Defenses of irresistible Grace

[Theoretical]

A very good friend of mine who is a confessional Lutheran finds himself in general agreement with most of the 5 points of Calvinism, but his major sticking point is with irresistible Grace. I was wondering what Biblical defenses of this provision are logically strong. He finds Calvinism only lacking in this regard and would (in my mind) no doubt accept Calvinism if point I were clearer.

He has read Bondage of the Will, Freedom of the Will (agreed with every point except the conclusion), Desiring God (which he decidedly did not like), in the realm of this theology, and he looks up Monergism.com quite a bit. In terms of his major influences theologically, he is quite fond of Athanasius, Luther, Edwards (to a point), Chesterton, and C.S. Lewis.

What are some of the soundest Biblical defenses of this doctrine, as well as theological expositions defending it?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

This may be helpful.

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

John Murray on irresistible Grace

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Jonathan Edwards, Concerning Efficacious Grace

 

[Pilgrim]

irresistible Grace

 

[Pilgrim]

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X
Of Effectual Calling

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,[1] by his Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.[8]

1. Acts 13:48; Rom. 4:28, 30; 11:7; Eph. 1:5, 11; II Tim. 1:9-10
2. II Thess. 2:13-14; James 1:18; II Cor. 3:3, 6; I Cor. 2:12
3. II Tim. 1:9-10; I Peter 2:9; Rom 8:2; Eph. 2:1-10

4. Acts 26:18; I Cor. 2:10, 12; Eph. 1:17-18; II Cor. 4:6
5. Ezek. 36:26
6. Ezek. 11:19; 36:27; Deut. 30:6; John 3:5; Titus 3:5; I Peter 1:23
7. John 6:44-45; Acts 16:14
8. Psa. 110:3; John 6:37; Matt. 11:28; Rev. 22:17; Rom. 6:16-18; Eph. 2:8; Phil 1:29

II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]

9. II Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 9:11
10. I Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7-9; Titus 3:4-5
11. John 6:37; Ezek. 36:27; I John 3:9; 5:1


III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[17] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever,[17] be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[18] And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[19]

15. Matt. 13:14-15; 22:14; Acts 13:48; 28:24
16. Matt. 7:22; 13:20, 21; Heb. 6:4-5
17. John 6:37, 64-66; 8:44; 13:18; cf. 17:12
18. Acts 4:12; I John 4:2-3; II John 1:9; John 4:22; 14:6; 17:3; Eph. 2:12-13; Rom. 10:13-17
19. II John 1:9-12; I Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:6-8

 

[Pilgrim]

The Larger Catechism, Questions 66-68

Q66: What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
A66: The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God's grace,[1] whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband;[2] which is done in their effectual calling.[3]

1. Eph. 1:22; 2:6-8
2. I Cor. 6:17; John 10:28; Eph. 5:23, 30
3. I Peter 5:10; I Cor. 1:9

Q67: What is effectual calling?
A67: Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power and grace,[1] whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto [2]) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit;[3] savingly enlightening their minds,[4] renewing and powerfully determining their wills,[5] so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.[6]

1. John 5:25; Eph. 1:18-20; II Tim. 1:8-9
2. Titus. 3:4-5; Eph. 2:4-5, 7-9; Rom. 9:11
3. II Cor. 5:20; 6:1-2; John 6:44; II Thess. 2:13-14
4. Acts 26:18; I Cor. 2:10, 12
5. Ezek. 11:19; 36:26-27; John 6:45
6. Eph. 2:5; Phil. 2:13; Deut. 30:6

Q68: Are the elect only effectually called?
A68: All the elect, and they only, are effectually called;[1] although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word,[2] and have some common operations of the Spirit;[3] who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.[4]

1. Acts 13:48
2. Matt. 22:14
3. Matt. 7:22; 13:20-21; Heb. 6:4-6
4. John 6:64-65; 12:38-30; Acts 18:25-27; Psa. 81:11-12

 

[Pilgrim]

Differences Between Lutheran and Presbyterian (scroll down).

 

[Peter]

There is a confessional, calvinist leaning Lutheran on the PB called Rev. Kevin Gilleroy (sp) (tag, Globacio) who might have the answer to this. I didn't know Lutherans were anti-IG but Kevin has discussed the Lutheran rejection of Perseverance here somewhat in its connection to baptismal regeneration. Lutherans also hold to a different view of sacramental efficacy. They believe baptism has a physical efficacy where the Spirit is constrained (though not limited in my understanding) to water baptism. (contra Jo 3:8) Thus if many people are born again automatically at baptism and subsequently fall away the perseverance of the saints is impossible.

 

[Larry Hughes]

The point of disconnect for Lutheran's, at least Luther is not really a denial of irresistible grace per se. Rather that of communication of the Gospel. The Gospel holds us in grace and thus its needed continued preaching. The fear, and to some degree rightly so, is that a person could be so enamoured with IG that the Gospel is lost, that which causes IG. IG is only IG as long as the Cross stays central and is preached, if IG becomes naked, so to speak, then it is just an empty false doctrine. That is to say, one is not saved by trusting in IG but rather the cross of Christ, those so trusting are irresistablly held. The Lutheran fear is valid and similar to their concept of election and predestination. Yes, they are true doctrines but in some sense remain a mystery for in this life what counts is the cross continually being placarded before our eyes to be beheld. Even John Calvin did not emphasize election and pred. to the degree that his so called followers of today do. The problem is when the Cross is decentralized and these other support doctrines become primary. For in this life all we have to look to, in the end analysis, is the Cross of Christ, not IG, pred., election, fruits, and etc... Throught the cross these become mighty helps in the faith, supports perhaps, but faith is alone in Christ alone.

Only when ALL doctrines in this life, which is utterly by lived by faith/trust in Christ alone, are viewed through the lens of the cross are they true. When viewed in isolation either intentionally or unintentionally without the "Cross lens", then they become unbiblical.

ldh

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by Larry Hughes]

 

[MW]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
For in this life all we have to look to, in the end analysis, is the Cross of Christ, not IG, pred., election, fruits, and etc... Throught the cross these become mighty helps in the faith, supports perhaps, but faith is alone in Christ alone.

You are abstracting these other things so as to be able to centre on the cross. If you abstracted the cross in the same way, neither would it be the object of faith. I trust in Christ alone because I am totally depraved, because He was foreordained to bear the sins of the elect, because He saves to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him, because the Spirit of God takes of the things of Christ and reveals them unto me, because I know that whoever comes to Him will in no wise be cast out but will be preserved and saved at last. If these things were not true, the bare words "Christ alone" would mean nothing, and therefore no real object of faith at all.

 

[Larry Hughes]

I was using "Christ alone" as a reformational short hand. I was not divorcing or abstracting them in isolation, in fact I was arguing against that very thing. E.g. John Calvin concerning election said in the final analysis that man ought never seek out in isolation his election which is hidden to him, but use the cross of Christ as a mirror, as it where. It's a difference in "divorcing them" and ordering them.

It's a matter of view, in this life my certainty rests in Christ's work ALONE FOR ME, not other issues above and beyond my finite sight. Nor can I scale heaven like a gnostic to seek out my election. IF the cross is not central in this life, then you have nothing, all is held and revealed in Christ. This is the purpose of the incarnation into time and space.

E.g. total depravity, you and I can agree to it in theory as true and biblical, but we have absolutely NO idea as to what this measure really is, NO man knows the depths of his sinful heart as Scripture testifies to. Only God knows the real measure of our sin and only God has supplied the cure. We can only agree to the testimony, we do not, "measure it" so as to "know it" fully. Thus, I can in no way know my depravity, EXCEPT, that I see Christ bloody, despised, abandoned and bearing God's wrath for me. Then and only then "do I see" the truth. Thus, the cross IS and remains central. If one can lay claim to "measure" or know their total depravity, then one thing is absolutely certain, they have not even a clue.

Ldh

 

[MW]

I would agree with the "ordering," and with seeing these things through the cross, as Calvin says. It is just that I can't make sense of the cross itself without these things. I can't abstract these things as if they are no object of faith, when my faith in the cross requires faith in them as well. So when you wrote earlier -- "For in this life all we have to look to, in the end analysis, is the Cross of Christ, not IG, pred., election, fruits, and etc." -- I am at a loss, because the cross makes no sense without these things.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Scott,

I compiled a list of various Scriptures supporting Irresistible Grace (and the other four points as well) here, as well as footnotes explaining many of the versus and their relation to the doctrine.

 

[Theoretical]

Thank You For So Much Help

I really appreciate all of the help y'all have given on this issue. It is most helpful to understand this area of thought for myself as well, as I have had plenty of doubts about irresistible grace myself (my friend and I had the same campus Bible study leader for awhile, and he was very wrong about this issue - and lots of others). I will look into these sources and study them carefully.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Interesting that you mention you only had doubts about irresistible Grace. Most people have a problem with Limited Atonement. In fact, that's where most Lutherans dig their heels in.

 

[Theoretical]

He has no fundamental problems with Limited Atonement, and he is definitely not fond of most notions of free will. His current world view is something along the lines that some people are DEFINITELY elected for salvation (Paul, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc...), but that more ordinary saints are monergistically regenerated, but that (for lack of a better word) they can fall back if corrupted. Grace makes it very hard and is extremely strong in his worldview, but he doesn't hold it to be irresistible. This worldview might make sense or it might not. He has definitively rejected typical mush modern quasi-Arminianism as utter garbage, and he has far more intellectual respect for Calvinist thought, but he is not all the way across that divide.

My apologies if this description is a bit unclear.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Theoretical
He has no fundamental problems with Limited Atonement, and he is definitely not fond of most notions of free will. His current world view is something along the lines that some people are DEFINITELY elected for salvation (Paul, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc...), but that more ordinary saints are monergistically regenerated, but that (for lack of a better word) they can fall back if corrupted. Grace makes it very hard and is extremely strong in his worldview, but he doesn't hold it to be irresistible. This worldview might make sense or it might not. He has definitively rejected typical mush modern quasi-Arminianism as utter garbage, and he has far more intellectual respect for Calvinist thought, but he is not all the way across that divide.

My apologies if this description is a bit unclear.

For one thing, one thing I would ask him if I were you is simply where in Scripture he finds this double-standard of predestination for different people. If he believes in unconditional election at all from Scripture, it should also be clear that that Scripture rejects that notion. Take a look at some of the unconditional election verses (with commentary) that I have in the link I provided above.

Secondly, from this post of yours above (particularly the part I put in bold) it sounds like what he has a problem with is not really irresistible grace but rather perseverance of the saints. For irresistible grace refers to the time of regeneration and conversion, and is basically synonymous with monergism in that regard. Perseverance is what speaks to the continuation of that grace of the same nature and power throughout the converted believer's life. Read the Scriptures in my link above on that doctrine as well, as I hope they can be of some help in your own endeavor to more fully understand it as well as present it.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Scott,

I compiled a list of various Scriptures supporting Irresistible Grace (and the other four points as well) here, as well as footnotes explaining many of the versus and their relation to the doctrine.

 

[Theoretical]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Theoretical
He has no fundamental problems with Limited Atonement, and he is definitely not fond of most notions of free will. His current world view is something along the lines that some people are DEFINITELY elected for salvation (Paul, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc...), but that more ordinary saints are monergistically regenerated, but that (for lack of a better word) they can fall back if corrupted. Grace makes it very hard and is extremely strong in his worldview, but he doesn't hold it to be irresistible. This worldview might make sense or it might not. He has definitively rejected typical mush modern quasi-Arminianism as utter garbage, and he has far more intellectual respect for Calvinist thought, but he is not all the way across that divide.

My apologies if this description is a bit unclear.

For one thing, one thing I would ask him if I were you is simply where in Scripture he finds this double-standard of predestination for different people. If he believes in unconditional election at all from Scripture, it should also be clear that that Scripture rejects that notion. Take a look at some of the unconditional election verses (with commentary) that I have in the link I provided above.

Secondly, from this post of yours above (particularly the part I put in bold) it sounds like what he has a problem with is not really irresistible grace but rather perseverance of the saints. For irresistible grace refers to the time of regeneration and conversion, and is basically synonymous with monergism in that regard. Perseverance is what speaks to the continuation of that grace of the same nature and power throughout the converted believer's life. Read the Scriptures in my link above on that doctrine as well, as I hope they can be of some help in your own endeavor to more fully understand it as well as present it.

I think you hit on something he recognizes as being the case. There is no such thing as a 2 or 3 or 4 point Calvinist. All five points are required to reinforce and qualify each other in order to uphold the system of doctrine. If you take one point out, the whole structure falls out of logical inconsistency. That's why even when I had serious doubts about I and P, I still held to the entire structure, believing that my initial steps would be confirmed slowly as more light was given to me through reading the Bible and theological works. Total depravity is about the only point that can sort of exist by its lonesome in a theological perspective.

I think you are right - with his main beef with irresistible grace, there are necessarily major issues with Perseverance. The other big thing appears to be holding common vs. saving grace as being distinct in terms of degree, not type. In other words, the un-elect only get some grace (common), but if they were given more common grace, then they would be saved becaus of the greater quantity (if that makes any sense).

 

[Larry Hughes]

Rev. Matthew,

I don't think we are at odds here, perhaps our language is scooting by each other.

When I say, "For in this life all we have to look to, in the end analysis, is the Cross of Christ, not IG, pred., election, fruits, and etc."

I'm speaking to what both Calvin and Luther outlined.

For example God's sovereignty which is fortress to the believer is only so because of and through the view of the Cross for me. His sovereignty nakedly or as a parallel (to our view here and now), so to speak, is nothing but wrath to me or you. God's sovereign whether or not "I'm saved", but through the eyes of faith which is the ONLY way we live today and which fixes singularly upon the cross (faith defines itself and "comes into being and stays in being" by the cross) and then sees His sovereignty becomes an appendage to that faith. I'm not divorcing them but bringing them together through Christ in Whom all things are found.

Predestination, election, fruits and so forth all function this way.

Another example is the paradox of true fruit and growth in grace. This is the paradox that most cannot seem to really grasp, and we all struggle with it due to the old man, the incurable "religious doer": The more objective and external is your faith established and constantly strengthened in the Cross of Christ and His work FOR YOU, the more the real subjective change REALLY occurs, but it occurs by NOT directing inwardly. This is the irony, the more we loose ourselves in focussing upon the cross, the more we are drawn away from ourselves, the more real fruits just simply naturally happen as life comes to us quite naturally for it shall in any case. But when faith, false faith, is directed inward to the man then the less true fruits arise even if outwardly all appearances are "good" and lots of work is performed. But the eyes of the soul, faith, are fixed, truly fixed upon the cross and Christ FOR ME. In short the more I see Christ FOR ME, the more He really will be IN ME. Hence the Gospel, not the law nor any form of it is the power EVEN for sanctification. BUT if the preaching directs me to Christ IN ME, due to the sin nature simultaneously there tainting and staining everything, the weaker Christ FOR ME (faith) becomes. The weaker faith becomes the less true fruit arises for the vine is diseased. So, again we see the centrality of the cross and the Gospel.

Election, Calvin spoke of similarly when he said that it must ONLY be perceived by the cross as a mirror. That metaphore was another way of Calvin saying what Luther says that the cross must be central or the lens through which the believer eats, breathes and lives his life in faith (trust), and views all doctrines. Predestination naked or divorced or not seen through the centrality of the Cross, Christ FOR ME, is nothing more than another Law whereby the devil will use it against me saying, "how do you know you are predestine". If he can get you to searching this out nakedly he will lead you if unopposed by Gospel, even unto hanging yourself literally or Calvin used the analogy of him pushing you off of a infinite chasm (searching predestination) as you peer over it. The answer to the devil there is the same as always, "Christ is my salvation, I am baptized, THAT'S my hope and faith no matter what".

Christ's incarnation DISPLAYS God's will toward us in consideration of all of life's experiences to the contrary and even the doctrines about God. In Christ is the Face of God displayed as Paul says or as Christ said, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father."

Blessings always,

Larry