Decisional JUSTIFICATION - Sovereign SANCTIFICATION

And this drawing (helkuo) is effectual, which I am sure you would vehemently deny.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The following are characteristic of everyone who will be raised up at the last day:
1. They cannot come unless they are drawn by the Father.
2. Those who are drawn by the Father are taught by the Father.
3. Those who are taught by the Father (hence, learn from the Father), He then gives to the Son.
4. All those whom He gives to the Son will come.
5. Of those whom He gives to the Son (and hence come), none will be lost.
6. All those who come believe on the Son.

It seems that God is ultimately responsible for the fact that people believe on the Son. The reason that they do this is because of God's effectual drawing; not the other way around. Romans 8:28-34 also clearly shows that all of salvation is God's work from start to finish.

The word draw in John 6:44 is the following:

G1670
ἑλκύω, ἕλκω
helkuō helkō
hel-koo'-o, hel'-ko
Probably akin to G138; to drag (literally or figuratively): - draw. Compare G1667.

Other verses using this word show the effectual nature of this action. These are not "woos" or "beckons," but actions that accomplish intentions.

Peter draws his sword (John 18:10).
Peter drew the net of fishes to land (John 21:11).
The masters of a divining woman caught Paul and Silas and drew them before the rulers (Acts 16:19).
The people of the city drew Paul out of the temple and closed the doors (Acts 21:30).
Rich people draw you into court (James 2:6).

 

Amen AresMan! I didn't want to waste space by copying your post.You made so much biblical sense.The unspoken response by those on the other side of the aisle:"Perfectly reasonable -- therefore totally unacceptable."

 

Sorry, I missed it. Where was this again?

 

I've seen it from my own pulpit; God drawing some individuals to Himself--very definitely under conviction of the Holy Spirit. But they resisted that drawing. They resisted the grace of God. They were not saved in spite of the grace of the God.
As it so clearly says in Acts chapter seven:

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.

They resisted the Holy Spirit, and were not saved, in spite of the drawing of God.
So also have many today.

Thus I don't not believe in irresistable grace; it can be resisted.

 

As you are well aware (or at least should be), that is a red herring. The biblical doctrine of effectual calling does not teach that no one resists the gospel or the grace of God.

 

Actually I am not Larry. As far as I understood the doctrine, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the name implies just what it says: that grace is irresistable. Thus those ones to whom the grace of God came to should have been the elect, and should have been saved, if grace is irresistable. I am not a Calvinist. And there are many things that I do not understand about Calvinism. But the name in itself implies that grace cannot be resisted. Stephen's entire message states that it can. So where have I gone wrong?

 

I'm like DHK. How is this a "red herring?" This is a legitimate argument that in no way detracts from the original argument. Either you can resist God's grace or you can't. And, I'll take the Bible's word for it just as DHK pointed out that God's grace can be resisted. In fact, how can there be the "unpardonable sin" is one cannot resist the truth?

 

Are you saying you have derived your understanding of what is called irresistable grace from the mere words?

RB

 

More or less. I have heard Calvinism presented more from the non-Calvinist point of view than from the Calvinist himself. So, from the words itself it would appear that grace is irresistable.

 

wow. Please accept my request that you read a bit more what Calvinists mean by it.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/irresistable.html
John Piper

http://www.the-highway.com/Irresistible_Murray.html
John Murray

and this one was interesting
http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Feenstra/C/A/1931/ch04.html

 

At best it is circular reasoning. To those that are/were the elect grace was irresistable.
If they are not the elect then grace can be resisted (Acts 7).
Clearly they were not of the elect in Acts 7 because they were able to resist the grace of God. If they were of the elect they would not have been able to resist the grace of God. It is all circular reasoning. Illogical.

 

Did you read though any of the articles?

 

Yes, I read through most of Piper's, but found it terribly annoying because of his constant taking Scripture out of context. It was easily refutable.

I skipped the second, and went to the last. It was well organized, but that was the article where he seemed to keep going in circles. We are saved because we are the elect. We are the elect because we are saved. etc. etc.
I know I am saved because I was given a choice. I chose, out of my own free will to put my faith and trust in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, the drawing of the Holy Spirit was there. But it was not irresistable. It still remained my choice.