Featured Irressistible Grace #2

It would be better if you listed out the various 'ages' you see time divided into, along with their Scriptural sources. Or even simply point me to a link that does that.

I might have completely misunderstood this which is why I'm rechecking - do you hold the "church age of mystery" to be only between AD30 and AD58? If so, are you saying that all the events of Rom 7:1-11:36 are already completed - the fullness of Gentiles have already come in by AD58? Are we not in the church age still in 2020 - is now the final age of human history?

I will spend the most time on just this. So you hold the "this" to denote the church age of mystery and apply the entire prophecy to a future time "after" Rom 11? If so, there are just blatant errors in that -

1. The "this" is an equivalent rendition of the OT prophecy and does not denote the church age but the judgement on the nation of Israel where all the sinful kingdom is destroyed but not utterly for the remnant is sifted among the nations.

2. v.15 mentions something agreeing to the words of the prophets - and that is Peter's testimony that God "is taking from the Gentiles a people for His name". So the prophecy that he then quotes must apply to this testimony for it to agree with it. Which it does, only if applied to the events of that time - God is taking the remnant of Israel and the Gentiles to form the Church (Rom 9-11). It cannot be applied to some other people group at a later time, for where is the agreement with the testimony then?

 

THE OUTWARD AND THE INWARD CALLS T.P. Simmons (Return to Contents) Election has to do with the purpose and planning of salvation. The atonement has to do with the provision of it. We come now to study the application and communication of salvation to the elect.

I. THE OUTWARD CALL The Scripture clearly speaks of two different calls. The first one in the order of occurrence is known generally as the outward or external call. The following Scriptures refer to this call: Isa. 45:22; 55:6; Matt. 9:13; 11:28; 22:14; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32; Rev. 22:17. There are other Scriptures that evidently refer to both calls. These are reserved until we take up the inward call.

1. THE CALL IS THROUGH THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL. It was by means of the gospel that Jesus called sinners to repentance. Today every presentation of the gospel is a call to men to forsake sin and trust Christ.

The preaching of the gospel is also properly attended by a setting forth of man's need of salvation and of his duty and responsibility under God to repent and believe (Acts 17:30).

There should also be the earnest entreaty to men to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20) and an invitation to all that labor (Matt. 11:28),
and are athirst (Isa. 55:1; John 7:37; Rev. 22:17).

2. THIS CALL IS AN INDIRECT CALL OF THE SPIRIT See the discussion of the indirect work of the Spirit in the lost in Chapter IX.


3. THIS CALL, THEREFORE, IS GENERAL By this we mean that it is not confined to the elect (Matt. 22:14). We are commanded to preach the gospel to all. This call is intended for all men, though all do not hear it. This is true just as all men are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30), even though all men do not hear this command.

4. THIS CALL, OF ITSELF, IS ALWAYS INEFFECTIVE To Israel God said: "When I called, ye did not answer" (Isa. 65:12). The call referred to here was an outward call similar to the call now under discussion.

Because of man's depravity, the preaching of the gospel alone is never sufficient to bring him to Christ. He needs more than an outward call.

The gospel "is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1:16); but "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged" (1 Cor. 2:14). Man must be enabled to turn from sin and believe on Christ. Jer. 13:23; John 12:39,40; 6:44,65.

Nevertheless it is the immediate duty of all to accept this call. Acts 17:30.

5. THIS CALL IS SINCERE Arminians object that the Calvinistic system of doctrine makes a general call insincere. Sincere means "being in reality as in appearance. Intending precisely what one says or what one appears to intend." Having defined the term under discussion, we are now prepared to examine into the exact grounds of this objection. Three Calvinistic teachings are pointed out as rendering a general call insincere. They are:

(1) The teaching that man by nature is unable to turn from sin to Christ.

Arminians say if the case with the natural man were such as Calvinists represent it, and this were fully known to God, then God could not be sincere in inviting men to come to Christ.

But there is nothing in the general call that makes it appear that all men are able to respond to it. This is nothing more than an unwarranted inference.

And it has its foundation, not in the call itself, but in an erroneous conception of man's state by nature. Hence this call is not insincere.

"God's call to all men to repent and to believe the gospel is no more insincere than His command to all men to Love Him with all the heart.

There is no obstacle in the way of men's obedience to the gospel, that does not exist to prevent their obedience to the law.

If it is proper to publish the commands of the law, it is proper to publish the invitations of the gospel. A human being may be perfectly sincere in giving an invitation which he knows will be refused.

He may desire to have the invitation accepted, while yet he may, for certain reasons of justice and personal dignity, be unwilling to put forth special efforts, aside from the invitation itself, to secure the acceptance of it on the part of those to whom it is offered" (Strong).

Does God's invitation or call to all men any more appear to indicate that all men can accept it than His command to all men to love Him supremely appears to indicate that all men can do it?

(2) The teaching as to God's elective purpose to save only a portion of Adam's race. Arminians say if God has purposed to save only a portion of Adam's race, then He cannot sincerely invite all men to come to Christ for salvation. Let it first be remarked as to this phase of the objection that the objector, to have even the semblance of consistency, must deny the foreknowledge of God.

For, if God foreknew everything, then He certainly foreknew that all men would not believe the gospel, since we see that all do not. And certainly no evangelical would say that God purposed to save those who reject the gospel.

So, if the foreknowledge of God be true, then God purposed to save only a part of Adam's race, believers. Hence consistency demands that the Arminian surrender either this phase of the objection or else surrender the foreknowledge of God. He cannot be logical and hold both.

(3) The doctrine of a limited atonement. This was touched on in relation to the sincerity of God's general call through the gospel in the previous chapter.

However we give it further brief notice. If one is going before a large number of people to offer to each one of them a ten-dollar bill, and he has inerrant knowledge before hand that only a hundred out of that number will accept his offer, need he in order to make a sincere offer to all have more than one hundred ten-dollar bills?

Surely not. Knowing that he has a sufficient number to supply all that will accept the offer, he can most freely and sincerely say, "Let every one of you that desires a ten-dollar bill come to me and I will give you one."

Is it not manifest to all who can think logically that, in a case such as is described above, the failure of all the people except the hundred to receive a ten-dollar bill would be due to their refusal of the offer, and not to lack of provision?

God's general call is in appearance no more than it is in reality. And He appears to intend no more than He does actually intend. This does not appear as something that all men can respond to nor as something that will enable men to come to Christ or that will necessarily impel them to come.

Nor does this call appear to affirm that God has made a futile provision of salvation for those who persist in unbelief. In this call God appears to intend that all men are welcome if they will come; that all who come will be received. He actually intends just this. It is just as much a Bible truth that all who come to Christ will be saved as it is that only the elect will be saved.

We can heartily and gladly subscribe to the New Hampshire Declaration of Faith in saying that "nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth except for his own inherent depravity and voluntary refusal to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ." In other words, these are the things that send the sinner in Hell."

 

II. THE INWARD CALL

The following Scriptures refer to the inward call: Acts 2:39; Rom. 1:6; 8.28,30; 9:11,24; 1 Cor. 1:1,26; 7:15; Gal. 1:15; 5:8; Eph. 4:4; Col. 3:15; 1 Thess. 5:24; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 1.15; 2:9; 3:9; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:3,10; Jude 1.

Some of these Scriptures, as has been indicated already, seem to allude to both the inward and outward call.

1. THIS CALL IS A DIRECT CALL THROUGH THE SPIRIT The Holy Spirit takes the preached gospel and opening the heart of the sinner (Acts 16:14), applies the word to the heart in regenerating power. It is then, and only then, that man is able to understand and receive the things of the Spirit of God.

Thus the inward call is also through the gospel, but it is through the gospel as applied by the Holy Spirit.

The Scriptures touching on this work of the Spirit through the word will be given when we study regeneration.

2. THIS CALL IS PARTICULAR By means of it the chosen objects of God's saving grace are singled out.

The difference here between the outward and the inward calls may be imperfectly illustrated by the difference between a general invitation extended by a church to the people of a community to attend its services and the personal invitations that are extended to particular individuals by the membership of the church.

Of course, as we have said, this only imperfectly illustrates the difference between God's two calls. Rom. 8:30 shows the particularity of this call.

3. THIS CALL IS ALWAYS EFFECTIVE

It is manifest that the Scriptures given at the beginning of the discussion of this call refer to an effective and efficient call.

This call is never resisted; yet, in responding to it, man acts voluntarily and freely.

See chapter on "The Free Agency of Man."

The effectiveness of this call is shown by Rom. 8:28, 30; 1 Cor. 1:24.

 

You do really need to update your incorrect stereotypes of what others preach? This is exactly what the Reformed theology preaches ad verbatim in the Gospel call to all the world.

If we're semantically precise, we'd differentiate between 'capacity' and 'ability' - Nobody preaches/ought to preach that man cannot believe in Jesus - It's just that we observe man in the flesh(outer man) wills not to believe. And tracing the reason as to why man in the flesh rebels against submitting to God's commands, we find that it is because of exceedingly sinful and deceitful Sin in his flesh under which such a man is held in bondage. It is this Sin that hardens his heart and slays him in the weak flesh, rendering him unable. And the Gospel of liberty that is preached to all is hidden from these by Satan who blinds their minds.

For such a slave to be freed from the strong man, one stronger than the strong man must enter and ransom the spoils. Light must shine out of darkness and man must no longer be in the flesh but in the Spirit to be able to walk by the Spirit, pleasing to God. And one is in the Spirit only if the Spirit of Christ indwells them, having been born of God. So, having the blindness of their mind removed and the hardness of their heart softened and their sinful flesh overcome by the Spirit - such a man is now enabled to truly understand the Gospel call and now voluntarily wills to come in faith.

The reformed theology does not preach anything but salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It only further attempts to explain from Scriptures why the people who reject the Gospel do so and what happens behind the scenes in the ones who don't.

What of this do you particularly disagree with and how do you explain one who's nature is that of a child of disobedience and wrath to suddenly act against that very nature without a causative act of God?

 

Again, you're missing the mark. For a person who claims to have superior knowledge in the OT to anyone inclined to reformed theology, you seem to make some blatant blunders in OT application yourself. This is not an issue for me per se, for all of us will need to take time to constantly prune away our errors in beliefs and be conformed increasingly to the truth. But you do so with such a haughty attitude seen in your constant berating of anyone from the reformed camp. It is as polite push-back then that I remind you of the 3 questions I'm still waiting you to respond to -

1. You applied the Rom 9-11 remnant to refer to the entire 2 tribes of Israel making up the nation of Judah whereas Rom 9:29 clearly refers to the remnant from within Judah itself. How do you explain this discrepancy?

2. You claimed there was no OT prophecy concerning the Church of Christ and yet you stated that Gen 12:3 was fulfilled from Acts 10 through Gal 3. This wouldn't be a big deal in isolation but your entire position draws from such basic tenets and therefore hinges on the veracity of such claims. How do you resolve such contradictions?

3. On this very thread, you applied Acts 15:16 to a future time and not to the events that Peter testified of right then - how do you respond to my questions on that?

I reiterate, these are not demands for answers - if you wish to take time to meditate on these, please do so. This is more a call for a compassionate discussion devoid of malice and berating, knowing each of us need to come from a place of humility given our many errors and ignorance as we're being edified by God.

 

Who believes that?

 

For starters, the author of the OP who acknowledged the difference?

Again, to be clear, both camps do believe that it is God who births His Spirit in man - but what determines Him to do so, what is the causative trigger that moves God to begin this birthing process? One says that God self-determines in Himself as per His purposes to birth something new which leads to faith in the new creature and the other says that they first have faith which then qualifies them to be born of God. Have I misrepresented the difference?

 

Yes you have. Who claims that is what qualifies them to be born of God?

 

Not that I can see.
From my perspective, you have it summarized quite well.

In fact, many of those who identify with being "Reformed" or "Calvinistic" would say that what you have described can be identified as "Monergism" and "Synergism"...
God working alone, and God relying on men to cooperate with Him in His work.

Perhaps one of the "non-Calvinists" who do not believe that the Lord unconditionally chooses people to salvation ( apart from any work, any effort or any act of their own ), can shed some light on that.
For now, I see two "camps" represented on this board and throughout the history of professing Christians:


1) Those who hold that the Scriptures teach God's bestowing of grace to whomsoever He wishes, not to whom we wish. That grace is then said to be "irresistible" in nature because they believe that we as men do not have any power over what He does, spiritually, and this lack of authority and power does not carry over into God's dealings with who he saves.

2) Those who hold that the Scriptures teach God's bestowing of grace is dependent upon what a man does with what he's given. His grace is then said to be "resistible" in nature because they believe that, even though we as men can and do resist Him in our hearts and minds ( which the other side also affirms ), this authority and power does indeed carry over into the process of God's dealings with who He saves.

Therefore and to my way of thinking, either God makes a person born again by strictly His own will ( John 1:13, James 1:18 ), or He decides who to give the new birth to based on whether or not a person accepts Christ or rejects Him as Saviour and Lord.


On a side note:
I was raised in and was a member of churches that taught what is described in item # 2 for over 25 years, so in all honesty, I think I can safely say that what I've described above is as accurate as I can make it.



May the Lord bless you greatly in your studies.

 

You could've saved me a post by answering the obvious next question
What then does arminian or similar doctrines hold to qualify the new birth?

Either God acts unconditionally or God waits for a conditional(s) to be fulfilled before acting. Unconditional or Conditional - that's binary logic. If the latter, whatever the conditional is, that is what's said to qualify the act. "If Conditional fulfilled, then Act ; If Conditional unfulfilled, then don't Act" is the textbook definition of a qualifier driving subsequent action.

I claimed that one camp believes the onus to be on man to fulfill the conditional. "If Conditional of natural man obeying call to believe in God, then birth him in the Spirit; If Conditional of natural man rejecting call to believe in God, then don't birth him in the Spirit". If you refute this claim altogether, then that leaves us with just the forced conclusion that every single Christian believes in unconditional birthing in the spirit. Where have I inferred incorrectly?

 

@ivdavid :
I'm going to amend my above:

What I should have said is, "This lack of authority and power does carry over into God's dealings with who He saves."

In other words,
Mankind's inability to influence the Lord's will in the matter of salvation is precisely the point, and that is what makes salvation by grace alone, "irresistible".
Because the Lord saves whom He will, and without their express permission.

 

You would have to ask an arminian what they believe. My position is that its not either or. Your logical fallacy (black and white fallacy) is of course false. Salvation is a gift. Gifts are given and received. When man receives that gift of salvation i.e. chooses to put faith in God it is illogical to name that receiving as a cause for the giving.

 

There are again two ways of doing that. I could either gift you my blood or kidney because that transfusion or organ transplant is the only way to revive you out of your induced coma or I could gift you the documents to my house or car with the conditional that it is to be received by ID'd signatory alone.

In the first case, you don't have to fulfill any conditional from your end for the giving and receiving of the gift to be completed. Whereas in the second case, the transaction isn't complete until you present your valid ID and sign the receipt yourself. You couldn't have chosen to accept or reject in the former case given that you were unable to discern the very state you were in whereas you very well are aware of what's being given to you in the latter case which you could still reject because you underestimate its value.

Are these still not valid differences? You do not have to agree with me on the doctrinal conclusions per se - but couldn't we all be less defensive in simply agreeing on what's independently factual alone?

I thought we were discussing the new birth specifically as being conditional or unconditional. I maintain the new birth is unconditional while salvation is conditioned on man's faith. If any man, elect or nonelect, fulfills the conditional of enduring in the faith to the end, he will be saved. This is the only conditional required of man unto salvation (the law of faith) with all others being already fulfilled by God.
It just so independently happens that only those who are birthed in the Spirit happen to persevere in the faith to the end. God has not refrained from giving all that's needed for salvation to all - none in the flesh choose to receive it apart from irresistible grace, and even so none in the flesh choose to endure in it to the end apart from further grace in a new creature.

Again, in the context of the new birth, this act is of God's alone. It's not like God knocked on your door and walked away leaving the gift of new birth on the floor and it's just up to you to open the door and receive it - no, God is required to actually hand over the gift by acting in you in that moment. So what causes God to act whenever He does in man - was it a preceding event triggered by man (his faith) or was it simply self-triggered in God.

At best, you could say God first gives the invite to rebirth man which man then receives with a "yes,please" in faith which then triggers God to act out the actual rebirthing. In this case, man's faith is not the cause of the initial invite but was definitively the conditional that determined the outcome of whether God acts or not. Do you see it differently? I myself am focusing on the act of God's rebirthing man in the spirit as to whether it's conditional or not - given that the children of Promise are elected unconditionally and the Spirit blows wherever He wishes, I hold the new birth to be unconditional, not requiring any invite.