Calvinism - TULIP - "I"rresistible Grace

Sardis is a Gentile church, yes, but is of the true Israel of God, and therefore before God is Israel, made up of Gentile and Jews, which only illustrates that the call to service and obedience may be resisted, but irresistible grace is unto eternal salvation, not temporal or gospel salvation through a devoted life of service. Also, a church is a body made up of individuals. And individuals in a church may be obedient or not. But the indictment is made in a corporate sense.

 

There is no other way to refute than with scripture - you lost me

Israel denied His grace (call to Himself, repentance, mercy) many times, thus we have a leg.

Grace being resistable isn't about God not giving it, it is about man not receiving it.

 

God gets His own people. That's the bottom line.Instead of calling this IG, it should more correctly be named Effectual Calling. All of His own who were elected before the world's creation will be drawn, none will be left behind. The Father gives those of His choosing to Christ.There are no holes to claim anyone involved in the so-called Golden Chain of Romans 8:29-30.All of the foreknown, predestined,called, justified and glorified are collectively bound for Heaven, no power ( much less of the human variety) can prevent it. The Lord conquers the hearts that He wants without fail.

 

What I mean is that we cannot use the Bible to argue our positions when talking about humanity in general. The subject matter in question is: Can God's grace be resisted ?
From what I glean from the posts, the Calvinists state that Irresistible Grace pertains only to eternal salvation, and not to the call to service or obedience (I may be wording this poorly, so you all bear with me and forgive me).
The non-Calvinists, on the other hand, are of the argument that man can resist grace and the call to salvation (and I understand this salvation to be the eternal one, not the gospel one).
We cannot use the Bible to argue these points, because the Bible does not address all of mankind. There is no Scripture that says the Bible was intended to benefit all of mankind. And if there is no Scripture to that effect, then applying the principles and doctrines meant only for God's people to those for whom they were not meant will result in an endless spiral.

Israel is not mankind. Israel is a picture of God's true people, whom Paul calls or alludes to as the True Israel, made up of Jew and Gentile. Call it the church if you will, or the saved, or the elect, or the free-willers.
National Israel is a nation created by God out of one man, Abram, who himself was a Gentile and a former idolater like his wife Sarai. To this man, and subequently the nation that came out of him, Jehovah revealed Himself, and this nation was the only nation in the face of the earth in that time who worshipped the One true God.
However, their being a nation chosen by God to be His does not change the fact that they also came from a Gentile, and have the fallen nature of the Gentile nations around them.
Similarly, a born-again child of God, after the Irresistible Call to his spirit by the Holy Spirit, can resist subsequent calls because of his old nature. God did not remove that old "Gentile" nature. He added a new one. And these two are at war with each other.
Israel resisting God's grace or call did not cause God to declare them no longer His people. He punished them, yes, but He remained true to them all throughout the Old Testament.
And so Paul says: "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."
We being children of God, not mankind.

Well, I might put it this way: "it is about the believer not yielding to it for his own good".

 

Um, many resisted the call of the Spirit, Agrippa was almost persuaded.

Since he was almost persuaded, by the inducement of the ideal of irresistable grace, it would go to say the Spirit was having an off-day when Paul had finished his testimony before him.:tonofbricks:

Too many bricks for that ideal to stand anywhere but sinking sand.

It's "whosoever will", not "whomsoever I choose will":godisgood:

 

Um, they weren't "in him" before they were in him.

They weren't holy and without blame before him in love until they were IN HIM! / elect.

 

this just shows poor understanding of the doctrine sala.

Calvinist do not deny man will resist. In fact they teach that man will ALWAYS resist. "Almost persuaded" is what many many do. It is because of mans will that they do resist. Mans will thinks he is fine just as he is, or that he will come to God later, after he sins some more.

God must open the eyes of the sinner, in order for them to see their real need. Once this happens, once they see God for who he is in all of His holiness and glory, once they see their worthless state of sin, once they see they have no other hope but Christ, it is at this point that grace is irresistible. They are not forced to become a believer, but rather they now see clear with their new eyes, that they need salvation and long for it.

This happens only after God opens the eyes of the sinner.

 

you would like to believe so, but ......

yet they stand on the ideal of IG:laugh:

Most certainly, but many will can and will resist grace.

You're confusing Divne revelation with grace.

Nice conjecture. but that just isn't exactly true.

No "new eyes' to see with until they are saved and raised from death unto life. It wasn't until after Saul was converted did he receive a new name Paul, and the scales fall from his eyes.

The when Jesus first touched the eyes of the blind man and he saw men as trees walking, there was something wrong with his touch, but we know it was something wrong with the man's perspective, nothing wrong with the touch of the Master's hand.

Man has seen the handiworks of God firsthand and still rejected Christ. But Christ has never touched a man in the sense of salvation and later rejected that man!:godisgood:
For a man to receive that touch, he first must call on Him in whom he has believed.

God made the first move in creation, even the heavens declare the glory of God for man to have an essence of His existing.:sleeping_2:

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That I am sala....that I am.

BTW...it is grace

 

True, and those who do were either never ordained to eternal life, or if they were, it wasn't God's time for them yet.

Filipinos have a saying. Loosely translated it goes like this: If it is not for you, then you won't get it.

 

Yep, and God is for everybody to get saved, yet man has a will that rejects God until he sees the need. Even then, man will make a profession and never repent.

I am sorry to say I've seen many do this, only later to deny the very blood that bought them by actions, although by their mouths they still claim to be saved.

 

Let me ask you this. Is the main goal of God to save all of mankind?

 

No. If it was, He would have.

 

Hello Sober,

Its good to meet you.


I happen to agree.

 

I think the biggest issue I have with some outspoken Calvinists is what you have said, my brother. To write that the main goal of God is this or that (in your case to glorify Christ and redeem the elect) seems to limit the eternal, limitless God to a system or a sentence.

 

This is about the only thing you said that makes sense. And what is the "indictment" of? Their THEOLOGY!! There were some in Sardis who had NOT "drunk the Kool Aid", Rev 3:4! Wake up, pinoy!!

skypair

 

You HOPE.

There is no distinction there. Both are Calvinist thoughts. But in truth, "calling" is merely the preaching of the gospel and grace. It is "effectual" in "whosoever BELIEVES," rip. (John 3:16)

See, you give good "gospel" until you get to that last sentence. :BangHead: Salvation is a "gift" we readily receive, rip. Why would you call it God's "conquest?" Why would you say that as if we were being taken prisoner?

skypair