How can the grace of God be resisted by some yet received by others?

[bling]

Sure, there can be multiple lessons in a parable or a passage.

The thread is about grace; and the prodigal son in Luke 15 clearly exemplifies God's grace and mercy.

God is running towards His wayward, backslidden son, eager to forgive, extend mercy, by His grace.

Good! and the son was in a lost state at the time?

 

[EmSw]

I see no one cares to comment of Jesus' words on life. That's a good thing. If you want to know about life, go to the One Who is Life Itself.

 

[EmSw]

Earlier, I wrote about taking up our cross and following Jesus.

It is by our cross that we kill, put out of the way entirely, render useless, and lose our old, unregenerate life. Now we see what else Jesus said about our cross.

Matthew 10:38
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Luke 9:23
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Luke 14:27
And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

We now see what else Jesus said about bearing our cross. If one does not bear his own cross and come after Jesus, he cannot be His disciple. Also, if one does not bear and take up his cross and follow Jesus, he is not worthy of Jesus.

Strong's says this about 'worthy' -

1. weighing, having weight, having the weight of another thing of like value, worth as much
2. befitting, congruous, corresponding to a thing
3. of one who has merited anything worthy
   1. both in a good and a bad sense
      

Worthy is a very serious word. If one does not take up his cross and follow Jesus, he is not worthy, that is, doesn't have any weight of like value; he has not merited anything worthy of Jesus.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Earlier, I wrote about taking up our cross and following Jesus.

It is by our cross that we kill, put out of the way entirely, render useless, and lose our old, unregenerate life. Now we see what else Jesus said about our cross.

Matthew 10:38
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Luke 9:23
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Luke 14:27
And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

We now see what else Jesus said about bearing our cross. If one does not bear his own cross and come after Jesus, he cannot be His disciple. Also, if one does not bear and take up his cross and follow Jesus, he is not worthy of Jesus.

Strong's says this about 'worthy' -

1. weighing, having weight, having the weight of another thing of like value, worth as much
2. befitting, congruous, corresponding to a thing
3. of one who has merited anything worthy
   1. both in a good and a bad sense

Worthy is a very serious word. If one does not take up his cross and follow Jesus, he is not worthy, that is, doesn't have any weight of like value; he has not merited anything worthy of Jesus.

No one that I know of is unaware of these passages.

No one that I know of (including Calvinsts) fail to include these passages in their theology.

I guess I don't see your point.

 

[EmSw]

No one that I know of is unaware of these passages.

No one that I know of (including Calvinsts) fail to include these passages in their theology.

I guess I don't see your point.

It's not enough to just know of them and include them in one's theology. One must act upon them. One must live according to his beliefs. One must find the narrow path and enter the narrow gate which leads to life, but few will find it.

Matthew 7
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Luke 13
24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

One must strive to enter the narrow gate. Jesus told us many will seek to enter and not be able.

 

[bottomofsandal]

No one that I know of is unaware of these passages.

No one that I know of (including Calvinsts) fail to include these passages in their theology.

I guess I don't see your point.

There is NO point in a thread about grace!
Is grace mentioned in the post? No. Why?


What appears to be the emphasis (yet AGAIN) is man working by his might.

A graceless salvation is not salvation. John 15 says saved men will bear fruit.

 

[bottomofsandal]

It's not enough to just know of them and include them in one's theology. One must act upon them. One must live according to his beliefs. One must find the narrow path and enter the narrow gate which leads to life, but few will find it.

Matthew 7
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Luke 13
24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

One must strive to enter the narrow gate. Jesus told us many will seek to enter and not be able.

How is this accomplished without grace?
Are unsaved men resisting the grace that will lead to Christ?

 

[EmSw]

How is this accomplished without grace?
Are unsaved men resisting the grace that will lead to Christ?

You resist the teachings of Jesus, you resist grace, saved or unsaved.

 

[bottomofsandal]

You resist the teachings of Jesus, you resist grace, saved or unsaved.

You are conflating grace with the teachings of Jesus.

The teachings are the teachings with or without grace.

You seem to being saying grace is unnecessary for understanding.


How does one obtain ears to hear?

Why would God's enemies be interested in God's Word?

Where is grace and what does it accomplish in your salvation model?

 

[EmSw]

You are conflating grace with the teachings of Jesus.

The teachings are the teachings with or without grace.

You seem to being saying grace is unnecessary for understanding.

How does one obtain ears to hear?

Why would God's enemies be interested in God's Word?

Where is grace and what does it accomplish in your salvation model?

Why do you think Jesus' teachings were without grace? Do they offend you? Will you walk away?

The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. Do you believe that?

Titus 2
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

How does grace bring salvation? It teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. It teaches us to live soberly, righteously, and godly.

This is what Jesus taught also, since He was full of grace and truth.

 

[Marvin Knox]

...........One must act upon them. One must live according to his beliefs. One must find the narrow path and enter the narrow gate which leads to life.......

Or what ???????

Jesus told us many will seek to enter and not be able.

Like I said - no one disagrees with what you say about any of this. But again I ask you, "What is your point?"

Out with it. Be specific.

You resist the teachings of Jesus, you resist grace, saved or unsaved.

All of humanity in the fallen state resist God to a certain extent. That includes you and me.

The "I" in T.U.L.I.P. (which is the concern of the O.P.) has to do with the elect of God not being able to ultimately resist the effectual call of God.

It has nothing to do with resisting God in a day to day way - whether we are talking about an unsaved person in general or a saved person during the sanctification process of life after their becoming a new creature.

 

[EmSw]

Or what ???????

Basic Christianity 101 - They won't find the narrow path which leads to life.

Like I said - no one disagrees with what you say about any of this. But again I ask you, "What is your point?"

Who has asked and sought after the narrow path which leads to life?

Out with it. Be specific.

Did you seek the narrow path which leads to life?

All of humanity in the fallen state resist God to a certain extent. That includes you and me.

Very true, even those who believe on Him.

The "I" in T.U.L.I.P. (which is the concern of the O.P.) has to do with the elect of God not being able to ultimately resist the effectual call of God.

Jesus said nothing of the sort. This is a man-made doctrine. And you know it.

It has nothing to do with resisting God in a day to day way - whether we are talking about an unsaved person in general or a saved person during the sanctification process of life after their becoming a new creature.

If you don't seek to find the path which leads to life, you are resisting Him and His word.

 

[EmSw]

There is NO point in a thread about grace!
Is grace mentioned in the post? No. Why?

I'm sorry you believe Jesus' teachings were without grace.

What appears to be the emphasis (yet AGAIN) is man working by his might.

Luke 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

bottom, how do you answer Jesus' question?

A graceless salvation is not salvation. John 15 says saved men will bear fruit.

If one resists the grace of Jesus, you are correct, there is no salvation.

 

[Marvin Knox]

They won't find the narrow path which leads to life....................
If you don't seek to find the path which leads to life, you are resisting Him and His word.

We all agree with you.
I just thought that you had an additional point to make by stating the obvious.

Jesus said nothing of the sort.

Jesus didn't say what? That doesn't make any sense.

This is a man-made doctrine. And you know it.

Of course I know that the T.U.L.I.P. acronym was created by men to represent different doctrines supposedly taught in the Bible.

The question which the O.P. poses is essentially whether the "I" in T.U.L.I.P. is indeed a doctrine which represents what the Bible actually teaches.

Is the grace of God irresistible as the "I" in TULIP proclaims?

What I approached you with is how your obvious teaching about discipleship shed light on the question at hand. Everyone agrees with what it takes to truly make the Lord Lord of our lives. Again - so what?

It seems that you are trying to be quick witted again rather than just answer the question.

If you won't answer a simple question about one of your posts - that's fine. You can talk to others.

If one resists the grace of Jesus, you are correct, there is no salvation.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something. I did jump back in without reading every post posted since my last participation.

Does someone you are talking with believe that people can't resist the grace of the Lord within them leading them through the sanctification process? If so - they are wrong about that. I - for instance - am rather ashamedly famous for my resistance over the last 59 years since being born again.

But since we are supposedly talking about the "I" in T.U.L.I.P. - we are supposedly talking about the effectual calling of the elect being irresistible.

The Lord couldn't have been more clear about that - now could He?

The most obvious statement from the Lord on that particular doctrine follows.

""All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." John 6:37

 

[sdowney717]

We all agree with you.
I just thought that you had an additional point to make by stating the obvious.
Jesus didn't say what? That doesn't make any sense.

Of course I know that the T.U.L.I.P. acronym was created by men to represent different doctrines supposedly taught in the Bible.

The question which the O.P. poses is essentially whether the "I" in T.U.L.I.P. is indeed a doctrine which represents what the Bible actually teaches.

What I approached you with is how your obvious teaching about discipleship shed light on the question at hand. Everyone agrees with what it takes to truly make the Lord Lord of our lives. Again - so what?

It seems that you are trying to be quick witted again rather than just answer the question.

If you won't answer a simple question about one of your posts - that's fine. You can talk to others.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something. I did jump back in without reading every post posted since my last participation.

Does someone you are talking with believe that people can't resist the grace of the Lord within them leading them through the sanctification process? If so - they are wrong about that. I - for instance - am rather ashamedly famous for my resistance over the last 59 years since being born again.

But since we are supposedly talking about the "I" in T.U.L.I.P. - we are supposedly talking about the effectual calling of the elect being irresistible.

The Lord couldn't have been more clear about that - now could He?

The most obvious statement from the Lord on that particular doctrine follows.

""All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." John 6:37

John 6, a great verse teaches that all God have given to Christ come to Christ == Election , predestination, those He foreknew in His love, and the other half after we come to Him, we have eternal salvation that is not undone by any thing in all of God's creation.

Romans 8
God’s Everlasting Love
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written:

“For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”

37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The way to understand scripture is to understand God as the supreme ruler over all that occurs in heaven and earth. He yearns jealously over His people whom He foreknew and leads them onto glorification in Christ as overcomers. The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD, and he delights in his way.

 

[Marvin Knox]

John 6, a great verse teaches that all God have given to Christ come to Christ == Election , predestination, those He foreknew in His love, and the other half after we come to Him, we have eternal salvation that is not undone by any thing in all of God's creation.........................

Obviously I agree with your position on this.

But my problem with what's his name is that he seems to slip seamlessly between the idea of resisting God as related to sanctification and resisting God related to effectual calling of the elect.

If I'm right - he's just taking verses that have to do with Lordship and applying them to election as a way of refuting election.

That's preposterous of course and against every rule of theology.

We all must agree that saved people (just like unsaved people) can resist God. That's the whole idea with our having to yield to Him in our Christian life and our being reward accordingly or suffering loss according to how much we resist the Holy Spirit in our walk.

Of course we can resist the grace of God. To argue against that is ridiculous for Calvinists and Arminians alike.

But that's different than what is obviously said by the Lord to be irresistible - namely the call of God for the elect. "Those He gives to me will come to me." (duhh)

He has told me in the past that he doesn't "do" systematic theology. I suppose that's the root cause here. He isn't separating our sanctification from our calling.

If he can resist the smarty pants stuff - we could perhaps talk through it. But I've dealt enough with him in the past to suspect that he will continue the snide stuff and not just talk through it.

With his history - I'm not sure why we even try to reason with him.

Sometimes I think he's not all there. I mean - look at that silly comment at the bottom of every post. Apparently he thinks it's really insightful and quick witted. Actually - of course it is completely ridiculous and meaningless.

 

[EmSw]

We all agree with you.
I just thought that you had an additional point to make by stating the obvious.

You agree that a man must seek the narrow path which leads to life? If so, you agree that a man must do something to find that path to life.

Jesus didn't say what? That doesn't make any sense.

Jesus did not say the grace is irresistible.

Of course I know that the T.U.L.I.P. acronym was created by men to represent different doctrines supposedly taught in the Bible.

The question which the O.P. poses is essentially whether the "I" in T.U.L.I.P. is indeed a doctrine which represents what the Bible actually teaches.

Therefore man created that grace is irresistible.

What I approached you with is how your obvious teaching about discipleship shed light on the question at hand. Everyone agrees with what it takes to truly make the Lord Lord of our lives. Again - so what?

If one does not take up his cross and follow Jesus, he is not worthy of Him.

Did you take up your cross, Marvin? It doesn't matter if you believe in election and predestination, you must take up your cross and follow Him. You see, you must do something to be worthy of Him. Is that a 'so what' with you?

It seems that you are trying to be quick witted again rather than just answer the question.

If you won't answer a simple question about one of your posts - that's fine. You can talk to others.

What question? If you don't take up your own cross, you are not worthy of Him, and you are resisting His grace. Is that simple enough?

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something. I did jump back in without reading every post posted since my last participation.

Does someone you are talking with believe that people can't resist the grace of the Lord within them leading them through the sanctification process? If so - they are wrong about that. I - for instance - am rather ashamedly famous for my resistance over the last 59 years since being born again.

So, do you believe His grace can be resisted or is it irresistible?

But since we are supposedly talking about the "I" in T.U.L.I.P. - we are supposedly talking about the effectual calling of the elect being irresistible.

Where in the Bible do you get 'effectual' calling? If you have to make stuff up, then your doctrine isn't worth much. I believe Jesus said you were 'unwilling' to come to Me that you may have life. Didn't He?

Is an 'effectual' call against man's will? Can he not choose against it?

The Lord couldn't have been more clear about that - now could He?

The most obvious statement from the Lord on that particular doctrine follows.

""All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." John 6:37

So Marvin, did you willingly come to Jesus? Or were you coerced? You can't be regenerated (possess life) until you 'come' to Him. Where do you stand? If you didn't willingly 'come' to Him to have life, there is still time.

 

[EmSw]

Of course we can resist the grace of God. To argue against that is ridiculous for Calvinists and Arminians alike.

I believe you are a little confused here Marvin. You say we can resist His grace, but I see TULIP disagrees with you. Are you now a 3-point Calvinist?

Basically, Calvinism is known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P.

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

Do you see the 'I' in TULIP? You disagree with this as stated in red above.

 

[bling]

The most obvious statement from the Lord on that particular doctrine follows.

""All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." John 6:37

You have to take the verse in context and not add stuff that is not there:

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Everyone at the wedding banquet was invited by God and all will go to the bridegroom (Christ), but going back a step we know not everyone that was invited to the wedding banquet chose of their own free will to go. Those that did go God will give to Christ, but they are not just random arbitrary individuals, but are those that accepted God’s invitation.

It is “whoever” believes (trust) in God/Christ whom Christ does not drive away. In the context of John 6 many were driven away by Christ’s words (only the 12 remained). This passage is also very figurative (eating His flesh and drinking His blood) and must be interpreted and not taken literally.

You seem to be equating “Father gives me…” with the Father arbitrarily selects some.

 

[Marvin Knox]

.........Those that did go God will give to Christ

That's just the opposite of what it says.

37 "All those the Father gives me will come to me"

Just because you don't like the implications of a verse doesn't mean you can turn it around at will.

................but they are not just random arbitrary individuals, but are those that accepted God’s invitation..........You seem to be equating “Father gives me…” with the Father arbitrarily selects some.

No one said that they were randomly selected individuals.

Apparently you have something against the Biblical doctrine of election - and that's OK with me.

But surely after all this time reading in the forum you understand that no one (certainly no Calvinist) says that election is a random and arbitrary act.