Does God allow His grace to be resisted by humans or is it irresistible?

[Uber Genius]

I don't understand how God's sovereignty is emasculated because he has foreknowledge or how He would be more potent when human cooperation (congruism) is required for His plan to come to fruition?

Neither do I.

Did you mean LESS potent when human cooperation is required?

 

[Uber Genius]

this is foolish as this presumes God is dangling his incoming gracious acts before men so that they can make a decision before God proceeds (or not) with his gracious actions. "Resisting grace" is a logical construct totally not supported in scripture.

You seem to disagree with the conundrum theory. So on your view God forces men to act, in fact it is "foolish" to presume God allows men to choose Christ.

Did you ever ask yourself, or your teachers, "Why did the NT writers spend so much time appealing to men to accept the message of the Gospel and be saved, if those authors knew that "Grace was irresistible?"

Why do we need Acts 2, 4, 9,10, 13-19?

Everywhere the apostles go they are appealing to men with rational arguments and evidence. Almost as if they were free rational agents (like the Trinity). Why does Paul inveigh against those who have turned away from the Gospel if he knows what you know that it is impossible for men to either choose or reject the Gospel. The answer is God predestined (fated) them to choose or reject the Gospel. No complaints could be lodged by Paul if he understood the resistibility as you do.

In Acts 17 we meet the Bereans.

One Calvinist commentator says of them:

"These Bereans exhibited several positive characteristics that marked their response to the gospel message. First and foremost, the Bereans were “more noble” because of their willing reception of the Word of God. Unlike the unbelieving Thessalonian Jews, the Bereans were eager to hear the teaching of Paul and Silas.

Second, the Bereans examined what they heard by comparing it to the Old Testament Scriptures. The fact that they honestly listened and conducted further personal research led many Bereans to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. This expansion of Christianity was not limited to those within the synagogue, but also extended to many Greek men and women in Berea."

for more see (https://www.gotquestions.org/who-Bereans.html)

The point is why is Paul commending men who don't have the will to examine the scriptures?

This is an example of what Calvinists call semi-pelagianism or a description of the work of salvation as God and human beings work together to bring about regeneration. Men and women seek God and then God responds with His grace.

In fact Arminians like Charles Wesley would say that God provides a work of the Holy Spirit that draws men and enables them to see false beliefs (there is no god, or "I'm a good person"), and acquire new beliefs (Jesus died on the cross for my sins, He is calling me to make him Lord). He calls this concept prevenient Grace and argues that it is applied to all.

It is hard to argue against God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that WHOEVER shall believe him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Not "whoever GOD elected" shall follow mindlessly and fatalistically like a zombie or a robot.

Again, John 1:12, "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

All who what? Received him.

Received ; "seize, take hold of, pick up; welcome, accept,"

Hmm now those sound like action verbs.

However, In order for me to receive something, something has to be given.

On your inference, no one receives the Gospel. No one can. They don't have free will to accept it.

John further makes the mistake of putting it into a future subjunctive conditional statement.

Did someone receive (Action requiring free will)? Yes

Then they will be given the right to become children of God.

Else

They will not be given the right to become children of God.

Who is providing the action of receiving?

Men are.

We have a problem here in that Calvinism does not explain the types of actions the NT authors describe in the soteriological texts of the NT. It explains the work of the HS and Jesus and the Father but has no explanation for hundreds of passages that hold people responsible for seriously considering the offer of salvation. Attempts by scholars to resolve this incoherence have been to eisegete (read into passages) "the elect" as a synonym to "all." I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.

Paul's charge to Timothy in 1 Tim. 1:18,19

" Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme."

Fight
Holding on to faith
rejected

Whether it is acquiring belief in Christ, or
Maintaining belief,
we have an active role to play.

One must disrespect the text of the NT in order to make the scriptures comply with the Calvinist inference.

My claim is there is no way one can examine all the data of the NT and make the claim that people don't have a responsibility to receive, study, investigate, examine, choose, accept true beliefs, reject false beliefs.

It is only through cherry-picking the Biblical data, and abusing the prima facie meaning of these subjunctive conditionals that one can produce a monergistic soteriology.

 

[drich0150]

I believe God is fully Sovereign. Frankly, I don't see an option to this, because if God isn't fully Sovereign, He can't bring about the end that He promised. In fact, none of a less-than-sovereign god's promises could be trusted.

What if God choose to not act as a full sovereign? Was Jesus playing the role of a full sovereign when He was here?? maybe the pharisees thought as you do.. If God is not fully Sovereign He can't be God... maybe that what Got them in so much trouble with Him..

(they did not understand God never identifies Himself as Fully Sovereign, yet they assigned Him the role. meaning God had to be King/monarch all the time. Jesus wasn't. why? because real sovereign powers will afford the holder of said powers to also be the son of a carpenter.. Maybe that is why God identifies as an alpha and omega.. we glance over this term and not understand the power and finality of it. to be first is to Claim or concoure the omega is the final authority, meaning he has final say. this is the most powerful title of all. To be an alpha and omega means he has so much sovereignty God can show up as a schlepper or a carpenter sons, and no one can say boo about it. The pharisees ignored or did not understand what an alpha and omega was and like you only looked for the crown, they never got to know who the king was.

So be careful with absolutes like the one you just made or God WILL Sneak by you like a thief in the night.

Yet, I also believe God has, by His sovereign choice, allowed His grace to be resistible, because as He shared, through His Son to the woman at the well, He wants "those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth."

then I see you 'think' apart from the bible here as well.. If Jesus' Grace was irresistible then why did the pharisees and the makers of the law resist him? Why did he have to fashion a cord of whips together to chase them out of the temple? Couldn't he even persuade them to not do what they were doing? He couldn't even persuade all of his deciples of who he was and what he was to accomplish, because when push came to shove only ONE stood by his side. one denied him, one betrayed him, one even after he was resurrected by witness of the others still could not believe till he saw him for himself.

In truth there are many many example of Christ being ignored or at the least not believed to the point of action. Honestly I think the only reason John stayed was to see Jesus call those 10,000 angels and wipe rme off the map. despite all that he said none of them expected him to really die!

Jesus as the alpha and omega decided to come as a nobody SO people could brush him off. Why? He did not want to compel worship if it was not already in your heart. This was done to Call God children Home not just anyone.

As I read the Scriptures, God will have the full number He has ordained (demonstrating His Sovereignty over all); but which of us will be among that number is something He has left to us.

Do you believe:

(1) God has willfully chosen to allow His grace to be resistible by humans? OR
(2) God only truly extends His grace to those He previously chose?

clearly neither..
We are all slaves to sin, however there are those among us who hate our service to sin. Jesus died to pay for those of us who wish to serve God, rather than to serve sin. We as slaves have only been given this one choice to choose freely. all other choices are first filtered through our masters no matter whom we serve.

(3) God makes a resistible grace available to all and an irresistible grace to a subset within that all, so both can come, but the one subset will for sure?

then why didn't Jesus win over nicodemus? remember him? can you imagine Jesus Himself sharing the gospel with you WITH your supposed irresistible grace, and Jesus Himself can win over this soul?

Why not if God grace is irresistible? Remember who's doing the talking here so you can blame the missionary for not having enough faith or whatever lack of nonsense you would normally blame.. because it is Jesus the Christ Himself sharing the gospel, if God's grace was irresistible then why wasn't nicodemus saved? Can't blame nicodemus either read all that he did to meet Christ, which is a site more than any of us would do. (He risked his whole life/status/livelyhood) to go to him and tell Christ He knew He came from God as no one could do what he does without God.

In the end we know why nicodemus refused Jesus and why so many other will also refuse cHrist. Jesus Himself tell us/ tells nicodemus why he does not convert...

Look past the pre programed take of john 3:16 and start at 18
18 People who believe in God’s Son are not judged guilty. But people who do not believe are already judged, because they have not believed in God’s only Son.19 They are judged by this fact: The light has come into the world. But they did not want light. They wanted darkness, because they were doing evil things. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light. They will not come to the light, because the light will show all the bad things they have done. 21 But anyone who follows the true way comes to the light. Then the light will show that whatever they have done was done through God

What Scriptures do you use to support your view?[/QUOTE]
According to Jesus there are simply evil men in this world who because of their darkness shy away from the light. even religious men like nicodemus. which throws the whole idea of irresistible grace in the garbage. Again Christ's words here not mine, also Christ work/example of sharing the gospel to one in the darkness who turn from the light, not my work. Again if God's grace is irresistible then why did the pharisees resist it? (including nicodemus who was willing to admit that Jesus was sent by God?)

 

[Geralt]

'forces men to act' ? ridiculous.
everyone in their normal sanity chooses what they desire the most WITHIN their level of understanding.

You seem to disagree with the conundrum theory. So on your view God forces men to act, in fact it is "foolish" to presume God allows men to choose Christ.

 

[Uber Genius]

'forces men to act' ? ridiculous.
everyone in their normal sanity chooses what they desire the most WITHIN their level of understanding.

So please reconcile the conundrum of,

1 - ""Resisting grace" is a logical construct totally not supported in scripture."

2 - rediculous. "Everyone chooses."

Either 1 - it is impossible to resist

Or 2 - everyone chooses.

These are mutually exclusive.

Either grace is out of man's ability to resist as you suggested in your earlier post, OR

Grace is a function of one's choice as you suggest in your second post.

No married bachelors please.

 

[Geralt]

i already wrote it in post #70, you seemed to intentionally skipped it.

You cannot resist what you are NOT AWARE is happening. So even if you can CHOOSE, you cannot choose something beyond your level of understanding and awareness.

your statement 'impossible to resist' already PRESUMES everyone is aware when God gracious actions actually happens.

check your presumptions, that is where your error is.

So please reconcile the conundrum of,

1 - ""Resisting grace" is a logical construct totally not supported in scripture."

2 - rediculous. "Everyone chooses."

Either 1 - it is impossible to resist

Or 2 - everyone chooses.

These are mutually exclusive.

Either grace is out of man's ability to resist as you suggested in your earlier post, OR

Grace is a function of one's choice as you suggest in your second post.

No married bachelors please.

 

[Uber Genius]

i already wrote it in post #70, you seemed to intentionally skipped it.

You cannot resist what you are NOT AWARE is happening. So even if you can CHOOSE, you cannot choose something beyond your level of understanding and awareness.

your statement 'impossible to resist' already PRESUMES everyone is aware when God gracious actions actually happens.

check your presumptions, that is where your error is.

Post #70 says

is not yours and has nothing to do with the comment.

"Impossible to resist" and "everyone chooses" are your quotes not mine and they are like descrbing yourself as a married bachelor.

"You cannot resist what you are NOT AWARE is happening. So even if you can CHOOSE, you cannot choose something beyond your level of understanding and awareness."

This is getting ridiculous.

You can also NOT CHOOSE what you are NOT AWARE OF!!!!

Again incoherent.

 

[Geralt]

it is post 79. but why bother. your thread is getting lazy.