment or an ad hominem half of the time. Disagree? Yes. Passionately? Absolutely. Attack people because they hold different positions than you? No.

Again, thus endeth the lesson...and a word to the wise should be sufficient.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[percho]

I guess I am basically Calvinist. Here is the truth of the matter.

John 10:26,27 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice,(the call of God) and I know them, and they follow me:

Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles,(nations) to take out of them a people for his name.

Not to tell and some choose, not to take all but to take out of that is a remnant. Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

I say basically because unlike Calvin who thought these were going to heaven and the rest to hell I also have read and believe this Acts 15:16,17,18 After this (After he is finished taking out a people fro his name) I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles,(nations) upon whom my name is called,(notice they are seeking the Lord and those called by his name not just the Lord) saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. (This wasn't an in lieu of plan, It was the original) God knows what we and he are doing. We best trust him.

 

[The Archangel]

I will say I don't have that chiseled in stone. I will ask as in the white throne judgment, does judgment mean immediate conviction or something else? Let's look at verse 12.

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Notice all the dead are raised and all are judged according to their works. The book of life is there. It does not say whether anyone is added or not at this time to the book of life thus not chiseled.

Another verse I fine interesting which I am not sure applies in this context or not is Isaiah 65:20
There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Years ago I was in a museum in Chicago and there was a mummy there that in all likely hood never heard of Jesus and I thought then will this man be raised from the dead and have an opportunity for eternal life. What do you think?

I'm open to comments and thoughts.

What about your thoughts on the rest of my post other than the one about the dead.

It is not a healthy theology that allows for the possibility that salvation can occur after death. Historically, this is a very, VERY dangerous and unorthodox belief.

The Bible clearly states that man is appointed to die once and after that comes judgment. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus shows that the rich man had no opportunity for salvation once he died (hence the gulf fixed between him and Abraham).

So, I think it is dangerously unbiblical to hold to a postmortem opportunity for salvation.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Luke2427]

Oh, I think he gets it, but it sometimes seems as "yall" dont get that he simply disagrees with you, in a very passionate manner, much the same manner and method that you present your case. Just because someone doesnt see the scriptures through the lens of reformed theology, does NOT mean they dont get it. Certainly you reasonable and rational enough to agree with that point.

No sir, he DOESN'T get it. We've said to him a dozen times that we believe God's grace is resistable until God gets ready to save- then it is not. He then responds by pasting a bunch of verses that show people resiting the Holy Ghost and says basically SEE!!! People CAN resit the Holy Ghost!!!

That simply means he doesn't get it- plain and simple.

 

[quantumfaith]

No sir, he DOESN'T get it. We've said to him a dozen times that we believe God's grace is resistable until God gets ready to save- then it is not. He then responds by pasting a bunch of verses that show people resiting the Holy Ghost and says basically SEE!!! People CAN resit the Holy Ghost!!!

That simply means he doesn't get it- plain and simple.

Whereas, it "seems" that you feel God will "force" himself on someone when "he gets ready to do so", we non-cals do not believe that God rarely if ever does that.

Now, on a lighter note, if so inclined enjoy the "totally unrelated" link. (North Point I-pad Band)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9XNfWNooz4

 

[glfredrick]

Whereas, it "seems" that you feel God will "force" himself on someone when "he gets ready to do so", we non-cals do not believe that God rarely if ever does that.

Now, on a lighter note, if so inclined enjoy the "totally unrelated" link. (North Point I-pad Band)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9XNfWNooz4

The error in your thinking is in using the term "force." Also note that NO Calvinist or Reformed person here on the board is arguing AT ALL for any sort of forcing.

By continuing to bring up the issue of God forcing someone when NNE is saying that in any fashion except you, is to seriously miss a major point.

What we are saying, however, is that when the time is right, God will LOVE and WOO one into the kingdom. Falling in love is not coercive. It is not "forcing." And, it is the best possible condition! Are we not called by God to love Him first, and also to love each other? Is not God extending His love to us, even when we are in rebellion against Him not a great act of mercy and grace?

From whence comes "force" from that (very biblical) scenario?

One of the things that those steeped in Arminian or (dare I say it) Pelagian or semi-Pelagian thought should try to get right is the actual position of an infralapsarian or supralapsarian Calvinist. And in that light, the word "force" is not even on our radar. We have said it constantly and continually, but it still comes up. Why? :BangHead:

 

[quantumfaith]

The error in your thinking is in using the term "force." Also note that NO Calvinist or Reformed person here on the board is arguing AT ALL for any sort of forcing.

By continuing to bring up the issue of God forcing someone when NNE is saying that in any fashion except you, is to seriously miss a major point.

What we are saying, however, is that when the time is right, God will LOVE and WOO one into the kingdom. Falling in love is not coercive. It is not "forcing." And, it is the best possible condition! Are we not called by God to love Him first, and also to love each other? Is not God extending His love to us, even when we are in rebellion against Him not a great act of mercy and grace?

From whence comes "force" from that (very biblical) scenario?

One of the things that those steeped in Arminian or (dare I say it) Pelagian or semi-Pelagian thought should try to get right is the actual position of an infralapsarian or supralapsarian Calvinist. And in that light, the word "force" is not even on our radar. We have said it constantly and continually, but it still comes up. Why? :BangHead:

It comes up again and again because of statements like

"God's grace is resistable until God gets ready to save- then it is not"

"then it is not" "shore nuff" sounds like "force" to me. I hope we both agree, God can essentially "do whatever He wishes" but the simple fact that He is God. But "we" maintain that God will in fact woo, move, motivate, prod, plead.....et al, while always allowing us to in fact "reject" his influence, if we so desire. So maybe, you should get it right. :BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

 

[glfredrick]

It comes up again and again because of statements like

"God's grace is resistable until God gets ready to save- then it is not"

"then it is not" "shore nuff" sounds like "force" to me. I hope we both agree, God can essentially "do whatever He wishes" but the simple fact that He is God. But "we" maintain that God will in fact woo, move, motivate, prod, plead.....et al, while always allowing us to in fact "reject" his influence, if we so desire. So maybe, you should get it right. :BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

Of course it is not, and you believe that as well. But you are attributing the word "force" to God as if He just bullies His way into and out of people's lives.

That NEVER happens, and that is the position of both Calvinism and Arminianism.

We take for our example the people that had conversations with Jesus in the person, yet did not change their minds. Jesus let them walk away. Those examples -- found in Scripture -- are informative for both Calvinists and Arminians.

Let's turn a corner, by way of illustration. Have you ever heard about two people who really disliked each other, yet somehow eventually fell in love and married -- successfully? I hear these stories all the time. No one "forced" the other to love them, but somehow it happened. Why? Because LOVE is a powerful force. We CRAVE love, whether from God or from fellow human being.

The Scriptures say that "God so LOVED the world that He gave His only begotten son..." Where is the force in that?

One last question...

Do you believe that if or when ANY human being (including those who reject Him at every turn) comes face to face with God that they will recognize God for who He is, bow down, and worship Him?

 

[Winman]

"God's grace is resistable until God gets ready to save- then it is not"

How about even one verse of scripture to support this. Show me in scriptures where it says God's grace is resistable until God gets ready to save, and then it is not.

Calvinists make all kinds of statements like this, but never show how this doctrine was arrived at in scripture.

 

[quantumfaith]

Of course it is not, and you believe that as well. But you are attributing the word "force" to God as if He just bullies His way into and out of people's lives.

That NEVER happens, and that is the position of both Calvinism and Arminianism.

We take for our example the people that had conversations with Jesus in the person, yet did not change their minds. Jesus let them walk away. Those examples -- found in Scripture -- are informative for both Calvinists and Arminians.

Let's turn a corner, by way of illustration. Have you ever heard about two people who really disliked each other, yet somehow eventually fell in love and married -- successfully? I hear these stories all the time. No one "forced" the other to love them, but somehow it happened. Why? Because LOVE is a powerful force. We CRAVE love, whether from God or from fellow human being.

The Scriptures say that "God so LOVED the world that He gave His only begotten son..." Where is the force in that?

One last question...

Do you believe that if or when ANY human being (including those who reject Him at every turn) comes face to face with God that they will recognize God for who He is, bow down, and worship Him?

I am convinced, at some point in the future "every knee will bow and every tongue confess". Yes.

Question: Do you hold to "causal determininsm"?

 

[The Archangel]

The word "Irresistible" is really an unfortunate word. It leads to the idea that God "forces" people into the kingdom kicking and screaming.

If creation tells us anything, it is that even things that do not exist must still obey God's voice. That is the nature of God's effectual power.

So, when God chooses to save some (before the foundation of the world), He essentially commits Himself to revealing Himself to the Elect in an effectual way so as to generate faith (Eph 2:2-9, Grace and Faith being the two sides of the salvation gift).

So, it is not that He forces anyone. Through the effectual nature of Himself He makes the unwilling willing. Calvinists say this is done through the work of Regeneration.

It is not "force;" it is changing hearts. And, the new heart will desire God and seek after Him and, ultimately, respond to Him in repentance and faith. The once-unwilling has become willing.

There are deeper analogies. But, I won't post them now.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

Not so...as this post will show. I don't think you understand, though. This has never been about what Robert said, this is about you and your disdain for all persons who are Calvinist.

Now you have gone from giving your opinion to being dishonest. I see you are back to your old ways if you are turning this around on me. That is what political liberals do.

I made my statement and you reacted to it--assuming that I questioned the salvation of Arminians. When you reacted to my statement (as I knew you would because you have done so at every opportunity presented to you), you immediately challenged my statement assuming "darkness" was tantamount to being an unbeliever. That is your [wrong] assumption.

I will always react when I feel the salvation of another is being questioned, cal and non alike. Apparently your blinders do not allow for that.

Notice: I only shared my thoughts about Roberts post after you accused me of questioning the salvation of others. So, while you accuse me of being hypocritical, it is actually you who have demonstrated the double standard. How? 1.) You assumed I was challenging the salvation of others before I told you my take on Robert's post; 2.) You accuse me based on your assumption; 3.) You are the one who gave Robert the free pass. So, you have demonstrated your bias against all those who are Calvinists by doing this.

Sir, you are a liar. I asked you a question about how you meant "darkness". If that is an accusation, you really have no business speaking about anything pertaining to grammar here on the BB.

You said "if "unsound doctrine" = unbelieving, darkness = unbelieving." But, by the same token, if you assumed (wrongly, I might add) that darkness=unbelieving, then you should have also assumed unsound doctrine=unbelieving. You didn't.

No...I was using YOUR definitions to make a point. I don't believe all usage of "unsound doctrine" = unbelieving.

Never did you say, "That's not what Robert meant." Never did you seek to give me the benefit of the doubt, as you did with Robert. Again, this is the very definition of a double standard. Unfortunately, you have never been known to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, yet you demand it for yourself and your theological comrades.

Again, maybe this time it will penetrate...I DON'T CARE what you had going with Robert. I was seeking to give you the benefit of the doubt by ASKING you what you meant. Apparently you meant just what you thought Robert meant.

Again, this has never been about Robert's post; it is and has always been about you taking great pains to insult and castigate Calvinists simply for being Calvinists and, at the same time, turning a blind eye to the Arminians who say or do the same things. When a Calvinist makes a questionable statement to an Arminian, you come in guns blazing, insults flying. But, when an Arminian makes a questionable statement to a Calvinist, you either jump in with them or stand idly by as the bashing begins.

The irony in your hypocrisy is you never came to my defense when I was accused of serving another "god". Pot or kettle?

Now, if memory serves, I do remember you claiming or intimating that you answer in kind to people who answer you insultingly. But we all know that is not how Christians are to act. It is not "Do unto others as they have done to you." It is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So, even if people are insulting you, you should not return the insult. Now, of course, we are all guilty of this, because we are all sinners. I struggle with answering people in the same manner they have addressed me. But, there are people here, and to be frank...this includes you, who do not even seem to engage in the struggle to talk to people as you would have them talk to you. I would venture to say no one here is surprised when you tear into them. On the contrary, most people, myself included, are quite surprised when we receive a neutral or a cordial response. This is not the way things should be.

Again...pot or kettle? Isn't it strange that I ask you what you define a word by...and you become snippy with me...and then try to lecture me on how one should respond?

Sadly, throughout this entire exchange, you probably have never had one moment of introspection to even consider if I am right about your treatment of me and other Calvinists. You immediately chose to lash out, again, at someone simply because they hold a different theological position than you do--a lashing that someone of your theological ilk would have avoided.

...and your treatment of me? Have you taken your own advice? All one has to do is go back to the beginning of our exchange to see who the instigator in the discussion is. It's right there in black and white.

Again, thus endeth the lesson...and a word to the wise should be sufficient.

Please...you are in no position to lecture anyone. Oh...and take your own advice before trying to give it out as there are 3 fingers pointing right back at you when you start wagging yours at me.

 

[percho]

It is not a healthy theology that allows for the possibility that salvation can occur after death. Historically, this is a very, VERY dangerous and unorthodox belief.

The Bible clearly states that man is appointed to die once and after that comes judgment. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus shows that the rich man had no opportunity for salvation once he died (hence the gulf fixed between him and Abraham).

So, I think it is dangerously unbiblical to hold to a postmortem opportunity for salvation.

Blessings,

The Archangel

It might be healthy for those Indians that died before Old Chris got over in 1492 to tell the about Jesus.

When is one's name written in the book of life. Before he is born from his mother? When he accepts Christ? Maybe everyone and then blotted out later? In the last 2000 years would you venture to say that more people have been born that have heard the name Jesus Christ or more people have been born that have never heard the name Jesus Christ?

Also I am not just throwing these questions out I would really like your answers and thoughts.

I just believe that if man's salvation rest on the faith of Jesus mankind will be in good hands.