Featured Irresistible Grace, John 6:37

God's election and man free will working unto salvation.

 

This is the second strawman in about an hour.

Name one person on BB that states the elect must be dragged "kicking and screaming to salvation."

Please provide a link to the post by this person.

 

Boy, if we ever get called out by you guys ever again about proof texting, why, I'll..........

You need to expand this just a "tad" to get to what Jesus was really talking about, and to whom He was talking about.

John 6:37-40
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.


He was talking about those who the Father gave to Jesus while He was here on earth. The others were blinded and dull of hearing due to their continual rebellion towards God(judicial hardening, if you will).

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: Woot! Woot! Woot!

 

Why don't you like the term Irresistible Grace?

Your remark reminds me of a lady who once said to me that she didn't think abortion was wrong, though she would never get one herself. I asked her why she would never get one herself if there is nothing wrong with it, she couldn't answer.

Perhaps you do not like the term Irresistible Grace because in your heart you know it to be false?

 

I don't like the phrase either because it doesn't actually give the correct focus of the John passages given as proof texts of "irresistible grace".

The focus is that they (elect, chosen, etc...) will come to Him.
Nothing is said about resisisting.

That doesn't mean there will or won't be any resisitance on a personal level, the passage is just making a certain statement of fact.
One of the defining characteristics of those the Father gives to the Son is: They will come to Him.

Here is an example of resistance:

John 3

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.​

HankD​

 

Inability to Read?

Why do Calvinists keep making the same claims but never addressing the rebuttal, except to dismiss it, usually with an attack on the opponents character and qualifications?

Irresistible grace is ill defined. Does this refer to the spiritual alteration that supposedly enables a person to seek God and trust in Christ, or the action of God to put a person spiritually in Christ? The former a fiction, the latter a fact.

What is meant by the phrase, all that the Father gives me? Does this mean the person is "given" by God spiritually altering the person or by God spiritually placing the person in Christ? The former is a fiction, the latter is a fact.

What does the phrase mean, those that come to Me? Does this mean the person chooses to trust in Christ, or the person is spiritually placed in Christ. The former is a mistaken understanding, the latter is the correct understanding.

Does scripture tell us no one can seek God or trust in Christ of their own volition, provided they have heard and understood the gospel? No, it teaches the unregenerate can understand the gospel and receive it with joy.

Matthew 23:13 teaches unregenerate men were entering heaven, so they had heard and understood the gospel, and were seeking God and at least trusting in Christ to some degree. However, they were blocked by false teachers. So they had not yet been "given to Christ" by the Father, so the idea that "come to Me" refers to choice of men in John 6:37 is incorrect. Therefore the whole premise of irresistible grace which enables a person to trust in Christ is a fiction, but the premise that once God credits a person's unregenerate faith as righteousness, God then puts them in Christ irresistibly is fact.

It is true that no one can come to Jesus unless allowed by the Father. But that truth does not teach no one can seek God and trust in Christ unless regenerated first by the Father, that premise is a fiction.

And finally the last mush presented over and over by Calvinists. John 6:44 says 100% of those given to Christ were drawn by the Father. It does not say 100% of those drawn by the Father are given to Christ. This seeming inability to read is exhibited by 100% of the Calvinists that have expressed an opinion concerning this verse. Why is that?

 

yes I agree!

 

The "facts" are that the Apostle paul in the bible clearly points out that we have individually selected/chosen/marked out by god, based upon His sovereign Will, to reveal the Lord jesus to us, to have us enabled to be saved, and to get us saved and placed in christ!

Amd unregenerated persons do NOT enter into theKingdom, as they MUST have the new birth!

 

4 Questions:

1. Who, while on earth, was given to Christ by his Father to prepare to carry the Gospel of reconciliation to the world? (answer found in John 17)

2. What nation were they from?

3. What was happening to the rest of the people from that nation during this time? (Acts 28; Mark 4; Matt. 13; John 12:39; Rom 11)

4. When was the Gospel sent to the Gentiles?

 

Sigh.

Calvinist extraordinaire William Perkins, writing well before the Remonstrance:

"The third question is, whether God did offer any violence, to Pauls minde and will, in his conuersion. Ansvver. There is a double violence, or Coaction. One, which doth abolish all consent of will; and this he vsed not. The other, draws out a consent from the will, by causing it of an vnwilling will, to become willing. This coaction or violence, God offered to Paul, and in this sense, they which come to Christ, are said to be drawne. . . .The last question is, whether it was in the power of Pauls will, to resist the calling, or the grace of God? Answ. The will for his condition is apt to resist grace: neuer the lesse, if we consider the efficacie of Gods grace, and the will of God, he could not resist the calling of God." [Commentary on Galatians (1604)]




And long before the Gomarist Canons of Dort, the Calvinist John Robinson employed the phrase "irresistable grace" in a printed attack on early Baptists Thomas Helwys and John Smyth. [The Silencing of the Clamours Raised by Mr. Thomas Helwys Against Our Retaining the Baptism Received in England and the Administering of Baptism Unto Infants, Also a Survey of the Confession of Faith Published by Mr. Smyth's Company (1614)]

 

I have always thought of irresistible grace as placing faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross after regeneration, or a touch from the Lord. Some have expressed the idea of people resisting to come up to the altar. There are several things wrong with that. First, walking to the altar has nothing to do with salvation. Secondly, even if it did, nothing says it has to happen that Sunday. In God's plan, it will happen to a regenerated person.

I agree with Old Regular on this point. The term sounds like it is forced action, or the action of a programmed robot. It is the natural response of a regenerated person. What do you expect a regenerated person to do? Become a Satanist?

It seems most of the arguments against doctrines of sovereignty are based on man made terms. I do not believe you will find TULIP anywhere in the Bible.