Please Explain the "I" in TULIP

[jbh28]

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.

It is resistible. The title is terrible.

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.

Exactly

So then His grace is only irresistible to His elect?

I would tend to agree with that.

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.

Looks pretty good to me. This is one of the reasons I don't like acronyms. They tend to be forced and are either really cheesy, or like here tend to give a wrong meaning.

So, the verse the Webdog quoted, " You always resist the Holy Spirit!" fits perfectly with the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.

 

[jbh28]

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.

Obviously you haven't read what the doctrine of Irresistible Grace teaches nor have you read this thread. No Calvinist(ok, you may find an exception somewhere) teaches that God is never resisted by anyone.

this is why I stated that we needed to define our terms. Most arguments are against a doctrine that doesn't exist.

 

[JesusFan]

OK, I've not looked into "Irresistible Grace" much at all to my recollection. Contrary to assumption, I don't have a stack of reformed books.

Perhaps some who are more knowledgable about irresistible grace could expound upon:

1. What "Calvin" and calvinists meant/mean by this, and what it doesn't mean, or how it is miscontrued by non-cals and otherwise.

Basically, cals affirm it to be means on God applies the grace towards the sinner, which enables/allows them to be able to freely respond to offer of salvation and became saved!

Arms see it basically similair way, in that God applies Grace towards sinners so they can respond by faith in jesus

cals see it as ONLY applied by God to the elect and cannot be resisited.Arms that ALL get grcaed, some belive, other reject

2. What is its extent.
those elcted in Christ will be saved from it, all others left in their "natural state"

3. Scriptural support/proof.

Tied in directly to doctrine of Election, see Romans 8:28-30/John chapter 6
4. Passages that seem to refute this explained.
basicaslly, all those that refer to God willing none should perish, all come to repentance and faith in Christ!

5. Other helpful thoughts and explanations on this.
Think need to tie in this concept to Divine Election, and aslo to the extent of the fall of Adam...

Because we are dead in ourselves, reason WHY we see it as this way!

- Peace

cals affirm there is a work of Grace God has to do on us prior to getting 'saved", Arms do also, as both of us see man as sinful and unasble to come to God as we are

Non cals tend to see us able to respond by faith to the gospel, NO prior spiritual working by god required!

 

[preacher4truth]

Obviously you haven't read what the doctrine of Irresistible Grace teaches nor have you read this thread. No Calvinist(ok, you may find an exception somewhere) teaches that God is never resisted by anyone.

this is why I stated that we needed to define our terms. Most arguments are against a doctrine that doesn't exist.

This is why I started this thread, to show that persons who attack this doctrine don't have any idea what it truly teaches, yet they debate it and attack it like they do know what it teaches.

It's like reading the title of a book, then attacking its contents, having never read it. :laugh:

:thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

These explanations contained in this article are helpful....those who oppose truth do not really understand what they are opposing.


http://www.apuritansmind.com/tulip/irresistible-grace-compiled-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

 

[JesusFan]

Provide documentation for this.

THAT will be hard to do, as it IS a biblical concept!

 

[webdog]

These explanations contained in this article are helpful....those who oppose truth do not really understand what they are opposing.


http://www.apuritansmind.com/tulip/irresistible-grace-compiled-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

...or it is understood, and what is perceived as truth is questionable and is rejected.

 

[glfredrick]

Previnient grace is resistible. When God says that the real thing is not resistible, it is no longer resistible.

That's what happens when something like previnient grace (a general grace that is supposed to be provided for all people to respond to God that cannot be found in the Scriptures, but makes Arminian theology work somewhat) is tossed into the mix. It is not God saying, "This is the time, come on." It is just some general thing akin to all of us being able to breath and eat -- just like we can resist to a point (decide for a time if we will or will not) before we die, so too can we resist previnient grace. The comparison is applicable, for the end result is the same -- death.

But, Calvinists are not arguing for previnient grace. We're arguing for the sovereign grace of Almighty God, which is sufficient in all cases to accomplish whatever it is that He wills for an individual. To say otherwise is to speak horrific blasphemy against our ALL POWERFUL God. I'm sure that no one wishes to do that.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Those verses quoted by webdofg though refer to those who had already harden themselves, who were reacting to God as "sinners"

Effectual/iressitible grace would be God "openning" up heart/mind of a sinner so that they can and will turn to Christ and become saved!

Our "natural state" is to react JST as those did in quotes from Webdog!

 

[JesusFan]

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.

I tend to see it in latter way, as the Lord "reverses" out the effect of the fall in us enough to allow us again to have the means to freely respond to the Gospel message

he has chosen those whom will receive the 'quickening" and since God iniated it for His glory, they will become saved!

 

[Skandelon]

So, the verse the Webdog quoted, " You always resist the Holy Spirit!" fits perfectly with the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.

Well, it's kind of like John 3:16. It can fit within the Calvinistic framework, but it SEEMS to be contradictory unless great pains are taken to explain it. It doesn't APPEAR to make sense for God to love everyone and send his Son to die for the world and to send a message to every creature appealing for them to be reconciled with statements like "whosoever believes will not perish," but then on the other hand claim God only really loves (salvifically) a select few who he will irresistibly draw to faith and salvation. It doesn't APPEAR to fit to the average objective reader.

So, too it doesn't fit to the average objective reader to say on the one hand that God works irresistibly to accomplish this work but not this one. Why even do it if your not going to do it irresistibly? For example, if there were two rocks in front of me and I called both of them to come to me, knowing full well rocks can't respond to my voice, so I went over and picked one of them up and brought it to me while still calling the other one with genuine sincerity, "Come here, rock, come here." The guy looking at me would think I was crazy and ask, if you know the rock is going to resist (not come) why didn't you just pick it up like you did the other one if you REALLY want it to come?

It seems contradictory to speak of the HS working resistibly in a world where He knows that only His "irresistible" effort will have any real effect. This is why people bring these versus up.

That being said, you are right that the verse in itself doesn't contradict the CLAIMS of Calvinism. It only appears to contradict what appears to be rational and consistent with the way God typically speaks and works in conjunction with people.

 

[webdog]

Those verses quoted by webdofg though refer to those who had already harden themselves, who were reacting to God as "sinners"

Effectual/iressitible grace would be God "openning" up heart/mind of a sinner so that they can and will turn to Christ and become saved!

Our "natural state" is to react JST as those did in quotes from Webdog!

If they had already hardened themselves, and they are not of the "elect", what is the Holy Spirit doing working to where they can even have the possibility TO resist? If they are spiritual corpses, how can they even recognize the Spirit's work in order to resist it?

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Thing is that those jews were reacting in their "natural state" of being sinners who reacted 'from their sinful flesh"

Also, God was at work at that time saving out a faithful remnant of jews, nad were hardening/blinded off the rest of them!

 

[Skandelon]

If they had already hardened themselves, and they are not of the "elect", what is the Holy Spirit doing working to where they can even have the possibility TO resist? If they are spiritual corpses, how can they even recognize the Spirit's work in order to resist it?

And that is a much simpler and shorter way to say what I just tried to explain...

 

[preacher4truth]

Those verses quoted by webdofg though refer to those who had already harden themselves, who were reacting to God as "sinners"

Effectual/iressitible grace would be God "openning" up heart/mind of a sinner so that they can and will turn to Christ and become saved!

Our "natural state" is to react JST as those did in quotes from Webdog!

webdog and a few others remind me of the latter half of this verse here, used for illustration and application only:

"...they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions." 1 Timothy 1:7

...as they "confidently" attack this doctrine, as if they knew what it taught, and it is clear they have no clue what it teaches whatsoever.

Is there such a thing as confident ignorance? Well, I think that it is a reality has been proven. :wavey:

 

[Van]

Personal attack on Van

You've addressed her worship, which is works, and allude to that as to why God opened her heart. You say "How did God open her heart?" And then tie that into because she was a worshiper which is works. God opened her heart all on His own will and purpose, not "because" she worshiped nor for any other reason.

Looks like a non-cal here has a fairly long leash in calling others liars. Totally unecessary.

I said it was because of her beliefs, not her works. You misrepresented and continue to misrepresent me. Totally unnecessary.

 

[quantumfaith]

webdog and a few others remind me of the latter half of this verse here, used for illustration and application only:

"...they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions." 1 Timothy 1:7

...as they "confidently" attack this doctrine, as if they knew what it taught, and it is clear they have no clue what it teaches whatsoever.

Is there such a thing as confident ignorance? Well, I think that it is a reality has been proven.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

And that is a much simpler and shorter way to say what I just tried to explain...

His (webdogs) sentence made little sense and was poorly written IMO. The latter half? Jumbled. Needs rehashed.

BTW, who/where does it implicitly state/say these folks knew they were resisting the Holy Spirit, or recognized it was Him? Consider this:

The Pharisees and others in the Gospel accounts didn't believe in Jesus at all whatsoever, and their resistance only showed they were not His sheep, not that they knew Whom they resisted. They had no clue that He was the One, and they were in total ignorance in their resistance. They were told time and time again they "did not believe."

There needs to be no confident assertion that they knew this (Acts 7-8). They thought their religion was right, and that Stephen was incorrect.

 

[Skandelon]

His (webdogs) sentence made little sense and was poorly written IMO. The latter half? Jumbled. Needs rehashed.

BTW, who/where does it implicitly state/say these folks knew they were resisting the Holy Spirit, or recognized it was Him?

Well obviously they didn't think it was the HS working, or they wouldn't have resisted it. What I think he is asking is why would the HS even work on them if (1) they aren't elect (2) He knows they will resist and (3) His works won't even be realized or acknowledge or have effect.

Make sense now?

 

[preacher4truth]

Well obviously they didn't think it was the HS working, or they wouldn't have resisted it. What I think he is asking is why would the HS even work on them if (1) they aren't elect (2) He knows they will resist and (3) His works won't even be realized or acknowledge or have effect.

Make sense now?

Which shows he still doesn't understand IG.