Can a non-Calvinist explain the doctrine Irresistable Grace to me?

[jcjordan]

I'm wondering if any non-calvinists can actually fully explain in their own words what the calvinist doctrine of Irresistable Grace teaches. I'm not intersted in hearing why it is wrong. Just tell me what the doctrine teaches.

 

[JDale]

I suppose I qualify.

Irresistible Grace, or what Calvinists prefer to label "effectual calling," is the belief that God extends grace to all the elect and because it is God's grace and ii is effectual, it cannot be resisted. Thus, the one whom God has chosen by God, through this faith will believe and cannot do otherwise, according to the decree of God.


JDale

 

[jcjordan]

I suppose I qualify.

Irresistible Grace, or what Calvinists prefer to label "effectual calling," is the belief that God extends grace to all the elect and because it is God's grace and ii is effectual, it cannot be resisted. Thus, the one whom God has chosen by God, through this faith will believe and cannot do otherwise, according to the decree of God.


JDale

Very good, although I think there needs to be a few clarifications. However, this is much better than what I expected.

 

[JDale]

JCJ:

Were you just baiting us? Do you (a Calvinist I assume) believe that Arminians are just ignorant of what Calvinists believe?

What exactly was your reason for asking this question of "Non-Calvinists?"


Blessings,

JDale

 

[Allan]

JCJ:

Were you just baiting us? Do you (a Calvinist I assume) believe that Arminians are just ignorant of what Calvinists believe?

What exactly was your reason for asking this question of "Non-Calvinists?"


Blessings,

JDale

I would presume so, evidenced by his post back to your answer.

In your answer though you left out the point that man must first be regenerate, given faith, and given repentence 'before' the call (effectual call) is given. Otherwise you they will not respond savingly to His grace in calling them to Himself but will still resist His grace in calling without the addition of afore said things.

 

[EdSutton]

As Mr. Spock would say, "Curious!"

I am a Non- Calvinist; I am also a Non- Arminian; and I am a Non- 'whole bunches of other stuff', as well.

That said, does not the theological doctrine of "irresistible grace" say that a human being cannot actually 'resist' the workings of the Holy Spirit, considering the Holy Spirit is one person in the triune Godhead?

Or at least that is how I understand it. Am I correct in this?

Ed

 

[jcjordan]

JCJ:

Were you just baiting us? Do you (a Calvinist I assume) believe that Arminians are just ignorant of what Calvinists believe?

What exactly was your reason for asking this question of "Non-Calvinists?"


Blessings,

JDale

Baiting you for what? I thought you gave a really good answer. I've just seen several comments in other threads that made me wonder if anyone here who is not a calvinist actually has a clue to what that particular doctrine teaches. Honestly, your reply was very good.

 

[Allan]

Baiting you for what? I thought you gave a really good answer. I've just seen several comments in other threads that made me wonder if anyone here who is not a calvinist actually has a clue to what that particular doctrine teaches. Honestly, your reply was very good.

I just noticed MB's comment regarding 'irresistable grace' in another thread which I 'assume' was one of those comments which brought about this thread.

I think however that what MB was speaking of was not specifically the doctrine but what he percieves as a flaw in that doctrine. That 'if' God's grace is irresistable in salvation because of all the things that God has both given and done then why does it not continue to irrestable throughout the believers life. But not so much that what he was speaking of 'is' the true understanding of irresistable.

I probably should have posted it the other thread but this one is specifically about that topic and about misunderstanding by some people, I went ahead and wrote it here.

 

[jcjordan]

I would presume so, evidenced by his post back to your answer.

In your answer though you left out the point that man must first be regenerate, given faith, and given repentence 'before' the call (effectual call) is given. Otherwise you they will not respond savingly to His grace in calling them to Himself but will still resist His grace in calling.

Just answer my question for yourself. No fair having JDale helping you!:laugh:

 

[Allan]

Just answer my question for yourself. No fair having JDale helping you!:laugh:

I would have written almost exactly the same thing with the exception of what I added in my previous post about regeneration, faith, and repentence needed before God can or will effectually call them. However he does write better than I do

 

[jcjordan]

I would have written almost exactly the same thing with the exception of what I added in my previous post about regeneration, faith, and repentence needed before God can or will effectually call them. However he does write better than I do

As a calvinist (speaking for myself), this is not what I believe or understand calvinism to teach regarding IG.

 

[sag38]

It means that one cannot come to God unless called and if called he or she has no cholce but to respond.

However, I've always wondered how the unpardonable sin fits into this scenario?

 

[Allan]

As a calvinist (speaking for myself), this is not what I believe or understand calvinism to teach regarding IG.

Then are you one of the few Calvinists (like Pastor Larry) who believe that regeneration comes after a person believes?

Otherwise it would be quite puzzeling as to what you believe since Mainline Calvinism does in fact teach regeneration, and the addition of faith and repentence to a person before or just during the gospel calling and and their believing take place (albeit some hold to an almost simultanious action though with regeneration first as a the logical argument). And that it is because of these investments into man that calling to that person is irrestiable. The ultimate implication is that because these investments or changes made to the person they will now see, understand and be at one with the truth therefore without any hinderance yeilding in a positive manner to it, in fact being unable to resist it.

I can't find anything that disputes what I or Jdale has said regarding the Calvinistic understanding of 'Irresistable Grace'.

So what is 'your' understanding of "Irresistable Grace"?

 

[jcjordan]

Then are you one of the few Calvinists (like Pastor Larry) who believe that regeneration comes after a person believes?

Otherwise it would be quite puzzeling as to what you believe since Mainline Calvinism does in fact teach regeneration, and the addition of faith and repentence to a person before or just during the gospel calling and and their believing take place (albeit some hold to an almost simultanious action though with regeneration first as a the logical argument). And that it is because of these investments into man that calling to that person is irrestiable. The ultimate implication is that because these investments or changes made to the person they will now see, understand and be at one with the truth therefore without any hinderance yeilding in a positive manner to it, in fact being unable to resist it.

I can't find anything that disputes what I or Jdale has said regarding the Calvinistic understanding of 'Irresistable Grace'.

So what is 'your' understanding of "Irresistable Grace"?

I had no problem with what JDale said. I don't believe that IG follows repentance or regeneration and I don't believe Calvinism teaches that. Although, it is late and it's been a long day, so I'll have to think this through very carefully and respond tomorow when my head is a little more clear. I think this kind of discussion can be very helpful and I hope it will be to both of us without either of us being a jerk to the other. I know I can quickly be that way, and I'll try my best not to get frustrated.

 

[Allan]

I had no problem with what JDale said. I don't believe that IG follows repentance or regeneration and I don't believe Calvinism teaches that. Although, it is late and it's been a long day, so I'll have to think this through very carefully and respond tomorow when my head is a little more clear. I think this kind of discussion can be very helpful and I hope it will be to both of us without either of us being a jerk to the other. I know I can quickly be that way, and I'll try my best not to get frustrated.

I agree but I'm wondering if maybe we are talking around each other on this.

Now let me clarify if I may. I agree that the basic definition of "Irresistable" or "Effectual" grace does not typically include the operation of regeneration in it's wording because it is conveying the action transpiring and denotes a distinct typy of call 'effectaul' verses the 'General' call.

However it is in the mechanics of that which is transpiring which give rise to operation necessary (in the Calvinistic view) for man to receive this calling and that is men needing to become regenerate. Thus a more full bodied definition is that the effectual call is really the complete work from reneration to salvation, with an emphisis on the distinction between the inward and outer callings. Though the inward call is what is emphasized it is really a summary of the process of salvation.

However most will seperate the inward call itself and the act of reneration not as seperate but as the catalyst for the positive reception of gospel conveyed.

I would like to set forth a couple of works by known and respected Calvinists which speak to what I am saying.

Here is an article from John Murry on this very topic. He was professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Here are some excerts:

When we speak of irresistible grace, therefore, it is not to assert that all grace is irresistible, nor is it to deny the numberless respects in which grace is resisted and resisted to the culmination of resistance in everlasting doom. In fact the truth of and necessity for irresistible grace may be most cogently demonstrated in the premise of resistible grace. The enmity of the human heart is most virulent at the point of the supreme revelation of God’s glory. So deep-seated and persistent is the contradiction that the Saviour as the embodiment of grace is rejected. It is when we recognize this that the need for irresistible grace is perceived.
............
No ingredient in the manifold of God’s saving operations bears more relevantly on the subject of irresistible grace than does regeneration. Again, our Lord’s own teaching is basic. “Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . . Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, 5). The impossibility we found earlier in connection with faith appears here in connection with understanding of and membership in the kingdom of God, and birth from above, of water, and of the Spirit is the interposition that meets human impotence. It cannot be questioned that our Lord’s assessment of man’s situation is the total incapacity in reference to what is most germane to his well-being and is to the same effect as Paul’s indictment of the natural man (I Cor. 2:14).
............
When these data are placed in contrast with the impossibility of which our Lord spoke to Nicodemus, the only inference is that the new birth is invincibly efficacious and this is just to affirm irrestible grace.

It is significant that in the prologue of John’s Gospel there occur the words, “who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God” (John 1:13). The cumulative negatives reinforce the positive and the lesson is that of divine monergism. It is not what man does but what God effects and God alone to the exclusion of all human volition or agency. The same monergism is patent in our Lord’s own teaching. In John 3:3-8 we cannot suppress the analogy on which the language of regeneration turns. When a person is begotten or born according to the flesh, it is not because he or she decided for this event. It was wholly by the volition and agency of others. So in the new birth. And by whose will and agency is not left in any doubt. The Holy Spirit is the agent and he alone. In terms of verse 3 the action is supernatural, in terms of verse 5 it is by radical purification and impartation, in terms of verse 6 it is invincibly determinative, in terms of verse 8 it is mysterious and sovereignly effective.

"This article was taken from Soli Deo Gloria: Essays in Reformed Theology, ed. R.C. Sproul, published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1976."

J.I Packer stated in his Introductory Essay to John Owen work "The death of death in the death of Christ" in Section II subsection (iii):

The Spirit's gift of internal grace ...But Calvinists define this gift as not merely an enlightening, but also a regenerating work of God in men, “taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.” Grace proves irresistible just because it destroys the disposition to resist.

Here J.I Packer, speaking from John Owen' work states, the Irresistible Call (effectual calling) is bound up in man's regeneration for without it man would still have a heart of stone and not flesh, still be at enmity with God and denying any spiritual truth given him.

Or in J.I. Packers "Concise Theology" under the heading "God Revealed As Lord of Grace"; subheading "Effectual Calling", he states of the Westminister Confession regarding Chapter "X":

"What is being spoken of here is the many-sided reality of Christian conversion ,involing illumination, regeneration, faith, and repentance. It is being analyzed as a sovereign work of God, "effectually" (i.e. effectively) performed by power of the Holy Spirit....
Original sin renders all human beings naturally dead (unresponsive) to God, but in effectual callling of God quickens the dead."

 

[Allan]

Question:

Do you hold that 'irresistible grace' is that the inward call is that which regenerates?

If so then it can be said (without my disagreement per-sey) that according to Calvinism, they would be virutally a synonomous act but that a presumed logical order of call/regeneration can be asserted.

However, the inward calling of itself is not irresistible unless man is regenerate and thus the calling itself is noted as effectual but only in because of the regeneration othewise it is resistable or non-effectual.

 

[Allan]

I would presume so, evidenced by his post back to your answer.

In your answer though you left out the point that man must first be regenerate, given faith, and given repentence 'before' the call (effectual call) is given. Otherwise you they will not respond savingly to His grace in calling them to Himself but will still resist His grace in calling without the addition of afore said things.

When I was speaking of 'before' it is in reference to culmination of answering the call. That was my mistake/fault and was the intent of my saying 'before' as seen in the next sentence of "Otherwise you they will not respond savingly..."

Does that clear things up somewhat ??

 

[jcjordan]

When I was speaking of 'before' it is in reference to culmination of answering the call. That was my mistake/fault and was the intent of my saying 'before' as seen in the next sentence of "Otherwise you they will not respond savingly..."

Does that clear things up somewhat ??

Allan, I'm quite impressed. In your previous posts, it seems you've realized where I took issue with your original response. It appears you understand the calvinist position on this. I appreciate your integrity in actually trying to get understand the position clearly instead of developing straw men to attack. Plus, you can't go wrong with quoting Owen and Murray on the issue.

 

[Goldie]

I'm wondering if any non-calvinists can actually fully explain in their own words what the calvinist doctrine of Irresistable Grace teaches.

The Cavinistic doctrine of Grace states that God intends only a limited number of persons to be saved and that Christ died on the cross only for them. It's also known as the doctrine of "Limited Atonement". "Irresistible Grace" means that those "predestined for salvation" simply cannot resist the Grace of God, nor can they reject Jesus and so their salvation is certain and this is the reason in general why Calvinists on the whole aren't concerned with preaching the Gospel (so others can be saved), because they reckon God's grace is "irresistible".

 

[jcjordan]

The Cavinistic doctrine of Grace states that God intends only a limited number of persons to be saved and that Christ died on the cross only for them. It's also known as the doctrine of "Limited Atonement". "Irresistible Grace" means that those "predestined for salvation" simply cannot resist the Grace of God, nor can they reject Jesus and so their salvation is certain and this is the reason in general why Calvinists on the whole aren't concerned with preaching the Gospel (so others can be saved), because they reckon God's grace is "irresistible".

well, o.k. I'm not even sure how to reply to this.