Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty Part 5
Irresistible Grace
John 6:37-40: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” I'm sure we're all familiar with this passage by now, as it quite efficiently supports many of the Doctrines of Grace. Again we see that the Father's will is that He draw an elect people into Jesus, that Jesus lose none of them, and that those who were drawn would be saved (raised up on the last day.) I've exegeted this passage in the last article, so I don't think much more need be said here, except to point out that there is a proscription on Jesus losing any who the Father gives Him. It is an impossibility. However, if IG is untrue, then this passage would be incorrect, as Jesus would not be able to fulfill the Father's will, and would lose some of those whom He was given.
Now, since we are dead in our trespasses and sins, (Ephesians 2:1,5) we must be regenerated before we can respond to the Gospel message. As an illustration of this, we could point to John 11:43 and the raising of Lazarus from the tomb. Since spiritual death is the flip side of the physical death coin, we see that, the same as if we were physically dead we could not respond to a call, spiritually we must be alive to respond to the spiritual call of the Gospel.
In John 1:12-13 we read "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Here we see quite clearly, that to be born again, it must be of the will of God! That man cannot will himself to become a child of God, that He did not make us "savable" and then leaves the decision to man, but that it is His will whom He saves. How does this relate to irresistible grace? Quite simply because God's will is sovereign over man's will. Perhaps I should lay this out more clearly.
As I posted in the article on total depravity, mankind is incapable and unwilling, to come to God. Since this is the case, we must have our hearts changed, and as Ezekiel 36:26, we must have our heart of stone replaced by God with a heart of flesh, or we will not only deny God, but love our sin and curse God! Since this is the case, then it must be that His grace changes our hatred of God, to love for Him. Otherwise we could never be saved. This is the essence of IG.
Now, there are passages that make mention of people resisting God's grace. Well there is a difference between God's saving grace which He bestows upon His elect at the moment of their salvation(not their birthright as my previous article tackled), and the common grace of God that, without question, keeps us from turning this planet into a smoldering ash heap with our hatred and sin. The general call, or common grace, is seen in passages such as Matthew 2:14, and His salvific grace is seen in passages such as above in John 6:37. (As an aside, this is how one properly harmonizes the texts of Scripture as opposed to setting one against another like our inconsistent Arminian friends have a tendency to do. I've shown this before, and will again momentarily.)
In Acts 13:48 it reads "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." What had they heard? What were they rejoicing over? Why the Gospel! And as the verse concludes, those who had been appointed to eternal life, believed! Not only is this verse a strong support for Unconditional Election, it is also a solid support for Irresistible Grace. Those who were appointed by God, His elect, were saved. Does this passage leave it ambiguous? Certainly not! Since God saves those whom He chooses to save, this verse shows His salvific grace is efficacious!
Now, before this gets too long (as I've been accused of being a bit long winded), I will wrap up here where I wrapped up in the last article. The Golden Chain of Romans 8:29-30 "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." As before, we see an unbroken chain from those whom God foreknew to the same ones who would be glorified. So if the same ones whom are called, always end up glorified, it shows that God's irresistible grace is effectual, in that He always saves those whom He calls.
Now, on to some of the strawmen- er I mean arguments against IG:
Now, we see here, as usual, a claim put forth with no Biblical backing. No verses cited, no exegesis given, just a portion of an overly long article. This is not only a begging the question fallacy, it's also akin to the elephant hurling fallacy, where one throws so much information at their opponent, that there is no way to sift through it all and still give a response. It also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of IG, in that it isn't God forcing His will upon us (though I find it hysterical that out of one side of their mouths our CAHCT friends will claim to be giving God more sovereignty than Calvinists yet out of the other side claim that God gave us free autonomous will) but it is a changing of our heart to be able to become saved, and is stating that those whom God calls will be saved. They seem to relish the idea that God should be able to fail! This also establishes that our CAHCT friends sacrifice God's will on the altar of man's will, while denying that Jesus Himself said that man's will is a slave of sin. I'd also like to know what Calvinist "concedes" this point? I have a feeling they "concede the point" much like our friends here "understand" the Doctrines of Grace. In other words, words are twisted and meanings shredded to fit neatly into their worldview. And while I agree with the all caps portion, I deny that anything about it is "simple". You'll never hear a Calvinist argue that people aren't saved by coming to Christ through the hearing of the Gospel, it's just that our friends here cheapen that call to nothing more than bringing man to a moral "neutral point."
Again, we see here the fundamental ignorance of IG, fueled by emotionalism. You'll also note the category error in comparing God's love to man's. How do we define love? If it isn't through the Biblical teaching of what love is, then it is flawed. Is it loving for God to let us all go to hell for our sins in an effort to protect "autonomous human free will", or is it more loving to change ones heart from one that hates God, to one that can love Him? That isn't forced, we aren't at some neutral point, and God is forcing our hand, we are dead in our sins, and God is bringing us back to life. We see that the ignorance runs deeply as again, God isn't forcing anyone to love Him, we are utterly incapable of loving Him until He changes our heart. (How many times must I quote Ezekiel 36:26?) He isn't "wooing" us in hopes we'll choose Him. As the word in John 6:40 "draw" means in the original Greek, it's a dragging, a bodily pulling towards or away from something. It's used elsewhere when the disciples are pulling up the net of fish, or when the apostles were forced out of a town square. This isn't a "please please I hope you pick me!" where God is eternally frustrated and sad because so many millions don't choose Him. And lastly, for the love of all things sane, Arminians, please stop using the "Calvinism isn't the Gospel" line! It's a huge red herring! No Calvinists say that it is! Sheesh!
On the face of the first line, we might almost think we saw someone who legitimately wanted to ask questions. It's a bit of a flawed question, as God's irresistible grace has always existed as the salvation of His people is a part of His eternal decree, but perhaps we could get somewhere! And then we see the next argument...they conflate the physical speaking of God to Adam, to His irresistible grace in salvation. Also, if we take this line of thought to its logical conclusion, then God really didn't know where Adam was when He called him. Do you really want to go this route? To claim that God is so limited He didn't know where Adam was? That's the direction of open theism, and believe me, you don't want to go down that heretical path. But let's think about the passage for a second. Sin has just entered into the world. Adam and Eve have committed the first sin, and now they commit their second in running from God. We see how sin, even the very first, has led to the second, and how even with it being only the first sin, those who walked with God in perfection, are now running and hiding from Him, just as we do because we are sinners! We also see that after God calls Adam, what does he do? He comes to God, so the attempted "gotcha" question, has backfired stupendously!
And finally, we have our same friend from last time. They again open with a field of strawmen just waiting to have the stuffing knocked out of them. They do not understand the analogy of the Potter and the clay from Romans 9:21. The entire point of that verse is to show that God has made all for a specific use, some for honorable use (the elect) and others for common use (the non-elect). Why would God need or want to pour out wrath on those whom He has elected? This line of thinking denies God's sovereignty by forcing Him to have to change His plans, instead of all things being His plan. In the second paragraph we see that even in their assertion of what we claim IG is, they still make a mistake. IG states that God's grace is effectual for those whom God has elected, it's not a matter of resistance. We also again see the attempt to sound more knowledgeable than they are, by inserting "intelligent" sounding words into their post. This makes it an unfortunate word salad. However, if I'm deciphering it correctly, they're trying to make an argument based on the idea of "autonomous free will" or claiming that Calvinism turns people into robots. Nothing could be further from the truth. Calvinism states that man has a will, but as was shown in the Total Depravity article, this will is enslaved to sin, and therefore cannot do anything but sin. In Irresistible Grace, God has already changed the heart, has freed the slave, and brought them to Himself.
Does that sound like something you desire? To be freed from the chains of sin? The only one who can free you is Jesus. If you wish to be free, pray to Him right now, and ask Him for salvation. God bless.
No comments:
Post a Comment