irresistible grace

[Raquel]

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

[Char]

So Rey everyone who defends irresistible grace ultimately must do so by saying other people are unregenerate? Funny I didn't really see that here. What about those who think the bible actually teaches this? It may be surprising but some of us really do think so. Can no one hold a contra position honestly and only because they feel that is what the scriptures say?

Isn't that a little disingenuous and kind of like saying every one who disagrees is unregenerate and man-centred?

[Jack]

Rey; could you please re-state that: either 1 or 2 Statement? It left me scratching my head. The Geezer is more confused than usual!

Rey Reynoso said:

Kerygma, yeah I wouldn't say that other doctrines are good because they're slightly unprovable (although that would be part of it) I'm saying that other doctrines are open to examination. The possibility of refutation exists if the examination shows that things were not properly gathered. There's a possibility of employing some semper reformada.

IG can't be refuted without refuting the rest of the system and that only because one is (1) unregenerate or (2) man-centered and fleshly

I have a problem with any doctrine that makes its last line of defense the same as that of the cults. I'm going to get flak for that, no doubt.

[Rey Reynoso]

I'm sorry Char but I didn't say only unregenerate: it could also be because somewhere we're compromising the Gospel and have shifted closer to Man than God. Be it a more Arminian position or a more Synergistic position or even an outright Pelagian position. These are all nasty charges when one shifts from Calvinism and they're more than merely pejorative: they're making a person out to be an enemy of the Gospel.

That's why I said "or man-centered" as my second option of charges. I TOTALLY believe that many people believe that the Bible teaches Calvinism: I have no problem with that. Heck, I applaud it. I believed it (though I didn't call it Calvinism). My brother believes it (though he's closer to a form of fatalism more than anything).

Char, what I have a real problem with (1) People who believe it because they've always believed it; (2) People who believe it because some theologian presented a theological package really nicely; (3) People who believe it because doing otherwise is somehow Christo-socially unacceptable and (4) when the defense of the doctrine dips into the theology itself to prove itself and (5) the oft-raised charge that ultimately drops like an H-Bomb. Sproul does it in his book. Horton does it in his book. I'm already twice damned by a sporadic poster on Theologica.

Look, I have no problem with folk saying "I really think this is what Scripture teaches." What I have a problem is with folk refusing to take the cues from Scripture and coming up with theological constructs to justify the position by taking a side-step into the throne room of God and making calls that Scripture didn't see fit to reveal.

And no, I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with me is unregenerate or man-centered. Anyone can believe otherwise and I have no problem with saying "Yes you are a sister in Christ and yes, you are a brother in Christ."

Incidentally it might be that Calvinism is true and that this is the way it works: one must first believe it then the texts make sense. Maybe.

[ScottL]

Round and round here we go, where we land nobody knows. This is fun to watch. I might do an inny-minny-miney-mo (sp?) to choose my side. :)

I love that the Bible gives paradox, systematic theology does have holes, and God just smiles at our discussions of that which is ultimately unsystematizeable and not 100% definable.

So - round and round here we go, where we land nobody knows!

Love you guys.

[Kevin]

I read Nicole's response and couldn't agree more. But to answer the heart of your question (why we resist), the answer is because we are nothing more than sheep...

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:6

[Char]

For the record Rey I was not claiming that you said Calvinists were unregenerate, but that your assertion that Calvinists use cultic arguments to defend themselves is the same type of argument as those who say non-Calvinists are man-centred. That is you are guilty and you can't possibly think what you do for any reason but this negative one. I am glad you don't really think this is always so, yet you seem to broad brush Calvinists as this or that often enough.

In my own case I did not start with the system as a presupposition but found it especially in the OT, and then I found out there were actually other people who saw this too. I had to learn everything the hard way as I did not have someone else telling me this is what it means. And I consider that more of a detriment than anything.

I think there are indeed tensions in every system of biblical interpretation simply because God has in fact revealed himself that way to force us to rely on him in faith. I don't think it is necessary to be the most consistent but we strive to be most consistent with what he says.

[Rey Reynoso]

Char said:

For the record Rey I was not claiming that you said Calvinists were unregenerate, but that your assertion that Calvinists use cultic arguments to defend themselves is the same type of argument as those who say non-Calvinists are man-centred. That is you are guilty and you can't possibly think what you do for any reason but this negative one. I am glad you don't really think this is always so, yet you seem to broad brush Calvinists as this or that often enough.

In my own case I did not start with the system as a presupposition but found it especially in the OT, and then I found out there were actually other people who saw this too. I had to learn everything the hard way as I did not have someone else telling me this is what it means. And I consider that more of a detriment than anything.

I think there are indeed tensions in every system of biblical interpretation simply because God has in fact revealed himself that way to force us to rely on him in faith. I don't think it is necessary to be the most consistent but we strive to be most consistent with what he says.

Yeah, I'm sorry if I give that impression. Tremendously sorry actually.

[Raquel]

I wonder... what Biblical evidence is there that shows that once God reaches out, we cannot resist?

[Char]

Numbers. :)

[J. Matthew Barnes]

The rich, young ruler resisted even Jesus himself.

[Ratatösk]

Raquel, the story (as I remember it) is that He reaches out in two different ways. One attempt to grasp you is sincere (and so it irresistibly works) and the other....

[Jack]

Phil; You suggest that God makes un-sincere offers. The Gospel offer is true to all:" Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Whosoever will may drink the water of life, freely!" If the sinner hates God, and loves sin so much, that he refuses God's gracious offer, that's the sinner's fault...not the genuine offer's fault!
Put the blame where it belongs! On sinful Man!
Geezer

Phil James said:

Raquel, the story (as I remember it) is that He reaches out in two different ways. One attempt to grasp you is sincere (and so it irresistibly works) and the other....