God's action and Man's action?

[Mathetes the kerux]

I know that the classical reformed position is that God does absolutely everything in our salvation.

This seems to stem from the overwhelming sense of our sinfulness and an exhaltation of the glory of God in His divine grace.

That is awesome! These are honorable and great convictions . . .

now a question:

Can we not maintain these convictions and still articulate a response by man? IOW, we can still maintain these high and glorious truths and still affirm that man still needs to respond to the wooing of the Spirit in salvation.

That is, that the Spirit is the first to bridge the gap . . . we indeed could not (depravity). He woos and brings to life the option of response.

Here, however, is where there is a burden upon man. He can choose to ingnore/neglect or he can choose to respond.

This is not to say that we partake in the efficacy of our salvation . . . there is nothing meritorious about it. It is just to say that there is the requirement of a positive response by man to the luring of the Spirit . . .

Anyone?

PS. my faith icon is Pentecostal (which I am theologically) but I attend a Charismatic Reformed church (part of Sovereign Grace Ministries) . . . so I can be called a Penteformed or a Reforcostal!

 

[Elderone]

Here is the explanation of the I in the T U L I P from the Puritan's Mind website.

Irresistible Grace
A grace that cannot be resisted and always works in the manner in which God desires.

Since grace is undeserved by any person, Irresistible Grace teaches that when the Spirit of God is sent to change a person's heart, that person cannot resist the change. This is when the Spirit of God applies the work of Christ to the soul. This does not mean that the person is unwilling to be changed because the Spirit of God is "fighting against them", rather the Spirit changes the heart of stone to beat as a heart of flesh. The change opens the eyes of the spiritually blind to the work of Christ. It is that which the Spirit of God does on his own, previous to any act of man. The Spirit of God will accomplish what He is sent out to do and will not be frustrated in His work of changing the sinner's heart. There are two types of calling upon people, external and internal. The external calling is the preaching of the Word to men's physical ears. The internal is the Spirit of God changing the heart to respond inwardly to the Gospel message. This is the means by which the blood of Christ is applied to the heart and conversion takes place. Here is where the Spirit of God alone draws men to Christ. The Spirit of God then causes the heart of the sinner to be willing to repent of his sins, believe on the Lord Jesus and come to Christ.​

John 6:37, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;"
John 5:21, "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will."
John 10:16, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."
Romans 8:29-30, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
John 3:3, "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (See tract on Regeneration.)
Acts 13:48, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
Ephesians 1:19-20, "And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,"
1 Corinthians 4:7, "For who maketh thee to differ from another?".
Puritan Quotations on Irresistible Grace:
"So that, you see, the Spirit of God, where it works in men, though they live in different places, yet they shall all believe the same truth and all receive the same faith." Christopher Love
"The internal call is when the Spirit of God accompanies the outward administration of the Word to call a man from ignorance to knowledge, and a state of nature to a state of grace." Christopher Love
"Calling is the gathering of men together in Christ so they may be united with Him." William Ames
"The passive receiving of Christ is the process by which a spiritual principle of grace is generated in the will of man." William Ames
"The inward offer is a kind of spiritual enlightenment, whereby the promises are presented to the hearts of men, as it were, by an inward word." William Ames
"That there is such a thing as a spiritual and divine light immediately imparted to the soul by God, of a different nature from any that is obtained by natural means." Jonathan Edwards
"As the prejudices that are in the heart, against the truth of divine things,
are hereby removed; so that the mind becomes susceptive of the due force of rational arguments for their truth. The mind of man is naturally full of prejudices against the truth of divine things: it is full of enmity against the doctrines of the gospel; which is a disadvantage to those arguments that prove their truth, and causes them to lose their force upon the mind. But when a person has discovered to him the divine excellency of Christian doctrines, this destroys the enmity, removes those prejudices, and sanctifies the reason, and causes it to lie open to the force of arguments for their truth." Jonathan Edwards
"This calling is an act of the grace of God in Christ by which he calls men dead in sin and lost in Adam through the preaching of the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit, to union with Christ and to salvation obtained in him." Francis Turretin
"Adoption gives us the privilege of sons, regeneration the nature of sons." Stephen Charnock
"In the first creation, God made man after His own Image. So in the second creation or regeneration, God doth create men after His own image, in knowledge, righteousness, true holiness, and love."
Vavasor Powell
"Repentance is a change of the mind, and regeneration is a change of the man." Thomas Adams
"There may be several things which may help to make the life fair in the eyes of men; but nothing will make it amiable in the eyes of God, unless the heart be changed and renewed. All the medicines which can be applied, without the sanctifying work of the Spirit, though they may cover, they can never cure the corruption and diseases of the soul."
George Swinnock
​

It is our EGO that has us believe we can resist God. The God of the Bible is irresistible, If He wasn't, He wouldn't be much of a God.

Hope this helps.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I understand irresistable grace . . . but the issue that I have is that man having an opportunity to respond, can, in theory, decide to resist. Would God then force Himself upon this person?

We believe that God wants all to come to Him, right? Not that all will, surely this is not the case. But the possibility, in that God extends His hand toward everyone, that all COULD come to Him exists. Where does that place irresistable grace . . . as articulated above? If He extends His hand to everyone . . . why could some not come (like certain of my family members) if His grace is irresistable? Where does reprobate come in? Unless of course one be hyper-Calvinist . . . to where God makes men for the purpose of going to hell.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I understand irresistable grace . . . but the issue that I have is that man having an opportunity to respond, can, in theory, decide to resist. Would God then force Himself upon this person?

We do resist...as long as we retain our unregenerate spirits that's all we want to do. When God regenerates our spirit, we no longer resist because we don't want to. So, in that sense, we do respond.

We believe that God wants all to come to Him, right? Not that all will, surely this is not the case. But the possibility, in that God extends His hand toward everyone, that all COULD come to Him exists. Where does that place irresistable grace . . . as articulated above? If He extends His hand to everyone . . . why could some not come (like certain of my family members) if His grace is irresistable? Where does reprobate come in? Unless of course one be hyper-Calvinist . . . to where God makes men for the purpose of going to hell.

This is where Limited Atonement comes in...and there is nothing 'hyper' about it. I'll post more on this after the kids are in bed...gotta go read to the little ones right now.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

This is not to say that we partake in the efficacy of our salvation . . . there is nothing meritorious about it. It is just to say that there is the requirement of a positive response by man to the luring of the Spirit . . .

Anyone?

Before I got 'Reformed' and was still semi-pelagian, in the middle of all sorts of bad choices I would make, I found myself saying about 'my decision' to choose Christ that "at least I did that right."

I know we say that there is no boasting about making this one right choice...and we even make ourselves belive it's true...but whether we want to admit it or not, if the bottom line was our choice, then there is room to boast. (When I say we, I mean all humans apart from God's sovereign grace.)

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I understand irresistable grace . . . but the issue that I have is that man having an opportunity to respond, can, in theory, decide to resist. Would God then force Himself upon this person?

John 6:44 says what?

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

We are told in American churches today that this verse means God 'woos' us, and that the Holy Spirit is a gentleman who does not force people against their wills.

Do a little research on this. Check a Strong's and find every other place that the Greek word translated as 'draw' in English is used and tell us the context of every other place the word is used.

We believe that God wants all to come to Him, right? Not that all will, surely this is not the case. But the possibility, in that God extends His hand toward everyone, that all COULD come to Him exists. Where does that place irresistable grace . . . as articulated above? If He extends His hand to everyone . . . why could some not come (like certain of my family members) if His grace is irresistable? Where does reprobate come in? Unless of course one be hyper-Calvinist . . . to where God makes men for the purpose of going to hell.

Here are just a couple of verses:

JN 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep...


JN 10:14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Notice...He lays down His life for the sheep. Not the goats, not the wolves.

EPH 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Notice...Christ gave himself up for the church.

OK...that brings up the question of verses such as

2 PETER 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

What do we do with this?

First, notice that the NIV here is translated differently from the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and all of the older versions. How do the older version translate the verse?

...not willing that any should perish, but that all should be brought to repentance.

What's the difference between the translations? The difference between 'any' and 'anyone'. A big difference. Kind of like Mark Twains' difference between 'lightning' and lightning bug'. Let's take a look at the context...which is crucial to any Scriptural understanding.

Who is Peter writing to? The saints; believers. Take a look at the context of chapter three. "Beloved, I write to you...". "...He is longsuffering toward us..." Put into the proper context, Peter is saying that God is not willing that any (of us...the elect) should perish, but that all (of us...the elect) should come to repentance.

I think that the NIV translators (and translators of most, if not all, of the other newer version) let their doctrinal biases creep into their translations of 2 Peter 3:9.

A case can be made that this same interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 can be made anyplace it seems that the Scriptures teach some sort of universalism.

If we have a proper understanding of total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistable grace, any other conclusion than limited atomement is not logically consistent.

BTW...unless one believes in universalism, or that everybody will be saved in the end, all Christians limit the atonement. The question then becomes...who puts the limits on it? Us or God?

Now...the differnce between this view and hyper-Calvinism...as I understand it...is that in this view God really does call everyone to repent...it's just that nobody will unless they are first regenerated. The hyper-Calvinist will say that God's call only goes out to the elect.

 

[cygnusx1]

We do resist...as long as we retain our unregenerate spirits that's all we want to do.

Basically true , yet there is one exception to this ........ you will find it in the parable of the sower

 

[Elderone]

We do resist...as long as we retain our unregenerate spirits that's all we want to do.

How is it possible to resist something that is NOT offered? The call, Gods word, goes out to all but only the chosen will hear it, through the work of the Holy Spirit. The unregenerate will just not pay any attention. Irresistable Grace is just that.

 

[Jon_]

Can we not maintain these convictions and still articulate a response by man? IOW, we can still maintain these high and glorious truths and still affirm that man still needs to respond to the wooing of the Spirit in salvation.

That is, that the Spirit is the first to bridge the gap . . . we indeed could not (depravity). He woos and brings to life the option of response.

Here, however, is where there is a burden upon man. He can choose to ingnore/neglect or he can choose to respond.

This is not to say that we partake in the efficacy of our salvation . . . there is nothing meritorious about it. It is just to say that there is the requirement of a positive response by man to the luring of the Spirit . . .

Anyone?

This is actually a total rejection of Reformed soteriology. To insist that man has some responsibility, any responsibility in facilitating his own salvation is to say that salvation is dependent on man, in whatever minute proportion that might be. Salvation does not depend on man, but on God alone.

Moreover, it's logically impossible for man to be at all involved in his own salvation, for the heart of unregenerate man is not at all inclined to do anything good. Man's response to the Spirit's "wooing" is itself sinful unless from faith. But this faith comes from God, not from man. Since salvation is by faith alone, it follows that man cannot serve any role in salvation except to be a joyful recipient, according to the will of God.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[GrinningDwarf]

How is it possible to resist something that is NOT offered? The call, Gods word, goes out to all but only the chosen will hear it, through the work of the Holy Spirit. The unregenerate will just not pay any attention. Irresistable Grace is just that.

Not offered? Not even in a general call? Hmmmmm...would you agree with this statement:

Sit down, young man. When God decides to save the heathen, He will do it without your help.

 

[cygnusx1]

Not offered? Not even in a general call? Hmmmmm...would you agree with this statement:

yes you are on target bro , Jesus wept over sinners and was angry not by men's indifference and physical inability to repent but by their hot headed evil resistance of the truth they clearly heared and to a damnable degree clearly understood.

Man is responsible therefore accountable to do anything and everything God commands of him , that includes repent , believe and obey , man is totaly responsible for his added condemnation his inability is moral not physical ; he is unwilling so therefore increasingly condemnable.

 

[Proeliator]

yes you are on target bro , Jesus wept over sinners and was angry not by men's indifference and physical inability to repent but by their hot headed evil resistance of the truth they clearly heared and to a damnable degree clearly understood.

Man is responsible therefore accountable to do anything and everything God commands of him , that includes repent , believe and obey , man is totaly responsible for his added condemnation his inability is moral not physical ; he is unwilling so therefore increasingly condemnable.

i'm probably off base on this, as m y knowledge isnt very deep, but doesn't Irresistable Grace mean that one He draws us, its a wrap, and we no longer have any resistance?

 

[Jon_]

Not offered? Not even in a general call? Hmmmmm...would you agree with this statement:

Of couse the gospel is not an offer. It is a declaration. The second part of your post is more than a slight accusation that this is an hyper-Calvinistic view, which is far from the case.

The gospel is not, "Oh, won't you please repent and believe in Christ? If you do, you'll be forgiven and will go to heaven!" The gospel is, "Christ has died to save what was lost--to save his people from their sins--and this according to the Scriptures" (Luke 19:10, Matt. 1:21, 1 Cor. 15:3).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[cygnusx1]

i'm probably off base on this, as m y knowledge isnt very deep, but doesn't Irresistable Grace mean that one He draws us, its a wrap, and we no longer have any resistance?

that all depends ... I think Christians can and do resist God maybe even often , at least my grasp of Romans 6 through 8 lead me to see sanctification as a process of submitting or resisting , I think the many warnings about grieving the Holy Spirit and warnings about hardening our hearts and such like also typify some sort of resistance.

I also remember reading many years ago the difference between Regeneration and Conversion , in regeneration God does all but man converts. The same goes for repentance and faith , these are God's gifts but it is man not God who repents and believes.

Some deny the Free Offer in the Gospel completely , others seem to prefer a more Biblical word "CALL" or "invitation" , but assuming we are certainly going to ask sinners to do something , I see no problem with these terms. I think the problem arises when men are given just facts and are never instructed just what to do in order to be saved . Just imagine telling someone all the facts of a building being on fire and the facts of a wonderful Fire Service and their great record at saving people , but NEVER shouting anything like "save yourself from this fire , come to the rescuer and be saved , you are in danger of being burned alive if you don't heed the warnings , come at once , don't hesitate , don't look back , flee from the danger " , which do you think resembles Biblical preaching most , teaching facts or interacting with God's remedy and men's needs ?
Some throughout history have felt that telling sinners what they need , and what they need to do in order to be saved is God's perogative not the Christians , I can never agree with that idea , and just how many "Calvinists" will admit they were saved under the Gospel call by Arminians or the altar call system ? Truly God is good.

God Bless
Cygnus

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Of couse the gospel is not an offer. It is a declaration.

With all due respect...I don't think the Westminster Confession agrees with you, Jon_.

Chapter X Of Efectual Calling

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[17] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever,[17] be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[18] And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[19]

15. Matt. 13:14-15; 22:14; Acts 13:48; 28:24
16. Matt. 7:22; 13:20, 21; Heb. 6:4-5
17. John 6:37, 64-66; 8:44; 13:18; cf. 17:12
18. Acts 4:12; I John 4:2-3; II John 1:9; John 4:22; 14:6; 17:3; Eph. 2:12-13; Rom. 10:13-17
19. II John 1:9-12; I Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:6-8

And GI Williamson says in his TWCoF for Study Classes that

Out of the totality of men only some hear the gospel. Of thius number only some are savingly affected by it....But what of the others who hear? First, let it be remembered that they also are called by the ministry of the Word. And this call is "genuine". It is "sincere"...

Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, p. 122

The second part of your post is more than a slight accusation that this is an hyper-Calvinistic view, which is far from the case.

Good eye! That's exactly what it was!

This is from Phil Johnson's 'Primer on Hyper-Calvinsm':

Lest anyone wonder where my own convictions lie, I am a Calvinist. I am a five-point Calvinist, affirming without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. And when I speak of hyper-Calvinism, I am not using the term as a careless pejorative. I'm not an Arminian who labels all Calvinism "hyper." When I employ the term, I am using it in its historical sense…

History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.

A fivefold definition: The definition I am proposing outlines five varieties of hyper-Calvinism, listed here in a declining order, from the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as "ultra-high Calvinism"):

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.

Many modern hyper-Calvinists salve themselves by thinking their view cannot really be hyper-Calvinism because, after all, they believe in proclaiming the gospel to all. However, the "gospel" they proclaim is a truncated soteriology with an undue emphasis on God's decree as it pertains to the reprobate. One hyper-Calvinist, reacting to my comments about this subject on an e-mail list, declared, "The message of the Gospel is that God saves those who are His own and damns those who are not." Thus the good news about Christ's death and resurrection is supplanted by a message about election and reprobation—usually with an inordinate stress on reprobation. In practical terms, the hyper-Calvinist "gospel" often reduces to the message that God simply and single-mindedly hates those whom He has chosen to damn, and there is nothing whatsoever they can do about it.

Deliberately excluded from hyper-Calvinist "evangelism" is any pleading with the sinner to be reconciled with God. Sinners are not told that God offers them forgiveness or salvation. In fact, most hyper-Calvinists categorically deny that God makes any offer in the gospel whatsoever.

The hyper-Calvinist position at this point amounts to a repudiation of the very gist of 2 Corinthians 5:20: "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." The whole thrust of the gospel, properly presented, is to convey an offer (in the sense of a tender, a proffer, or a proposal) of divine peace and mercy to all who come under its hearing. The apostle's language is even stronger, suggesting the true gospel preacher begs sinners to be reconciled to God—or rather he stands "in Christ's stead," pleading thus with the sinner. Hyper-Calvinism in essence denies the concept of human responsibility, and so it must eliminate any such pleading, resulting in a skewed presentation of the gospel.

Let's examine individually each of the five varieties of hyper-Calvinism.

1. The denial of the gospel call. This first and most extreme type of hyper-Calvinism denies that the gospel calls all sinners to repentance and faith. The gospel call (the invitation to come to Christ for salvation—Rev. 22:17; Matt. 11:28-29; Isa. 45:22; 55:1-7) is denied to all but the elect.
Historic Reformed theology notes that there are two different senses in which Scripture uses the word "call." The apostle Paul usually employs the word to speak of the effectual call, whereby an elect sinner is sovereignly drawn by God unto salvation. Obviously this "call" applies only to the elect alone (Rom. 8:28-30).
But Scripture also describes a general call. In Matthew 22:14, Jesus said, "Many are called, but few are chosen." Here, those who are "called" are clearly more in number than the elect. So our Lord is quite obviously using the word "call" in a different sense from how Paul used it in Romans 8:30.
The general call, sometimes known as the external call, is the call to faith and repentance inherent in the gospel message itself. When the gospel is preached, the general call goes out indiscriminately to all who come under the preaching of the gospel. This call is issued by the preacher as an ambassador of Christ.
The effectual call, sometimes known as the internal call, is the regenerating work of God in the hearts of His elect, whereby He draws them to Christ and opens their hearts unto faith. This call is for the elect alone and is issued by God alone.
This first variety of hyper-Calvinism denies the general, external call, and insists that the gospel should be preached in a way that proclaims the facts about Christ's work and God's electing grace—without calling for any kind of response.
This is the worst form of hyper-Calvinism in vogue today. I'd class it as an extremely serious error, more dangerous than the worst variety of Arminianism. At least the Arminian preaches enough of the gospel for the elect to hear it and be saved. The hyper-Calvinist who denies the gospel call doesn't even believe in calling sinners to Christ. He almost fears to whisper the gospel summons to other believers, lest anyone accuse him of violating divine sovereignty.
English hyper-Calvinists (most happen to be Baptists), American "Gospel Standard" hypers, and Primitive Baptists have traditionally held to this form of hyper-Calvinism. They generally oppose evangelism of any kind. They would (usually) also embrace all five errors of hyper-Calvinism listed above. Their rhetoric tends to be extremely arrogant and elitist—the natural outgrowth of such theology. Normally they claim that they alone are consistent and true to the doctrines of divine sovereignty, and label every other view "Arminianism" or (lately) "hypo-Calvinism."
An early 18th-century British independent (baptistic) pastor named William Huntington is the godfather of this position. This brand of hyper-Calvinism often also has strong antinomian tendencies, traceable back to Huntington, who denied that the moral law is binding as a rule of life on the Christian. Such antinomianism harmonizes well with hyper-Calvinism's denial of human responsibility. (It is also an extension of the same wrong thinking that denies the preceptive will of God.)

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil//articles/hypercal.htm

 

[Jon_]

With all due respect...I don't think the Westminster Confession agrees with you, Jon_.

Read the text. It says, "By the ministry of the word," it does not say the gospel is a call. The Bible is about more than the gospel. Some of it is prophecy, some of it is law, some of it is poetry. (Some of it is also Acts 17:35.) Not all of it is gospel, but it is certainly all pertinent.

And GI Williamson says in his TWCoF for Study Classes that

He's wrong. There is no genuine offer to all men. I've already discussed this at length elsewhere.

This is from Phil Johnson's 'Primer on Hyper-Calvinsm':

Phil Johnson is an hypo-Calvinist. See? I can call names, too. Actually, Johnson's stuff is among the worst in terms of polemics against hyper-Calvinism. He obviously has little more than a superficial understanding of the arguments put forth against the genuine offer.

And anyhow, you're going to start leveling accusations of hyper-Calvinism because of something you read on someone's blog? For shame. You know preciously little of the soteriology of the one against whom you made such implication. But I believe Elderone is more than capable of defending himself if he so chooses and will stand aside to allow him to respond or not respond according to his wisdom.

In any case, the only two verses that are even apparently support the hypo-Calvinistic argument for the genuine offer are Ezek. 18:23 and 33:11 (which pretty much say the same thing). I believe they only speak of the elect, however, because it is clear that they would otherwise markedly contradict large portions of the rest of Scripture. By applying the rule of faith, we must interpret the more difficult to understand parts with the easier to understand parts. Ezek. 18:23; 33:11, do not say what the hypo-Calvinists think they say, and resultantly, their arguments come crumbling down.

God willing, I will very soon write an article on the gospel on my blog dispelling the hypo-Calvinist myth that the gospel is an offer to all men to repent and be saved. There is so much confusion today concerning what the gospel is that I think it would be manifestly profitable if everyone were to undertake an examination and study of Scripture's definition and description of the gospel. All too often what happens is people attach other parts of Scripture to the gospel, and before you know it, suddenly we have a gospel that's been bloated with other Scripture, that's had meanings and purposes tacked onto it that it never had.

So, until I finish that article, I think I'd rather not get sucked into a debate on this. Feel free to respond by posting quotes of past Reformed theologians discussing the "call of the gospel" if you like. That's a pretty standard tactic. Or feel free to post something original. If you do that, I might go ahead and include a rebuttal on my blog.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

What up gents? I am on Vacation in California . . . I will be back next week in which I wil dive headlong into the fray.

Till then . . .

play nice!

In Christ,
Mathetes

 

[cygnusx1]

With all due respect...I don't think the Westminster Confession agrees with you, Jon_.



And GI Williamson says in his TWCoF for Study Classes that





Good eye! That's exactly what it was!

This is from Phil Johnson's 'Primer on Hyper-Calvinsm':

Good post bro!!

I agree with every word particularly Phil Johnson and G I Williamson . Others disagree , fine , one can expect disagreement over doctrine this side of heaven , perhaps the way forward is to state what we do agree on.

God commands all men to repent .

God commands the Good News be preached everywhere.

The preacher should beseech sinners be Ye reconciled to God.

 

[Elderone]

Things have moved quickly since I have been gone and hopefully this won't be too rambling. To start - My post

"How is it possible to resist something that is NOT offered? The call, Gods word, goes out to all but only the chosen will hear it, through the work of the Holy Spirit. The unregenerate will just not pay any attention. Irresistable Grace is just that."

Was in response to the following:

We do resist...as long as we retain our unregenerate spirits that's all we want to do.

Which I thought was in response to this:

I understand irresistable grace . . . but the issue that I have is that man having an opportunity to respond, can, in theory, decide to resist. Would God then force Himself upon this person?

If I understand what this is saying is, man has the ability to resist or respond negatively to the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit. Many believe they are resisting God by saying things like, "I'm not interested now", "that I don't believe", and anything else you care to mention. That is not resisting before they have been converted, simply ignoring and going their sinful way.

My answer before and still is, NO, mere man does not have the ability to resist or refuse the effectual calling of God.

Now, after Justification we sin and resist leading the lives God requires of us because of the total depravity of our condition. This and the supposed resistance to the calling of God is infinitely different.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[cygnusx1]

Acts 7:51

"You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit! As your fathers did, so you do. (WEB)
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye. (ASV)
You whose hearts are hard and whose ears are shut to me; you are ever working against the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. (BBE)
O stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers, ye also. (DBY)
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. (KJV)
Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye. (WBS)
Acts 7:51 WEY: "O stiff-necked men, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you also are continually at strife with the Holy Spirit--just as your forefathers were. Acts 7:51 YLT: Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and in ears! ye do always the Holy Spirit resist; as your fathers -- also ye;