This is part 5 of the Calvinism Debate
When God calls you, can you say, “No?” According to Calvinism, God’s grace is irresistible, meaning when he determines to save someone, he always achieves his goal. In other words, his call is always effectual. On the other side, Arminianism teaches that God offers grace, but people can freely choose to accept it or reject it. His call is general and people respond differently.
What Position Do You Think Won the Day?
- God's Grace Is Irresistible (Blake) (95%, 41 Votes)
- God's Grace Is Resisible (Jacob) (5%, 2 Votes)
Total Voters: 43
Loading ...—— Links ——
- Check out the other posts in this Calvinism debate here
- More info about Jacob and Blake here
- See Jacob Roher’s interview on the gospel or watch his sermon, “How to Treat Other Christians.” His email is thekingdomgospel@outlook.com
- See Blake Cortright’s podcast on spiritual disciplines as well as how to quit pornography. Follow him on Twitter @blakecortright
- Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
Irresistible Grace is one point where the internal inconsistency of Calvinism really shines. In the Calvinistic framework, both the drawing (in their definition of drawing) and the resisting are, in reality, just illusions. If man has no genuine free will to make his own choice because God has already ordained and determined whatsoever will come to pass due to His infinitely implemented sovereignty, then man is neither truly free to resist God, nor does he have a need to be irresistibly drawn to God. God is the one who is really making all the choices.
Calvinists resort to various concepts in their attempts to reconcile this with the actions of man, but any dilution of infinite sovereignty (as they define sovereignty, as total control, not simply the right to control) is a grant of some choice to man, which is simultaneously denied. Some of their attempts to explain this have names such as absolute free will (sometimes called “libertarian” free will), open absolute free will, non-open absolute free will, and compatibalistic free will. These ideas lead to squabbles between Calvinists as they try to play both sides of the isle as needed to do their dance. But the sovereign God of the Bible is big enough to allow man to choose whom he will serve (Joshua 24:15) and does not need to resort to illusions.
Just one of many passages that could be listed besides Joshua 24:15:
“they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.” (Ps. 78:41)
Kevin,
It seems clear that your disdain for biblical Calvinism is based on a lot of unproven and unbiblical assumptions. Add to that that you are right in the camp of the atheist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre! For anyone reading this, here is some food for thought to counter what you have posted:
AUTONOMOUS:
“Not subject to control by others or by outside forces; independent.”
From RC Sproul, “If God is Sovereign, How Can Man Be Free?”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iokVMSaLhvU&t=72s
“Jean Paul Sartre said that it is human freedom that is the strongest argument AGAINST the existence of God. If man is truly free, he reasoned, God cannot exist. And conversely, if God exists, man cannot be (truly) free. He also argued the definition of freedom is autonomy, or self-law, self-rule. Ultimately, I am the determiner of my fate.
This of course is at odds with the biblical understanding of God’s absolute sovereignty. The 2 cannot exist at the same time just as you cannot have an immovable object co-existing with an irresistible force.”
From Dr James White on “The Dividing Line”:
Q) Why can’t it be both, God is sovereign AND man has free will?
A) “The question has to be asked, who makes the ultimate choice? If you posit that man has autonomous will, then you have 2 autonomous wills in conflict with one another.
God uses means and man does have a will. The confusion comes when you put man’s free will and God’s autonomous free will in the same category. God’s will, by nature, since he’s God, has to be fundamentally different than the will of man. Man is a creature, he is limited in time and space and knowledge. He exists for a very brief period of time and then as the grass of the field he withers or as the vapor he disappears. So the nature of man’s will cannot be made equal to the nature of God’s will, who is eternal and who is working all things according to the counsel of his own will. And so every “creaturely will” has to be subsumed under the decree of God.
And so when you say “free will,” that’s not a Biblical phrase (except as a type of sacrifice.) The problem is the utilization of that terminology, it should be “creaturely will.” God has made man in such a fashion that man has a will and man is held accountable for the exercise of his will. The problem is that the will makes decisions based upon its nature.
So when it’s said, “Well why can’t it be both?” Well what you’re smuggling in there is an elevation of the creaturely will to an equal status with the Devine will.”
Hope this is helpful for any who are following this important dialogue.
Jason,
The disdain I have for Calvinism is due to Calvinism’s disdain for Scripture. Calvinists refuse to accept what the Scripture means when read and understood in its original context, as the original author expected the readers of his day to understand it. No, it must be read through a framework of thought that Augustine fabricated due to his blending of Scripture with his pagan manichaeist philosophical beliefs. This belief system arose centuries after the Scripture was written, on a different continent, a different language, a different culture, and used different lines of thought. The result is that it grossly mishandles Scripture and insults the holiness of God. There is probably no single framework of thought that calls itself “Christian” and has led more people into atheism than has Calvinism.
The Bible was not written by theologians or philosophers, nor directed to theologians or philosophers. It was intended to be read and understood by common people as common people understand things.
Romans 2:4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that GOD’S KINDNESS is meant to lead you to repentance? ESV
Kevin
Your reply leads me to believe you take the side of Pelagius; over Augustine.
I think you have a fallen view of sovereignty. To be sovereign is to be ultimately supreme, thus meaning that whomever may be sovereign must have ultimate and final authority. In order for us to deny the sovereignty of God, we must deny the nature of God. If we have qualms about the sovereignty of God, we have not only an issue with an attribute of God but with god Himself.
Ask any atheist if they feel that they are forced to be atheist. Ask any Christian if they feel that they are forced to be Christian. Each will say that they do not feel forced or coerced. The reality of the Bible is that God, from all eternities past, did by His divine counsel and will ordain whatsoever shall come to pass (Eph. 1-2).
If God can be denied then His plan can be thwarted, but we know His plans cannot be thwarted (Job 42:2). Imagine that a cop stops you and arrests you, but you resist and run away. This proves one of two things: 1) the cop is weak, or 2) you are strong. Since we know that God is not weak and we are not strong, we know that whatsoever God shall choose to do in accordance with His providential wisdom will come to pass (John 6; Romans 8).
Irresistible Grace does not state that a man will never run from God. There may be a season in which we run from God prior to our justification. It does, however, state that those whom God has chosen before the foundation of the world shall surely be saved.
Trevor,
Respectfully, you have a confused definition of sovereignty. In human language, sovereignty is the RIGHT to govern. Sovereignty is not control of every minutia within the sphere that is being governed. In Calvinism, sovereignty is changed to mean control of every minutia – “whatsoever shall come to pass”.
The God of the Bible has the RIGHT to govern and make things come to pass if He has specifically ordained those things (as in Job 42:2). He is not governing every minutia, as your theology thinks is required as an attribute of God. It takes a gross distortion of Scripture and language to hold this view, and insults the holy character of God.
According to your “whatsoever shall come to pass” definition, even our feelings are foreordained. So, the feeling argument is irrelevant. Whether you like it or not, your “whatsoever shall come to pass” view makes God the author of everything, thereby denying that man is being truly drawn to God or that he is truly resisting. You can’t have it both ways.
(My apologies for the all caps in some words. It is used because I do not have the ability to underline. I do not intend to be shouting.)