Irresitable Grace

[Zakuska]

If grace is irresitable as Calvins Tulip implies. Why are there so many people who are able to resist it and be condemned to the lake of fire?

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

T.U.L.I.P never made much sense to me.

Must be another one of those mysteries.

[LeSellers]

As I understand it, it is not that Grace is, per se, irresistible, but that, for those who are chosen, it is.

What always intrigues me about Calvinism is that, those who espouse it are always among the elect. If it were true, at least some people would recognize it as true, but know that they were not chosen and that they were condemned by a just God to He11 irrespective of their knowledge.

Lehi

[Vance]

What always intrigues me about Calvinism is that, those who espouse it are always among the elect.

Exactly. They just don't seem to be able to see the irony of it.

If it were true, at least some people would recognize it as true, but know that they were not chosen and that they were condemned by a just God to He11 irrespective of their knowledge.

Also, why assume that all of the elect would know that they were among the elect?

It is truly bizarre to me.

[diglot]

If grace is irresitable as Calvins Tulip implies. Why are there so many people who are able to resist it and be condemned to the lake of fire?

I am not a Calvinist, but I used to be for a brief period, so perhaps I can shed light on this.

Calvinists make a distinction between "common grace" and "salvifically efficacious grace."

Common grace is the grace that we all experience every day. Calvinists typically point towards the following verse as precedent for this concept: "God makes his sun shine on the evil and good, and sends the rain on the just and the unjust" (Matt 5.45) Though God's common grace causes many temporal blessings to be imparted to all men, this common grace falls short of actually being sufficient to secure our salvation.

This is where the salvifically efficacious grace comes in. This is the idea that God has this other type of grace for people he (arbitrarily) chooses to elect to salvation. It is irresistible because, in Calvinistic thought, it has to be otherwise no one would accept it. You see, IMO, Calvinism revolves entirely around the first point of TULIP: Total depravity. This is the idea that humans are inherently born as God-hating people who would never, in a million years, turn to God. So God has to force us, in a manner of speaking, to believe and accept him. God does this by his irresistible grace.

Edited October 27, 2011 by diglot

[Zakuska]

Thanks diglot.

Total depravity is another whole ball of wax. I see it as having problems as well.

Romans 2:14

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

How can unregenerated gentiles "do by nature" the things in the law if infact they are totally depraved.

[diglot]

Thanks diglot.

Total depravity is another whole ball of wax. I see it as having problems as well.

Romans 2:14

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

How can unregenerated gentiles "do by nature" the things in the law if infact they are totally depraved.

For me (and I've heard Reformed apologists confirm this too), the TULIP stands or falls upon the T (well, except for maybe Limited atonement. That more depends on whether you accept penal substitutionary atonement).

At one point I accepted total depravity, as well as the ULIP. But then when I examined total depravity more extensively, I found it's not true and the rest of the house of cards came falling down.

Edited October 27, 2011 by diglot

[jo1952]

I am not a Calvinist, but I used to be for a brief period, so perhaps I can shed light on this.

Calvinists make a distinction between "common grace" and "salvifically efficacious grace."

Common grace is the grace that we all experience every day. Calvinists typically point towards the following verse as precedent for this concept: "God makes his sun shine on the evil and good, and sends the rain on the just and the unjust" (Matt 5.45) Though God's common grace causes many temporal blessings to be imparted to all men, this common grace falls short of actually being sufficient to secure our salvation.

This is where the salvifically efficacious grace comes in. This is the idea that God has this other type of grace for people he (arbitrarily) chooses to elect to salvation. It is irresistible because, in Calvinistic thought, it has to be otherwise no one would accept it. You see, IMO, Calvinism revolves entirely around the first point of TULIP: Total depravity. This is the idea that humans are inherently born as God-hating people who would never, in a million years, turn to God. So God has to force us, in a manner of speaking, to believe and accept him. God does this by his irresistible grace.

Thank you, Diglot. I very much enjoy your presence on Mormondialogue.com. You have much to share which we are not familiar with on a first-hand basis. Your open mindedness is also very much appreciated, as so many non-LDS are antagonistic in their discussions with us.

Regards,

jo

[Calm]

I am not a Calvinist, but I used to be for a brief period, so perhaps I can shed light on this.

I could have sworn the second part of that sentence was going to read "but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once."(Been reading too much of Daddy G's stuff.)

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

What always intrigues me about Calvinism is that, those who espouse it are always among the elect. If it were true, at least some people would recognize it as true, but know that they were not chosen and that they were condemned by a just God to He11 irrespective of their knowledge.

The scanario expressed in your objection is simply absurd. If we assume hypothetically speaking that the doctrine of election is true, no one who did not at least claim to believe in Christ would accept the doctrine of election. Why, if election were true, would anyone who accepted the doctrine of election not consider himself a believer in Christ? What sort of person would say, "Yes, I accept the doctrine that only those chosen by God to have faith in Christ for salvation will be saved, but I don't accept that I need to have faith in Christ for salvation in order to be saved"?

On the other hand, while no one who accepts the doctrine of election would ever view himself as an unbeliever, in fact there are people who accept the doctrine of election and yet will not be saved. This is because it is possible to accept a doctrine and yet be self-deceived as to one's own profession of faith. There are Calvinists who accept the whole Calvinistic theological system, including the so-called Five Points, and are headed for eternal punishment. One is not saved merely by adhering to the correct doctrines, although rejecting true doctrines on essential matters is a likely indication that one is not a genuine believer. One is saved by genuinely trusting in Jesus Christ in the saving way described in the New Testament. Believing that Jesus is the Savior does not save a person; believing in Jesus, in the way the New Testament teaches, is the instrumental means through which God saves a person. This means that it is possible for someone to espouse the doctrine of election and be an unbeliever--though, as I have emphasized, such a person will undoubtedly think he is a believer. In short, it is not true that those who espouse the doctrine of election are always among the elect. Some of them are not, although they think they are.

[Rob Bowman]

The doctrine of "total depravity" does not mean that people can never do good things or that people are absolutely evil, but that their disposition or character spiritually is such that they are completely incapable in and of themselves of choosing to honor and glorify the true God in their hearts and lives. Most crucially, the doctrine means that people cannot will of themselves to repent and trust in Jesus Christ in the way the New Testament teaches is essential to a saving relationship with God in Christ. Thus, the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto" (9.3).

Properly defined and understood, there is plenty of biblical support for this doctrine. Here are some of the clearer examples:

• Jer. 13:23. We can’t change ourselves any more than the leopard can change his spots.
  
• Jer. 17:9. The heart is quite wicked and self-deceiving; we flatter ourselves to be better than we really are.
  
• John 3:6. The flesh can give rise only to flesh.
  
• John 3:19-20. People naturally prefer darkness to light.
  
• Acts 7:51. The unregenerate or “uncircumcised in heart” inevitably resist the Holy Spirit.
  
• Rom. 3:10-12. None of us seeks for God, i.e., none of us moves toward God apart from God’s first seeking us.
  
• Rom. 8:5-8. Those who are “in the flesh” not only can’t please God, they are hostile toward God.
  
• Rom. 10:20. God makes himself “found” to those who were not seeking him.
  
• 1 Cor. 2:14. The unregenerate person does not welcome the gospel and cannot recognize its truth; to do that takes an ability to discern that comes from the Spirit.
  
• 2 Cor. 4:3-4. The gospel is veiled to the unbelieving, who are blinded to its truth.
  
• Eph. 2:1, 3. The unregenerate are dead in their sins and are by nature children of wrath.
  

The classic defense of what Reformed theology calls total depravity is actually not by a Calvinist, but by Martin Luther. His book Bondage of the Will is one of the most important works of theology in the history of Christianity.

[Zakuska]

Lehi,

You wrote:

The scanario expressed in your objection is simply absurd. If we assume hypothetically speaking that the doctrine of election is true, no one who did not at least claim to believe in Christ would accept the doctrine of election. Why, if election were true, would anyone who accepted the doctrine of election not consider himself a believer in Christ? What sort of person would say, "Yes, I accept the doctrine that only those chosen by God to have faith in Christ for salvation will be saved, but I don't accept that I need to have faith in Christ for salvation in order to be saved"?

On the other hand, while no one who accepts the doctrine of election would ever view himself as an unbeliever, in fact there are people who accept the doctrine of election and yet will not be saved. This is because it is possible to accept a doctrine and yet be self-deceived as to one's own profession of faith. There are Calvinists who accept the whole Calvinistic theological system, including the so-called Five Points, and are headed for eternal punishment. One is not saved merely by adhering to the correct doctrines, although rejecting true doctrines on essential matters is a likely indication that one is not a genuine believer. One is saved by genuinely trusting in Jesus Christ in the saving way described in the New Testament. Believing that Jesus is the Savior does not save a person; believing in Jesus, in the way the New Testament teaches, is the instrumental means through which God saves a person. This means that it is possible for someone to espouse the doctrine of election and be an unbeliever--though, as I have emphasized, such a person will undoubtedly think he is a believer. In short, it is not true that those who espouse the doctrine of election are always among the elect. Some of them are not, although they think they are.

And hear I thought all one needed was to call on the Name of Jesus to be saved.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

And hear I thought all one needed was to call on the Name of Jesus to be saved.

I'm not sure what your point is. Could you elaborate, please?

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

I'm not sure what your point is. Could you elaborate, please?

You are stating that one has to truely believe... or trust... which is only a portion of Pauls Salvation formula.

Romans 10

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that ccall upon him.

13 For whosoever shall acall upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Here is where I think the Modern Evanglical doctrine goes wrong. The only thing Paul here required for salvation is that you beleive God raised him from the dead. And that you confess that beleif with the mouth.

Two things Mormons beleive and do on a daily basis.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Zakuska

[LeSellers]

What sort of person would say, "Yes, I accept the doctrine that only those chosen by God to have faith in Christ for salvation will be saved, but I don't accept that I need to have faith in Christ for salvation in order to be saved"?

According to Calvinism, as I understand it, no one would say anything like that because it doesn't matter what one does, feels or says—if one is chosen, he is chosen. That's what "irresistible grace" means: the person has no will in the matter. He is saved, willy-nilly. "Faith" is forced on him—God chose him and that's the end of the matter.

it is possible for someone to espouse the doctrine of election and be an unbeliever--though, as I have emphasized, such a person will undoubtedly think he is a believer. In short, it is not true that those who espouse the doctrine of election are always among the elect. Some of them are not, although they think they are.

Then what's the point of being "saved" in the first place?

if you don't know whether you are saved or not, why bother? God chooses you, and Hey, Presto!, saved you are. It matters not a whit whether you do anything about it. You can be the vilest of sinners, yet irresistible grace means you're not going to be held accountable for it: you're saved.

On the other hand, a genuinely good person, one who chooses to follow the commandments of God, but who is not "chosen" by God for salvation, is condemned to Hell just as irresistibly as the saved one is rewarded with heaven.

Calvinism is a travesty. It created a god who is simply not worthy of worship; an arbitrary, capricious god, one who will reward evil, and punish good. The Calvinist god sits up yonder in heaven, condemns all of his creation to unending torture and agony, chooses his elect by lottery and snatches them from the flames, then watches along with the few as the rest of us writhe in torment forever. He seems to require our suffering, else why would he have created us in the first place, knowing as he must have, that nearly all of us would spend eternity entertaining him in this way? In spite of protestations (no pun, I assure you) to the contrary, most of Protestantism reflects something of Calvinism. (It's what happens when men try to understand the scriptures without the Gift of the Holy Ghost, so I'm far from surprised.)

An honest person, chosen like this while his fellows were punished for no other reason than that they were (without their consent anyway) created, would choose the punishment he deserved no less than they, and would leap into the pit. Because any god who inflicts such undeserved anguish on his own creation does not merit in any way the adulation his station requires.

The Problem of Evil, which does not exist for us Saints, makes the Calvinist god (and the Protestant god, in general) a petty imperious tyrant. Powerful, omni-everything, sure, but a tyrant just the same. It's just one reason I find LDS insights into the nature of God are so much more uplifting and re-assuring: for us, He is our Father, He loves us, and He wants us to return to Him and actively works toward that end. Can't say that about Calvin's views.

Lehi

Edited October 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[Vance]

According to Calvinism, as I understand it, no one would say anything like that because it doesn't matter what one does, feels or says—if one is chosen, he is chosen. That's what "irresistible grace" means: the person has no will in the matter. He is saved, willy-nilly. "Faith" is forced on him—God chose him and that's the end of the matter.

That is basically the way it was explained to me by the Calvinist (anti-Mormons) I have conversed with.

They keep telling me that Jesus did (past tense) it ALL and that there is absolutely NOTHING I can do to save myself. And then, ironically enough, in the next sentence they tell me that I have to accept their theology to be saved.

[Calm]

Does Calvinism require he-ll's unending punishment to be anything more than separation from God?

Could he-ll, for example, be something closer to an existence as we have now rather than unending torture?

[LeSellers]

Does Calvinism require he-ll's unending punishment to be anything more than separation from God?

Could he-ll, for example, be something closer to an existence as we have now rather than unending torture?

Again, as I understand it, he11 is the lake of fire and brimstone, where their worm dieth not, neither is the fire quenched.

Forever harrassed with a dreadful tempest, they shall feel themselves torn asunder by an angry God, and transfixed and penetrated by mortal stings, terrified by the thunderbolts of God, and broken by the weight of his hand, so that to sink into any gulf would be more tolerable than to stand for a moment in these terrors.

"Torment" and "anguish" don't begin to cover it.

Lehi

Edited October 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[Zakuska]

Calvinism is a travesty. It created a god who is simply not worthy of worship; an arbitrary, capricious god, one who will reward evil, and punish good. The Calvinist god sits up yonder in heaven, condemns all of his creation to unending torture and agony, chooses his elect by lottery and snatches them from the flames, then watches along with the few as the rest of us writhe in torment forever. He seems to require our suffering, else why would he have created us in the first place, knowing as he must have, that nearly all of us would spend eternity entertaining him in this way? In spite of protestations (no pun, I assure you) to the contrary, most of Protestantism reflects something of Calvinism. (It's what happens when men try to understand the scriptures without the Gift of the Holy Ghost, so I'm far from surprised.)

An honest person, chosen like this while his fellows were punished for no other reason than that they were (without their consent anyway) created, would choose the punishment he deserved no less than they, and would leap into the pit. Because any god who inflicts such undeserved anguish on his own creation does not merit in any way the adulation his station requires.

Agreed, It completely nulifies the Judgment process and being rewarded for your works.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

You are stating that one has to truely believe... or trust... which is only a portion of Pauls Salvation formula.

Romans 10

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that ccall upon him.

13 For whosoever shall acall upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Here is where I think the Modern Evanglical doctrine goes wrong. The only thing Paul here required for salvation is that you beleive God raised him from the dead. And that you confess that beleif with the mouth.

Two things Mormons beleive and do on a daily basis.

Hmm. So, you think it isn't necessary to believe that Jesus died for your sins, or that Jesus is the divine Son of God? Do you think Paul intends in Romans 10:9-10 to give an exhaustive account of what a person saved by Christ is expected to believe?

Romans 10 teaches that one needs to "call on the name of the Lord," i.e., the Lord Jesus, to be saved (vv. 11-13). That means to pray to Jesus, to appeal to him in prayer for salvation. Yet the LDS Church teaches that it is now improper or incorrect to address prayers to Jesus. That looks like a problem in view of Romans 10:11-13.

We both agree, do we not, that merely affirming that Jesus is "Lord" is not sufficient for salvation, because at least some people who make that affirmation will be rejected by Jesus (Matt. 7:21-23)? So we need to be careful not to turn Paul's words into something more superficial than he would have meant.

[Vance]

Properly defined and understood, there is plenty of biblical support for this doctrine. Here are some of the clearer examples:

• Jer. 13:23. We can’t change ourselves any more than the leopard can change his spots.
  
• Jer. 17:9. The heart is quite wicked and self-deceiving; we flatter ourselves to be better than we really are.
  
• John 3:6. The flesh can give rise only to flesh.
  
• John 3:19-20. People naturally prefer darkness to light.
  
• Acts 7:51. The unregenerate or “uncircumcised in heart” inevitably resist the Holy Spirit.
  
• Rom. 3:10-12. None of us seeks for God, i.e., none of us moves toward God apart from God’s first seeking us.
  
• Rom. 8:5-8. Those who are “in the flesh” not only can’t please God, they are hostile toward God.
  
• Rom. 10:20. God makes himself “found” to those who were not seeking him.
  
• 1 Cor. 2:14. The unregenerate person does not welcome the gospel and cannot recognize its truth; to do that takes an ability to discern that comes from the Spirit.
  
• 2 Cor. 4:3-4. The gospel is veiled to the unbelieving, who are blinded to its truth.
  
• Eph. 2:1, 3. The unregenerate are dead in their sins and are by nature children of wrath.

Nothing like making presumptions and then "finding" verses to support them.

[Vance]

Romans 10 teaches that one needs to "call on the name of the Lord," i.e., the Lord Jesus, to be saved (vv. 11-13).

Ok.

That means to pray to Jesus, to appeal to him in prayer for salvation.

Nah, you are just making that up.

A prayer to Heavenly Father, IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, is a "call on the name of the Lord". So, it doesn't have to mean "to pray to Jesus".

[Zakuska]

Hmm. So, you think it isn't necessary to believe that Jesus died for your sins, or that Jesus is the divine Son of God? Do you think Paul intends in Romans 10:9-10 to give an exhaustive account of what a person saved by Christ is expected to believe?

He's outlining the first two steps on the pathway leading to eternal life.

Romans 10 teaches that one needs to "call on the name of the Lord," i.e., the Lord Jesus, to be saved (vv. 11-13). That means to pray to Jesus, to appeal to him in prayer for salvation. Yet the LDS Church teaches that it is now improper or incorrect to address prayers to Jesus. That looks like a problem in view of Romans 10:11-13.

Jesus taught us to direct prayers and worship and bow the knee to his Father in his name:

"Thy Kingdom come thy will be done" et al.

Paul agreed...

Eph 3

14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

We both agree, do we not, that merely affirming that Jesus is "Lord" is not sufficient for salvation, because at least some people who make that affirmation will be rejected by Jesus (Matt. 7:21-23)? So we need to be careful not to turn Paul's words into something more superficial than he would have meant.

Agreed.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm not such a fan of T.U.L.I.P. I agree with other posters that it is more of an elitist theology than one of unconditional love.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

According to Calvinism, as I understand it, no one would say anything like that because it doesn't matter what one does, feels or says—if one is chosen, he is chosen. That's what "irresistible grace" means: the person has no will in the matter. He is saved, willy-nilly. "Faith" is forced on him—God chose him and that's the end of the matter.

No, this is a caricature. First of all, Calvinism does not teach that God "forces" faith on the elect. It teaches that God softens the hearts of unbelievers and warms them toward himself. God illuminates their minds/hearts, convicts them of their sins, awakens in them their need of Christ, and turns their hearts from unbelief to faith. The human will is not violated. Wooing would be a better analogy than forcing. Thus, the Westminster Confession of Faith states:

"All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace" (10.1).

Second, Calvinism clearly teaches that those whom God saves by his electing grace are not left unchanged. God does not merely give them a free pass to the eternal kingdom, like a lifetime pass to Disneyland, and leave them spiritually and morally as dead and corrupt as they were before. No, as I've just said, their minds/hearts are softened, illuminated, convicted, awakened, and turned from a disposition of antagonism/apathy toward the true God to one of love for the true God. They pass from death to life; they were spiritually dead, but now they are spiritually alive -- regenerated by the Holy Spirit, born again from above (John 3:3-8; Eph. 2:1-10; Titus 3:3-7; etc.). Thus, to quote the WCF again, the faith by which a person is justified "is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love" (11.2).

You wrote:

...if you don't know whether you are saved or not, why bother? God chooses you, and Hey, Presto!, saved you are. It matters not a whit whether you do anything about it. You can be the vilest of sinners, yet irresistible grace means you're not going to be held accountable for it: you're saved. On the other hand, a genuinely good person, one who chooses to follow the commandments of God, but who is not "chosen" by God for salvation, is condemned to Hell just as irresistibly as the saved one is rewarded with heaven.

This is again a terrible caricature of Calvinist doctrine. The "vilest of sinners" who by God's grace is saved is not left unchanged. He does not stay vile:

"They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" (WCF 13.1).

As for the second half of your argument, Calvinists simply dispute your premise. There are no "good people" in the sense of unregenerate human beings who are "genuinely good" and truly obey God's commandments while rejecting the gospel. Those who by God's grace come to genuine, saving faith in the true gospel of Jesus Christ will desire to obey God and will grow in obedience, goodness, and love. However, the idea of an individual who is not a genuine believer in Jesus Christ and yet is a "good person" who is obeying God is a myth. "There is none good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10; see vv. 10-20, 23).

You wrote:

Calvinism is a travesty. It created a god who is simply not worthy of worship; an arbitrary, capricious god, one who will reward evil, and punish good.

The rest of your post continues to make such inflammatory false accusations against the "god" of Calvinism. These accusations are just as ignorant and offensive, if not more so, than the most absurd and inflammatory accusations against Mormonism you can cite.

You might try actually reading John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, if for no other reason than because it is one of the most influential books written in the history of Western civilization. What you will find is quite contrary to your straw-man effigy of Calvinism. Calvin was not perfect, and neither was his theology, but it exalts the character of God and teaches Christians to pursue piety, love, and holiness in every area of their lives. I realize that many people -- including some very misguided non-Calvinist evangelicals -- are saying the same sorts of things about Calvinism, so much so that it seems like obvious, conventional wisdom. Calvinism is an easy target for the uninformed. As a theological critic of LDS religion, I acknowledge that some anti-Mormon characterizations of LDS religion are ugly lies. I must say, though, that anti-Calvinist characterizations, such as your own post exemplifies, are if anything more commonly vicious and ugly in the lies spread about Calvinism. Apparently no one else here is prepared to challenge such inflammatory misrepresentations, so I will.