Irresistible or Irreducible Grace?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

There are obviously those who do not desire to be seen as upholding the point of Calvinism known as Irresistible grace. They obviously desire to be seen as consistent with principles of justice and Scriptures which clearly offers the choice to man to either resist or accept God’s offer of salvation. What is interesting to me is that although they desire to uphold human freedom in accepting the offer, they clearly despise the notion that freedom exists beyond the first nanosecond subsequent to entering into that hope.

Why the push for freedom to exist but for a slit second, to refute that it can exist subsequent to receiving salvation? If they are said to refute irresistible grace, why mandate irreducible grace? If grace was not irresistible immediately antecedent to salvation, it certainly is irresistible immediately after receiving it according to any and all that hold to OSAS. At best it is not that they do not believe in irresistible salvation, it is only a matter of differing at what point it becomes as such.

 

[BobRyan]

This is pretty interesting because it is an error where both Arminian and 3 point Calvinists join in unity.

Those two groups will often argue that we are free to accept or reject the gospel until the moment we are saved - but after that we are locked into a no-choice OSAS condition.

While we may not be able to fault 3point Calvinists too much for going back to their Calvinist roots on that one- the Arminians have no excuse.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[drfuss]

This is pretty interesting because it is an error where both Arminian and 3 point Calvinists join in unity.

Those two groups will often argue that we are free to accept or reject the gospel until the moment we are saved - but after that we are locked into a no-choice OSAS condition.

While we may not be able to fault 3point Calvinists too much for going back to their Calvinist roots on that one- the Arminians have no excuse.

in Christ,

Bob

drfuss: Please define your 3 point Calvinists and the Arminians you are referring to.

Thanks.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: This is pretty interesting because it is an error where both Arminian and 3 point Calvinists join in unity.

HP: I have the same question as drfuss on this one. How does the Arminian join in unity when I have never met or heard of any Arminian that holds to OSAS, irresistible grace, or irrevocable grace.

 

[BobRyan]

No Arminians hold to irresistible grace that I know of -- but ask around on this board and you will find plenty of them that hold to OSAS.

You can double check but I think Steaver is one and DHK might be one. (Not sure if DHK is Arminian - but he might be) - Matt Black is another candidate for that and I think Brother Bob may be in that group as well.

This is not meant to be negative toward anyone - I am Arminian and I think most of those guys I just listed are as well.

 

[drfuss]

No Arminians hold to irresistible grace that I know of -- but ask around on this board and you will find plenty of them that hold to OSAS.

You can double check but I think Steaver is one and DHK might be one. (Not sure if DHK is Arminian - but he might be) - Matt Black is another candidate for that and I think Brother Bob may be in that group as well.

This is not meant to be negative toward anyone - I am Arminian and I think most of those guys I just listed are as well.

drfuss: Apparently, your definition of Arminian is someone who does not believe in unconditional election and irresistible grace. While I agree with your definition, I think the OSAS Christains like to consider themselves Moderate Calvinists or some other version of Calvinists, but not Classic Calvinists or Arminian.

I would still like to know what 3 points your 3 point Calvinist believe in.

 

[BobRyan]

Three point Calvinism

Total depravity
Perseverance of the saints
Unconditional Election

 

[BobRyan]

The Arminian an 3Pt Calvinist view -

Jonah 2:8 NIV
8 "Those who cling to worthless idols
forfeit the grace that could be theirs.

 

[drfuss]

Three point Calvinism

Total depravity
Perseverance of the saints
Unconditional Election

Thank you.

 

[David Michael Harris]

There are obviously those who do not desire to be seen as upholding the point of Calvinism known as Irresistible grace. They obviously desire to be seen as consistent with principles of justice and Scriptures which clearly offers the choice to man to either resist or accept God’s offer of salvation. What is interesting to me is that although they desire to uphold human freedom in accepting the offer, they clearly despise the notion that freedom exists beyond the first nanosecond subsequent to entering into that hope.

Why the push for freedom to exist but for a slit second, to refute that it can exist subsequent to receiving salvation? If they are said to refute irresistible grace, why mandate irreducible grace? If grace was not irresistible immediately antecedent to salvation, it certainly is irresistible immediately after receiving it according to any and all that hold to OSAS. At best it is not that they do not believe in irresistible salvation, it is only a matter of differing at what point it becomes as such.

I am pretty much a Calvinist with regards to God's Sovereignty mainly because of the Biblical statement that the Godhead is 'before all things'. Understanding that Scripture will free you from thoughts such as God can be thwarted in anyway. Saying that. For me the issue with regards to ones action are not closed with me. There are many warnings in the Bible. And some terrifying ones in the NT. Also take Prevenient Grace for example. We are told that as Christians we receive 'Grace upon Grace'. Makes sense to me. How can a Calvinist be a fan of John Wesley? Well I am a fan of a man that preaches the Gospel and the fear of God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR:Total depravity
Perseverance of the saints
Unconditional Election

HP: This is simply absurd to me. How can one believe in unconditional election and try not to act as if though they do not believe in irresistible grace or limited atonement?

If man has nothing to do with his salvation and there are no conditions for him to fulfill, yet some are indeed saved, something other than themselves has to determine those that will be saved. God has to do something they cannot do for themselves being dead, and it obviously would have no meaning to do anything to those not elected. How can a dead man resist the very means by which he is elected? How can a dead man accept something that is withheld from him?

It is a given that those elected will come to salvation and that without fail. To say that it is not irresistible is to make one dead and unable to do anything out to be greater than God, suggesting that they can resist that which God says will come to pass, i.e., the salvation of the elect.

Again, if one holds to unconditional election, and God has to do something to a select few in order to secure their salvation,(remembering that man has nothing to do with their salvation, nothing to do with keeping it) what about the others? There is not a chance in the world that they ever had the means to secure salvation seeing they were not of the ‘unconditional election.’ If that is not limited atonement, the Pope is not Catholic.

Three point Calvinism, as you claim it is, is a complete farce. The two things you say are denied are logically implied by holding to unconditional election, and that of necessity.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DMH: I am pretty much a Calvinist with regards to God's Sovereignty mainly because of the Biblical statement that the Godhead is 'before all things'. Understanding that Scripture will free you from thoughts such as God can be thwarted in anyway.

HP: I appreciate that you are still raising some questions in your mind.

What is amazing to me is that when you take the position you seemingly do concerning Sovereignty, you are limiting God’s ability to be Sovereign, not supporting it. You deny that a Sovereign God can create a being and grant to it sovereignty over its intents, and that by design. Why would you limit a Sovereign God in this manner?

 

[drfuss]

Quote:
BR:Total depravity
Perseverance of the saints
Unconditional Election

HP: This is simply absurd to me. How can one believe in unconditional election and try not to act as if though they do not believe in irresistible grace or limited atonement?

If man has nothing to do with his salvation and there are no conditions for him to fulfill, yet some are indeed saved, something other than themselves has to determine those that will be saved. God has to do something they cannot do for themselves being dead, and it obviously would have no meaning to do anything to those not elected. How can a dead man resist the very means by which he is elected? How can a dead man accept something that is withheld from him?

It is a given that those elected will come to salvation and that without fail. To say that it is not irresistible is to make one dead and unable to do anything out to be greater than God, suggesting that they can resist that which God says will come to pass, i.e., the salvation of the elect.

Again, if one holds to unconditional election, and God has to do something to a select few in order to secure their salvation,(remembering that man has nothing to do with their salvation, nothing to do with keeping it) what about the others? There is not a chance in the world that they ever had the means to secure salvation seeing they were not of the ‘unconditional election.’ If that is not limited atonement, the Pope is not Catholic.

Three point Calvinism, as you claim it is, is a complete farce. The two things you say are denied are logically implied by holding to unconditional election, and that of necessity.

drfuss: I also have had problems with those three points being together. When not connected to irresistible grace, unconditional election must take on a new meaning. Unconditional election in this case must mean election of those who are presented the gospel and not the election of those to be saved.

I believe Augustine/Luther/Lutherans believe in unconditional election, but not in irresistible grace nor perseverance of the saints. I got that from a Lutheran on another forum. If there are some Lutherans on here, they can shed some light on this or correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

drfuss: I also have had problems with those three points being together. When not connected to irresistible grace, unconditional election must take on a new meaning. Unconditional election in this case must mean election of those who are presented the gospel and not the election of those to be saved.

I believe Augustine/Luther/Lutherans believe in unconditional election, but not in irresistible grace nor perseverance of the saints. I got that from a Lutheran on another forum. If there are some Lutherans on here, they can shed some light on this or correct me if I am wrong.

HP: I hope that one calling themselves a three point Calvinist might step up and clear up this issue. It doesn’t matter whether or not the election comes after receiving salvations message of somewhere in eternity past, if in fact it is unconditional there are no conditions period. If there are no conditions, man is passive. If man is passive, it must of necessity be irresistible if it happens, or man is able to resist necessitated fate, a feat not even God can accomplish. If I am not thinking right possibly a three pointer can set me straight.