Please Explain the "I" in TULIP

It is resistible. The title is terrible.

Exactly

Looks pretty good to me. This is one of the reasons I don't like acronyms. They tend to be forced and are either really cheesy, or like here tend to give a wrong meaning.

So, the verse the Webdog quoted, " You always resist the Holy Spirit!" fits perfectly with the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.

 

Obviously you haven't read what the doctrine of Irresistible Grace teaches nor have you read this thread. No Calvinist(ok, you may find an exception somewhere) teaches that God is never resisted by anyone.

this is why I stated that we needed to define our terms. Most arguments are against a doctrine that doesn't exist.

 

cals affirm there is a work of Grace God has to do on us prior to getting 'saved", Arms do also, as both of us see man as sinful and unasble to come to God as we are

Non cals tend to see us able to respond by faith to the gospel, NO prior spiritual working by god required!

 

These explanations contained in this article are helpful....those who oppose truth do not really understand what they are opposing.


http://www.apuritansmind.com/tulip/irresistible-grace-compiled-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

 

THAT will be hard to do, as it IS a biblical concept!

 

...or it is understood, and what is perceived as truth is questionable and is rejected.

 

Previnient grace is resistible. When God says that the real thing is not resistible, it is no longer resistible.

That's what happens when something like previnient grace (a general grace that is supposed to be provided for all people to respond to God that cannot be found in the Scriptures, but makes Arminian theology work somewhat) is tossed into the mix. It is not God saying, "This is the time, come on." It is just some general thing akin to all of us being able to breath and eat -- just like we can resist to a point (decide for a time if we will or will not) before we die, so too can we resist previnient grace. The comparison is applicable, for the end result is the same -- death.

But, Calvinists are not arguing for previnient grace. We're arguing for the sovereign grace of Almighty God, which is sufficient in all cases to accomplish whatever it is that He wills for an individual. To say otherwise is to speak horrific blasphemy against our ALL POWERFUL God. I'm sure that no one wishes to do that.

 

Those verses quoted by webdofg though refer to those who had already harden themselves, who were reacting to God as "sinners"

Effectual/iressitible grace would be God "openning" up heart/mind of a sinner so that they can and will turn to Christ and become saved!

Our "natural state" is to react JST as those did in quotes from Webdog!

 

I tend to see it in latter way, as the Lord "reverses" out the effect of the fall in us enough to allow us again to have the means to freely respond to the Gospel message

he has chosen those whom will receive the 'quickening" and since God iniated it for His glory, they will become saved!

 

Well, it's kind of like John 3:16. It can fit within the Calvinistic framework, but it SEEMS to be contradictory unless great pains are taken to explain it. It doesn't APPEAR to make sense for God to love everyone and send his Son to die for the world and to send a message to every creature appealing for them to be reconciled with statements like "whosoever believes will not perish," but then on the other hand claim God only really loves (salvifically) a select few who he will irresistibly draw to faith and salvation. It doesn't APPEAR to fit to the average objective reader.

So, too it doesn't fit to the average objective reader to say on the one hand that God works irresistibly to accomplish this work but not this one. Why even do it if your not going to do it irresistibly? For example, if there were two rocks in front of me and I called both of them to come to me, knowing full well rocks can't respond to my voice, so I went over and picked one of them up and brought it to me while still calling the other one with genuine sincerity, "Come here, rock, come here." The guy looking at me would think I was crazy and ask, if you know the rock is going to resist (not come) why didn't you just pick it up like you did the other one if you REALLY want it to come?

It seems contradictory to speak of the HS working resistibly in a world where He knows that only His "irresistible" effort will have any real effect. This is why people bring these versus up.

That being said, you are right that the verse in itself doesn't contradict the CLAIMS of Calvinism. It only appears to contradict what appears to be rational and consistent with the way God typically speaks and works in conjunction with people.

 

If they had already hardened themselves, and they are not of the "elect", what is the Holy Spirit doing working to where they can even have the possibility TO resist? If they are spiritual corpses, how can they even recognize the Spirit's work in order to resist it?

 

Thing is that those jews were reacting in their "natural state" of being sinners who reacted 'from their sinful flesh"

Also, God was at work at that time saving out a faithful remnant of jews, nad were hardening/blinded off the rest of them!

 

And that is a much simpler and shorter way to say what I just tried to explain...

 

Personal attack on Van

I said it was because of her beliefs, not her works. You misrepresented and continue to misrepresent me. Totally unnecessary.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Well obviously they didn't think it was the HS working, or they wouldn't have resisted it. What I think he is asking is why would the HS even work on them if (1) they aren't elect (2) He knows they will resist and (3) His works won't even be realized or acknowledge or have effect.

Make sense now?