I - Irresistible Grace (Five Points of Calvinism Part 4)

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

The Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1 - T - Total Depravity
Part 1a - Total Depravity and Free Will
Part 2 - U - Unconditional Election
Part 3 - L - Limited Atonement

Today I will address the fourth of the five points of Calvinism - irresistible grace.  As I have done in a few of the other posts I'll begin with a definition of this doctrine that I got from the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.

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)!

You may find this curious, but I have had a far greater struggle Scripturally with this one than any of the other of the five points of Calvinism.  Almost everyone I talk to wants to punt on "Limited Atonement," or "Particular Redemption," as I like to call it, but that is one that I am completely convinced of and really don't struggle with.  However, this one gave me a few fits as I wrestled with it initially.

The main reason I struggled with this is because of Acts 7:51:

“You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

That sounds pretty clear to me - folks are resisting the Holy Spirit, so how can we describe God's grace as irresistible, unless you want to play some kind of silly word game that distinguishes the grace of God from the Holy Spirit.

In this case, I affirm the idea behind the notion of "irresistible grace," but don't like the wording.  In defense of Calvinism I will point out that we use this term as a technical, theological term.  Thus it is imbued with meaning that is different from the meaning of the term in Acts 7:51.  Lest anyone object that Calvinists have no right to do this I would point out that every discipline has its own set of technical terms in which the same words are used differently than they are in common language.  The same goes for evangelicalism - people in all branches of the church throw around terms like "justification," "redemption," "regeneration," "last-days," and the like and use them in ways that do not exactly correspond to their Scriptural usage.

Having said that, I still think we Calvinists have a better shot at selling our view if we don't use terminology that so blatantly conflicts with a passage like Acts 7:51.  Therefore, like some other Calvinists I think we would be better off using the phrase "effectual calling" to get across our point in this matter.

This is the third time I have said that I prefer an alternative term to the one used in the TULIP.  For total depravity I like radical corruption.  For limited atonement I prefer particular redemption.  So, now that I've got effectual calling instead of irresistible grace, it looks like I'm advocating for a RUPEP instead of a TULIP.  (I think Sproul addressed this also in one of his books). What's a RUPEP?  I won't hold my breath waiting for this to become the dominant phrase here.

Getting back on point, I would point out that there is a difference between the external call of God and the internal call of God.  The external call of God is the preaching of the gospel that goes forth to all men indiscriminantly.  This is what was in view in Acts 7:51.  Anyone can, and nearly everyone does resist this external call.  Similarly, Romans 1 speaks of God's general revelation in nature and shows that man resists the knowledge of God that comes this way.

However, there is an internal calling of the Holy Spirit, where the Holy Spirit warms the heart to the gospel.  This is the calling that we believe is "irresistible," or "effectual."  When God chooses to call one of His elect to come to faith, He does a work in their hearts to cause them to want to follow Him.  It is not as if God puts a gun to someone's head and says "you will believe or else."  God does a work in our hearts that makes Jesus seem so attractive to us that we can do nothing other than believe in Him.  God changes our "wanter" so that we want to believe in Jesus more than anything else.

There are several Scriptures that provide the basis for this.  John 6:37 says:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

Then there are those Scriptures that speak of regeneration, resurrection or the new birth.

John 3:7
In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” 

Ephesians 2:1-5
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, . . . But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, ⁵ made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Titus 3:5 says:
He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

The reason we bring such passages into service for this doctrine is that regeneration/resurrection/new birth is not something that one resists.  It is out of our hands.  When God makes us alive, we can't not live. In the birth process one cannot fail to live unless some other external source causes the baby to not live.

Since faith is the expression of spiritual life, the one who is resurrected or regenerated will inevitably have faith, he cannot not have faith if God has given him life.

Again, this doesn't mean that God makes us believe against our wills, it means that God shapes our wills so that we want to believe.  Nor does it mean that God withholds His grace from those who want to believe.  It is not as if there are those who are saying they want to believe in Christ and God refuses them. 

So, this doctrine teaches that, when God calls us to Himself we will inevitably come because He has worked on our hearts to draw us to Himself.

Update - Adrian Warnock beat me to the punch on this. You can find his post on this topic here.

The last of the Five Points of Calvinism:

Part 5 - P - Perseverance of the Saints

 

Comments

[Diane R]

If God is tinkering with our wills, then isn't that a form of violating our will? That is one item that bothers me about this point on the TULIP anagram.

[Dory]

Diane, I think you are picturing us as if we could somehow exist outside of or transcendant to God. God made us. He made our wills. If ours is a will that rejects him, it may be our will, but He made it. If it is a will that loves Him, then He made that, too. He doesn't have to "violate" our wills, whatever that means, He needs only make them the way they are. We are dead in our sins and unable to love Him until He graces those of us He chooses with the rebirth and gives us a heart that will, irresistably, choose Him because that's the kind of heart He made it to be. Hmmm. Does that help or muddle it more?? LOL, Dory

[Dan Cummings]

Free will tends to come up all throughout TULIP. It's most interesting in the context of the reprobate, i.e., those whom God has predestined not to receive His grace and mercy. The question is whether God foreordains sin and evil. Since God is sovereign and holy, He is incapable of committing sin or evil. God may choose to intercede with man and his free will with His grace and mercy; but, ultimately it is man who chooses sin.

It is important for my own faith to see that God is the same throughout both the Old and New Testaments. As an example of God's sovereign "choosing", Paul refers to the story of Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:11:

"...though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call— 12 she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' 13 As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'"

[Colin Rowley]

Once again, Jolly, you try too hard to be kind to man's "free will". Remember, left to our own, we want nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, we hate Christ and everything he stands for. Thus, what God does to the human heart in regeneration, according to Jonathan Edwards, is an "act of violence," or even more accurate, a "holy rape of the soul."

I heard a preacher once explain irresistable grace this way (in the context of Rev. 3:20):
Yes, the scripture states that Jesus stands at the door of our heart and knocks, however, little do we know the Holy Spirit has set the house ablaze and stands firmly at the only other way out - the back door.

Last, but not least, may I remind you that the greek word for "draw" in John 6:44 - "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..." - is the same greek word used in Acts 16:19 - "When the owners of the slave girl realized that their hope of making money was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and DRAGGED them into the marketplace to face the authorities." Thus, John 6:44 could read, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me DRAGS him."

Then again, I have been known to be a sadist every now and then when it comes to "irresistable grace". I suppose it is just a choice of words; you use the terms "warm" and "call," while I use the terms "rape" and "drag." Either way, the end is the same:
"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (ESV, Ezekiel 36:26)"

[Jon Cohen]

It seems to me that the 'I' is redundant with a lack of free will, and it only present to contrast with the notion of resistable grace as proposed by Arminius.

http://www.open.org/~mrdsnts/d05500.htm

It is useful to frequently remember that TULIP is not a definition of Calvinism but is instead a set of corrections to be applied to Arminianism.

Diane: if God has never tinkered with us we would still be just dust. Our very consciousness that wonders if it is free is held lovingly in God's hands.

[David Wayne]

Jon - good thoughts - I mentioned in a previous post that Calvinism is not so much a positive statement of what "Calvinists" believe, but a statement of negation.
Colin - sorry, I don't follow. You said I am too kind to man's free will then you re-stated exactly what I said,using a few different Scriptures and stronger words like "rape" and "violence." Edwards is definitely one of the great theologians in all of history and one of my favorites, but his language is not canonical. And, by the way, there is nothing wrong with being kind, after all, as Romans 2:4 says, it is God's kindness that leads us to repentance, not His violence.

[Rey]

Forgive my harsh tone…I’m shaking here. To speak of the forbearing love of God and his standing with his arms open all the day long and his beseeching of people and of demonstrating his love by sending His Son while we were yet sinners and the speaking of the gospel and the salvation of men as “holy rape” is disgusting. I’m sorry, but rape is one of the most despicable sins and to apply such language to a Holy God is not only wrong, it’s bordering on blasphemy if it hasn’t crossed that line already.

Sure a person may be a firm believer in irresistible grace or “effectual calling” or any of these other doctrines…but we shouldn’t drag in language from the world and label the One and Only High God with it. There are other more lurid four lettered words that would mean the same thing, which weaker brothers may callously use…and it would still be wrong. Forgive my harshness.

[David Wayne]

Rey - I agree completely. As I mentioned in my last comment I heard that phrase one time and even used it in a sermon, fortunately the sermon was in a seminary class on preaching. Steve Brown was the instructor and he warned me against that in front of the class. Just think how such a comment would play to someone who has experienced such a crime. Who knows what Edwards intended by that phrase, but in today's world that's not a metaphor we can or should use.

[Anon]

The Wikipedia has the following on the "holy rape of the soul":

"Jonathan Edwards has sometimes been quoted—notably by R. C. Sproul—as referring to the irresistible call of God as the "holy rape of the soul," but the phrase does not appear in Edwards' Works. Instead, the phrase seems to have been coined by Puritan scholar Perry Miller, and most Calvinists distance themselves from it."

[Mark Cox]

My fellow brothers in the faith,
please stop categorizing predestination as part of those who are not chosen. God has not predestined sinners to Hell we did that just fine on our own.

[Kehrhelm Kröger]

How do Calvinists experience the drawing? What is going on there? Most relevant is John 6:44-45 isn't it? "No one can come to me unless the father, who sent me, draws him....everyone who has heard and learned from the father comes to Me."

So is the drawing = learning from the father? If so, WHAT does the father teach there? How is the drawing, "technically speaking" accomplished? How do calvinists experience it?

[stephanie]

Interesting.