A Deeper Look: Irresistible Grace

"After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strength and establish you." --1st Peter 5:10

Can you choose your salvation? If you believe in the doctrines of Calvinism, the answer is no. No, you cannot choose to be saved. And if you are of the Elect, you cannot choose not to be saved. Irresistible Grace is really a simple doctrine if you accept the other tenets of Calvinism. When you accept that Man is wholly and entirely dead in sin, you accept that he can have no control over his perfect salvation, either to accept or deny it.

Consider an analogy. You are a doctor, and your cousin is of your patients, a meth addict. The drug ravages his brain and body, and he is in terrible pain. There is an operation that can save him, and eventually recover him fully, but because the drug has taken hold of him, he is not in his right mind and refuses the operation. Now you are faced with a decision: Do you abide by his choice, which you know he made under the influence of a horrible, poisonous drug, or do you operate to save him without his knowledge or consent?

To a compassionate person, the choice is clear. Your cousin is not in his right mind. He is not fit to make such a decision, because the very drug that ravages him is influencing him. God is the doctor, and we are all the patients. Sin is the terrible drug that we chose, and which ravages us. It is not even an addiction anymore; it is our very nature. And no one seeks after the cure for himself. "The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Psalm 14:2-3) It is infinitely contagious and there is only one cure: the sacrificial love of Christ, premeditated by the Lord.

Sin has the terrible power of making everything seem alright. Even in the midst of depravity, we can always convince ourselves that we don't need God, just as addicts convince themselves not to seek treatment. Our minds are fully controlled by sin; and just like with alcoholism the first step is to admit that you have a problem. Forgive me, Lord, a sinner. If God influences us to ask forgiveness sincerely, then the cure is available to us.

The Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics has an excellent, if short, summary of the scriptural references underpinning Irresistible Grace:

The result of God's Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (I Peter 5:10)!

If Irresistible Grace was a logical argument, it would look something like this:

1. God created us perfect beings, but with a choice to make. To follow God's commands, refrain from eating of the Trees in the Eden, or to eat of them and fall into sin.

2. We chose the latter option, and sin became our nature.

3. God predestined some to receive salvation, through the sacrifice of Christ.

Therefore: We are now unable to choose good over evil; and we are thus unable to make any choice concerning our salvation.

Q.E.D.

There is a distinction to make: We have no power over whether we are saved or not. But that does not stop us from denying our salvation. How many of us have sinned, and justified it to ourselves by saying, "Well, I'm probably not going to be saved anyway" or something similar? I certainly have, in the past. We are, in effect, raging against the bars of a cage. God is on the other side of the cage, smiling benevolently, and holding the key. Our sinful nature does not want to be dissolved back into Satan where it came from. It fights God. But it has no power over God as it has over us, the fight is futile. Eventually, God comes to the prison door with the key. He turns the key in the lock, while Jesus dies on the cross, and we are free.

That is Irresistible Grace.

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." --John 6:44

Thanks,

Sola Gratia

A Deeper Look: Limited Atonement

"When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" --Mark 4:10-12


As the most controversial pillar in the TULIP acrostic, limited atonement is often the "hitch in the giddy-up," per se, of many four-point Calvinists. Many people often look at this point as being unfair, or even cruel. Why would a perfect, loving God deny salvation to some, even if they have "done great works in His name," while granting it to others? This is a hard concept to grasp, and that is why I endeavor to make clearer this profound Calvinist doctrine.

Some would argue against the doctrine of limited atonement by saying that it is not scripurally backed. While this is a seemingly formidable argument, and would pose a great problem were it true, I find that there are scripture passages supporting it. Take for example this scripture taken out of the Gospel of Mark, and is also the header for this post:

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, 'The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ' 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!''" --Mark 4:10-12

This passage is very profound. It has Jesus Himself admitting to the fact the He did not come to preach the gospel to all people. What Jesus is saying is He preaches parables to all. Those He pre-ordained to understand the parables would understand them and believe. The rest would hear, but they would not understand. They would see the signs, but they would not perceive them as being the work of God, and therefore would not believe. It was all planned by God beforehand.

One might argue that this is grossly unfair, but allow me to bring you back to Romans 9 for a moment. Does not the potter have power over the clay? Does not God have the right to do what He sees fit to do with His creation? As I said in my last post, each and every one of us deserves nothing but death and judgement. The only thing that is unfair is that God would choose to save any of us.

Another common objection to limited atonement is the fact that there are many. many verses in the Bible that say Jesus died for all men, or "the whole world." This, I think, is a simple misinterpretation of scripture. Think about it this way.

Do you believe that Jesus died for all sins of the whole world? The answer to this question is generally a resounding yes; especially from hard core Ariminians.

Do you believe that unbelief is a sin? The answer to this quetsion HAS to be yes, because by nautue not accepting God is denial of Him, and denial of Him is a sin. There is no other answer to this question but yes.

Do you believe that God died for the sin of unbelief of the whole world? The answer to this question MUST be a resounding NO. If He had, then we would all be in heaven one day. Let me explain. If God had died for unbelief,then man would be saved automaticly. One might argue that no, it is a gift and you have to accept it, but think about it. Unbeief is the state of mind when you refuse to choose it. God, having already forgiven this sin on the cross, would ahve already saved everyman. This simply does not make sense.

So what exactly did John mean when he said "behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?" It is quite simple. Jesus did not diefor every person, but rather every nation. There are elect in every trib tounge and nation, and God died for all of them. This verse was more directed to those people who thought that the death of Christ would only be for one nation or people group, namely the Jews. John was simply making the statement that, no, Jesus was dying for people all over the world, not just Jews.

Notice and compare these verses:

"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" --John 1:29

"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." --1 John 2:2

"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." --1 John 4:14

Notice how, when these verses refer to "the world' they are rather vague as to what "the world" means. Nowcompare them to these verses:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” --Ephesians 5:25

In this verse we have an argument that Christ died only for the Church. It tells us that He loved the church, but notice it does not mention anyone else...

“I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.” --John 17:9

"I am not praying for the world..." This is a profound statement to say the least. Jesus, in the garden of Gethsemone, was not praying for the whole world, but only for those who God gave him. This right here is a strong case for both limited atonement and predestination.


“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” --Matthew 26:28

This verse puts it more plainly that I can I think. It is plain evidence, if not proof, that Jesus did not shed Hs blood for all people. It say right there in black and white "which is poured out for MANY." If Jesus had died for all people, this verse would say "poured out for all."

People like to use verse like john 3:16 as evidence against limited atonement. I think that this is an unreasonable argument. In John 3:16 all it says is "whosoevere believes in Me." It does not give any indication as to HOW these people were saved. This verse is entirely ambiguous as to the means of salvation.

All said and done, limited atonement is not a shot in the dark. It is not a completely unbiblical dactrine making God into a big bad guy, but is a reasonable, scripturally backed doctrine. I hope I have made this, usually the holdup in the dactrine, a little more easy to understand.

Thanks for reading!

Renzzy


"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." --2 Corinthians 4:3-4

A Deeper Look: Unconditional Election

“At that time Jesus said, ‘I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. ‘All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. ‘Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.’” --Matthew 11:25-27


We now move onto the second point of “TULIP”, which is Unconditional election, or, as some know it, predestination. As I said in “A Brief Overview of Calvinism”, this is the belief that God, before the foundations of the earth were laid, chose certain people to be saved, and chose certain people not to be saved. This view is not to be confused with, nor compared to the doctrine of pre-science, which is the belief that God knew before hand who would choose Him, and chose His people according to the choices He knew they would make. This is also known as the “fore-knowledge of God”.

One might ask, how do the two differ? Do they not both essentially mean the same thing? Is not God choosing his people in both cases? The answer is, no, they are not the same. Unconditional election is based on the belief that we, as fallen men, are totally depraved, as defined by Sola Gratia in the last post. If man is in fact totally depraved, he would be incapable of making the decision to follow Christ.

“he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will” --Ephesians 1:5

This would leave us with but one choice: God chose us according to His own good pleasure, based on nothing but His own sovereign will. Not according to anything He knew we would do, or any choice He knew we would make (since as fallen men we are incapable of making that choice), but simply according to His sovereign will. After all, we know for a fact that God chose us before hand by simply looking into His word.

“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love” --Ephesians 1:4

--Sola Gratia had the honor of writing the post on total depravity, and I would highly recommend you look back on it frequently. We will probably have more posts on it on the future, simply because it is the most important to fully grasp out of the five points. It is the basis of the Calvinist doctrine.--

So we find that the doctrine of unconditional election can be summarized by saying: God, before the creation of the world, chose certain people to be saved according to His good pleasure and will. Note that this has nothing to do with anything we have done.

This raises a question though. Wouldn’t the doctrine of unconditional election make God arbitrary? RC Sproul answers this question by saying: "To be arbitrary is to do something for no reason. Now, it is clear that there is no reason found in us for God to choose us. But that is not the same as saying that’s God has no reason in Himself. God doesn’t do anything without reason. He is not capricious or whimsical. God is as sober as he is sovereign."

The doctrine of unconditional election depends not only on total depravity, but also largely on the sovereignty of God. This doctrine simply takes into account just how powerful and sovereign God is, and how powerless we are as subjects to His will. One could never argue that god would not be justified in saving only a few the He chooses, because He is the creator. To say He does not have the right to do what He wants with His creation is most unreasonable. If you spent weeks constructing a house, and then, as soon as it was finished, proceeded to tear it down, would that be wrong of you? Absolutely not. That house was your creation, and you would be justified in anything you chose to do with it. So it is with the relationship between God and His creations.

“One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?’ But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? ‘Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?’” --Romans 9:19-21

Some look at Calvinism as a confining doctrine. They look at it as a doctrine that limits us, and takes away our free will and freedom. I think this is a terrible misunderstanding. It would seem that unconditional election is a depressing subject, because God only chooses some, and not others. Although this is the way we are tempted to look at it, it is not the way we should look at it. The doctrine of unconditional election is in fact very FREEING.

We have already gone over how man is totally depraved and is, in and of himself, incapable of seeking out God. Since this is the case, how, without God electing us, would we ever be saved? The answer is we would not. We could not. Without the divine intervention of God we would have no other way of salvation, because any other way is dependant on something from us, that we need to do. The doctrine of unconditional election frees us from that responsibility.

Why some and not others?

None of us deserve the reward of eternal life. God, because He is a loving God, chose to save some people. Those He did not choose to save are getting nothing they do not deserve. They are getting nothing you and I do not deserve. We all deserve it, but God chose to show mercy to some, because it pleased Him to do so. We do not, however, know who God has and has not elected, and are therefore commanded to preach the gospel to all men.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." --Matthew 28:19-20


“And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” --Mattehew 28:19-20

Thanks for reading!

Renzzy