To Calvinists, What is 'Irresistible Grace'?

You know, you are right about people being able to quench or disobey the Holy Spirit in a post-salvational manner. I am sure you have met a lot of professed believers who come to you or the church and "ask for prayer" because they have a "struggle" in their lives. Some aspect of their lifestyle which according to the teaching and the preaching they receive directly confronts the gospel way of life. And I am sure you have noticed those who have been faithful and then suddenly "dropout". I think you call them "backsliders" or something.

Your error lies in applying Irresistible Grace to pre-salvation or pre-profession, and in thinking that God's grace unto salvation is for ALL men.

Like I told one poster, the assumption that God offers salvation to everyone is wrong.

Basically, because there is NO offer at all.

Irresistible grace is only for the elect.

Jesus said: No man can come to me except the Father which sent me draw him....And him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

The reaction of these Jews are no different than those of Freewillers, or Calvinists, who are accused of resisting the Holy Ghost.

No one wants to be accused of being faithful to his religion, instead of to God.

So, please. Try to grasp the concept and context of irresistible grace.

 

I do grasp your concept and definition of irresistible grace and respectfully acknowledge you believe your definition is the most biblical and accurate one, nevertheless with the same zeal I disagree....but I do get the concept.

As for the post-salvational issue, it does give weight however to the argument that men can indeed volitionally resist God...obviously it is not in the context of the irresistible grace salvational call to which you are referring.

As far as someone coming and struggling and asking for prayer, actually I wasn't thinking along those lines as one quenching, grieving or resisting God...I was more thinking along the lines of myself and how often I have done that, both in struggles and quite deliberately.

 

Okay. But to be honest, I don't think you really do.

And I don't think any of the "Calvies" you referred to, or those hiding their being "Calvies", whoever they are, on this board will disagree with you there.

Paul resisted God. He was told several times not to go to Jerusalem, and he still went, justifying his going with an explanation in his Roman letter about preaching the gospel to those who are Israel who are not of Israel, since, like he said: How can they believe him of whom they have not heard ?

"Believe", to my understanding of how the word was used, referring to follow Christ, and only the elect will follow Christ, that is, turn to Him from their idols.

Of course, what the Holy Spirit said would happen did happen to him. He was taken prisoner, and eventually, beheaded.

 

Oh but I do...my guess is that since I don't AGREE I must not understand...but let's not quibble over such a tempting hair, eh? You don't believe I understand when I say I do and I don't believe you have come to accept that your rejection of my claim of understanding is based on your astonishment that I don't agree, hence I MUST not understand. :thumbs:

The second half of the post I did not follow well and possible you can help me, I am not sure what context the "believe" is in to which you are referring (and please forgive me if to many others you spoke plainly, I just seem to be missing a bit of the argument in the second part of the post).

 

Sky P...

You admit you have not studied any Southern Baptist History and yet you are an expert on Calvinism in the SBC?

Amazing.....

 

hardsheller -- it is what it is. If you don't find my points to be true, just say so. I am not trying to spread rumors. I have read enough commentary on these issues to come here with some confidence even though my formal training and career is in flying airplanes.

Why would history make a difference? Are you lobbying for "tradition" over scripture? Is everyone now dumber than our predecessors about the Bible. See, I don't find that except in the liberal church.

skypair

 

The error is to even mention "irresistible grace." There is no such thing in scripture. So why would we want to discuss it at all?? "Irresistible grace" apparently operates post-salvation among Calvinism's "elect" yet they can resist grace then and when they couldn't before. Go figure.

The only reason, then, to even discuss "irresistible grace" is for us to be marshalled onto YOUR battlefield, your "home turf," and be overthrown by Calvinism rather than by Christ OR to rescue you from the snare of the devil.

This is your "proof text?" Again, only the "comers" from among the "drawn" (which is everyone, John 12:32) are not cast out.

Let's take another proof text for our doctrine, OK? Let's take the parable of the dragnet in Mt 13:47-48 for a paradigm -- the net was drawn to shore and the good fish were saved and the bad thrown back. The "elect" and nonelect were drawn together but only the good were allowed to come. Good in what way according to the parable? Good cause they were the "JUST" BELIEVERS! The bad were the WICKED UNJUST or NOT justified in Christ.

Would that be like saying no one WANTS to be gay? Yet many have fooled their own minds into thinking that it wasn't their choice in that aspect of their lives either, right?

I say, try to resist that notion of "irresistible grace," pinoy. You've been taught to see it in scripture but it isn't there. You've been "taught" to see it by a very formidable and sophisicated advocate and you are incapable of resisting his snare.

skypair

 

Sky P....

What I'm saying is that any Christian's education is incomplete without a study of history especially the study of Christian History and Baptist History for a Baptist.

Historical perspectives especially on theological matters is critical for Christians to understand their own Church or denomination today.

I don't doubt your sincerity on any issue you wish to discuss nor do I doubt your confidence but I do doubt your breadth of knowledge especially when it comes to theological issues that have a Southern Baptist history.

I recommended a good book for you to start with. Are you saying you have no desire to study your own denomination's history?

Why would history make a difference?

Baptist History gives one an understanding of the past heritage of the Baptist faith. It answers questions like why is there even a Baptist Church? What did early Baptists believe about the Bible? How did we arrive today at the theological positions we hear preached from our pulpits? Is there a Baptist Doctrinal Core that all Baptists can agree on?
And in the context of the current debate over Calvinism - How has Calvinism impacted the Southern Baptist Convention - 1845-2007?

Am I lobbying for "Tradition" over scripture? Absolutely not. What I am lobbying for is truth. And the Truth is that many good Southern Baptists have been Calvinists - Past and Present, and furthermore a theological system that has been espoused by Southern Baptist giants of the past should not be so easily dismissed today by Modern SBC'ers who readily admit they do not know the historical roots of their own church.

I find your points to be true in your own mind but especially when it comes to this whole idea of regeneration I think you go far beyond the position of even R.G. Lee or Adrian Rogers.

No, not everyone now is dumber than our predecessors about the Bible but conversely not everyone now is smarter than our predecessors either.

When it comes to airplanes are you interested in aviation or are you just interested in a career of flying airplanes Monday through Friday? I'll bet it's the former.

And because you fly a modern airplane do you consider yourself a better pilot than Charles Linbergh? I'll bet your answer is no.

So it is with many of us who are Pastors in the SBC. We love Christ, We love our Calling, We love our Church, past, present and future tense. And we feel like we have a solemn duty not only to Baptize new Baptists but also to connect them with the rich heritage and rich tradition of their new Church home.

 

This ocncept is so simple. I don't know how anyone can miss it.
There were hundreds of thousands present on the Day of Pentecost (not just 3,000). Peter lifted up his voice, full of the Holy Spirit and preached unto them. 3,000 did not resist the Holy Spirit and were saved and baptized. However thousands did resist the Holy Spirit, and even mocked. There certainly was a resistance aganst the Holy Spirit among the unsaved. These were the same Jews that crucified the Lord Jesus Christ and in no way could be considered saved.

The Jews that stoned Stephen resisted the Holy Spirit. If you read the text the exact words are used. They resisted the Holy Ghost (7:51) That blows to pieces any theory of irresistable grace. Unbelievers can resist the Holy Spirit. Just because a Jew belongs to the naton of Israel does not automatically make him saved. Otherwise they would not have crucified our Lord.

Ananais and Sapphira were believers. They also resisted the Holy Spirit. Not only did they resist him, Peter said: Why do you lie unto the Holy Ghost?" That seems to be even more serious a crime. There is resistance again. How say ye that there is no reistance against the Holy Spirit. The Bible is replete with such examples. I cuold fill one entire page with examples. But really, do I have to waste so much bandwith to convince you of such?

 

Irresistible grace does not teach that unbelievers can never resist the Holy Spirit, or "that there is no resistance against the Holy Spirit."

It simply says that there is an effectual call that is always successful in bringing someone to Christ.

 

A paragraph from Pink

There are some false conclusions here.
First of all, though it is common to pit the Calvinist against the Arminian, and assume that all who are not Calvinists are Arminians, such is not the case. It is possible to be neither Calvinist nor Arminian. There is error in both camps, as the true Arminian believes that one can lose their salvation which is also an unbiblical doctrine.
Secondly, Pink states that the one who yields to the convicting power of the Holy Spirit…has ground for boasting and self-glorying over his cooperation with the Spirit. How he arrives at this conclusion I don’t know. Throughout the Bible we have many examples of believers that yielded to the Holy Spirit and thus were saved; and there were others who resisted the Holy Spirit and were thus condemned. In fact Paul shook the dust off his feet from such and turned to the Gentiles who were more receptive to the gospel. On the Day of Pentecost that was great conviction of the Spirit.
Acts 2:37 “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
They were “pricked in their heart,” meaning greatly convicted of the Holy Spirit. No one has ever suggested that those who were saved on the Day of Pentecost cooperated with the Holy Spirit, thus making salvation based on works, as Pink suggests.
He maintains that, if this were the case.\, Eph.2:8 would be negated: “For by grace are ye saved” Were those on the Day of Pentecost saved by grace or not? Let Pink decide that for himself. They were convicted when they heard the Word of God, believed what they heard, and were saved, baptized, and added to the church (2:41). This is grace not works.

In all cases there is conviction of sin before salvation. No one disputes that.

 

What she said.

 

It seems to me the whole debate over irresistable grace boils down to one issue.

What causes a person to believe in Jesus Christ unto Salvation?

1. Is it the overwhelming Conviction of the Holy Spirit so that it is all of God?

2. Or is it the universal conviction of the Holy Spirit so that one man hears and resists it and another man hears it and receives it by faith?

If it is the latter then it must be something in the man who receives it by faith that is not present in the other man who resists it.

Is it Knowledge? Is it a stronger spirituality? Is it a predisposition to the gospel that the other does not have?

The Calvinist (And I use the word as Spurgeon used it to denote those who believe in the doctrines of Grace not those who follow Calvin) believes that it is number 1. Salvation is all of God.

Sure man responds - The Witness of the Spirit is so powerful he cannot refuse and indeed does not refuse. That is the testimony of every believer. If he could have resisted he would have resisted. Bottom line is that no Believer successfully resisted the Spirit in the moment he was saved.

Now saved persons can resist the Holy Spirit. Paul tells us not to Quench the Spirit in saved lives.

Lost people always resist the Holy Spirit and continue to do so until the moment they are saved if they are ever saved.

 

I'm aware that "those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." We even repeat it when we know history! :laugh:

Fact is right now I am reading a Catholic friend's materials trying to figure out WHY he would convert to RCC!!

This, to me, is the most important. It speaks directly to Eph 4 "unity of the Spirit"salvation and "unity of the knowledge and faith of Christ" Christian growth in grace. One thing I believe, though, is that history can make us rely on tradition more than scripture. It happened to the Catholics; it's happening to the Calvinists. The teaching of a few men trumping the teaching of the Spirit.

But doesn't studying history to you just highlight our MISTAKES? It's not nearly HIStory and it is MENStory, right?

And I would agree. I know for a fact that Adrian thought the soul was the mind, emotions and will rather than those being the spirit of man and God (he got 'em backwards). But where is man regenerated? In his SOUL. That was the part that died when sin entered (Ezek 18:20)! The spirit (mind, emotions, will) didn't die so why would it have to be reborn??

I'm a former FedEx DC-10 Captain. Not my first love as this board has demonstrated to me. But God has been good -- I was once an Eastern Airline B-727 Captain and didn't think I would have a retirement ahead.

Oh, absolutely YES!! Are you kidding?? He was more courage that skill! What did he know about precision approaches in 0/0 weather?? Your comparison lacks the same thing as your history case does -- there have been HUGE advances in knowledge since "the good ole days!!"

It's no doubt critical for you to know your history but many of us can get by on the NT and a smattering of OT. Still, we love you guys so long as you don't lead us astray!!

skypair

 

But apparently less "efficacious" in overcoming their resistance once they are saved, right? How in the world does that make sense to you???

skypair

 

:applause: :applause: :applause: AMEN!! I'm quoting you again so everyone will get a chance to REread your rationale!

skypair

 

ABSOLUTELY! Let's go with that!

Does conviction require thought? comparison of self to God's standards? Does conviction call for US to make a decision or not?

YES! He convicts EVERYONE. EVERYONE starts at this "square one."

NO, again you missed it. The "something" you speak of would be some "merit" that one has that God "sees" and that another doesn't have, hardy. You're saying that one man already has the indwelling Spirit, clearly something God saw in him that He didn't see in the other.

Then it is NOT all of God. Can't you admit it? Your mistake is sotierology, hardshell. The Spirit is powerful to convict EVERYONE but not irresistible to any. Here's proof: If He was irresistible to the elect, then they would never sin again -- and that irresistibly!

WHAT?? I could and I did several times! Know why? Same as most, I didn't believe at first -- I considered the negative consequences of having to "obey" and being seen as a "goodie two shoes." I considered having to clean up my life -- that I didn't deserve salvation so why would God save me. How do you account for this resistance and say that "he would have resisted if he could have?"

Yeah, that makes sense! :BangHead: While he was totally depraved, dead in sin, couldn't save himself he had to respond to the Spirit but now that he is saved, he can resist??

You're saying the same thing as free will does here. Everyone can be saved. There is no regeneration prior to a decision to repent.

Don't get me wrong, hardshell. I think you are practicing/preaching free will but teaching Calvinism.

skypair

 

Sky P....

It's obvious you have missed something very critical in your understanding of the nature of man.

We'll have to go back to the OT to refresh your mind or perhaps this is history that you haven't studied yet. :laugh:

Mankind lost something in the Garden of Eden. He lost his daily fellowship and relationship with God. He lost his innocence when he sinned. He lost his "free" will and became ensnared in sin or enslaved to sin and all men since Adam have been born in sin and thus all become active sinners - as evidenced by the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:23.

Here's a chart that I know you'll be able to comprehend.

Pre-Fall Man > Able to Not Sin + Able to Sin < Adam had a Free Will
Post-Fall Man > Able to Sin + Unable to Not Sin < Enslaved Will Not Free
Saved Man > Able to Not Sin + Able to Sin < Free Will Restored in salvation
Glorified Man > Able to Not Sin + Unable to Sin < Glorified Will

This is why a nonsaved person can resist the Holy Spirit up until the moment he is saved and also why a saved person can resist the Holy Spirit after he is saved.

It is a matter of the Nature of Man.

The crux of the argument between Calvinists and Arminians is the question

- Did Man lose his Free Will in the Garden of Eden?

Calvinists say Yes - Arminians say No. And all their theology flows from that spring.

 

Try to keep it simple.

Let's see what Adam really lost, shall we?

1) "He lost his daily fellowship and relationship with God. He lost his innocence when he sinned." This would mean, to me, that Adam's SOUL, where he communed with Gog and where his innocent conscience resided, died immediately. Now if you have studied Calvinism any, you know that they can't/don't distinguish between soul that dies immediately and spirit that dies progressivesly (Or, when saved, grows in sanctification progressively).

So here's the upshot of that nuance --- that we die in our soul when we sin (Ezek 18:20) but we don't die in our spirit (mind, emotions, and will). That is, our spirit is still capable, like Adam's, of hearing God and either hiding or responding. If we hide, our spirits/heart harden to God as they progressively sin more and more. This is where Pharoah was hardened, right?

2) " He lost his "free" will and became ensnared in sin or enslaved to sin and all men since Adam have been born in sin and thus all become active sinners..." This is just Calvin and his buddies playin' mind games on you, hardy. Let's break it down --

a) Adam's will was still free post-fall. In fact, he now knew both evil and good (more choices, not less). Before, evil was only a potentialiality associated with an innocent tree.

b) He wasn't "enslaved" by sin. That's another false teaching because God came right away, found him, and gave Adam and Eve the remedy. Is a saved person enslaved to sin anymore? No.

c) We are not born with sin guilt. We are born in judicial innocence (Ezek 18:20) before God with a predeliction to sin called "sin nature." Sin develops later from our misapplication of our instincts of SELF protection. Do you believe we have a "survival instinct?" Do you see that the focus there is on self? Do you see how survival behavior wrongly applied as, say greed, is suddenly sin?

Now this is patently false. Could Adam not hear and obey God when He did come looking? He hesitated/hid (which was sin) but then answered (which was "not sin"), right? He was already able to sin or not sin, hardshell.

Free will rules throughout so far as I can see. And you are saying that only a saved man has free will?

All that it proves to me is that you can't tell a saved person by their choices.

Not so fast, hardy. Calvinists say you have no free will to opt out of your salvation, right? And Arminians say you do. So even those lines show a misunderstanding of free will, friend.

skypair

 

Sky P....

Wow! For one not to have studied Baptist History you sure have studied some wierd theology from somebody's past.

I don't know what kind it is but I do know this - It ain't Baptist.

Seems to me you are in the wrong church!

--------------------------------------------------

So define Free Will for me since you obviously don't believe I know what it is.

And tell me how if everyone has one that nobody winds up "not sinning."

Seems to me if everyone had a free will there would be at least a few in every town who managed to make all the right choices since that's obviously all one has to do to be saved, just exercise their free will and believe on the "knowledge" they have been presented.

Sounds like somebody doctored your Iced Tea with some Church of Christ theology.