Please Explain the "I" in TULIP

[Skandelon]

That's what I'm trying to get at.

It seems so, unless the entire title "irresistible grace" is just a bad title, or, those passages are then misunderstood and misused that you reference.

It is a bad title and many Calvinistic scholars recognize that and explain it carefully. They believe that grace is resisted all the time. What they are talking about is the "effectual working" of the Holy Spirit by which the elect are regenerated or born again so as to give them a new heart and so they will certainly believe the gospel.

Now, some "Calvinists" don't believe in pre-regeneration, but just that God effectually "calls" or "quickens" them in such a way that they will believe unto new life...but you don't see that view supported here very often.

 

[preacher4truth]

It is a bad title and many Calvinistic scholars recognize that and explain it carefully. They believe that grace is resisted all the time. What they are talking about is the "effectual working" of the Holy Spirit by which the elect are regenerated or born again so as to give them a new heart and so they will certainly believe the gospel.

Now, some "Calvinists" don't believe in pre-regeneration, but just that God effectually "calls" or "quickens" them in such a way that they will believe unto new life...but you don't see that view supported here very often.

So then His grace is only irresistible to His elect?

I would tend to agree with that.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

1 Thessalonians 5:19 "Do not quench the Spirit. "

Irresistible grace appears to be resistable.

Hope you remember this scripture when applied to continuing gifts of the HS:tongue3:

this is why I said it needs to be renamed Efficacious Grace as a better descriptive

 

[Skandelon]

Here it is in a nutshell:

In both Calvinism and Non-Calvinism, we affirm the need of the Holy Spirit to draw or enable man to come to Him in faith.

Calvinists believe that Holy Spirit's work of drawing is through a secret, inward irresistible working by which the heart is changed and thus the willed changed with it, so that when the elect are drawn they will certainly choose to willingly believe and follow. Thus, those who reject do so because they were born Totally Depraved, un-elected and thus not enabled to willingly believe.

Non-Calvinists, like me, believe that the Holy Spirit's work of drawing is through the Gospel, by which the man is given the appeal of God to be reconciled. So, that work of the Holy Spirit may be accepted or rejected and thus those who perish do so because they refused to accept the truth and so be saved.

 

[webdog]

Hope you remember this scripture when applied to continuing gifts of the HS:tongue3:

this is why I said it needs to be renamed Efficacious Grace as a better descriptive

You sure you replied to the right person? Not sure what you mean by "continuing gifts of the HS".

 

[Skandelon]

So then His grace is only irresistible to His elect?

I would tend to agree with that.

Yes. His grace to regenerate or "effectually call them" is irresistible, but I think most Calvinists would agree that even the elect can "resist" or "rebel" other aspects of God's grace. The point of "Irresistible Grace" is specifically regarding the effectuality of God's work in regenerating His elect.

 

[preacher4truth]

Yes. His grace to regenerate or "effectually call them" is irresistible, but I think most Calvinists would agree that even the elect can "resist" or "rebel" other aspects of God's grace. The point of "Irresistible Grace" is specifically regarding the effectuality of God's work in regenerating His elect.

Then those who reject this truth, and this label "irresistible grace" do so in ignorance as to what it truly means. What happened to Paul was that Grace won out, because Paul was one of His elect.

It is infortunate to cast something off without even knowing what it really means, as many are doing here.

It's kind of like Grape Nuts. It ain't what it says it is. :laugh:

 

[DHK]

Then those who reject this truth, and this label "irresistible grace" do so in ignorance as to what it truly means. What happened to Paul was that Grace won out, because Paul was one of His elect.

It is infortunate to cast something off without even knowing what it really means, as many are doing here.

It's kind of like Grape Nuts. It ain't what it says it is. :laugh:

And after reading your post one have to come to the conclusion that Stephen did not know what he was talking about.

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. (Acts 7:51)

 

[preacher4truth]

And after reading your post one have to come to the conclusion that Stephen did not know what he was talking about.

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. (Acts 7:51)

You have no clue to what you're saying. Maybe you should actually read what I believe about it, and get the context right in this thread. You're way off track with your hasty and misinformed response.

It's you who doesn't know what he's talking about here.

 

[glfredrick]

Here it is in a nutshell:

In both Calvinism and Non-Calvinism, we affirm the need of the Holy Spirit to draw or enable man to come to Him in faith.

Calvinists believe that Holy Spirit's work of drawing is through a secret, inward irresistible working by which the heart is changed and thus the willed changed with it, so that when the elect are drawn they will certainly choose to willingly believe and follow. Thus, those who reject do so because they were born Totally Depraved, un-elected and thus not enabled to willingly believe.

Non-Calvinists, like me, believe that the Holy Spirit's work of drawing is through the Gospel, by which the man is given the appeal of God to be reconciled. So, that work of the Holy Spirit may be accepted or rejected and thus those who perish do so because they refused to accept the truth and so be saved.

Seeing as how you have now invoked the ordo salutas, perhaps we should discuss the logical order of salvation. You present one view, but not particularly the view that comprehensively defines traditional Calvinism.

Also, might we not recognize that the "secret, inward irresistible working by which the heart is changed" by its right name -- God's supernatural regeneration? That is, anyway, what Christ is trying to get through to Nicodemus when that subject came up in their encounter. Similar to the issue with the woman at the well in Samaria. God does a work that only He can do because only He is supernatural and can make one a new creation by the spiritual re-birth. No choice of man is involved in that work of God.

Our choice exists, no Calvinist denies that, but we do deny that choice is a matter of soteriology. Anthropology, yes, soteriology, no. God alone "saves." Man has all sorts of issues, moral, ethical, old/new nature, etc., and before regeneration, resistance certainly occurs.

 

[Skandelon]

Then those who reject this truth, and this label "irresistible grace" do so in ignorance as to what it truly means.

That could be the case in some situations, yes. Some think if they find any instance of man resisting God's grace they have found a contradiction to Calvinism's doctrine of "Irresistible Grace," and that would be an error, because Calvinists aren't making the claim that Grace in general can't be resisted. The "Non-elect reprobates" of their system are rejecting his grace constantly, after all. The doctrine particularly relates to God's direct work to draw His elect. (Some refer to this as regeneration or new birth; others think its more of a "calling" which leads to faith and then new birth, but the common factor for all Calvinistic scholars is that it is IRRESISTIBLE or EFFECTUAL and ONLY intended for those who He has Unconditionally Elected)

It's kind of like Grape Nuts. It ain't what it says it is. :laugh:

I do think it is important to properly understand and represent the view you seek to disprove, though sometimes with all the various nuances and misrepresentations on both sides in a format such as this it can be quite difficult.

 

[DHK]

You have no clue to what you're saying. Maybe you should actually read what I believe about it, and get the context right in this thread. You're way off track with your hasty and misinformed response.

It's you who doesn't know what he's talking about here.

Those Jews, that disbelieved (both back in history, and the very ones that crucified Christ) resisted the Holy Spirit. Some of them stoned Stephen. They were so convicted they gnashed their teeth. Others were convicted at the preaching of Peter; cut to the heart. Still they resisted the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was and can be resisted, as is plainly demonstrated here.

 

[Skandelon]

Seeing as how you have now invoked the ordo salutas, perhaps we should discuss the logical order of salvation. You present one view, but not particularly the view that comprehensively defines traditional Calvinism.

It wasn't my intention to represent the ordo salutas, just to summarize the concept of "I" and the opposing view. We can discuss that in another thread if you'd like.

Also, might we not recognize that the "secret, inward irresistible working by which the heart is changed" by its right name -- God's supernatural regeneration?

Well, the reason I avoided that term is because some "Calvinists" deny the "pre-regeneration" view. They promote the concept of an "effectual call" by which the Spirit effectually calls the person to faith, but agree that one is not "regenerated" or "reborn" except through faith. As I acknowledged earlier, that is not the predominate view nor the one promoted here on the BB often.

 

[preacher4truth]

Those Jews, that disbelieved (both back in history, and the very ones that crucified Christ) resisted the Holy Spirit. Some of them stoned Stephen. They were so convicted they gnashed their teeth. Others were convicted at the preaching of Peter; cut to the heart. Still they resisted the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was and can be resisted, as is plainly demonstrated here.

But this text doesn't disprove "Irresistible Grace", instead, when it is used to refute it, it only shows that the person using the text doesn't really understand what IG means.

Most of that is due to its name, as it is misleading.

 

[DHK]

But this text doesn't disprove "Irresistible Grace", instead, when it is used to refute it, it only shows that the person using the text doesn't really understand what IG means.

Most of that is due to its name, as it is misleading.

Those that stoned Stephen, and those that crucified Christ were ungodly unsaved individuals. In both groups they were convicted of the Holy Spirit. In both groups they resisted the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted they would have been saved. This disproves your doctrine.

 

[quantumfaith]

Here it is in a nutshell:

In both Calvinism and Non-Calvinism, we affirm the need of the Holy Spirit to draw or enable man to come to Him in faith.

Calvinists believe that Holy Spirit's work of drawing is through a secret, inward irresistible working by which the heart is changed and thus the willed changed with it, so that when the elect are drawn they will certainly choose to willingly believe and follow. Thus, those who reject do so because they were born Totally Depraved, un-elected and thus not enabled to willingly believe.

Non-Calvinists, like me, believe that the Holy Spirit's work of drawing is through the Gospel, by which the man is given the appeal of God to be reconciled. So, that work of the Holy Spirit may be accepted or rejected and thus those who perish do so because they refused to accept the truth and so be saved.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

Those that stoned Stephen, and those that crucified Christ were ungodly unsaved individuals. In both groups they were convicted of the Holy Spirit. In both groups they resisted the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted they would have been saved. This disproves your doctrine.

No, this shows you don't know what the doctrine means. Again.

 

[DHK]

No, this shows you don't know what the doctrine means. Again.

And statements like this show that if I am wrong you can't explain why.

 

[preacher4truth]

And statements like this show that if I am wrong you can't explain why.

It's not that I can't explain it, it's that you wouldn't grasp it.

Obviously you don't know what "Irresistible Grace" means.

You start and stop with the title, and stay there, which gives you a deficient understanding. Do a little reading through this thread, take a gander at the exchange between skan and myself and see what it means.

 

[JesusFan]

Either way it is wrong

thanks!

great scriptually "proof"!