Is Irresistible Grace "resistible"?

[glfredrick]

I raised this issue in another thread where we're talking about much the same points.

WHO of all created beings would like to make sure that men reject God?

That's right -- Satan.

Now, which side argues CONTINUALLY for the right of men to reject God?

Like I said in the other thread, I am NOT -- no way -- arguing that Arminians are of the devil. I am arguing that the one that wishes for men to reject God is Satan and that some may need to reevaluate their core theology.

Why argue for the right of men to reject God? Doesn't make sense -- especially to argue that in light of the fact that God is demonstrably King of all kings and Lord of all lords -- sovereign, almighty, all knowing, all powerful, capable of doing His will, no matter what that will may be.

 

[convicted1]

Bro Luke,

I want to address these two quotes from your first post in this thread.

This tenet of Calvinism does not teach that men cannot resist the Spirit of God. In fact Calvinism says that unregenerate man can do nothing BUT resist the grace of God. That is all they are capable of doing.

The idea behind irresistible grace is that when God gets ready to save a man, He will. There is nothing the man can do to stop it.

Here you say that the unregenerate man "can" resist God. Now, here's the question that I must ask, because its really bugging me. When God was calling the "unregenerate person", and he said "no", was He not serious with His invitation? You stated in the second quote I snipped that when God gets ready, He will save him, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. If God is calling someone and they say "no", then I guess God wasn't serious when He was doing this? I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but this is how this comes off. When God called someone and they said "no", God wasn't really trying. But, when He gets serious about it, then watch out, here He comes! Can you please elaborate on this a little more? I am not trying to mess with you, I am serious. The way you worded this, has me cornfused....which ain't hard to do, let me tell you!! The way it sounds is like this: When the "unregenerate man" resists the Holy Ghost(per your comment from post #34), God was really offering salvation to him at that time. When He wants to save that individual, He will, and none of us can stop it.

Here is you quote from post #34:

Bro Willis, it does no good for you to continue to put these verses up when we have already expressed to you that we believe that men DO RESIST THE HOLY GHOST. I have stated clearly that we believe that that is ALL that men do until God gives them a new heart.[?QUOTE]


You see where I am coming from with this? When God called to me, He was serious, and if I would have responded "yea Lord" the very first time from the heart, I would have been saved. He wasn't calling me just for a "good trial run". I agree that we have to have a "heart transplant", and that God breaks our stony heart and gives us a heart of flesh, but until I stopped resisting the Holy Ghost, I never got the heart of flesh. After I said "yea Lord", I got the heart of flesh, which is the heart of love!!

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[Luke2427]

I raised this issue in another thread where we're talking about much the same points.

WHO of all created beings would like to make sure that men reject God?

That's right -- Satan.

Now, which side argues CONTINUALLY for the right of men to reject God?

Like I said in the other thread, I am NOT -- no way -- arguing that Arminians are of the devil. I am arguing that the one that wishes for men to reject God is Satan and that some may need to reevaluate their core theology.

Why argue for the right of men to reject God? Doesn't make sense -- especially to argue that in light of the fact that God is demonstrably King of all kings and Lord of all lords -- sovereign, almighty, all knowing, all powerful, capable of doing His will, no matter what that will may be.

You know this is an interesting thing. They love FREE WILL. It is the cornerstone of their doctrine. It is LITERALLY the reason they think God built the universe- that God needed some folks to love him with a free will because in their mind that is the only kind of real love.

But what has "FREE WILL" ever done for man? Has it ever done him any good whatsoever???

When it was the freest it ever was it brought about the destruction of the human race and plunged billions and billions and billions into the fires of eternal hell.

What a thing to defend so vociferously!

 

[The Archangel]

You know this is an interesting thing. They love FREE WILL. It is the cornerstone of their doctrine. It is LITERALLY the reason they think God built the universe- that God needed some folks to love him with a free will because in their mind that is the only kind of real love.

But what has "FREE WILL" ever done for man? Has it ever done him any good whatsoever???

When it was the freest it ever was it brought about the destruction of the human race and plunged billions and billions and billions into the fires of eternal hell.

What a thing to defend so vociferously!

One of the biggest and paradoxical ironies of scripture is that the true nature of true freedom is following God's commands.

Of course, this means that any notion of our current understanding of freedom in a political sense or libertarian sense or anarchy must be set aside.

The true nature of freedom is being a bond-servant to Christ. Only in that slavery do we truly find freedom.

Ok...that's deep--see what happens when I'm up at 2AM!?

The Archangel

 

[Luke2427]

Bro Luke,
I want to address these two quotes from your first post in this thread.



Here you say that the unregenerate man "can" resist God. Now, here's the question that I must ask, because its really bugging me. When God was calling the "unregenerate person", and he said "no", was He not serious with His invitation? You stated in the second quote I snipped that when God gets ready, He will save him, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. If God is calling someone and they say "no", then I guess God wasn't serious when He was doing this?

Brother Willis, it is always good to speak with you.

Please read the whole thing then go back and respond accordingly. Please do not read a line and then respond and then read another line and respond. I don't know that you ever do that but this response of mine must be taken as a composite whole.

It is not that when God calls and men say "no" that God is not serious.

God is serious, but he has no intention of saving them right then.

God makes points, you understand. He shows us things about ourselves by commanding us to do things we cannot do.

You'll need to read carefully here to get my point if you are interested in comprehending my perspective on this matter.

God commands ALL men to keep ALL the law of God ALL the time. That is why they are called "COMMANDMENTS".

God commands men to NEVER lust, to NEVER commit IDOLATRY, to NEVER blaspheme.

God COMMANDS ALL men to ALWAYS love him with ALL their hearts souls minds and strength.

Please answer this question in your next response: Can men do this?

Was God not serious with these commands?

Will he not hold unsaved men accountable for every jot and tittle of the law?

Did Jesus not say, "EVERY IDLE WORD that men speak they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."?

Did the Apostle not say, "If you have offended in ONE POINT you are guilty of all"?

God is SERIOUS when he commands men to do what they cannot do.

Agreed?

Now. Why then does God command men to do what they cannot do?

To SHOW them what they really are.

Paul said that the law exists that sin might appear exceeding sinful. Romans 7:13

The command to repent is no different. Paul said on Mars Hill "God COMMANDETH all men everywhere to repent."

Is that a serious commandment? You bet your bottom dollar.

Can men do this? No more than they can keep any other commandment.

So when God gives a general call, one to all men everywhere, he is perfectly serious but may not intend to save yet. He may intend to show how wicked we are by telling us to repent knowing that we cannot so that we throw our hands up and say- God I can't!!!!!!!!

Then, in our broken and humble state, God gives an effectual call, one no more serious than the general call. That call is like the voice of Christ to Lazarus- it raises the dead.

All of God's calls are serious. God holds us accountable for how we resond to them all. But some exist to show our sinfulness and the other to save our souls.

Men DO resist the Holy Ghost. In fact that is all that men CAN do until they are given a new heart.

God calls to those men. And NOT JUST WITH A GENERAL CALL but often times with conviction. And that call is deadly serious. But it exists to make a point. The point is manifesting how desperately wicked we are and how God alone must do all of the saving.

But when God gets ready to save his elect he speaks to raise the dead. That voice changes the heart. It transforms it from one that can do NOTHING BUT resist God to one that wants NOTHING MORE than to serve God.

God changes our "want to". When he does that we CANNOT resist him and we do not WANT to resist him.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but this is how this comes off. When God called someone and they said "no", God wasn't really trying.

That is correct. He wasn't really trying to save them at that moment. He was making a point as he does with ALL of His commandments.

Let me illustrate this.

Sometimes my son gets cocky (not really- little Rick is a very sweet boy- but for sake of the illustration). He is 7 and he thinks he ought to be allowed to do anything I do. He ought to be allowed to swing an axe and bust wood for the fireplace, etc...

I buy him pediasure drinks. When I want to make a point that he is still a little boy and I am a grown man and he should not be allowed to do everything that I do I will give him a command.

"Rick, go to the fridge and get one of your pediasure bottles. Bring it here, open it up and drink it."

He will go to the fridge bring it here and try to hand it to me to open it for him (these bottles are quite difficult to open).

"No, no. YOU open it."

He tries and tries but he can't- in despair he hands it to me and I open it for him.

I commanded him to do what he could not do to show him what he is- a 7 year old who has no business swinging an axe.


God commands and calls upon men to repent who cannot to show them what they are. Sinners who need God to do all of the saving.

The call is serious but proves a point. Then the effectual call comse to the elect when God gets ready and those sinners cannot resist that call, nor at that point do the WANT to because God has given them a new heart- one that wants God.

But, when He gets serious about it, then watch out, here He comes! Can you please elaborate on this a little more? I am not trying to mess with you, I am serious. The way you worded this, has me cornfused....which ain't hard to do, let me tell you!! The way it sounds is like this: When the "unregenerate man" resists the Holy Ghost(per your comment from post #34), God was really offering salvation to him at that time. When He wants to save that individual, He will, and none of us can stop it.

I hope I have clarified.

Here is you quote from post #34:

Bro Willis, it does no good for you to continue to put these verses up when we have already expressed to you that we believe that men DO RESIST THE HOLY GHOST. I have stated clearly that we believe that that is ALL that men do until God gives them a new heart.[?QUOTE]

Yes, Brother Willis, I meant that. And I want to make a point here. I thought EXACTLY like you for years. And for the same reason: I didn't REALLY know what Calvinists believe- I just thought I did.

Please don't take this wrong, but the proof that you don't REALLY know what Calvinists believe is in the fact that you bring to bear thses verses as if Calvinists do not believe that man can resist the Holy Ghost.

If you really knew what Calvinism was, you would not bother with these verses because you would know that ALL Calvinists believe that man CAN resist the grace of God.

Most people who are not Calvinists who resit Calvinism really don't know a whole lot about REAL Calvinism.

That may come as a blow to the ol' ego. It did for me. But it was the first step toward coming to the light on this matter.

You see where I am coming from with this? When God called to me, He was serious, and if I would have responded "yea Lord" the very first time from the heart, I would have been saved. He wasn't calling me just for a "good trial run". I agree that we have to have a "heart transplant", and that God breaks our stony heart and gives us a heart of flesh, but until I stopped resisting the Holy Ghost, I never got the heart of flesh. After I said "yea Lord", I got the heart of flesh, which is the heart of love!![/COLOR]

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[Luke2427]

One of the biggest and paradoxical ironies of scripture is that the true nature of true freedom is following God's commands.

Of course, this means that any notion of our current understanding of freedom in a political sense or libertarian sense or anarchy must be set aside.

The true nature of freedom is being a bond-servant to Christ. Only in that slavery do we truly find freedom.

Ok...that's deep--see what happens when I'm up at 2AM!?

The Archangel

And Free Will is a misnomer- at the very least among the hordes of depraved, unregenerate humanity.

I came from a movement called Free Will Baptists.

They LITERALLY believe that man is totally capable of choosing righteousness or unrighteousness.

The problem with that is their nature. They can no more do REAL good than God can sin. It is not in the nature of God to sin. He cannot lie, for example.

It is not in the nature of fallen man to do good. There is NONE that doeth good. No NOT ONE.

So when a sinner comes to a fork in the road and path A is self will and path B is God's Will (the only REAL good) he will choose self will EVERY TIME. He does not have it in him to choose God's will.

He cannot be considered Free at all.

 

[convicted1]

Bro Luke,

I agree with a lot of what you posted, but where in the sciptures can you, and any one for that matter, prove the "general call" and the "effectual call"? I am not saying its not there, but where is it?

We see things "eye-to-eye" more than you may think, but we have differing views on the "elect" and "non-elect".

My view on "elect": Those who have been born again by God, after they opened the door, and then were saved.

My view on the "non-elect": Those who rejected the "call" from God, and died in their sins.

I believe the call goes to all, but only those who trust in Him will be saved!

i am I am's!!

Willis

BTW, I liked the allegory of your 7 year old son. That's good!! :thumbs: :thumbs: Merry CHRISTmas!!!

 

[Luke2427]

Bro Luke,

I agree with a lot of what you posted, but where in the sciptures can you, and any one for that matter, prove the "general call" and the "effectual call"? I am not saying its not there, but where is it?

We see things "eye-to-eye" more than you may think, but we have differing views on the "elect" and "non-elect".

My view on "elect": Those who have been born again by God, after they opened the door, and then were saved.

My view on the "non-elect": Those who rejected the "call" from God, and died in their sins.

I believe the call goes to all, but only those who trust in Him will be saved!

i am I am's!!

Willis

BTW, I liked the allegory of your 7 year old son. That's good!! :thumbs: :thumbs: Merry CHRISTmas!!!

Merry Christmas to you too!

When you get a chance answer that question, will you please.


That whole thing about the commandments to everyone at all times proves a general call. So does the remark Paul made on Mars Hill "God commandeth all men EVERYWHERE to repent." That is a general call to repentance.


Romans 8:29 proves an effectual call. "... those he called he justified, those he justified he glorified."

Who became justified? Those he called. Was there anybody who he called in that fashion who were not justified? Nope- those he called he justified. Just like there is nobody who gets justified without getting glorified there is nobody that gets called in this particular way who does not get justified.

If you were Wyatt Earp coming to the old saloon (where I was drinking sassafras mind you) looking for the Cowboys and I wanted to help you I might say, "Those wearing a red sash are Cowboys."

You would know that everyone wearing a red sash is fair game.

There would be no one in the saloon wearing a red sash who was not a Cowboy (unless I was wrong- but God cannot be wrong so when he says THOSE that means everyone of those).

So when God says, "Those called get justified" that means everyone called gets justified.

When you try to make all the calls the same, well you make that verse a liar. You believe that God calls some who never get justified. I do too. But I believe that call is a different call. If it is the same then this verse in Romans is not true.

But if you understand a very simple truth- that there are different types of calls- then that verse stands just fine.

Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me"

There is no exception. All who are his sheep hear his voice and go after him. His voice is the effectual call. Effectual call means it is a call that causes those called to do what the call calls for. Say that five times FAST!

 

[convicted1]

Bro Luke,

To answer your question quickly, "no". No one can keep the Law, but we are not under the Law any more, but under Grace. The Law was our sins on a "billboard", so to speak. I agree with you in that God gave the commandments to show us how sinful we really are.

Gal. 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

God knew that we couldn't keep the Law, and He sent His Son to "redeem"(buy back) those under the Law. Now the Law in Romans 8:2 makes reference of "the Law of sin and death". We now live under Grace, and are kept by It!! The Law had to be KEPT; under Grace, it KEEPS us. Major difference!!

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[quantumfaith]

You know this is an interesting thing. They love FREE WILL. It is the cornerstone of their doctrine. It is LITERALLY the reason they think God built the universe- that God needed some folks to love him with a free will because in their mind that is the only kind of real love.

But what has "FREE WILL" ever done for man? Has it ever done him any good whatsoever???

You are correct Luke, but we LOVE GOD even more. We are thankful that the LOVE of God created us, redeemed us and gives us the grace to love him back.

You seem, I emphasize "SEEM" to love the idea of being an automaton. We, a general WE just simply do not see God as having creating or wanting to create us as automatons.

When it was the freest it ever was it brought about the destruction of the human race and plunged billions and billions and billions into the fires of eternal hell.

What a thing to defend so vociferously!

I will, unless my heart is changed by God, continue to defend it, because I think it is what the word, nature and essence of God teaches. I will try to be civil, best that I can even when I sense a condescending attitude over and above intellectual and reasoned difference of opinion.

What we can do, is pray for one another. Philosophically and theologically, you and I are not going to convince one another as to the error(s) of which we both believe the other has.

 

[Luke2427]

I will, unless my heart is changed by God, continue to defend it, because I think it is what the word, nature and essence of God teaches.

See that's the thing that perplexes me. It is NOT seen in nature. Cause and effect is what we see in nature. For every choice there is a cause.

Why did I choose to eat at Arby's rather than Krystal?

Because I hate Krystal burgers. My taste buds, upbringing, etc... molded my choice. My will is determined by forces outside of myself. It is not my own.
I ahd no control over the arrangement of the taste buds on my tongue- no control over what family I would be born into and those circumstance that would mold my tastes.

Nature does NOT teach "Free Will".

The Word of God CERTAINLY does not teach it.

There is none that doeth good. If you come to a fork in the road and good is path A and bad is path B, before you were saved, you would choose B everytime because there is none that doeth real moral good. If you CANNOT choose path A then your will is most CERTAINLY NOT free.


So the problem for the "non-cal" remains.

Why vociferously defend Free Will?

I think it is mostly upbringing.

 

[webdog]

If you are going to exchange with Webdog get used to this kind of stuff. Calling people liars is his M. O. He gets personal and attacks you for getting personal and then when you point out that he does it- he denies it. Then you prove it by posting his posts and then he spins those posts saying you took him out of context.

That's what you sign up for when you engage webdog.

Trolling. Do you ever keep your nose out of anything? Again, behavior becoming of a pastor, Luke?

 

[Luke2427]

Trolling. Do you ever keep your nose out of anything? Again, behavior becoming of a pastor, Luke?

Pastors tell the truth- so yea.

I am not the only one who knows this to be so, webdog.

I find it compelling when several people offer the same critique to me. Several people have noted that I get too agressive at times. So I apologize and work on it.

Not you. I reckon a thousand wise people could point out to you your faults but it would fall on deaf ears.

 

[webdog]

Pastors tell the truth- so yea.

I am not the only one who knows this to be so, webdog.

I find it compelling when several people offer the same critique to me. Several people have noted that I get too agressive at times. So I apologize and work on it.

Not you. I reckon a thousand wise people could point out to you your faults but it would fall on deaf ears.

You know, Luke...I keep reading responses to your on various threads (some now closed like the comical Calvin founding USA thread) and the main theme is your immaturity, your pride, your trolling, etc...and you still have the nerve to point out the faults of others. Seriously man, you need a complete overhaul on your attitude particularly since you are in charge of a flock. It's quite sad. "Aggressive" and "abrasive" are not hidden fruits of the Spirit.

FTR, I just apologized to idonthavethetime for jumping the gun on a recent thread. Look it up.

 

[Luke2427]

You know, Luke...I keep reading responses to your on various threads (some now closed like the comical Calvin founding USA thread) and the main theme is your immaturity, your pride, your trolling, etc...and you still have the nerve to point out the faults of others. Seriously man, you need a complete overhaul on your attitude particularly since you are in charge of a flock. It's quite sad. "Aggressive" and "abrasive" are not hidden fruits of the Spirit.

FTR, I just apologized to idonthavethetime for jumping the gun on a recent thread. Look it up.

Glad to hear you are making progress.

 

[percho]

To me the whole concept of the New Covenant is that God remembers your sin no more. Sin being transgressing the law of God. Instead of us trying to choose to keep obey them God says, "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. In other words that is what we become which is I believe is the character of God therefore Love.

I believe the word of God teaches this is something God does. He chooses us as children begets us and we will be born of him just as in human birth. We have the Spirit of adoption awaiting the adoption to wit. We are currently heirs waiting to become inheritors. We are currently begotten waiting to be born

We are born of the flesh, and we shall be born of the spirit. That is not first that is spiritual but that which is natural. We were born and still have the image of the first man Adam and we shall be born and have the image of the last Adam.

Why does the word of God call the resurrected Jesus the last Adam? He who as the Word made flesh in the likeness of the the first man Adam a living soul died for us.

 

[quantumfaith]

See that's the thing that perplexes me. It is NOT seen in nature. Cause and effect is what we see in nature. For every choice there is a cause.

Why did I choose to eat at Arby's rather than Krystal?

Because I hate Krystal burgers. My taste buds, upbringing, etc... molded my choice. My will is determined by forces outside of myself. It is not my own.
I ahd no control over the arrangement of the taste buds on my tongue- no control over what family I would be born into and those circumstance that would mold my tastes.

Nature does NOT teach "Free Will".

The Word of God CERTAINLY does not teach it.

There is none that doeth good. If you come to a fork in the road and good is path A and bad is path B, before you were saved, you would choose B everytime because there is none that doeth real moral good. If you CANNOT choose path A then your will is most CERTAINLY NOT free.


So the problem for the "non-cal" remains.

Why vociferously defend Free Will?

I think it is mostly upbringing.

Luke, with all humility, determinism in the natural realm, has been proven to be lacking. If interested, do a little research into quantum physics (mechanics). Even Einstein, although admittedly he was not a believer, had very strong feelings against quantum mathematics, but later conceded such. At present, MY feeling is that this "quantum" issue (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) is revealing perhaps a glimpse of HOW God had designed his creation to both completely under His sovereignty while permitting creaturely freedom. But I could be wrong and/or overly simplistic.

If you do take a "hard determinist" position, inevitably it reduces to God being the cause and author of sin not just a "permitter" of sin.

As I have heard the positions best described they are as follows;

Hard determinism (Consistent Calvinism)
Soft Determinism ( Softer Calvinism....Infralapsarian?)
Soft Libertarianism (Arminian, Molinism)
Hard Libertarianism (Open Theology, Process Theology)

 

[Amy.G]

Quantum, you are going to have to leave the board. You are too smart and make me look dumb. Thank you.

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[quantumfaith]

Quantum, you are going to have to leave the board. You are too smart and make me look dumb. Thank you.

:smilewinkgrin:

Amy, actually, I am very simple minded. Though my weakness often is using my common sense. Thank You.
Let me add, I have MANY other weaknesses as well!!!!

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Glad to hear you are making progress.

I think its humorous to watch Luke & webdog go at each other. Ironically, its people like these 2—who are so dedication to biblical truth, yet reach conclusions to their biblical interpretation that are so diametrically opposed-- that makes me reexamine my own biblical interpretation & keeps me coming back to these threads. If you 2 could put aside the soteriological differences long enough—you’d make the perfect stars for a theological sit-com. :laugh: