irresistible grace

[Raquel]

If God's grace is irresistible then why do we (all of humanity) resist on a daily basis?

[Carl Gobelman]

J. Matthew Barnes said:

If God's grace is only irresistible to the elect, then its not really irresistible.

Not sure what you mean by this? Can you elaborate? To me, it's irresistible because those to whom it is extended will always respond.

[James Gibbons]

So He commands all Men to repent, because he prescribes that all none should be lost, but then He, in His sovereign will, commands that only some will receive grace, which is irresistible? Can you give any other evidence, in the documented history of the character of God, in which he simultaneously works against Himself?

Where else does He say, I want this to happen, so I am going to cause that other thing to happen, in a way that absolutely prevents the possibility that what I said I wanted could possibly come to pass?

[Carl Gobelman]

Rey Reynoso said:

Yeah Carl, like I said: an irrefutable doctrine in response to the Remonstrants charge. It makes the 5-Points air tight but it doesn't make them right.

Each and every single point of 5 (or even 7?) point calvinism is completely irrefutable and ultimately uses an illogical (and once again irrefutable) defeater used out of context. (1) Who are you to talk back to God and (2) people only believe this because of their man-centered doctrine.

IG hangs from the nail of TD which ensures no one would believe without IG...

Rey,

I guess I will turn the tables...assume IG and all of 5-point Calvinism is not true. Explain how a "spiritually dead" person can respond to the gospel (cf. Ephesians 2:1-10)? To me, "dead" means "dead." According to Arminianism, spiritually "dead" really means spiritually "I'm not quite dead yet" (think of Monty Python's the Holy Grail).

I think of IG somewhat like Jesus and Lazarus. Lazarus was DEAD, four days DEAD. He was not coming out of his grave until Jesus called him forth. That, to me, is a perfect picture of the sinner; spiritually DEAD and incapable of responding to spiritual truth and reality.

Maybe the "irrefutable-ness" of the doctrine doesn't appeal to you, but does that necessitate that it's wrong?

YBIC,
Carl

[Ratatösk]

The issues revolving around predestination have a long history of being discussed in the western church; but I believe they rose to cardinal prominence at the time of the Reformation because Pelagianism became the great anti-gospel.

If the Xian gospel is (as Warfield claimed) that God saves sinners- directly, immediately, and in an absolutely monergistic way, then any allowance of effort, contribution or even response poises a threat to the gospel.

In other words, saying that God saves people who look to him for mercy (or cry out to him, or seek after him, or.... whatever) doesn't solve the problem of works righteousness because God, in the end, saves people based upon a difference found within them- even if that difference is simply faith.

Without a robust 5 points, Justification By Faith Alone is simply another form of Works Righteousness.

With a robust 5 points we can require that a sinner believe... and repent, be baptized, etc- all the while affirming that its really God's doing. Now that, indeed, may be the case (although I don't think that it is), but I think the felt earnestness that is attached to the position's defence is all wrong headed.

Pelagianism (while certainly wrong) is not the gospel's great arch-enemy.

Idols are.

[Char]

Of course grace is irresistible. You receive life without asking. You receive rain without being able to stop it. You are given food, shelter, etc. If you are pardoned for a transgression you are pardoned-you can't force an un-pardoning. All are acts of grace for sinners-and we don't resist the blessings in our lives, in fact we take them happily. However I don't see why it should be necessary that grace must always manifest itself in exactly the same way for every person, doesn't scripture in fact say we receive in different measures?

[Carl Gobelman]

James Gibbons said:

So He commands all Men to repent, because he prescribes that all none should be lost, but then He, in His sovereign will, commands that only some will receive grace, which is irresistible? Can you give any other evidence, in the documented history of the character of God, in which he simultaneously works against Himself?

Where else does He say, I want this to happen, so I am going to cause that other thing to happen, in a way that absolutely prevents the possibility that what I said I wanted could possibly come to pass?

Why does God have to be working against himself? I guess I don't see it. It's not a case of "I want A, I'm going to do B." It's more of "My plan is to do B, even though I wish I could do A."

As I understand Scripture, God's sovereign plan (as revealed in Scripture) was to save only a "few." If God REALLY wanted to save all, then it would be done, right? What's to stop him? Nothing as far as I'm concerned. Scripture says explicitly that God has mercy on whom he has mercy. Translated: He saves whom he wishes. This is irrefutable (sorry, Rey).

The desire that all come to repentence, to me, shows God's compassion and regret at having to see the unredeemed perish.

YBIC,
Carl

[James Gibbons]

John 6:29: Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

So, there is a work involved in believing, right? So, I do have to respond to grace in order to be saved, right? So it does require that I do something about it, right? So I do have the option of not believing, right? I do have the option of resisting the grace, and accepting the eternal torment, right? Have I overreached in my reading of this verse? When, Jesus called my believing “the work of God,” was He just blowing smoke? Was He exagerating? Is this verse not inspired? Is this Socractic (question) thing cool, or what?

[Rey Reynoso]

But Carl, you didn't turn the tables: you still have your defeater in place. If I really remove IG then it would have to mean that God's grace can be resisted which would necessitate people be able to hear the Gospel and respond to it. If what is necessitated is true then the meaning of Spiritually Dead is completely wrong impacting the traditional meaning of TD.

As for the illustration of Lazarus, it is awesome: its a perfect example of Christ being both the resurrection and the Life, reinforcing the point of John 5, reinforcing the point that salvation is found in no other. But it isn't an example of TD like people keep using. It's just as bad as Arminians using John 9 to prove man working and God working in salvation.

Now as to irrefutable doctrine, yeah I do have a problem with a doctrine that uses circular reason to prove itself, a few key proof texts and then (to follow through on its "logical" conclusions) points out how you can't disprove it in reality because it is what it is. Here's an example we would reject outright:

"All quigglemyers evolved into dogs and that's why there's no more quigglemyers around anymore."

"But is there proof for a quigglemyer?"

"Yes, Dog DNA."

"But that doesn't make sense. I mean, is there any prior proof of a quigglemyer."

"Of course there is...but they've all become dogs."

"So the reason quigglemyers must've existed is because today we have dogs."

"Exactly."

It's Phil's Oystery at its finest.

[Ratatösk]

I'm pretty sure I was abducted by aliens once...I'm sure you'll want evidence. Well, I have the best: I don't remember a thing.

You see, Aliens have these Ray Guns that wipe clean any recollection of abduction... and I don't remember ever (ever) being abducted.

Have you ever been Abducted? Careful ...

[Rey Reynoso]

Phil James said:

I'm pretty sure I was abducted by aliens once...I'm sure you'll want evidence. Well, I have the best: I don't remember a thing.

You see, Aliens have these Ray Guns that wipe clean any recollection of abduction... and I don't remember ever (ever) being abducted.

Have you ever been Abducted? Careful ...

exactly.

[Carl Gobelman]

Rey Reynoso said:

But Carl, you didn't turn the tables: you still have your defeater in place. If I really remove IG then it would have to mean that God's grace can be resisted which would necessitate people be able to hear the Gospel and respond to it. If what is necessitated is true then the meaning of Spiritually Dead is completely wrong impacting the traditional meaning of TD.

As for the illustration of Lazarus, it is awesome: its a perfect example of Christ being both the resurrection and the Life, reinforcing the point of John 5, reinforcing the point that salvation is found in no other. But it isn't an example of TD like people keep using. It's just as bad as Arminians using John 9 to prove man working and God working in salvation.

Now as to irrefutable doctrine, yeah I do have a problem with a doctrine that uses circular reason to prove itself, a few key proof texts and then (to follow through on its "logical" conclusions) points out how you can't disprove it in reality because it is what it is. Here's an example we would reject outright:

"All quigglemyers evolved into dogs and that's why there's no more quigglemyers around anymore."

"But is there proof for a quigglemyer?"

"Yes, Dog DNA."

"But that doesn't make sense. I mean, is there any prior proof of a quigglemyer."

"Of course there is...but they've all become dogs."

"So the reason quigglemyers must've existed is because today we have dogs."

"Exactly."

It's Phil's Oystery at its finest.

Rey,

Nice counter!

However, it doesn't seem that you've answered the question. Using your logic, ALL arguments will ultimately devolve into circularity, won't they? There will always come a point where we cannot refer back to a prior argument. Certain things are axiomatic and require no proof.

For example: God exixts as the Unmoved Mover (to borrow from Aristotle). He is the ultimate cause of all motion and is himself unmoved. Basically, this amounts to saying God is eternally self-existent and needs no explanation of his existence. That is an example of your "irrefutable" argument, is it not? Do you deny that God is self-existent and thus needs no prior cause to explain him? I don't, and I don't think you do either.

IG, and the other 5 points, are more than a bunch of "irrefutable" arguments with a handful of proof texts. To me it they are just the best explanation of the Biblical data taken in total. I do see a lot of invitations to respond to the gospel, but I don't see any Scripture that indicates that, without experiencing spiritual re-birth, we CAN respond to the gospel. If you know of any, I would be happy to explore it with you. To me, it's axiomatic to say that a spiritually dead person cannot respond to spiritual truth; just as much as it's axiomatic that a physically dead person can respond to physical stimuli.

Just my POV! I don't think this is going to be one of those arguments where either of us will cave, but it's nice to have a friendly debate, no?

Still YBIC,
Carl

[James Gibbons]

Phil James said:

I'm pretty sure I was abducted by aliens once...I'm sure you'll want evidence. Well, I have the best: I don't remember a thing.

You see, Aliens have these Ray Guns that wipe clean any recollection of abduction... and I don't remember ever (ever) being abducted.

Have you ever been Abducted? Careful ...

Irresistible alien grace?