Irresistible Grace

[Hammster]

Hey, guys, this should be fun.

I was wondering what irresistible grace is. I know that it is known by something else, but don't know what that is. Plus, if I use 'irresistible grace', then some will think I have an evil ulterior motive (BWAhahahaha).

And just so you know, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

 

[mlqurgw]

Hey, guys, this should be fun.

I was wondering what irresistible grace is. I know that it is known by something else, but don't know what that is. Plus, if I use 'irresistible grace', then some will think I have an evil ulterior motive (BWAhahahaha).

And just so you know, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

I prefer the term effectual calling but it doesn't fit very well in TULIP. The concept of irresistible grace is that all those to whom God gives grace to believe, that is whom He has called in power by the Gospel, will come to Christ in faith. The calling is irresistible in 2 ways: God always gets what He wants for none can resist His will and the nature of the Gospel and whom it speaks of is irresistible because to disbelieve it is insanity. As I said though, I prefer effectual calling because it speaks more clearly to the point and focuses on what God does in and for the sinner rather than on what the sinner can or can't do. I always prefer that which focuses on God instead of man.

 

[bradfordl]

And just so you know, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

Yes, but you will never defeat the Man in Black....

Irresistable grace is just that... grace of God that cannot be resisted by those to whom it is given. It's just another facet of the jewel of God's creating for Himself a people. He determined in eternity who those people would be, and set His saving love upon them. He decreed every event of their lives as a testament of His glory. In some of those lives He ordained that they would attempt to resist His grace, and I am one of those, but He destroys that resistance with amazing love. His grace is irresistable.

 

[beloved57]

irrestiable grace, can be also called Gods effectual call by grace to the elect for fellowship into their salvation..

gal 1:

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

 

[Hammster]

Ok, good start. Can you show in Scripture where God's grace cannot be resisted? iIn other words, can you show that just because God gives faith/grace that it will always be acted on positively?

 

[heymikey80]

Ok, good start. Can you show in Scripture where God's grace cannot be resisted? iIn other words, can you show that just because God gives faith/grace that it will always be acted on positively?

And ... good question.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Rom 8:28-30​

The reason why this grace can't be effectively resisted is because it's creational or life-from-death (Ep 2:1, 2 Cor 5:17). There's essentially no way to prevent God from changing us, because we don't have the capacity to resist being changed by God.

The idea of irresistible grace is not that God overwhelms us with force so that our resistance is too small to prevent Him. The idea is that what God is doing in us, we don't have any natural capability to prevent.

In debates this point normally dissolves when someone points out we may be unwilling to be changed (which the Calvinist presumes of everyone). So our resistance is an unwillingness to be changed. But that's not a true force against God.

As to God being right in contradicting our unwillingness: we'd be reduced to defying the very actions that God Himself performs, and all those actions are good. So our unwillingness is then readily identified as our evil nature -- the very thing God's re-creation proposes to eliminate in us.

"Cheer up--you are worse that you ever imagined! But God's grace is greater that you ever dared hope." -- Jack Miller

 

[Hammster]

I suppose this will all come down to what can be derived by the term "foreknowledge". Does He know because He Himself caused it (His omnipotence and sovereignty), or does He know because of His omniscience and He knows whosoever will and whosoever won't?

Just to make it clear for those who may be new, I am not saying that we save ourselves.

That's enough for now. I await your response. I want to try to keep it simple.

 

[beloved57]

Ok, good start. Can you show in Scripture where God's grace cannot be resisted? iIn other words, can you show that just because God gives faith/grace that it will always be acted on positively?

paul is a example of irresitable call of grace..did you read the verses i supplied for that ? pauls cnversion serves as a pattern of the efficasious call of grace..

gal 1:


15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

1 tim 1:

14And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

The word pattern is
hypotypōsis :

an outline, sketch, brief and summary exposition
2) an example, pattern

So what happened effectually to saul turned into paul on the damscus road, is a expostion of what happens to each individual elect in Gods unique way for the individual in Gods and at His specific time for them in their life..

 

[Hammster]

paul is a example of irresitable call of grace..did you read the verses i supplied for that ? pauls cnversion serves as a pattern of the efficasious call of grace..

and where in Scripture do you see where we should use Paul as a pattern as opposed to anyone else who was saved?

gal 1:


15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

I am not questioning whether the call is by God's grace, but whether it is always effectual.

1 tim 1:

14And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

The pattern mentioned is not the calling, but the mercy God shows to those who believe. I am not arguing against that.

The word pattern is
hypotypōsis :

an outline, sketch, brief and summary exposition
2) an example, pattern

So what happened effectually to saul turned into paul on the damscus road, is a expostion of what happens to each individual elect in Gods unique way for the individual in Gods and at His specific time for them in their life..

And again, why use Paul as an example, and not some other apostle, or anyone else whose salvation is recorded? Why not the Philippian jailer? Or the centurian? How about the 3000 who responded to Peter's sermon? Those are all examples of salvation experiences, but do not prove that they were effectually called, nor that they weren't effectually called. You can't make an argument either way.

 

[heymikey80]

I suppose this will all come down to what can be derived by the term "foreknowledge". Does He know because He Himself caused it (His omnipotence and sovereignty), or does He know because of His omniscience and He knows whosoever will and whosoever won't?

Just to make it clear for those who may be new, I am not saying that we save ourselves.

That's enough for now. I await your response. I want to try to keep it simple.

There is a lot of exegetical conflict over "foreknow", because "foreknow [someone]" is not a well-used term in Greek. There are few examples. Far more prevalent is "foreknow [something]" or "foreknow about [someone]". This assures the meaning of prescience, with no regard to causation.

But Calvinism also doesn't apply "foreknow" as being "fore-cause", either. Calvinism essentially asserts "foreknow" is used as "know -- intimately or relationally -- beforehand". In other words, this isn't "knowing something about [someone]", this is "already relating to [someone] in love and grace".

We're always forced to talk through God's omniscience or omnipotence, as if that predestines people. But that's not the crucial point in Calvinism. Predestination is through God's Personhood -- because that's His means of predestining people: through His own Personal actions -- Grace, Love, Mercy -- and even our own personal regeneration, faith, and receipt of God's Spirit Himself. That Personhood is the crucial difference in Calvinistic predestination. That sets it apart from all else.

In debate we're constantly forced into explaining God's Power in talking about predestination. But that's not the Calvinistic focus. We're dealing with an intense, intimate Person. And that's Who brings about an intense, intimate personal predestination for those He is already in love with, is already shedding mercy on, is already bringing about change to.

 

[beloved57]

and where in Scripture do you see where we should use Paul as a pattern

I just showed it to you.. 1 tim 1:

16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

 

[Hammster]

And I showed that you used the verse incorrectly. I am not saying that your premise is wrong, necessarily, but that is not a good passage to use.

 

[Hammster]

Okay.

 

[Hammster]

There is a lot of exegetical conflict over "foreknow", because "foreknow [someone]" is not a well-used term in Greek. There are few examples. Far more prevalent is "foreknow [something]" or "foreknow about [someone]". This assures the meaning of prescience, with no regard to causation.

But Calvinism also doesn't apply "foreknow" as being "fore-cause", either. Calvinism essentially asserts "foreknow" is used as "know -- intimately or relationally -- beforehand". In other words, this isn't "knowing something about [someone]", this is "already relating to [someone] in love and grace".

I looked at the six times the word 'foreknow' is used in the NT. Some have to do with knowledge of people, some have to do with events. I am not sure that Romans 8:28 is clear either way, so I don't think a dogmatic argument can be made either way. Well, I guess one can be made, but not sure that one should be made.

We're always forced to talk through God's omniscience or omnipotence, as if that predestines people. But that's not the crucial point in Calvinism. Predestination is through God's Personhood -- because that's His means of predestining people: through His own Personal actions -- Grace, Love, Mercy -- and even our own personal regeneration, faith, and receipt of God's Spirit Himself. That Personhood is the crucial difference in Calvinistic predestination. That sets it apart from all else.

In debate we're constantly forced into explaining God's Power in talking about predestination. But that's not the Calvinistic focus. We're dealing with an intense, intimate Person. And that's Who brings about an intense, intimate personal predestination for those He is already in love with, is already shedding mercy on, is already bringing about change to.

While I agree that the emphasis should be on the Person of God, and what He does, I guess we will disagree about the means that He uses to accomplish salvation.

 

[heymikey80]

I looked at the six times the word 'foreknow' is used in the NT. Some have to do with knowledge of people, some have to do with events. I am not sure that Romans 8:28 is clear either way, so I don't think a dogmatic argument can be made either way. Well, I guess one can be made, but not sure that one should be made.

It's "whom he foreknew" -- that's a fairly direct statement that this is knowing people beforehand. The only issue that remains is whether "whom he foreknew" means "foreknow things about them" or "related with them beforehand". That's the basic conflict, and it's at a level of scholarly discussion far beyond what most people here can muster.

While I agree that the emphasis should be on the Person of God, and what He does, I guess we will disagree about the means that He uses to accomplish salvation.

I would be surprised, actually. We're created in Christ Jesus; we're born again; we're new creatures. Probably not even the means are at disagreement -- it's probably reduced simply to the order and motivations and self-limitations God places on His actions. Because ultimately we must be completely remade to become part of the New Creation. And if we're completely remade in ways over which we have zero ability, the means are likely to be very much the same: "God did it all".

 

[beloved57]

It's "whom he foreknew" -- that's a fairly direct statement that this is knowing people beforehand. The only issue that remains is whether "whom he foreknew" means "foreknow things about them" or "related with them beforehand". That's the basic conflict, and it's at a level of scholarly discussion far beyond what most people here can muster.

The word is foreknew instead of foresaw,,that should tell you something.

 

[mlqurgw]

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
(1Co 1:18-31)

This is effectual calling. The preaching of Christ, the Gospel, is the power of God unto salvation. God has chosen to make it powerful to the weak and despised folks to declare His great glory. The last 2 verses that I bolded and underlined sets it all in concrete. We are called effectually by God ( Of Him are you in Christ Jesus) who of God is made unto us all that salvation is. That( for this reason) he that glories let him glory in the Lord.

I would suggest you take a long hard look at what Paul is saying in these verses.

Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
(2Ti 1:8-10)


In these verses we see that our calling is once again one of not only power but of purpose. The grace was given us in Christ before the world began and is now made manifest by the coming of Christ. I believe the coming he is speaking of isn't His coming into the world to die on a cross but the personal coming to each saved sinner in power and grace. I think it is clear from the fact that our salvation is spoken of as being now made manifiest because of the work Christ has already done. His abolishing death and brininging immortality to light is past tense.



Please forgive if my wording is a little off or I am unclear. I am under the influence of some really good drugs.

I just had my appendix removed Sunday.

 

[mlqurgw]

Here is Auther Pink on foreknowledge:
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_04.htm

 

[Hammster]

It's "whom he foreknew" -- that's a fairly direct statement that this is knowing people beforehand. The only issue that remains is whether "whom he foreknew" means "foreknow things about them" or "related with them beforehand". That's the basic conflict, and it's at a level of scholarly discussion far beyond what most people here can muster.

The point is "whom He foreknew" could refer to His knowing someone, or know what someone would do. It isn't clear either way, so I am not sure it can be used as a proof text either way. To make the point, I can use that verse also to make my point valid.

I would be surprised, actually. We're created in Christ Jesus; we're born again; we're new creatures. Probably not even the means are at disagreement -- it's probably reduced simply to the order and motivations and self-limitations God places on His actions. Because ultimately we must be completely remade to become part of the New Creation. And if we're completely remade in ways over which we have zero ability, the means are likely to be very much the same: "God did it all".

Again, I agree that God did it all. I guess where we are different is that I see God as a romancer, and you see God as a persuader. Probably too simplistic, but fairly accurate.

 

[Hammster]

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
(1Co 1:18-31)

This is effectual calling. The preaching of Christ, the Gospel, is the power of God unto salvation. God has chosen to make it powerful to the weak and despised folks to declare His great glory. The last 2 verses that I bolded and underlined sets it all in concrete. We are called effectually by God ( Of Him are you in Christ Jesus) who of God is made unto us all that salvation is. That( for this reason) he that glories let him glory in the Lord.

I would suggest you take a long hard look at what Paul is saying in these verses.

Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
(2Ti 1:8-10)


In these verses we see that our calling is once again one of not only power but of purpose. The grace was given us in Christ before the world began and is now made manifest by the coming of Christ. I believe the coming he is speaking of isn't His coming into the world to die on a cross but the personal coming to each saved sinner in power and grace. I think it is clear from the fact that our salvation is spoken of as being now made manifiest because of the work Christ has already done. His abolishing death and brininging immortality to light is past tense.



Please forgive if my wording is a little off or I am unclear. I am under the influence of some really good drugs.

I just had my appendix removed Sunday.

I had an interesting discussion with my pastor the other day and he brought up an interesting point. He can see where Calvinists come from if he looks at scripture from the notion that Calvinism is true. So, I suppose the opposite would be true, too. Although, I have rarely been given even the remotest respect that my views may be right, or at least given the understanding of why I believe the way I do.

With that said, these verses are a good example. As I read them, I can see where a Calvinist would come to the conclusion that they speak of effectual calling. But, as a libertarian, I don't see that. If there were never rich or wise people who were saved, then maybe. But to me is shows that God has presented His gospel to the world and the ones who are too full of themselves and too prideful (same thing?) reject it because they don't think they need it. Very much like the pharisees.

In the verses quoted, the Jews are too prideful because the think they are the chosen people and they are expecting a different kind of Messiah. The Greeks are too educated to believe in something like the incarnation and death and resurrection of Christ.

In Acts, we have also two different ways of reaching people. The gospel presented by Peter at Pentecost is different than the one given on Mars Hill. (I am not saying the gospels are different. Just they way it is presented.) And why? Because Peter's argument was given with the assumption that the Jews knew who God was. And Paul's presentation was given with the correct assumption that the Greeks had no clue about who God was. So why the different messages? Because an argument had to be made about who God is and what He has done. This was done so that the people who were listening could make a decision about God and what He had done and respond either in the positive or the negative.

But I digress. I guess this will be a problem between the two sides until Jesus returns and proves the Calvinist wrong. But I am sure there wil still be some Calvinist who will question Him.

Sorry I took so long to respond. I took out some dude's appendix and it was really gross.