John 6:37 and Irresistible Grace

That is comforting in a way that only a Christian can understand. To know that God's people are striving against the same kind of troubles, though diffrent circumstances, but the same principal. And to know that we are praying for one another, is a great blessing & one common goal. To stand against sin, satan, & the flesh! God Bless!
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
1Pe 1:6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
1Pe 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
1Pe 1:8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:


1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
1Pe 5:9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
1Pe 5:10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.
1Pe 5:11 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

 

And Gods People said --- AMEN!

Stand firm in Christ brother, and by so doing let Christ stand out in you.
He knows those things He has purposed for you, good things and not evil - Allans version Ch 5 verse 4. :tongue3:

 

Scripture

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life.

John 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

John 14:24
He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Romans 10
14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

2 Corinthians 5
16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

 

Praise God for that! But are you implying that those Christians who believe the "Doctrines of Grace" don't have such a desire.

The only reason that there were 5 points is that John Calvin was replying to the "Five Points of Arminianism". He disn't sit down one day and think to himself, "I've got an idea. I'll make up 5 doctrinal points that everyone will remember me for." Here are the "5 Points of Arminianism", formulated in 1610:

1. Free will, or human ability. This taught that man, although affected by the Fall, was not totally incapable of choosing spiritual good, and was able to exercise faith in God in order to receive the gospel and thus bring himself into possession of salvation.

2. Conditional election. This taught that God laid His hands upon those individuals who, He knew - or foresaw - would respond to the gospel. God elected those that He saw would want to be saved of their own free will and in their natural fallen state — which was, of course, according to the first point of Arminianism, not completely fallen anyway.

3. Universal redemption, or general atonement. This taught that Christ died to save all men; but only in a potential fashion. Christ's death enabled God to pardon sinners, but only on condition that they believed.

4. The work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration limited by the human will. This taught that the Holy Spirit, as He began to work to bring a person to Christ, could be effectually resisted and His purposes frustrated. He could not impart life unless the sinner was willing to have this life imparted.

5. Falling from grace. This taught that a saved man could fall finally from salvation. It is, of course, the logical and natural outcome of the system. If man must take the initiative in his salvation, he must retain responsibility for the final outcome.

They look remarkably similar to some of the things you say.

Our faith is given to us. That's what I say. More important, it's what the Scriptures say. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2.14: "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

That works both ways. Just because something doesn't agree with your doctrine, that doesn't make it wrong. What matters is what God says in His Word.

But aren't you minimising? You seem to be saying that God loves the world in such a manner that He desires the salvation of every single individual, but that His will can be thwarted by a mere human being making the wrong choice. Jesus said that all that the Father gives Him will come to Him. That's something we can't minimise.

If someone does not believe God then he is not, and never was, a messenger of His. I'm not really sure what you mean here.

Yes, I agree. Did you think that those of us who believe the doctrines you are against don't believe this too?

We do not become God's messengers simply by having life and death placed before us.

I don't know if you will ever agree with me on this matter, but I hope that at least I have made the position you are opposing slightly clearer.

Every blessing,

 

Jesus word

Jesus word is the Fathers and it is Spirit and life.

Through His word we do have a choice to believe in Jesus and be saved or not and be condemned.

The words of Jesus is the drawing power of God.

God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

There is no one God has excluded from the message that we are messengers of.

God by His own word says that believers shall be saved.

We are elected to salvation by belief and this faith is active.

It is not the other way.

Of course our Faith comes from God, through His word.

It is still our choice to accept it or not.

Man from the beginning wanted to blame God and they still do today.

If God as you say can give you the ability to believe, then He can give us the ability to make a choice.

God has put our own blood in our own hands.

We can no longer blame God, because anyone can come, but they cannot be drawn without the Father drawing them,, and He draws them by the words of Jesus. His word is Spirit and Life so through His word we can make the choice.

We can follow the calvinist, universalist, arminist crowd, but you are just following the crowd, not Jesus and if you are just following the crowd, you were not drawn by the Father.

And as Jesus says, you cannot come unless you are drawn by the Father.

You can disreguard God's love for this world and the hope He has given to the world through Jesus, or you can believe Jesus that God loved the world that HGe sent His Son.

Men are always looking for a loop hole, but God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

There is a condition that we believe in Jesus and this faith produces action.

 

The 5 points of Calvinism WAS NOT made by John Calvin but many years after his death. John Calvin wrote 40 plus volumes in his systematic theology. This system of thoeology writtem BY J. Calvin, much of it is not followed by todays Calvinist most specifically baptist as it is a presbitarian doctrine. What makes todays Calvinist and yesteryear Calvinist of the same ilk is the core 5 principles or points.
On another side note: Cavinists made the 5 points FIRST and the Arminians came up with their REFUTE of the Calvinists 5 points (that I remember). It was first the disagreement of Johns work vs. Arminious then it was boiled down to 5 cardinal doctrines of Calvinism that was supposed to be the essense and refute to Arminious theology. THEN came the Aminians with the same, but was never given a fair hearing or unbiased hearing.

 

Sorry, this is just not the truth. The 5 points of Calvinist was a reply to the Arminians 5 points.

Allan...surely you knew this.

I have said before, I wished it was the Calvinism that made the outline, because it would have been more the 5 points. It would also be much clearer then it is now. Most people only study the headlines of the points and think they know what they mean.

 

Actually James... You're right. I did know this, but for some reason it switched in my brain as I was reading. (see what Calvinism does to someone, J/K James [and other reformed brethren]) I wasn't sure if what I wrote was exactly correct so I placed the "(that I remember)" in there. However the fact John Calvin did not produce the 5 pionts is still true and the rest is just reversed.

I agree with you on this James as true-blue Calvinist theology would be much more expanded than 5 points but then if it did incorporate all or Most of his beliefs many would not hold to the orginal form of Calvinism. What we have is a modification of (and varied at that) Calvinism. And then you have those modifying even that. You CAN NOT be a Calvinist if you believe anything less than the essense of Calvinsm, that being ALL 5 points. There is NO 4 or 3 point Calvinist. It is a theology built one point upon another and to remove one collapses ALL of the theology. That said - even the majority (I speak mostly of the baptist group as I don't know personally many Calvinsts who are not baptist) 5 point Calvinists don't agree with the full theological construct that makes up the system of theology and thereby its functional working to which the 5 points come from

Thank you for you correction James.

 

Dr. Timothy George thinks the term "irresistible grace." presents a semantical problem and I think he may have something there.

It conjures up the image of a lost man to whom God extends grace fighting against it with all his might. This stubborn God saves this lost man against his will.

In an SBC study course book a few years ago, Dr. George proposed the term "overcoming grace.' This may be too soft a term for some Calvinists, but it certainly would soften the tone of the debate.

 

I would have to agree with how the Calvinists would react.

To change the name would not soften the debate because the definition is still the same. And it is the definition for which there is disagreement not the term that is defined.

 

Allan, your probably right, but to me personally, softening the terms could help. It's already happening.

For instance, many Calvinists are abandoning "Limited Atonement" for "Effectual Atonement" and "Particular Redemption." People kinow the meaning isn't changed, but it seems less in-your-face to me.

Dr. George's "overcoming grace" connotes to me the image of a Holy Spirit persistently wooing a lost man until finally a light comes on, resistance melts away.

"Irresistible Grace" conjurs up a Holy Spirit attacking, overpowering and smashing resistance. We Cals know that it doesn't work that way, of course, but I read plenty from non-Cals who make that very accusation. Their argument, of course, is that it destroys the idea of free will.

 

I do see what you are saying and maybe in some respects but it could also turn ugly if not careful among Calvinists.

 

I believe there are at least two very important points to be made here:

First, John Calvin was not English. It was an unknown (as far as I know) English-speaker who devised the acronym TULIP to summerise the answers Calvin made at the Synod of Dort in answer to the "Five Points of Arminus". The "points" had to be phrased in a particular (no pun intended) way in order to make the acronym a recognisable word. For example "TUPEP" would be nowhere near to memorable as "TULIP". The downside of this is that it is all too easy to make false assumptions about the Doctrines of Grace. "Limited Atonement" can conjure up ideas of a "select few", as opposed to the biblical "multitude which no one could number." As has been said, "Irresistible Grace" gives the idea of sinners being dragged into Christ's kingdom, yelling and screaming their opposition to it.

Secondly, it is in many ways a great pity that "Calvinist" is used to describe a person who believes in the Doctrines of Grace. Why? Calvin didn't invent those doctrines, nor did Arminius invent the doctrines held by Arminianism. The following is from the website http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Church History/calvinism.html :

A. The Controversy between Pelagius and Augustine

Neither John Calvin nor James Arminius originated the basic concepts which undergird the two systems that bear their names. The fundamental principles of each system can be traced back many centuries prior to the time when these two men lived. For example, the basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century. Cunningham writes,

"As there was nothing new in substance in the Calvinism of Calvin, so there was nothing new in the Arminianism of Arminius;The doctrines of Arminius can be traced back as far as the time of Clemens Alexandrinus, and seem to have been held by many of the fathers of the third and fourth centuries, having been diffused in the church through the corrupting influence of pagan philosophy. Pelagius and his followers, in the fifth century, were as decidedly opposed to Calvinism as Arminius was, though they deviated much further from sound doctrine than he did." [4]

Pelagius denied that human nature had been corrupted by sin. He maintained that the only ill effects which the race had suffered as the result of Adam's transgression was the bad example which he had set for mankind. According to Pelagius, every infant comes into the world in the same condition as Adam was before the fall. His leading principle was that man's will is absolutely free. Hence every one has the power, within himself, to believe the gospel as well as to perfectly keep the law of God.

Augustine, on the other hand, maintained that human nature had been so completely corrupted by Adam's fall that no one, in himself, has the ability to obey either the law or the gospel. Divine grace is essential if sinners are to believe and be saved, and this grace is extended only to those whom God predestined to eternal life before the foundation of the world. The act of faith, therefore, results, not from the sinner's free will (as Pelagius taught) but from God's free grace which is bestowed on the elect only.

(The Augustine mentioned in that quote is Augustine of Hippo, not the man of the same name sent by the pope in the 6th century to "evangelise the Angles")

That is one reason (among many) why, although I fully believe the Doctrines of Grace and the Five Great "Alones" of the Reformation, I don't apply the term "Calvinist" to myself.

Often, people who don't believe those doctrines accuse those who do of trusting in a man's teaching (i.e. Calvin's) rather than in God's Word. But I have not seen anyone say, "I believe this because Calvin said it." Rather, believers in the Doctrines of Grace (from what I've seen on this Board) are ready to give scriptural backing for their beliefs.

Finally, abandoning the term "limited atonement" in preference for "particular redemption" is nothing new. For centuries we have had "Particular Baptist" churches.

Every blessing,

 

LOL, That was funny David.

This is some of the most one sided research I have seen in a while. The doctrine of atonement being unlimited goes back to those of pagan and or corrupting influences or philosophy. LOL...

Let us take a little peek into history, shall we...

Now back to our time: *bell ringing*

Now since this is about irresistable grace, for reasons listed above and scriptures that stand by them (historical stances and scriptural stance) I maintain that it can not be irresistable if Christ died for ALL.

Lastly:
Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

Regarding this verse, John Calvin says: "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."

Regarding the two occurrences of the phrase "all men," E. H. Gifford comments: "The words all men [in v. 18] must have the same extent in both clauses."

 

One more thing David:

If you are insinuating those of the "Doctrines of Grace" are the only ones (on here) who back their beliefs with scripture is bunk, plain and simple. People are debating 'scriptures', gramatical context of both Hebrew and Greek, subjects of verse, verb mood and tenses on almost every thread (within the debate forum herein) And they are from BOTH sides. I can give lists of names of the non-Cals would quote, expound and exegete scriptures. (Brother Bob, Blammo, Webdog, myself, just off the top of my head as there are others as well)

Please quit the polite bashing of 'only us use scripture for our beliefs'. The system of theology (Calvinism) has NEVER been clearly or explictly proven via scriptures and is why it is still a topic of much debate. [even with Calvinism itself] We (the non-C's persuation) are one of the main reasons the threads herein continue for pages on end with regard to debate OF scripture and WITH scripture.

We hold you in high regard as a brother in Christ, please do the same of us.
If what I wrote sounds a bit harsh it was not intended to specifically be that way, but I will say I do get annoyed when that 'phrase previously mentioned' is used of someone not holding to the Doctrines of Grace. SO...if I offend you in this please forgive and I doubt you MEANT to cause offence to me either. Brothers still???

 

I am so sorry. I was not clear in what I wrote, and have thus caused offence. I can only apologise, and assure you that it was not meant that way. I certainly wasn't saying that only those who believe the Doctrines of Grace can or do back their beliefs up with Scripture. What I was attempting to do was to put right a misconception that often seems to appear on the Board - the one that suggests that the "Doctrines of Grace" camp rely on a mere man, Calvin, for what they believe. All I meant was that we base our beliefs on God's Word. I didn't mean even to imply that those holding a different position either cannot or do not seek to base their beliefs on the bible, but I can certainly undertand why you would be upset if you imagined that was what I meant.

I suppose our differences are a sign of our fallen nature, and our imperfect knowledge of God and His Word, and I look forward to being in glory when all imperfections will be gone, and when shall see our Saviour face to face, and be taken up with Him.

Once again, I apologise. Please forgive me.

Your brother in Christ,

 

Amen! :thumbs: :godisgood:

 

David;

I didn't think that was intent, though trying to read on intent on a screen is pretty near impossible. I understand completely about people misconceptions about my beliefs and that they are not biblical but of men.

You request to forgive is takin in the love of Christ and in the same respect is why I added my last paragraph saying:

So my request to forgive is there as well, since in my estimation neither 'wanted' to intentionally offend but sometimes it happens none the less. And you are quite right about our nature being falling and insuffient in many things but oh what a wonderful day THAT day will be when my Jesus I shall see...

 

Allan, thanks for that, and please rest assured that the only reason I didn't expressly mention forgiving you is that it was I who offended you, so I needed your forgiveness. (I don't consider that you have in any way sinned against me.)

We sing a hymn over here that starts:

"Blest be the tie that binds
Our hearts in Christian love;
The fellowship of kindred minds
Is like to that above"

[John Fawcett, 1740-1817]

In Christian love,