To Calvinists, What is 'Irresistible Grace'?

It's biblical and that's all that matters to me. I'm Baptist because it is close as I can get to the truth. :thumbs:

Having a will that is free to choose from an array of options, good and bad, subjectively or objectively, God or sin.

Like I said, it starts with "instinct." A baby cries when it is hungry instinctively. It grows up and asks for milk. It grows more and asks for cocaine. "Baby" crossed a moral barrier, maybe without realizing it the first time. But when "Baby" realizes what it has done, it usually says, "I want it anyway." Which turn of conscience/soul is death with God. But notice how sin emerged from innocent instinct.

But if the issue turns to sex, "Baby" may still have learned inhibitions and do right. Same with religion. Each new thing demands a decision. One may be a hardened drug user who is a woman-respecting virgin, at least today.

When presented with Christ, though his conscience/soul is "incomunnicado" with God so that he has no outside Reason to choose Christ, his spirit/mind might realize that he needs to get right for sin** -- that drugs weren't all they were cracked up to be -- that the "abundant life" includes sex with the right woman. The Holy Spirit, no doubt, whispers, "It's ETERNAL life with TRUE GOD + abundant life (rather than hell) on earth we're talking about, Jack.

Having free choice, Jack/Baby could go either way. Inertia is one thing. Credibility is another. It's definitely a Spirit on spirit battle raging and the Holy Spirit is NOT in possesion/indwelling at this point (as some demons may, in fact, be). But one thing is sure -- Jack is looking at his conscience and evaluating how one option and then the other would work out. Will he steadily slide into poor health, poverty, dispair? Or will he be drawn into the light. He is aware and free to choose either way, hardshell.

If he was "elect," he would probably, at this point, not be given the option to repent and receive. If it all made sense to him, he would assume that he understood the gospel and was already "elect," which is the word Calvies use for saved wherein there is no choosing on our part involved. He'd probably go beyond that and commit himself to "give it a try" (one Calvis invitation I've heard is "Come forward and give God a little more of your life." [not all of it, mind you]. I've heard another say he was just growing the elect into salvation [no immediate necessity to be concerned about eternity]) -- "test drive" this "faith thing" and see how it goes. After all, the "elect" have assurance, too!

Well, 2 things: 1) choices have to be based on facts for salvation to happen. I just gave you the example of Jack who, in the 2nd case, was working off of Cavlinism as the gospel. So no, that wouldn't save no matter how free his will was. 2) Salvation is conditional -- believe and receive, 1Cor 15:1-4. Belief by itself is "belief in vain." If you don't repent and receive, then you are still standing on the sand and not on the Rock.

skypair

**This is called "the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit," Heb 4:12. His soul could care less about God but the word has convicted his spirit and made him think opposite to his soul/conscience.

 

Sky P......

Do you affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement?

 

Sky P....

Methinks you have fallen prey to the idea that man is getting better as reflected in our own denomination's confessional statements over the years.

You see History would have revealed to you that the SBC is moving farther and farther away from Biblical truth rather than closer to it.

 

Do you always answer a question with a question? You have a very difficult time answering Skypairs posts.

A simple question:
Did Israel resist the Holy Spirit?

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

 

Yeah, I picked up the habit from Jesus! raying:

To answer your question - Only after they were God's Chosen People.

 

DHK,

I have a hard time answering Sky P....'s questions cause I've never run into a Southern Baptist who believes like he does.

I'm trying to figure out where he's coming from and what he's been reading.

 

LOL!! I still have no clue what SP believes. I gave up trying to understand him after he said God tries to save everyone but fails.

 

I believe it is akin to blasphemy to blame God for man's failures. Does God want everyone to be saved?

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

You avoided many of Skypair's posts. You avoided a simple question of mine.

 

Any of whom? Hint: See "to us-ward". In fact, I believe it is blasphemy to suggest God wants to do something He cannot accomplish.

 

You are not rightly dividing the word of truth. You cannot impose "usward" into "any". That is not what it says. They are two separate clauses. God is not willing that any, not a select few, should perish.
Words have meanings. It means what it says.

 

Well, I think you are wrongly dividing the word of truth, but we're not going to get anywhere that way. Believe what you want.

 

I believe the Bible who will have all men to be saved, even the unsaved who are in positions of authority (read the context)

1 Timothy 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

 

No, I answered yours.

Go back and read it and tell me where I am wrong.

 

After Pentecost, one cannot say that they were God's chosen people, as God was calling out a people/nation unto himself. Look at the verse again:

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

So do ye--So do you resist the Holy Spirit, the very ones that shouted: "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" These were not saved people. They were not God's chosen people. They were wicked, vile sinners that if at that time had died would have gone straight to Hell. There was no repentance in their lives. Even John the Baptist, previously condemned their lives.

 

You asked a question - I gave you an answer. I stand by my answer.

The whole sermon of Stephen is an indictment against Israel.

 

Then why does Stephen differentiate between two different groups of people.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

He is clearly speaking to those after Pentecost that were not saved. He says that they are the ones resisting the Holy Spirit, and then compares them to OT Israel as your fathers did But they were not of their fathers. They were no longer under the law. The law had been abolished at the cross. Christ had fullfilled it. No more could they brng sacrifices and sacrifice them. The one great Sacrifice had already been made. Either you accepted it or rejected it. A Jew was either lost or saved.

"He came to his own but his own received him not."
There is no "Jew" any longer and won't be until the Millennial Kingdom or the Second Coming when Christ comes for his own. But now grace is offered to all--but Jews and Gentiles alike. There is only one way to be saved, and that is through Christ. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile. Stephen's message, though directed to the unsaved Jew, was still directed to the unsaved.

 

Don't know, hardshell. (???) My own belief is that "all politics is local" and so I go where I am fed the truth. I believe in the local church -- not in a magisterium like Catholics do.

Is that so? I didn't know of such. I have found one thing though --- when I am involved with the church, I have a much more optomistic view of the church than when I am doing my own thing. Prehaps the zits don't show up as well at close range. :laugh:

You know something, there are areas where you are right and some where you are wrong. I haven't taken a balance to it. In fact, insofar as eschatology, I am probably way out ahead of the SBC and every once in a while I find someone has caught up to me at last.

skypair

 

Let's see --- saved in Bible Presbyterian at age 16, been to CCC in CA, took some time off for college, been SBC or, for a short time, GRBC, ever since. Took teens to Navigators one year, teen counselor another, bus ministry, teen ministry, "Here's Life America" and EE visitation. Attended for years either Bobby Moore's or Adrian Roger's churches here in the MidSouth.

Reading? Mostly eschatology and scripture. Scripture, I'd say, is where I get most of my views now. But I been a prayer meeting leader for 8 years now offering up a good bit of teaching and writing there.

Thing is, hardshell, I'd agree that Baptists are going backward if they are starting to push Calvinism. And it's not just the theology but the practice that hurts.

skypair

 

Well Sky P.....

The next time Bro. Gaines refers to anything from Baptist history in his sermon you just go ahead and swallow it hook line and sinker cause I'm sure you won't know whether he is passing on truthful info or just "shucking and jiving" the congregation. :laugh: