Irresistible or Irreducible Grace?

There are obviously those who do not desire to be seen as upholding the point of Calvinism known as Irresistible grace. They obviously desire to be seen as consistent with principles of justice and Scriptures which clearly offers the choice to man to either resist or accept God’s offer of salvation. What is interesting to me is that although they desire to uphold human freedom in accepting the offer, they clearly despise the notion that freedom exists beyond the first nanosecond subsequent to entering into that hope.

Why the push for freedom to exist but for a slit second, to refute that it can exist subsequent to receiving salvation? If they are said to refute irresistible grace, why mandate irreducible grace? If grace was not irresistible immediately antecedent to salvation, it certainly is irresistible immediately after receiving it according to any and all that hold to OSAS. At best it is not that they do not believe in irresistible salvation, it is only a matter of differing at what point it becomes as such.

 

HP: I have the same question as drfuss on this one. How does the Arminian join in unity when I have never met or heard of any Arminian that holds to OSAS, irresistible grace, or irrevocable grace.

 

HP: This is simply absurd to me. How can one believe in unconditional election and try not to act as if though they do not believe in irresistible grace or limited atonement?

If man has nothing to do with his salvation and there are no conditions for him to fulfill, yet some are indeed saved, something other than themselves has to determine those that will be saved. God has to do something they cannot do for themselves being dead, and it obviously would have no meaning to do anything to those not elected. How can a dead man resist the very means by which he is elected? How can a dead man accept something that is withheld from him?

It is a given that those elected will come to salvation and that without fail. To say that it is not irresistible is to make one dead and unable to do anything out to be greater than God, suggesting that they can resist that which God says will come to pass, i.e., the salvation of the elect.

Again, if one holds to unconditional election, and God has to do something to a select few in order to secure their salvation,(remembering that man has nothing to do with their salvation, nothing to do with keeping it) what about the others? There is not a chance in the world that they ever had the means to secure salvation seeing they were not of the ‘unconditional election.’ If that is not limited atonement, the Pope is not Catholic.

Three point Calvinism, as you claim it is, is a complete farce. The two things you say are denied are logically implied by holding to unconditional election, and that of necessity.

 

HP: I appreciate that you are still raising some questions in your mind.

What is amazing to me is that when you take the position you seemingly do concerning Sovereignty, you are limiting God’s ability to be Sovereign, not supporting it. You deny that a Sovereign God can create a being and grant to it sovereignty over its intents, and that by design. Why would you limit a Sovereign God in this manner?

 

HP: I hope that one calling themselves a three point Calvinist might step up and clear up this issue. It doesn’t matter whether or not the election comes after receiving salvations message of somewhere in eternity past, if in fact it is unconditional there are no conditions period. If there are no conditions, man is passive. If man is passive, it must of necessity be irresistible if it happens, or man is able to resist necessitated fate, a feat not even God can accomplish. If I am not thinking right possibly a three pointer can set me straight.