To Calvinists, What is 'Irresistible Grace'?

I think the Holy Spirit enables individuals to believe just like W.T. Conner taught in Southwestern Seminary years ago.

To regard one’s conversion from sin to Christ as the work of God is the spontaneous impulse of the Christian’s heart. When a Christian hears of someone’s turning from sin, the first expression to come to his lips is, “Thank God.” But if this is not the work of God, then he should not be thanked. He does not deserve credit for what he does not do. This is the view of Scripture as well as the spontaneous impulse of the Christian heart. In the Bible salvation is everywhere attributed to God. To save is the work of God. But to save includes bringing about this change of mind and heart that we call conversion. It is not true that the sinner within and of himself recipients and believes and then God comes into the process in forgiveness. No, God was in the process from the first. He works to produce repentance and faith. He works to bring about the conditions upon which he can forgive. He seeks the sinner. We yield to a God who draws us to himself. We seek him because he first sought us. The gospel of Christ is the gospel of a seeking God. He seeks worshipers (John 4:23). The Son of man came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). The seeking of the Son of man is a revelation of the heart of God. Drawing men to Christ is the work of God. Without this drawing power men cannot come to Christ. (John 6:44)

Paul talks about God as calling men (Rom 8:28-30; 1 Cor 1:24, etc). By this calling he seems to mean more than a general gospel invitation to men to be saved by the grace of God. Paul’s use of the term seeks to correspond rather to what Jesus speaks of as the drawing of God in John 6:44. It is a dealing of God with the hearts of men that results in their coming to Christ and being saved. This efficacious call does not come to all, not even to all who hear the gospel. Some are called; to them the gospel is the power of God. To others the gospel is a stumbling block or foolishness (1 Cor 1:23). This call gives one a spiritual mind that enables him to get an insight into the meaning of the cross.

W. T. Conner, The Gospel of Redemption, Broadman Press, 1945, pp. 62-63

 

Huh?? Makes no sense -- except maybe to you. Did Jesus say it was so they could "give them spiritual vigor for the task that lay ahead of them, the preaching of the gospel, the discipling of men, and all the trials, tribulations, blah, blah, blah?"

Regeneration means born or indwelt of the Spirit. Why would they have to receive somthing they already had??

skypair

 

Sky P....

Notice that you're a member of Bellevue - Memphis?

If so you'd be interested in what R.G. Lee had to say about regeneration.

Here is the sinner's only hope, although, until quickened by the Spirit of grace, he does not know it. No man can rescue himself from the tyranny of sin. Men may reform, but they cannot regenerate themselves.

Men may give up their crimes and their vices, but they cannot, by their own strength, give up their sins. Can the Ethiopian change his skin? No. Can the leopard eliminate his spots? No.
​

Regeneration is the great change which God works in the soul when He brings it into life, when He raises it from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. It is the change wrought when the love of the world is changed into the love of God; when pride is dethroned and humility enthroned; when passion is changed into meekness; when hatred, envy, and malice are changed into a sincere and tender love for all mankind. It is the change whereby the earthly, sensual, devilish mind is turned into the mind that was in Christ. The new birth is not the old nature altered, reformed, or reinvigorated, but a being born from above. ..​

R.G. Lee, "The Grace of God," Heart to Heart (Nashville: Broadman, 1977) p 141 ff​

 

Is that a "yes" or a "no?" What is YOUR formula? I'm having a hard time understanding what Conner said -- but it seems problematic to me.

I agree with the first bolded statement.

The 2nd bolded is dubious considering that he acknowledges a general call that all hear and then says that the same call is the same one that calls only certain ones. The distinction appears to be purely theoretical, hardsheller. It definitely doesn't account for the fact that many "elect" reject the gospel many times before they believe it!


skypair

 

Sky P.....

You make it too easy.

The elect sometimes reject it many times before they accept it because God does not empower or enable them to believe during those times they hear.

 

skypair:

From John Wesley's Commentary - [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]20:22[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]He breathed on them - New life and vigour, and saith, as ye receive this breath out of my mouth, so receive ye the Spirit out of my fulness: the Holy Ghost influencing you in a peculiar manner, to fit you for your great embassy. This was an earnest of pentecost. [/FONT]


From Gill's Commentary -


he breathed on them;

in allusion to God's breathing the breath of life into man, at his creation; or rather, to the Spirit himself, who is the breath of God, and proceeds from him, as from the Father; and who breathes both upon persons in regeneration, and in qualifying for ministerial service, at the instance and influence of Christ: and such an opinion the Jews have of the Spirit of the Messiah, who say, that

``the Spirit went from between the wings of the cherubim, (hybvnw) , "and breathed upon him" (Menasseh) by the decree, or order of the word of the Lord.''

​

And saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost;
meaning not the grace of the Holy Ghost in regeneration, which they had received already; but the gifts of the Spirit, to qualify them for the work he now sent them to do, and which were not now actually bestowed; but this breathing on them, and the words that attended it, were a symbol, pledge, and confirmation, of what they were to receive on the day of Pentecost: hence it appears, that it is the Spirit of God, who, by his gifts and grace, makes and qualifies men to be ministers of the Gospel; and our Lord by this action, and these words, gives a very considerable proof of his deity:

Here are two, an Arminian, and what most folks here refer to as a hyper-Calvinist, who both agree, that this was a symbolic act for something which was to be given at a later date, a gift if you will.

 

Good on ya, mate! :applause:

OK. Is he saying "regeneration" is the sinner's only hope?? Here's how I would explain what R.G. says: The sinner's only hope (hope = BELIEF) is something he doesn't have as a lost sinner -- regeneration, the indwelling Spirit. However until quickened by the "Spirit of grace" (Holy Spirit, right?), he cannot know (know = FAITH) that regeneration is his only hope (how could he know something that he hasn't experienced, right?).

AMEN, hardsheller!!

But observe ---- R.G. is talking in this paragraph about AFTER regeneration, AFTER one knows he's regenerated and saved and has the faith of it all! But how did he GET regenerated? By the "hope" of or BELIEF in regeneration in Christ!

So I say again that the chronology works like this: hear the gospel - believe (have HOPE of salvation) - repentance and prayer (proof of belief/hope) - regeneration (quickening of the soul) - faith/KNOW you're saved. I think one thing that will help is that word "hope." If we believe something that is future (like after we are saved, we believe in the rapture), we only can have hope of them. But if we actually receive proof (as we do when we are regenerated having the Holy Spirit indwell us), then we have faith, first-hand knowledge, of a truth!

Notice, even R.G. says "It is the change wrought [when (?)] ... when the love of the world is changed into the love of God;" That is, it happens when OUR love of the world is changed by US into the love of God. THEN the change is wrought in us. There's a specific order given.

I'm glad you are reading R.G.! But to me, Adrian was better still!

skypair​

 

See, I absolutely reject those arguments on this ground -- Adam. Jesus was doing what His Father before Him did, breathing new life (regeneration, new birth) into their still unregenerate spirits. It is not that they weren't believers; not that they weren't justified and "saved" already. The point is that NNE up to this point was ever indwelt by the Spirit except Christ.

And know what? By the word when received, these apostles would go out and do exactly what Jesus did --- breath new life into other unregenerate sinners (or OT believers as in Acts 19) through preaching the gospel!

Most Christians are not well versed on the distinction between "filling of the Spirit" and "indwelling of the Spirit." They look at the OT believers and see that the Spirit was WITH them and think that He must have been IN them. Absolutely not! Jesus told us that He would send the Spirit Who WAS WITH them but now He would be IN them. The order of our salvation is justification (right with God/OT), sanctification (filled with the Spirit/NT), glorified (New Jerusalem/New Earth). And here's the catch --- the OT saints will be resurrected into the MK in order to receive their sanctification so that they, too, will be glorified with us in the New Earth!

Now obviously this leads to ministry and gifts, etc. as your authors note. But that is a problem with Reform theology because they may think they are indwelt when they are only frequently or infrequently filled. And when they are so filled, they DO trend into ministries -- with their natural gifts, BTW.

On the other hand, there are many saved Reformers who have just glommed onto a false teaching regarding filling and indwelling. But obscuring those lines lead them into replacement theology, into lack of assurance (filling comes and goes), etc.

skypair

 

Well, then, skypair, you go ahead and believe what you believe, and I'll go ahead and stick to what I think is right, and let me tell you something, in heaven one or both of us will prove to be wrong, and then what are we gonna do about it ? Sulk in a heavenly corner ? Or rejoice with the Saints for all eternity that despite our egotistical, hypocritical, and ignorant theologizings we ARE in heaven, thank God !

Here on earth, neither you nor I can be proved right or wrong, because as soon as the other is convinced that the other may be right, somebody else comes along with his bright (or dull) idea that throws everybody back.

I think all these discussions ever do is feed the ego and bloat the head, and in the meantime we all hypocritically say, "I say this with humility, etc., etc., etc."

As far as I am concerned, I respect both Gill and Wesley, regardless of their being East and West in theology. Each has had an impact on Christian thinking, theology, and doctrine, which neither you nor I can ever hope to do, and these two learned and very spiritual men happen to see and understand the Scriptures regarding this particular subject the same way.

So, I'll love you and leave you in your ignorance ( } and you can do the same to me.:wavey:

 

Sky P....

I think you need to go back and read what R.G. said.

Regeneration is the great change which God works in the soul when He brings it into life, when He raises it from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. It is the change wrought when the love of the world is changed into the love of God; when pride is dethroned and humility enthroned; when passion is changed into meekness; when hatred, envy, and malice are changed into a sincere and tender love for all mankind. It is the change whereby the earthly, sensual, devilish mind is turned into the mind that was in Christ. The new birth is not the old nature altered, reformed, or reinvigorated, but a being born from above. ..

Now if an individual's belief is what brings all this about then man is definitely doing something to be saved which Paul categorically denies in Eph. 2:8-9. I think R.G. would disagree with you.

In fact I think R.G. would have disagreed with Adrian and Friar Gaines over the current debate over Calvinism in the SBC. I'm not saying that R.G. was a Calvinist but I am saying the old Timers - Lee, Criswell, etc. had it right when it came to their ordus salutus.

The more I study the old Southern Baptists the more I realize Southern Baptists have changed their theology and not for the better.

 

Yup. Rejoice ....... BUT only after the smoke of our wood, hay, and stubble clears! Meanwhile, it's OK if I try to show you another, likely the correct, interpretation right? I mean, it might even shed some light on issues you have wondered about. No, I'm not trying to win a debate. I should hope that the truth would be received as a blessing!

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. Is that like 'it takes one to know one?' Cause I don't feel that way.

[qupte]As far as I am concerned, I respect both Gill and Wesley, regardless of their being East and West in theology. Each has had an impact on Christian thinking, theology, and doctrine,...[/quote] So has the Pope. Your point would be what --- that his theology is right, too?

Ah! There's the haughty, proud attitude you were just telling me about. Hope you are satisfied.

skypair

 

And my point is that that "change" is not "pixy dust!" NOBODY changes your mind/heart without CONVINCING you.

We can start by agreeing that regeneration somehow transpires upon hearing the gospel, can't we?

I think we are just reading R.G. with different eyes, hardshell. You are loathe to accept that man has any involvement --- well, except that it is happening to him/her!

But think about it and tell me when you ever changed your mind/heart without any information ---- without weighing what you knew.

I have to confess that every once in a while, even an Southern Baptist will let some vestige of Calvinism into his thinking. I don't want to be adament about what R.G. said or didn't say. That wouldn't matter that much to me anyway unless it was something I hadn't thought of before --- which is why it is good for us to compare notes, right? :type:

Please think about the "ordus convincus" and let me know if what I am saying doesn't make more sense.


skypair

 

Sky P...

How much Southern Baptist History have you studied? If you haven't spent some serious time examining the documents and books available from the 1800's then I think you are selling your heritage and your education short.

What you will discover very quickly as you study Baptist History in America is that the facts tell a much different story than the professors are telling today.

The Majority of Southern Baptists in 1845 when the SBC was Organized were 5 Point Calvinists. Dr. Fisher Humphreys, a non-Calvinist scholar even agrees with this truth.

A good starting point for your study would be Paul Basden's book published by Broadman and Holman in 1994 - Has our Theology Changed? Southern Baptist Thought Since 1845. He's another non Calvnist who agrees that we have changed our theology in a lot of ways. Interesting isn't it? So what it boils down to is how do we know that the pastor on Sunday Morning is preaching the truth when it seems to change over the years even in the same churches?

As far as reading R.G. Lee's statements with different eyes - you are correct!

I first look at Scripture - If I still have questions - I look to my Baptist Fathers - Else why would I call myself Baptist? I can usually find a satisfying historical perspective that answers my questions. And the interesting thing about that is the further back I go, the better the answers seem to get.

Somehow us guys today with the fancy computers and all kind of internet resources just don't get close to the old Baptists sitting in their drafty studies in the 1600's and working by lamp light. :thumbs:

 

Sky P.....

Oh and one other thing....

Yes, I was there in person on the night I got saved and participated fully by believing in Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. I came under conviction, I believed, I repented, I had faith, I was converted - all of those things.

I went to church that night with absolutely no inclination to respond one way or the other to the evangelist's invitation. Imagine my surprise when I found myself walking the aisle and telling the Preacher I was sorry for my sins and wanted Jesus in my heart!

Looking back on that experience is all I have to judge how Salvation occurs in an individual's life.

All I know is this - I couldn't say no to Jesus that night - I had to say yes.

I've had a lot of Baptists tell me that they could have said No to Jesus even when they said yes - but they don't know that to be true because they didn't!

I simply prefer to give God all the Glory for my Salvation.

 

None. Neither Baptist nor Catholic history impress me much. What little I know is that the Anabaptists broke from Calvinism on the issue of rebaptism but not much else.

I think the evolution of Baptist away from its roots has been a rebellion against the Calvinist aspects in light of more literal, less allegorical interpretation of scripture that began around 1700. In fact, one of its first manifestations was this "rebaptism" issue. Calvin and Luther were baptizing into the "elect" which many took as just plain wrong!

Upon this remark I will also say that many did not want to be discredited with the Arminians so they claimed Calvinism all the while allowing for free will as well. Spurgeon, to me (whatever he was), is a good example.

Now you're getting "Catholic" on me! :laugh: They're the ones, remember, that insist on tradition and magisterium authority! "Baptist Fathers" indeed! Were you Catholic once?

How do I know it's true? The Spirit, man.

Actually, I see early, less informed teachings as Calvinism's and Catholicism's weaknesses -- and now yours.

Their problem was their view of the kingdom. They saw it as here, now, physical which is why they had such strict social governance and state religions. Some of this affected theology -- for instance, infant baptism. Luther went through a schitzo" experience because he KNEW the true church was invisible but couldn't renouce infant baptism as the means of bringing children into the earthly kingdom.

You have some interesting perspectives though. I enjoy discussing with you.

skypair

 

That is a good profession, hardshell! I heard the gospel several times and when I finally had such a burden that I couldn't reject Him any longer, I was at home and just bowed my head and received Christ.

Interestingly, the sermon was 2Kings 7 - the 4 lepers who either had to go in or go out but who, sitting tight, KNEW they would die!

skypair

 

I am a bit late for this...but it is not a matter of forcing..it is a change of heart.

We seem to forget who God is.
He made us and can give us a new heart of flesh for our heart of stone. One that desires Him.
It doesn't matter because we will NOT WANT to resist.

 

Now all you need to discover is what the "heart" is. It is your mind, emotions, and will.

When was the last time you changed you mind without considering the facts and the likely outcome?? And if you had no facts and insight, why did your will change from what it naturally was?? from the status quo??

You're right -- it is not a matter of God "forcing" anyone. We desire Him of our own will after our own "due diligence" of the situation.

If that doesn't sound right, please explain what you see as the "heart" and how it works that the heart is "changed" from stone to flesh.

skypair

 

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

Acts 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

Acts 7:57-58 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

Irresistable Grace? It seems that the Jews had a very good track record at resisting God's grace, and did it well. Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost. That word "always" makes it fairly emphatic, and constitutes an action done habitually. Over and over again they resisted the grace of God, the Holy Spirit, which you say cannot be resisted. How odd?

Not only did the Jews of the OT did this, but so did the unsaved of the NT do the same. Here in Acts 7 these Jews (after Pentecost had already taken place) were "cut to he heart" or deeply convited by the Holy Spirit, in so much as "they gnashed with their teeth." The result was that they resisted the Holy Spirit, the Spirit that Stephen was full of. Instead of yielding to its conviction they resisted it, and stoned Stephen instead. They resisted the Holy Spirit and stoned Stephen. Is their irresistable grace? Hardly. We see God's grace being resisted by many individuals in the Bible, and many individuals in this day and age.

 

(Partial Quote)

Such plain and clear readings you would think might render impotent the arguments of irresistible grace but I am sure a faithful Calvie is somewhere to explain it all...heh.

It reminds me of the commands by God through Paul "be ye transformed by the renewing or your mind" and "be ye filled with the spirit". Often Calvinists or others not using that tag to identify their theology but hold to such a position as I describe now, teach that if any human decision making or response mechanism at all is involved in the process of salvation then it is a form of works as well as a defacto denial of divine sovereignty in election. Yet in the post-salvational way of life the believe is in fact commanded to involve his/her human volition in choosing to participate in and benefit from a spiritual activity. In other words, one is not "filled with the spirit" or "transformed" unless they exercise human volition to yield, and yet magically God does not see such a choice as human works or merit resulting in spiritual activity or benefit. Both are spiritual activities for which one makes a choice, either they choose to yield or choose not to. From the choice one makes the result is some spiritual activity. My point being that even believers grieve, quench and choose to yield to the spirit.