Is Irresistible Grace "resistible"?

[Luke2427]

"Come back to the "dark side", we have cookies"

All in fun brother, I respect you, no matter how deeply or passionately we disagree.

Same here, Bud.:thumbsup:

 

[glfredrick]

That is wonderful Luke, be careful, you might find yourself on the "darkside".

BTW: I think both salvation and sanctification are monergistically synergistic.

There is no "dark side" lest you make Scripture fight against Scripture. You are not really wanting to do that, are you? That would indeed be the heretical position from amongst those we are discussing, for God is not divided, nor is His Word.

 

[Old Union Brother]

God doesn't force against one's will- though he could if he so chose- he just makes one willing.

That's fantastic!

And how does God make one willing? By showing us the fallen state we are in by nature and what we can be by his Grace.

 

[glfredrick]

God saves or does he?

In the Garden of Eden were two trees, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God told them they could eat of all the trees bot one. If they ate of it dying they would surely die. They chose a tree. What happened?

Many years later God called a man named Abram. Made covenant promises with him and he had a son. His son had a son and this son had twelve sons and before too long the whole family about or seventy souls found themselves in Egypt and were there four hundred and thirty years when God decided to bring them out of Egypt (a picture of sin) and make them his people. Somewhere between one and three million souls. He led them to a place in the wilderness and gave them his law and told them if they would obey his law they would live. To choose life and people said all the LORD has said we will do. What happened?

Now this is what everyone says happened next. The covenant promises made to Abram whose name God changed to Abraham was to him and his one seed that would come along many years later. He would be son of Abraham yet he would also be the son of God. The Word who was God and was with God was made flesh. He would live a sinless life yet God would make him sin for us and he would pay the penalty for our sins. He would die.
And I mean die in the context that if someone other than himself doesn't give him life he would still be dead. God, the Father raised him from the dead.
But that's another story. Now according to most God is once again saying choose. What do you think is going to happen?

But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.



That my friends is the only way people can be saved.

Also God is doing this through election. The spring harvest the firstfruits of the spirit are being elected now. Christ will return and there will be an election called in-gathering. There is the last great day of the feast when whosoever will can come. The dead can be raised and given opportunity.

God is in the saving business.

Back to this... You seem to want to hang a lot of weight on the Abrahamic Covenant, but there were covenants before Abraham.

What of the Noahic Covenant or the proto-evangelum offered to Adam and Eve in the Garden (Gen 3)?

Before God set aside a people group from amongst all the people groups of the world He gave promises and covenants to ALL the people of the world. He set aside a special people for two, well, actually one, primary reason. The "two" reasons are to be the line that led to Messiah and to be a witness to the world. The reason that they are actually "one" reason is that the two purposes are actually one -- for God's glory to be known to all people, and for all people to be God's people. Of course, one of the more frustrating issues is that all people are not God's people, but that issue surrounds God's election and is not covenantal in nature.

In Genesis 3:15ff, God promises a Savior. We then trace the elected family line down through the ages. In each case, God selected the person who would be the forerunner of Messiah, often a choice that was counter to what would have been the human choice.

God elected Abram,and set aside a man who would continue God's elective plan to bring Messiah to the people of the earth. Other covenants were enacted with David, prophets, etc., up to the point in time that Jesus was born on the earth.

Jesus then gave the world a commission -- to reach the entire world for God's glory -- a return to the original purpose of God in Eden, when all people WOULD have known His glory, until, that is, they fell from Him in sin.

Interestingly, when Paul saw a great harvest of elect Gentiles the church (at that time largely Jewish -- an extension of God's chosen people group) had to decide what to do with all these non-Jewish elect persons. Where did they turn? To the Abrahamic Covenant? No. To the Noahic Covenant, made BEFORE God elected a people to be His own. Paul then tells us that we were "grafted into" God's people as a new branch.

The verse you reference, "But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel..." is a great prophecy of the coming of the Holy Spirit. John picks up on this in two places in his gospel:

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And

John 3:5-8 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

[glfredrick]

And how does God make one willing? By showing us the fallen state we are in by nature and what we can be by his Grace.

Yes, and also by revealing to us His glory and holiness. If we JUST look at our sinful state, we have nothing at all to compare ourselves to except other sinful humans, and then we can (rightly) be justified in saying, "I am not as bad as the man over there."

When we are exposed to God's glory and holiness, we have no alternative but to fall on our faces in abject worship of Holy God. The Word says in at least three places that will happen when ALL see God's glory.

Isa 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Rom 14:11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;

But we also know that not all men see God's glory or His holiness, so some simply will not bow until they do see it. We are forced, in a sense, to wait upon God's timing to show us what only He can reveal. We can no more reveal God's glory or holiness than we can reach out and touch Saturn with our bare hands. It is only God's business to reveal His glory to us.

John said as much with this:

John 1:4-11 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

John continues the thought in reference to Jesus:

John 1:15-18 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].

God did indeed "reveal His glory and His holiness" to the world in the person of Jesus Christ, but many simply could not see, fulfilling an earlier prophecy of Isaiah:

Isa 6:9-10 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

When people are elected by God to see His glory and His holiness, they WILL bow down and worship Him. They have NO CHOICE. The Word is clear about that -- and promises that one day ALL will see. But for now, we have to see by the REVEALED glory and holiness that is Jesus Christ, and many simply cannot see because, for all our religious efforts, God has not allowed them to see. No amount of human coercion can open the eyes of a lost person to "see" what can only be revealed by God.

 

[MB]

MB, I'm trying to play nice with you, but you have missed some points that makes it very difficult to have an actual conversation.

In Roman Catholicism, for instance, Thomism has long ago overtaken Augustinianism, and they indeed very much resemble Arminian theology in their outlook rather than Calvinist theology. But, they are actually Roman Catholic and neither Arminian nor Calvinist, so using them as an example of either misses the mark and is typically only used so that one can attack someone's position by equating them with Catholics, which tends to get a negative reaction when invoked in a debate on a Baptist board. Hopefully, that is not your intention. It is not mine.

As far as understanding the "roots of my faith" I am fairly well versed, thank you. I anticipate by your answers that I may have the edge in that category, but perhaps not. Time will tell.

About "forced faith" you are plainly and simply wrong -- period.

I can trot out all sorts of resources that say so, but you most likely would not accept them anyway, so why should I go to all the work. You continue to suggest that you are arguing Scripture, but you are plainly using a logical argument and several intentional fallacies at that; one being equivocation and another being straw man. You can look that up on Google if you don't know what the words mean.

About all your points about regeneration and faith, I don't even recall mentioning either issue, so I am fairly clueless as to what you are arguing or why with me?

If you do want to continue, let's do it in Greek, just for fun... :love2:

You failed at being nice.
MB

 

[webdog]

You failed at being nice.
MB

...not to mention he sure has a lot of time for very long posts...some 175 since stating this to me where he abruptly stopped a discussion concerning Hezekiah...

"Also, I'm having to curtail my time on the board, as they are checking computer activity at work these days. This does not qualify as work related, so if I'm gone more, don't take that as that I don't have a response or don't care about the issues. Just can't spend as much time! :tear: "

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1614921&postcount=103

 

[The Archangel]

...not to mention he sure has a lot of time for very long posts...some 175 since stating this to me where he abruptly stopped a discussion concerning Hezekiah...

"Also, I'm having to curtail my time on the board, as they are checking computer activity at work these days. This does not qualify as work related, so if I'm gone more, don't take that as that I don't have a response or don't care about the issues. Just can't spend as much time! :tear: "

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1614921&postcount=103

So, you jump on the "not-being-nice" bandwagon?

I know glfredrick. He has a lot of stuff on his plate for which he has to allot his time properly. As you know, posts and threads come and go and some get shuffled down the order and we forget about them. This is normal.

Also, why do any of us think we are "owed" an answer or a continuation of any discussion. If someone wants to quit discussing something, that is their prerogative. If that is disappointing, well, that's understandable. If it is frustrating not to have someone answer, well, I suspect there might be deeper issues.

Try and be nice.

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

So, you jump on the "not-being-nice" bandwagon?

I know glfredrick. He has a lot of stuff on his plate for which he has to allot his time properly. As you know, posts and threads come and go and some get shuffled down the order and we forget about them. This is normal.

Also, why do any of us think we are "owed" an answer or a continuation of any discussion. If someone wants to quit discussing something, that is their prerogative. If that is disappointing, well, that's understandable. If it is frustrating not to have someone answer, well, I suspect there might be deeper issues.

Try and be nice.

The Archangel

I do agree he hasn't been nice. The time issue is merely an excuse when you can post over 175 posts, some 12 paragraphs. On that thread I made it perfectly clear what I believe and somehow he was "confused" on what I was saying...yet his reply on Hezekiah was even more so.

I don't care if you don't want to engage me...but don't give excuses that are easily refuted as to why not. Is what I said really a "huh?" question? "I have already admitted the tension in the passage (regarding Hezekiah), and it seems you would view my understanding as "open theism" based on the past few pages of interaction while allowing for the possibility that God lied to Hezekiah."

Besides, didn't you jump on the questioning salvation bandwagon yourself?

 

[The Archangel]

I do agree he hasn't been nice. The time issue is merely an excuse when you can post over 175 posts, some 12 paragraphs. On that thread I made it perfectly clear what I believe and somehow he was "confused" on what I was saying...yet his reply on Hezekiah was even more so.

I don't care if you don't want to engage me...but don't give excuses that are easily refuted as to why not. Is what I said really a "huh?" question? "I have already admitted the tension in the passage (regarding Hezekiah), and it seems you would view my understanding as "open theism" based on the past few pages of interaction while allowing for the possibility that God lied to Hezekiah."

Besides, didn't you jump on the questioning salvation bandwagon yourself?

I wasn't questioning glfredrick's niceness, I was questioning yours. And, as you will notice if you read my posting on the other thread, I never questioned anyone's salvation. You let your mind run with that one.

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

t

I wasn't questioning glfredrick's niceness, I was questioning yours. And, as you will notice if you read my posting on the other thread, I never questioned anyone's salvation. You let your mind run with that one.

The Archangel

When I said "I do agree" I was agreeing with MB, not you.

Now that the other thread is closed, how can it not be possible Robert was using "unsound doctrine" in the same manner you claim to use "darkness"? Like I said, it is inconsistent to claim he is questioning the salvation of cal's and your usage is something different based on how Scripture defines "darkness". I don't have to let my mind run with darkness, I let Scripture define it, and I already stated how Scripture does, hence the reason I wanted clarification from you. You assume the worst of the non cal, yet want the non cal to give you the benefit of the doubt?

 

[The Archangel]

tWhen I said "I do agree" I was agreeing with MB, not you.

Good. That was unclear. Thank you for clearing that up.

Now that the other thread is closed, how can it not be possible Robert was using "unsound doctrine" in the same manner you claim to use "darkness"? Like I said, it is inconsistent to claim he is questioning the salvation of cal's and your usage is something different based on how Scripture defines "darkness". I don't have to let my mind run with darkness, I let Scripture define it, and I already stated how Scripture does, hence the reason I wanted clarification from you.

How can it be possible? Because I am the author of the little blurb that I wrote and, therefore, I decide the meaning. As I have stated to abundance, I did not question salvation. As it is clear to most readers by my use of talking about Arminian theology as "deficient" or based on an unclear understanding, I was talking about a lesser understanding of the Scripture.

Now, I'm sure you'll go crazy about that, but let me preempt you. You, as an Arminian (whether you like the label or not is immaterial for this discussion) are here presumably to argue/make your case with Calvinists that our understanding is deficient or unclear. We are here doing the same thing. So, if you seek to be accusatory about my statement that I consider Arminian theology to be deficient, etc., accuse yourself first because you have demonstrated at every turn that you believe Calvinist theology to be deficient.

Let me state this succinctly, so that there is no possible way for you to misunderstand: By using the word darkness, I was referring to a lack of theological understanding. I was absolutely and most definitely NOT talking about or referring to darkness as lack of spiritual life, being a non-believer, etc.

But, the point of my exercise was clear: Robert Snow and others who disagree with our Calvinist theology and call us non-believers for being Calvinists get a free pass from you when they question the salvation of others. You stand idly by as they make their accusations. Yet, when a Calvinist appears to question the salvation of an Arminian, you go crazy...demanding answers and such. So, it would seem you hide behind the rules of the BB only when it suits your purposes or advances your theological position or arguments--the very definition of a double standard.

If you were so concerned about the questioning of the salvation of others, you would have turned your indignation on Robert Snow to ask what he meant. You didn't. I simply pointed out that fact and the inconsistency on your part with this exercise.

You assume the worst of the non cal, yet want the non cal to give you the benefit of the doubt?

No, you have demonstrated your thoughts, so I am making no assumptions. And you rarely if ever give any benefit of the doubt to any Calvinist.

The Archangel

 

[glfredrick]

...not to mention he sure has a lot of time for very long posts...some 175 since stating this to me where he abruptly stopped a discussion concerning Hezekiah...

"Also, I'm having to curtail my time on the board, as they are checking computer activity at work these days. This does not qualify as work related, so if I'm gone more, don't take that as that I don't have a response or don't care about the issues. Just can't spend as much time! :tear: "

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1614921&postcount=103

Note that it is you, personally, that I'm no longer debating. I can't make sense out of most of what you post. I also have curtailed my time on the board by around 75% from when I posted that. I used to be "always on". Now I check in about 3 times a day. Yes, I post. No, I do not have 15000 posts where I argue with everyone about everything. And, no, I'm not being nice. I can get there just like anyone else.

 

[webdog]

How can it be possible? Because I am the author of the little blurb that I wrote and, therefore, I decide the meaning. As I have stated to abundance, I did not question salvation. As it is clear to most readers by my use of talking about Arminian theology as "deficient" or based on an unclear understanding, I was talking about a lesser understanding of the Scripture.

And conversely, Robert was the author of his blurb...so why would you have ME define what HE said? In addition, YOU decided what Robert said, which contradicts your very own words.

Now, I'm sure you'll go crazy about that, but let me preempt you. You, as an Arminian (whether you like the label or not is immaterial for this discussion) are here presumably to argue/make your case with Calvinists that our understanding is deficient or unclear. We are here doing the same thing. So, if you seek to be accusatory about my statement that I consider Arminian theology to be deficient, etc., accuse yourself first because you have demonstrated at every turn that you believe Calvinist theology to be deficient.

Since I'm the author of what I state, I'll define what I'm called. I'm not an Arminian. I wouldn't expect you to say any different of my theology, but my theology is grounded in the same Scripture you claim.
Besides...haven't I been predestined to believe what I believe?

Let me state this succinctly, so that there is no possible way for you to misunderstand: By using the word darkness, I was referring to a lack of theological understanding. I was absolutely and most definitely NOT talking about or referring to darkness as lack of spiritual life, being a non-believer, etc.

But, the point of my exercise was clear: Robert Snow and others who disagree with our Calvinist theology and call us non-believers for being Calvinists get a free pass from you when they question the salvation of others. ...

I'll stop you right there. YOU claimed Robert was questioning your salvation, I didn't see him doing that. YOU did the same thing he did, yet you are holding him to the literal biblical definition of his use of "unsound doctrine" while you get a pass for using "darkness"?!? Not only is that unfair, it is hypocritical.

If you were so concerned about the questioning of the salvation of others, you would have turned your indignation on Robert Snow to ask what he meant. You didn't. I simply pointed out that fact and the inconsistency on your part with this exercise.

I shouldn't have to do anything...I understood what he meant. Apparently you are either the one that didn't, or are trying to hold him to your double standard of allowing the Bible to define what we mean. Like I said, if "unsound doctrine" = unbelieving, darkness = unbelieving.

No, you have demonstrated your thoughts, so I am making no assumptions. And you rarely if ever give any benefit of the doubt to any Calvinist.

Unfounded false accusation. If Robert were questioning your salvation, trust me...I'd report his post. I've reported plenty from both sides. The irony is when I report it after it's been done to me, our calvinist administrators / moderators give a hearty "Amen" to them doing so and state I serve another "god".

 

[webdog]

Note that it is you, personally, that I'm no longer debating. I can't make sense out of most of what you post. I also have curtailed my time on the board by around 75% from when I posted that. I used to be "always on". Now I check in about 3 times a day. Yes, I post. No, I do not have 15000 posts where I argue with everyone about everything. And, no, I'm not being nice. I can get there just like anyone else.

Yeah...3 times a day. You must be on the "one day as a thousand" calendar. 170+ posts in a couple weeks would disagree with you.

I was polite and cordial to you until you decided to litter our interaction with rudeness. I believe that happens when you cannot support your view.

If you cannot make sense of my posts, should you really be involved in the educational outcomes of others? And...if you can't "make sense" of what I post, how dare you throw out the accusations you do (open theist, pelagian, etc.) not to mention "you believe...".

 

[percho]

When you say "The dead can be raised and given opportunity" do you mean to say that there will be an opportunity for the non-believing dead to become believers after their death?

Am I understanding you correctly?

The Archangel

I will say I don't have that chiseled in stone. I will ask as in the white throne judgment, does judgment mean immediate conviction or something else? Let's look at verse 12.

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Notice all the dead are raised and all are judged according to their works. The book of life is there. It does not say whether anyone is added or not at this time to the book of life thus not chiseled.

Another verse I fine interesting which I am not sure applies in this context or not is Isaiah 65:20
There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Years ago I was in a museum in Chicago and there was a mummy there that in all likely hood never heard of Jesus and I thought then will this man be raised from the dead and have an opportunity for eternal life. What do you think?

I'm open to comments and thoughts.

What about your thoughts on the rest of my post other than the one about the dead.

 

[quantumfaith]

I will say I don't have that chiseled in stone. I will ask as in the white throne judgment, does judgment mean immediate conviction or something else? Let's look at verse 12.

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Notice all the dead are raised and all are judged according to their works. The book of life is there. It does not say whether anyone is added or not at this time to the book of life thus not chiseled.

Another verse I fine interesting which I am not sure applies in this context or not is Isaiah 65:20
There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Years ago I was in a museum in Chicago and there was a mummy there that in all likely hood never heard of Jesus and I thought then will this man be raised from the dead and have an opportunity for eternal life. What do you think?

I'm open to comments and thoughts.

What about your thoughts on the rest of my post other than the one about the dead.

Very interesting and challenging question, on the mummy thing. That is one of the multitude of reasons I am so happy that God has a much higher "pay grade" than I do. I personally would not be affronted in any way, if this were the case, that this person had some opportunity to do with Christ the same as you and I have had.

 

[quantumfaith]

There is no "dark side" lest you make Scripture fight against Scripture. You are not really wanting to do that, are you? That would indeed be the heretical position from amongst those we are discussing, for God is not divided, nor is His Word.

Please forgive my lack of "clarity", it is a cultural "euphemism" with no intention of meaning "dark side" as in satan or anti-god.

 

[percho]

Back to this... You seem to want to hang a lot of weight on the Abrahamic Covenant, but there were covenants before Abraham.

What of the Noahic Covenant or the proto-evangelum offered to Adam and Eve in the Garden (Gen 3)?

Before God set aside a people group from amongst all the people groups of the world He gave promises and covenants to ALL the people of the world. He set aside a special people for two, well, actually one, primary reason. The "two" reasons are to be the line that led to Messiah and to be a witness to the world. The reason that they are actually "one" reason is that the two purposes are actually one -- for God's glory to be known to all people, and for all people to be God's people. Of course, one of the more frustrating issues is that all people are not God's people, but that issue surrounds God's election and is not covenantal in nature.

In Genesis 3:15ff, God promises a Savior. We then trace the elected family line down through the ages. In each case, God selected the person who would be the forerunner of Messiah, often a choice that was counter to what would have been the human choice.

God elected Abram,and set aside a man who would continue God's elective plan to bring Messiah to the people of the earth. Other covenants were enacted with David, prophets, etc., up to the point in time that Jesus was born on the earth.

Jesus then gave the world a commission -- to reach the entire world for God's glory -- a return to the original purpose of God in Eden, when all people WOULD have known His glory, until, that is, they fell from Him in sin.

Interestingly, when Paul saw a great harvest of elect Gentiles the church (at that time largely Jewish -- an extension of God's chosen people group) had to decide what to do with all these non-Jewish elect persons. Where did they turn? To the Abrahamic Covenant? No. To the Noahic Covenant, made BEFORE God elected a people to be His own. Paul then tells us that we were "grafted into" God's people as a new branch.

The verse you reference, "But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel..." is a great prophecy of the coming of the Holy Spirit. John picks up on this in two places in his gospel:

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And

John 3:5-8 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

My main point wasn't any covenant it was choice. Choice did not work in the garden. Choice did not work at Sinai then along came Jesus and most say you have choice to make.

Two questions.

Let me ask. Is it the choice we make or is it what God is doing?

Just what covenant are gentiles or anyone else brought into a relationship with God today?

 

[Winman]

Irresistable Grace would be irresistable. What kind of question is that?

The question should be, is God's grace resistable or irresistable?

God's grace is resistable, it is shown many times in scripture.

Matt 22:

1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is like a king who called and bid men to the wedding of his son, and they would not come. Did they receive God's grace? I would say they did. Did they resist and refuse it? Yes.

There are many other examples besides this parable that shows God calls many men who resist God and refuse to come. Doesn't matter what Augustine or Calvin or anybody else says.

You can have your Augustine and Calvin, I will trust what the Word of God clearly teaches.