Rather than starting every article with a joke, I decided to
use a real life story which, often times, can be funnier than any joke.
I have a three year old son whose chief delight is playing
in either dirt or mud. So much so, that we have needed to place limitations on
his mud-playing. For instance, since we generally don’t allow him to play
outside when it is wet and rainy, he found that he needed a source of water for
his mud-making. So, he would often find a bucket, turn on the faucet that is
outside our house, fill the bucket and go off to his mud-making. Of course,
once his use for the faucet was over, it was forgotten, and rather than
shutting it off, within a short amount of time we would have gallons of water
flowing down our driveway. To remedy this, we placed rather strict parameters
on the use of the outside faucet (i.e. NO usage except with Dad or Mom’s
permission)...
The other day my wife was playing outside with him while our
twin babies were inside sleeping. One of the babies woke up and began crying,
so my wife ran inside to check on the baby. When she came out, there was our
son playing with mud. Being slightly frazzled from the night before (anyone
with twins will be knowingly nodding at this point), she was a little perturbed
at our son’s complete lack of obedience. She began asking him why he had not
listened to us and had used the faucet. He utterly denied any use of the faucet
(which, he is apparently obliged to do anytime we speak to him since he denies
doing anything whether good or bad).
My wife, in no mood to quarrel went over to the faucet for the proof that would
indict my three year old. She did not find it – the faucet and ground around it
were bone dry.
Coming back to my son now perplexed by this whole situation,
she again asked him how he had made the mud. My son proceeded to tell her in
the innocent voice that only a three year old can muster. Rather than giving
the details, let me say that Jesus once made mud with his spittle. My son,
apparently finding such a method less than efficient and being a far more
industrious person, decided to use another liquid-producing function of his
body…
In the time that it took you to figure all that out, my wife
went through several stages of denial, shock, and horror about four or five
times over before horror won out. She scooped my three year old up, rushed him
into the house, threw him in a bath and proceeded to give him a cleansing that
Moses and Aaron would have been proud of.
All this to say that my three year old son is
irresistible….and in need of tremendous grace. I’m not sure that’s exactly what
the Calvinists have in mind when they speak of irresistible grace, but I
thought it might be a nice tie in.
The Beginning of the Article
In my last two posts, we began the process of looking at
each of the components of TULIPS in order to see how well this model of
salvation aligns with Scripture. In looking at Total Depravity, we agreed with
much of the traditional position though we found no Scriptural evidence for:
regeneration prior to faith; an understanding that death means spiritual
inability to act; and that the non-believer is unable to exercise faith. Thus,
we stated that a person will never seek God in their sinfulness.
However, through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, God
seeks each individual making them aware of their standing before Him. It is at
this point that a person does or does not exercise their faith in Jesus. Once
they believe, they are given life which is the presence of God through the Holy
Spirit living in them. All the benefits of salvation are immediately bestowed
upon them (though final fulfillment awaits our resurrection).
In our overview of Unconditional Election, we found little
in the Calvinist position that aligns with Scripture. There is only one
individual in Scripture identified as elect – Jesus (all other identifications
are of a group of people). Ephesians 1 tells us that we are elect in Him (i.e.
our election is by association not by decree) and that God foreknew this in 1 Peter 1 and Romans 8.
We completely disagreed with the position of Limited
Atonement. Since Calvinists cannot supply Scriptural proof that Christ died
only for the elect, we believe there is a universal redemption that has been
paid for all mankind (1 Timothy 2:6, 2 Peter 2:1). This redemption is applied
to the unregenerate the moment that they place their faith in Jesus (Galatians 4:5).
In this article, we will look at the fourth component of
TULIPS – Irresistible Grace. I will follow the same model as I did with the
last posts by defining Irresistible Grace from a Calvinist perspective, list
some places where Biblical support is lacking, and make a suggestion for a
position that better embraces Scripture.
Irresistible Grace From a Calvinist Perspective
Like Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace is directly tied
to the understanding of Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. Since God
has elected some who will surely be saved, He will act in sovereign grace
(Isaiah 46:9-10) so that the elect will irresistibly be drawn to Christ (John 6:37). It should be noted that Calvinists do not believe that God forces the
elect to believe in Christ, but rather gives them life. Those who are dead in
sin are irresistibly attracted to Satan and all those who are given life by God
are irresistibly attracted to God. Therefore, regeneration/life must be given
prior to faith (Ephesians 2:4-5, 1 John 5:1).
The most common Scriptural emphasis for Irresistible Grace
is that of Lazarus being raised (John 11:40-45). This is generally how the
argument proceeds. Lazarus is an example of those who are dead. They are bound
and unable to self-resurrect themselves through an act of their will. Before
Lazarus can respond to Jesus’ command to come forth, he must be given life. Jesus
changed Lazarus’ condition first – giving Him life – so that he could hear the
command to come forth.
Corollary to this is the argument that our faith is part of
the grace that we receive as a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore,
there is no part that the person plays in the application of their faith.
Where I Think Calvinists Lack Scriptural Support
Much of this we have already dealt with under my post on
Total Depravity. So, I will try to repeat as little from there as possible and
focus on the account of Lazarus and Ephesians 2:8-9. I will also look at
Ephesians 2:4-5 and 1 John 5:1 which are popular proof texts for regeneration
prior to faith.
Is the account of Lazarus a good parallel to what happens to
the unregenerate elect? It is important to look at the total passage to see its
usefulness as a model of irresistible grace. Several things need to be noted.
First, the purpose of Jesus waiting till after Lazarus was dead was so that He
could resurrect him as a means of proof for his disciples to believe (11:14-15)
which would be unnecessary if faith comes from God. In verses 25-26 we seem to
get two different stories from Jesus – belief comes before living in v. 25;
life comes before believing in v. 26. (though a closer look shows that belief
comes before life in v. 25 and v. 26 is a statement of what is true when a
person is believing and living). Interestingly, all of Jesus’ miracles
pertaining to people (i.e. not the miracles that are purely natural such as the
calming of the storm, etc.) that are recorded are predicated either explicitly
or implicitly on the faith of the person being healed or someone else.
In fact, apart from this faith, Jesus could not do miracles
(Mark 6:5). We see that Jesus seems to be focused on Martha for the basis of
this miracle in v. 39-40. So there would be no indicator from this whether a
spiritually dead person can exercise faith or not. Note that there is no
decisive indicator in the passage that life was given to Lazarus prior to
Jesus’ command. The command, like the prayers, seems to be given as much for
the sake of the people around Him as much as it is for Lazarus. Could Jesus not
have been speaking to the spirit of Lazarus which then reunited with his body
and came forth? The passage simply doesn’t tell us either way.
As we noted in Total Depravity, an understanding of Lazarus’
resurrection is going to depend on an understanding of death. In that post, we
showed that a Biblical understanding of death is not a lack of spiritual
ability but rather a separation (Matthew 8:12, 22:13, 25:30, Luke 16:26; life,
then, is being in the presence of God - Revelation 20:10-15). So, since
physical death is the separation of the body from the spirit, we would expect
that physical life would somehow need to be given in order for the body and
spirit to be rejoined.
However, does this necessitate that the same thing happens
on a spiritual level? Can God communicate with an unregenerate person’s spirit
prior to it being given life in such a way that it can understand? This would
seem to be exactly what happens when the Holy Spirit convicts the unregenerate
(John 16:8-11). Can a spiritually dead person hear or understand God? John 5:25
would seem to state that it is possible. Can a person believe prior to
receiving life? Again, that seems to be exactly what happens according to John 20:30-31 (I know that some will state that life in some of these verses refer
to the salvation that we receive after we believe after we have been
regenerated – but that leads us to the logical difficulty that we are given
life – regeneration – believe and then are given life again – salvation; if I’m
wrong here, I’ll need someone to point out how).
Thus, the parallel with Lazarus and the faith/regeneration
of the unregenerate do not seem to be as parallel as some would have us
believe. Lazarus is an example of a body and spirit being reunited.
Regeneration is an example of a person and God being reunited. The two may have
some similarities, but we must be careful to state whether they are exactly
parallel.
But don’t Ephesians 2:4-5 and 1 John 5:1 state that
regeneration happens prior to faith? Ephesians 2:4-5 simply states that we have
been given life through God’s grace – we agree with this. It does not state
whether faith is prior to or after the life and thus is not a clear proof of
regeneration prior to life.
1 John 5:1 on its surface would seem to be a stronger
argument. I agree with the approach that states the best means of translating
this verse is “Whoever is continually believing that Jesus is the Christ, has
been born of God…” However, this still does not state whether the regeneration
came prior to or after faith. Let me use a non-theological example to help us
understand this.
Let’s take the statement, “President Bush is continually
sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom because he has been elected president.” The
verb tenses and usage are the same as in 1 John 5:1. Because of an event that
has happened in the past (the president being elected) a result continues today
(he is continually sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom). But, the question is,
could he have slept in the Lincoln Bedroom prior
to being elected president. Given President Clinton’s penchant for open door
policy and the fact that George W’s father was president, the answer is yes, he
could have. Does the statement that we laid out above tell us whether he did or
not? No, it is inconclusive.
In the same way, 1 John 5:1 is inconclusive in telling us
whether faith is prior to regeneration. I do not doubt that we have been
regenerated in the past nor that it is a direct result of that regeneration
that my faith has been sustained till today and will be into eternity. I would
not continue to believe had I not been regenerated. However, this verse does
not answer the question we are asking – give clear proof that regeneration
precedes faith. Many verses can be given supporting faith prior to regeneration
(Luke 8:12, John 1:12, 3:16, 4:14, 6:35, 6:40, 6:58, 20:31, Acts 2:37-38,
8:12-16, 13:39, over 18 verses in Romans where our justification is by faith,
all of Galatians 3, Ephesians 1:13, Hebrews 4:2-3, 1 Peter 1:23, and many more
less explicit verses).
Thus, we find no Biblical support for regeneration prior to
faith (some might argue that regeneration happens at the same time as faith,
and, although more tenable, does not deal with the verses that place life after
faith).
We must also answer the point that Calvinists bring up that
faith is a gift. Rey himself has done an excellent exegesis of Ephesians 2 here, so I will just parallel
his points since they are quite clear. In Ephesians 2:8-9, we all have received
a gift – salvation by grace through faith. Some would like to break this down
to say that the grace is a gift, that the salvation is a gift and that the
faith is a gift, thus supporting the Calvinist point.
However, the verse in the
Greek simply will not support this. If Paul
wanted to say this, he could have quite simply changed in verse 8 ‘that’
(touto) to ‘these’ (tauta) (the ‘it is’ does not appear in the Greek). It is
the total plan of God which is being called the gift. And this is not something
that we have either thought up or deserved in ourselves. Nor is it something
that we can meritoriously work towards. This plan of God (the result of grace, by
means of faith, and the death and resurrection of Christ) is a gift of God
(notice, that I did not say are a
gift of God). This does not necessitate that the faith itself is given to us by
God – simply that the means by which God chose to accept us into His salvation is
the gift.
Calvinists feel that faith as a gift is central to an
understanding of God in order to maintain God’s sovereignty and His glory in
salvation. If this is so central to a Biblical understanding of salvation, is
there no other passage in all of Scripture that states that saving faith is
given to us from God than the one that is so heavily disputed in Ephesians
2:8-9? I am not saying that one verse against twenty makes the one verse wrong
(one verse is truth as much as twenty). I’m just asking for any other verse in
Scripture that would say with more clarity that saving faith is given to us by
God rather than hanging my hat on a verse that has almost throughout all
Christian history been debated.
However, in light of the following verses, I don’t find
Ephesians 2:8-9 as debatable as some make it out to be. There are some
questions that arise if faith is a gift. If faith were something that only came
as a direct gift from God, then there would be no reason for Jesus to be
astonished at the unbelief of the unregenerate (Mark 6:6 – some have stated
that this is an ‘expected astonishment’ – i.e. He knew they would not believe
but was astonished at how much they pursued their own way – though I’m not
quite certain how the word can support expectation or how it even makes sense
with this word).
In addition, if faith is a gift of God, the lack of it
cannot be judged by God since there is nothing that man can or cannot do to
attain it (John 3:18 – I understand the argument that God can hold the
non-elect responsible for their sin because they are participatory in their
sinfulness – but if faith is a gift of God, how can He hold someone responsible
for something they not only don’t have but can’t have without His action and,
by His own decree, were never destined to have). Furthermore, if faith was
given to people by God, how could demonic intervention prevent the gift from
being given (Luke 8:12)?
So How Do We Understand Irresistible Grace Based on
Scripture
Much like Limited Atonement, there is little in the
Calvinist teaching on Irresistible Grace that we can use. Scripture clearly
states that faith comes prior to life (John 20:31 among many others) and thus
we disagree with regeneration prior to faith. Though Ephesians 2:8-9 on the
surface may seem to support a Calvinist belief in faith as a gift from God,
lacking further Scriptural support and seeing support that faith is something
that God expects to be in us prior to regeneration, we disagree that faith is a
gift of God – rather God’s plan to provide for our need - through Jesus because
of His grace and through our faith - is a gift from God.
Instead, as we’ve stated elsewhere, when the Holy Spirit
convicts a person of their standing before God, each person either does or does
not exercise their faith in Jesus. If they do, they are given life which is
characterized by the presence of God in their life (immediately by the Holy
Spirit, in eternity with the fullness of God).
-pastor russ-
Russ on Total Depravity
Russ on Unconditional Election
Russ on Limited Atonement
(Russ on Faith)
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-23 10:24:25Russ,
I see that you can't get past the idea that faith precedes regeneration. It all hangs on Total Depravity, as I said before, and without a firm belief in just how sinful and depraved we are the rest of the TULIP crumbles. You cannot build an argument for the U L I or P unless the T is nailed down. If you've defeated the "T" then the rest is a waste of time.
Without the "T" there is no need of "Irresistible Grace" because men aren't "Totally" depraved. They are "Partially" depraved but still left with some ability to choose good. Because they are left with that ability there is no need for grace to be "Irrisistible". Men will either choose to accept it or reject it.
Here are some verses that you've overlooked. I think they speak for themselves.
John 6:37
Quote:
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;
John 5:21
Quote:
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
John 10:16
Quote:
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.
Perhaps the most over looked passage in the debate is:
Acts 13:48
Quote:
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.
Many have tried to rearrange this verse but it is grammatically correct just as it is here. Men and women "BELIEVE" because the are "ORDAINED" to eternal life. They're not ordained because they've believed. You can't reverse the order.
If God's grace weren't irrisistible then none would believe. Why would you believe, Russ, and one of your best friends not believe? Is it because you are so much smarter? Is it because you are such a better person? Is it because you made an extra effort to be something more and do something more?
1 Corinthians 4:7
Quote:
For who maketh thee to differ from another?
This is a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious, it is God who makes us differ. You believe because God made you a believer. You differ from the unbeliever because God made you to differ.
If this weren't the case then grace wouldn't be "Amazing".
1 Cor 4:7
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-23 13:59:02Is 1 Cor 4:7 speaking about the difference between unsaved and saved or is it asking who made one believer more superior than the other so as to justify arrogance?
Either...
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-23 16:06:38Any differences are due to God's work alone. Why aren't we all as bad as a Hitler? Because we have been restrained by God's grace and he was set loose. The same with Pharoah which is why it is said that "He hardened his heart." and that "God hardened his heart." God uses means but He is the uncaused cause of all events.
Why do some believe and others continue in unbelief? God is the answer.
Why were some called to be Apostles and others weren't? God is the answer.
All differences are the result of the Potter's hand.
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-24 08:48:00Tim sorry for the delay. I had the pleasure of visiting with one of our missionaries yesterday and it was a wonderful day of seeing what God is doing in the lives of people that are broken beyond imaginationօPraise Him!!
As to your post Actually, Tim, I֒ve presented what I believe to be a fully Biblical response to Total Depravity. In that post I showed that:
a) Jesus expected there to be faith in the unregenerate (Mark 6:5-6)
b) That faith precedes life (John 20:31)
c) That a proper understanding of death does not negate faith (i.e. that spiritual death does not declare spiritual inability) but instead focuses on separation (Revelation 20:10-15)
d) And an added bonus in this post that the unregenerate are able to do things that are pleasing, yet not meritorious towards salvation (Acts 17:11-12)
Thus, I stated that although I completely agree that mankind can neither pursue God nor do anything that will merit him/her salvation, that God can (and does) pursue us and calls each person to do the only thing that will not bring the individual any glory ֖ believe.
Given this presentation, the Calvinist must defend:
a) That the unregenerate are incapable of believing I understand that there are a plethora of verses that state we can not meritoriously work our way to salvation. But if you are going to use any of these verses, then you must also show that faith in the unregenerate is a meritorious work. Such defense has not been given.
b) The verses that place life after faith (I listed many more in my original post). I realize that you would like to interpret the verses that place life after faith as meaning salvation after faith, but then you will need to define regeneration to me. My understanding is that regeneration is the giving of life to the spiritually dead. If that is accurate and it occurs either before or concurrent with faith, what can a verse like John 20:31 possibly mean. I֒ve been given life and then Im given life҅? Your defense of regeneration either prior to or simultaneous with faith has not taken these verses into consideration.
c) If I remember correctly, you actually agreed that death does equal separation, thus, Im not sure how you can make the jump from spiritual death (being separated from God in our sinfulness) to spiritual inability (not being able to believe). YouҒve not explained this.
d) You noted in a previous post that Romans 8:8 shows that unregenerate man cannot please God. I tried to show there that within the context of chapters 7 and 8 that Paul is speaking about meritoriously attaining salvation, which you disagreed with. So, were the Bereans doing something pleasing to God prior to believing when they searched the Scripture (Acts 17:11-12)? If yes, then your argument on Romans 8:8 is moot. If no, then why are they called noble for doing the searching?
As for your other verses:
John 6:37 I don֒t disagree with this. However, one must ask, Who does the Father give?ђ The Calvinist answers, The electђ which is not completely wrong in that those who come to Christ are elect. However, what does the context tell us who these elect are? Verse 44 states that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him. Note that it does not say that ALL that the Father draws will come, only that no one can come unless the Father draws. So, who does the Father draw? Verse 45a refers back to v. 44 (see how the phrase It is writtenђ is used in John elsewhere always referring to what precedes) and describes how and who are drawn. All are taught by God. So, if all are taught by God/drawn, but not necessarily everyone comes, what is the qualifier that determines the difference? Verse 45b tells us ֖ those who listen and learn. Now, you can try to argue that only those who God unconditionally chose in eternity past are those who listen and learn, but that is another discussion. John 6:37-45, when read in context, shows exactly what we have been saying.
John 5:21 This verse is inconclusive. Who is the Son pleased to give life to? Verse 24 would seem to place the pleasing to give on those who hear and believe. Thus, again, the context defeats what you are trying to prove.
John 10:16 ֖ I think its probably clear from this passage that Jesus is speaking about the difference between Jews and Gentiles here. You have no argument from me that unregenerate people are able to listen and learn to what God says. So, this verse dovetails nicely with what we discussed in John 6.
Acts 13:48 there are a number of paths that we could go down on this, but I֒ve already been wearied at other sites on this verse, so well take the easiest road. This verse, again in context, is not a treatment of election. All it is saying is that those who were ordained/appointed/set aside for eternal life believed. It states nothing about how that appointment happened. Under UE, we showed that we are chosen ґin Christ. Thus, we are chosen by association not by decree. That association is made when we believe. Since God foreknows about our association with Christ, we are elect from eternity past. Thus, it is not impossible for Luke here in Acts 13:48 speaking of the elect believing. YouҒve not proven your point here since those set aside for eternal life based upon the foreknowledge of God are doing what God foreknew they would do. It proves nothing of an unconditional nature in election.
Tim, you state that, If God's grace weren't irresistible then none would believe.Ӕ Prove this statement Biblically. I know this is what Calvinism teaches, but I dont find it in Scripture. Instead, I see from Genesis 3 all the way through Revelation 20, God trying with every part of His being to make ALL people aware of their need to trust in Him. Why all the effort if people canҒt believe apart from an irresistible influence by God on their life?
Tim ֓Why would you believe, Russ, and one of your best friends not believe? Is it because you are so much smarter? Is it because you are such a better person? Is it because you made an extra effort to be something more and do something more? I donԒt know. No. No. No. I simply dont know why I responded to GodҒs judgment and love in my life and other of my friends have not. But nor do I need to come up with some theological reason for it. God convicted me, He taught me, I listened and learned, I am Christs. That I know. I also know that I will not give up on telling others how I have seen the risen Savior in my life because God may, in His unfathomable wisdom that is beyond my comprehension, use a fool like me to be His instrument in the Holy SpiritҒs conviction of those friends whom I love so dearly and yet do not know true love. Sorry.that was off topic. To answer your question, I donŒt know but see no Scriptural reason why I must know.
1 Corinthians 4:7 ֓EitherŔ I think v. 6 actually answers your response better than I could. This verse, as Rey pointed out, is talking about differences of superiority or inferiority, not to why a person is a believer or not a believer. You must prove this to the text, not simply apply your theology to a text that says what you want it to say.
Written by Name: on 2005-05-24 17:20:37Russ said,
Quote:
I dont know. No. No. No. I simply donҒt know why I responded to Gods judgment and love in my life and other of my friends have not.
When you get to heaven and find out, we'll still let you hang out with the Calvinists! We know why. That's why we defend the doctrines of grace. :grin
heh heh
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-24 17:37:32lol.
Written by Name