Argument form (back to table of contents)
5. “Becoming alive in Christ” is passive

In my desire to get onto other doctrine, this will be the last installment of the series on Irresistible Grace. This is within a greater attempt to discuss distinctives of Reformed doctrine, within the traditional acrostic TULIP. Since there is so much more to Calvinism than these five tenets, it is important to understand them within the framework of Covenant theology or at the very least redemptive history. Given this, we will explore Irresistible Grace within the context of spiritual death. Basically, St. Paul of Tarsus gives an analogy for us to understand our place in salvation: it is God’s work of grace he gives to you freely, not your work of merit that you earn; it is God’s act of resuscitation, or rather, resurrection from the dead. As such, it is the life-giving God who actively intervenes, and it is the spiritually dead, sinful man who passively receives.

Ephesians 2:1-10

¹ As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, ² in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. ³ All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh^[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. ⁴ 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. ⁶ And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, ⁷ in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. ⁸ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹ not by works, so that no one can boast. ¹⁰ For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Now that we have the text here, let’s break down the basic content and then discuss God’s active role and our passive role in key portions.

Verses 1-3 talk about the state before salvation. We did not just live and dwelt among those who sinned, we also indulged in and died in our sins. There was no exception, we were all spiritually dead and deserved worse – complete separation from God’s patience and love. In this state, we were being dragged away by our lusts and we couldn’t help it because it is all we wanted. Since what we wanted most was our own earthly and selfish goals, we gratified the cravings of our flesh and followed its desires and thoughts. We turned from God and ran.

Verses 4-7 talk about the process and completion of salvation. God makes us alive, God raises us up with Christ, God seats us in the heavenly realms, all according to God’s purpose that he might show his grace. This is all God’s activity. Dead men cannot raise themselves to life, men cannot raise themselves with Christ, earthly people cannot seat themselves in the heavens. It is distinctly passive; God works in us.

He does so for His purposes too. Verses 7-10 are explicit in that salvatin is not out for our desires or passions, but for God’s purposes and plans. He wants to express his kindness to show his mercy. He ordered things so that we cannot boast, because it is a gift. God’s handiwork are those he saves, who he prepared in advance to do good works.

What these passages show is that it is about what God wants, not what we want. Our desires, if we are not in Christ, turn us away from God; but our desires, if we are in Christ, produce in us praise and good works in line with what God desires. How are we in Christ? God places us there.

There is a parallel passage in Colossians which clarifies and reiterates this same content regarding the active role God takes in salvation.

Colossians 2:13-14
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you ^{[or made us]} alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

We were dead, we sinned. Our sin stood in the way. God made us alive, forgave us, canceled the debt, took it away to the cross.

Thus the dichotomy is not only in the active role in salvation, but also the orientation of our lives: between serving God or serving other lusts. We act according to our nature’s orientation; it determines who we will serve. It is our nature to indulge in sin and die; it is God’s nature to be holy and bring life. Who changes this? God changes our hearts, since what we want would never change to what God wants on our own. Is God changing your heart?

Argument form (back to table of contents)
4a. All those who are enabled will be saved
4b. Suppose there are some who are enabled but did not come

We are almost finished with our series on Irresistible Grace, one of the several points of Calvinism that were a reaction to Arminian soteriology. Basically, Irresistible Grace claims that of those God has promised to save he ensures their acceptance of salvation; it is the intervention in time that matches the election before all time.

Positive proof (arguing by certain premises to bring its necessary, and firm, conclusion)
– 4a. All those who are enabled will be saved

How this claim differs from the previous claim is that in the previous post it essentially affirmed that no one can come to God except those who are enabled, whereas this claims that all those who are enabled in fact come to God in faith. This makes enabling connected with coming in a bi-conditional relationship. That is, being enabled implies obediently living with faith in God just as much as obediently living with faith in God implies being enabled. You cannot have one without the other, they must go hand-in-hand.

Let’s take a verse we examined the last time.

John 6:43-44
“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

In this verse we took a good look at what is meant by “No one can come to me unless the Father draws him”; this time, we take a good look at the second half, namely, “and I will raise him up at the last day”. What this verse means, basically, is that Jesus says with utter confidence for his audience that he not only has the power to raise people up from the dead on that day, but also that he will exercise that power for all who come in faith, who have been drawn by God. It also conveys that Jesus connects the coming and drawing with the raising. If you come, that implies God draws you, and that means Jesus will raise you.

Now, it is talking about how if we come then Jesus will raise us, not necessarily that being drawn is sufficient for being raised. However, we would want to avoid coming to the conclusion that some try to come to, wherein we would wedge a chasm of difference between God’s drawing and the eternal life he offers. It is true, in some sense, that drawing and raising are different. However, coming in faith implies being drawn, and coming in faith implies being raised. So, if we come, we will be raised at the last day; and if we come, we will be raised at the last day. Knowing the nature of salvation — a process of calling, changing hearts, quickening with the Spirit, raising glorified. So, it may make best sense to say that, instead of emphasizing that they are unrelated we should be tying them together just as Christ did: drawing, coming and raising — understood temporally in that sequence.

For those who are more logic oriented, it could be expressed in the following way

C -> D {“if you come, you have been drawn” = “no one comes without being drawn”}

The question then becomes how to render the second half (“and I will raise him up at the last day”).

1. C & D -> R {“if you come and have been drawn, then you will be raised”} …or
2. C -> R {“if you come, then you will be raised”} …or
3. D -> R {“if you are drawn, then you will be raised”}

Number 3 does not seem clearly represented in the text. It would feel like it is skipping a logical step, namely, coming. Were it in the text, that would be exactly what we are looking for to establish an air-tight case for Irresistible Grace. Number 1 and 2 make it logically possible to be drawn, yet not come or be raised — it only says what is sufficient to be raised, but not what is necessary. I am inclined to lean on number 1, which says that both coming and being drawn together are sufficient for being raised; however, coupled with the previous statement (C->D) it makes number 1 logically equivalent to number 2. I am inclined to recommend the first rendition expressed.

We will need, therefore, some other Scriptural source to establish the point clearly. We will look at that text shortly. But let’s be reminded of some important truths without leaving it in the abstract. What is important that is often left out of the discussion is how God draws us to Christ that we will be raised at the last day. We leave the concept in the abstract and never give it some concrete substance we can sink our teeth into. But this drawing is basically the wooing of God. He shows us love in a multitude of ways, even changing our desires and our stubborn, rebellious hearts to accept the general call. It is not a dispassionate luck-of-the-draw, or some mechanical satisfaction of conditional statements. It is an interactive, compassionate pursuit which changes the life of the person from the inside out: starting with the heart of stone.

A different way of looking at it, but still an analogy that links these together more clearly is thus: A rancher goes out into a field of cows and throws a lasso around the neck of a young calf. He draws it to himself. The calf comes to him, even though naturally it would just run off further and further from him. But when the calf comes, he calms and raises it on the trailer to go with him. Or take another picture that communicates this: a fish being caught. He cast, he drew, the fish came, he raised it in the boat for himself.

So now let’s take a text that is clearer support for connecting those drawn are ensured completeness of salvation.

Acts 13:48
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. 

The context of this passage is that Paul and Barnabas have been preaching persuasively in some synagogues and some Jews reacted negatively. They reply that it is their calling now to preach to the Gentiles the gospel, and not only the Jews. That said, the Gentiles rejoiced. This was an awesome time in the church: tension between believers and unbelievers, Jews and Gentiles, traditions and new trends. Christianity moves on a new front, and make great strides for the good news of Christ. This is the background, but Luke makes a peculiar assertion that we want to dive right into: the phrase “all who were appointed for eternal life believed” sticks out a tall dandelion in bloom on healthy lawn.

This phrase, and similar ones like it, really get at the heart of what we are talking about. Let’s break that phrase down.

“…believed”
The response was belief. Since the context dictates that they were reacting to Paul and Barnabas preaching, the belief they had was in Christ and his work on the cross.

“who were appointed”
The appointment was not of men, but of God, who is sovereign and mindful of all things. He set things in place for a time which was according to his plans and purpose. The Greek roughly means to assign to a place, arrange or appoint (Strong’s). The appointment, therefore, points to God’s power and will, instead of circumstance and chance, or of human wisdom or plans.

“All…”
Everyone responded according to plan. There was not a single person who was appointed who did not have faith; or, contrapositively, all who had faith were appointed to do so (no more, no less).

“for eternal life”
The appointment was not merely for some trivial situation or of empty purpose. The appointment by God was for their salvation, that they may know him and spread the gospel as it had been conveyed to them.

Putting these words together, we arrive at a scene where there was a plan for these Gentile people responded in faith all according to the plan that they have eternal life. If we give this framing any weight, we must reject the notion of anyone at this time coming contrary to the plan that they would not, or not coming contrary to the plan that they would. The plan for eternal life is the basis for who would come and who would not come.

Reductio ad absurdem (arguing by bringing it to its necessary, but absurd, conclusion)
– 4b. Suppose there are some who are enabled but did not come

In this scenario, we are to imagine that God enables some to come but they do not in fact come. This has, I think, two distinct ways it would play out. First would be that God enables some but does not see them through to completion – the question becomes why would He do such a thing? Second would be that God enables many (or all) and man decides with that ability – the question becomes, isn’t this an equivalent denial of Total Depravity?

Let’s take a look at the following verse and see where it takes us.

Acts 16:14
One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.

It is important to notice that she already worshiped God prior to the hearing of the gospel. Yet now instead of hardening her heart she was opened to accept the news about Christ. This is perfectly consistent with Perseverance of Saints and all that jazz. This verse has some import, however, in the context of the Lord opening her heart to respond – this is significant because it was an act of God that caused her to respond. Not only on this basis, but on this basis nonetheless, the take home for us is the idea that God intervened by enabling her to accept the gospel.

Something that is also implied in this sentence is that the opening of her heart to respond was synonymous with her accepting the gospel. That God’s intervention into her desires and will was for her good and caused her to respond positively to that which would save her from her sin.

So, let’s look at those two sides. God enables some but they do not come, why? God enables all but most of mankind does not come to him, isn’t this a denial of Total Depravity?

First horn. God enables some, but they do not come. Why? Let’s just merely appeal to our intuitions to reject the conclusion as if absurd. God enables some, not all of mankind, and yet they do not come. This means that God intervened in some particular way, changing their desires and motives, their focus and direction of their affection — this is what enabling is. It makes them able to choose God, without such reorientation they would never do so (point made in Total Depravity).

Many people think of being enabled to mean something along the lines of merely having an option to choose God or not have an option to choose God. This is often considered in the minds of Arminians, and even Calvinists, with respect to the very idea of having a free will. The idea is that the option is not open until God enables, and then the option is open. This view is not a logical contradiction to Total Depravity. But this is not the view of what the Bible intends, and in like measure we ought to refuse such a view on the basis that it implies that we cannot be held accountable to an option we never had (Arminians would say we do have the option because we are all enabled, all drawn; whereas Calvinists in error would say that we genuinely do not have the option and are still held accountable as if we were — both views are focusing on our freedom of will, not our desires and hearts). This is in error, and thus we ought to improve our understandings to view enablement as a reorientation of desires and motives and affections.

On this view, we view it incoherent (not necessarily logically impossible) that someone be reoriented toward God, i.e. enabled to respond to the gospel, and yet decide something completely contrary. To use a crude analogy, suppose a dog were given a whiff of a bacon-flavored treat, he salivated in anticipation and walked toward it, only then to lie down and calmly try to go to sleep. No one, when they are given a taste of God’s sweet mercy, not just His holy justice, decides to ignore Him as if going without Him is the best thing to do. This is the kind of situation we are supposed to accept when we hear that God reorients their driving desires for Him but they ultimately do not partake in Him.

Lastly, with this very strange conclusion, we are forced to ask, Why? Why would God change someone’s heart, enabling them to receive the gospel, only for them never to come? This is not consistent with the common interpretation of other verses which say that God, the author and finisher of our faith, will complete the work He started in us. There may be an answer to the why question, but that would already assume such a radical conclusion did hold true that our desires have changed so that we love God but we still refuse God.

Second horn. God enables all, but mankind by majority do not come to Him. This may sound plausible, as we just discussed in passing, if we take on the view of enabling being equated with mere options. We reject this view, since God’s enabling, as we see with Lydia, is the very act of God to open someone’s heart to respond. This is the purpose to the enablement. Thus, if all are enabled, then we must ask, since we accept Total Depravity, how this could possibly be consistent with Total Depravity. In the end, we cannot. If God changes all of our hearts, then Total Depravity would not be true; TD claims that our will is bound toward rebellion, since every inclination of our heart is corrupted in some degree. If we accept TD, then this second horn is eliminated outright.

Thus, if the opposite conclusion, that God enables but they do not come, is true, then we have two paths we must take — but we are unwilling to accept the first, and we are incapable of accepting the second. As such, neither path ought to be taken, and thus the negative conclusion must be rejected. The rejection of that conclusion is the affirmation of the original conclusion, that if God enables some, then they will come to Him.

The term “word” is used in to describe God the Son, who is Jesus Christ. I have heard a lot of different things about why John used the term, but while I want to throw out a few thoughts, I want to hear what you guys think. John says the following about the “word“:

• “In the beginning was the Word” (v1)
• “The Word was with God” (v1)
• “And the Word was God” (v1)
• “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (v14)

… and then he stops talking about Christ this way (as “the Word“) until he writes his first letter (1 John 1), which follows a similar message:

• “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. [...]“
• (while you’re at it, notice 1 John 1:10′s use of the word)

The significance of the use of the term “word” comes in part from context of the wording of the original language. John wrote in Greek, and we’ve translated it in English to “word.” It is translated from the Greek word logos, whose root is the Greek for “to speak” (logein). This is the same root where we get words like “logic” and “neologism”, and where we get endings of words like biology, technology, meteorology, etc. The original meaning of the word “logos” had different connotations in John’s day, though: speaking, reasoning, studying, etc. “The word” (logos) was picked up by the Greek ancients to talk about significant philosophical ideas. These pervaded their culture.

Today we have different phrases and terms that are tied importantly to philosophers of our day and age who have impacted our culture in significant ways. And even though we don’t know their full philosophic sketch, we still adopt and proclaim glimpses of their philosophy and worldview found in our time. It is not uncommon to hear these words or phrases:

• “kharma” – Hindu philosophy
• “self-actualize” (Abraham Maslow)
• “skeptic” – Pyrrhonic philosophy
• “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)
• “existential crisis” – Existentialist philosophies

Assuming the apostle John is writing his gospel to a Greek audience, they will be familiar in some meaningful sense with basic phrases that are tied to their culture. The Logos is one of the famous terms that significantly impacted people’s worldviews; see a few examples:

• “Ancient philosophers used the term [logos] in different ways however. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to ‘reasoned discourse’ in the field of rhetoric. The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe.” – Wikipedia

Another cue for thinking that John is writing this way is from the use of the Greek word “arche”, meaning beginning. It pointed to a other Greek ideas of the universe; the arche was the “ultimate underlying substance” or the “ultimate undemonstrable principle.”

Yet John is not just writing to pagan Greeks, those who followed after Mars or Artemis, Jupiter or many gods. No, he is writing particularly, but not only, to Grecian Jews – those Greeks who, because of Jewish heritage or conversion, feared and worshiped the one true God of Israel, Yahweh.

With this we see another side altogether for “the Word”. Remember that in the first line it says that “In the beginning was the Word” (v1) and then “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (v3) This fits a similar pattern as Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God”, and then we see God’s creation acts: speaking things out of nothing into existence. He speaks, things are so; He says words, things become.

The idea is that John is aware that his readers will pick up on the idea that “the Word” isn’t really just some basic form of communication, but rather something greater. He is writing about something they will understand to be significant – both for the Greeks and the Jews.

In “The End of Reason”, Ravi Zacharias quotes Dr. John Polkinghorne on the topic of the logos:

• “The Word, the logos, combines two notions, one Greek, one Hebrew. For the Greek the logos was the rational ordering principle of the universe. For the Hebrew the word of the Lord was God’s activity in the world. [In Hebrew dabar means both word and deed. Hebrew is a language based on verbs, on action.]“

Thus in John’s use of the word logos, it seems like it is supposed to be intended for cosmic weight. He is trying to capture a glimpse for his audience of who Christ was before He was flesh. In the passage as it continues, he describes how Christ relates to the world as Creator/redeemer, to the Father as Son/mediator, and finally in the world as flesh like us in every way yet without sin.

Okay, so I am taking a senior seminar class in philosophy. As I said earlier, I think, I am writing on the soul and the resurrection. Woot woot. I will eventually post on various concepts of the soul in various traditions by various authors. Eventually. It is long overdue

Meanwhile, I just pushed out my rough draft of my capstone project. The minimum page requirement: 15. What did I settle for?…. 23, plus works cited pages. Needless to say, I feel a need for sleep, and when I recover a lot of revision (cut down, explain more clearly, check for flow, etc.)…

I must say, it is the longest paper I’ve turned in for undergrad. (my psychology capstone project was 15 or 16, plus hard data results, and it came to, I think, 22 pg total)….

I usually do not post about my life. Where I am at, what I am doing, who I am with, how I am feeling. I don’t. While being personal is nice, I’d rather talk about something less about me and more about interesting things. Well, interesting to me at least. So, in a sense it is still personal, but not intimate. Anyway, this all goes to say that I am posting about myself for this Special Edition.

Over the last few months, I’ve been taking a class in philosophy. It is a senior seminar, where you study in depth on a particular topic of a philosophical nature and write a huge paper about it. Why haven’t I been posting on Xanga much? Well, that’s because I am studying in depth on a particular topic of a philosophical nature and writing a huge paper about it. This is in conflict with how I spend time on Xanga. The entries I have been posting have been more than sit-down-and-submit. Many of them have taken 2-10 sits to write, revise, and then finally post. So, while I usually had more times to sit and longer sits to sit, they’ve been cut back because of devotion to other things.

I’ve been involved with Cru ~12 hr /wk, work ~42 hr /wk, FBChurch ~4 hr /wk, class ~3hr /wk. That comes to something like ~61hr /wk taken routinely. That leaves how much time to spend on homework, sleep, eating, housekeeping (laundry, organizing, repairing, cooking, washing), girlfriend and other social things? How much less Facebook, Xanga, etc.! … Sigh.

That said, I will post the second to last entry on Irresistible Grace, and perhaps it will pick up the pace a little bit… since I’ll be on a fresher topic and my commentary will be limited (due to familiarity).

Argument form (back to table of contents)
3a. No one can come but those who are enabled
3b. Suppose those who come might not be enabled by God

We are continuing our discussion on Irresistible Grace, one of the most controversial points of Calvinism (next to Perseverance of the Saints, Unconditional Election, and Limited Atonement). This post seeks to examine and explain the doctrine through the lens of Scripture. We have already discussed the working of the Holy Spirit in believers and their resistance, and also of the plans of the Lord ensuring election and salvation. This particular grace is, therefore, the link between God’s promises beforehand to save many people and our corrupt free will which is in opposition to God’s desires. This is one of the crucial concepts founded on Scripture that helps us understand and accept the tension between God’s sovereignty and our responsibility in damnation and salvation.

Let’s look at Scripture and notice some central ideas. The context of the following passages is that Jesus has fed thousands and the crowds have been following him. Jesus has been talking about how God fed Israel manna from heaven during their wandering in Moses’ day, yet they had were hungry again and would later die in the wilderness before reaching the promised land. It is in this context that Jesus tells his people who are wandering to come to him and eat, and they will be filled and have life — everlasting life.

John 6:35-40
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Basically, Jesus is saying that if they come to him and believe, they will be filled with everlasting life. The tension is that there are some who, though they are hungry, do not want to be filled with what Jesus offers but something else that is of no substance. Jesus says that God has given some and they certainly will come, and he won’t forsake them. He doesn’t lose any of them, but will raise them on the last day. This is confidence that those whom God has given Christ will be saved.

John 6:43-44
“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 6:64-65
“Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

As Jesus says above, there is a connection between being drawn and being raised, of being enabled and coming to Christ. There is this tension among the people hearing what Jesus says. But why is there this tension? The audience includes the disciples, Pharisees, the general crowd following him, and others. Many of them don’t believe, despite the miracles and testimony he has given. But in some respect, Jesus is not shocked at all at their unrepentant response. He just gives the verdict: they are living in disobedient disbelief. Those whom Christ has been given, as said before, will come. But Jesus does not say that God has given all men to him, but rather that only those he has enabled will come. This is the tension explained: you don’t believe because of your stubborn heart; but if you’re enabled to come you can believe and come to him.

From this we come to this brief statement: only some are enabled, only those who are enabled come to Christ.

This is a large pill to swallow. Many people are hesitant to believe this. Jesus’ audience was too, so if you’re hesitant to accept it, I would recommend looking at the text to see whether Jesus backed down from these statements instead of clarifying that he meant something else. For when people are hesitant to accept, they want to reinterpret the passage and say that this reading is a poor interpretation.

Instead of continuing to argue for the position above, which I think is clearly stated in the text, it seems fitting to take the reverse route. That is, to assume the contrary position(s) and bring out the logical conclusions. And, having reached the necessary conclusions, we realize that something went wrong; namely the assumption we never really wanted to accept in the first place.

Argument via reductio ad absurdum:

Let’s find a few ways to negate the statement “only some are enabled, only those who are enabled come to Christ.” Some of them will be obviously false, some of them will take some time to unpack and see what is really going wrong. So, here’s a few.

1. “None are enabled, only those who are enabled come to Christ.”
- If this is the case, none are saved.

2. “All are enabled, only those who are enabled come to Christ.”
- If all are enabled, then how is it possible to make sense of what Jesus said? Doesn’t it seem like a meaningless point to make? Let me rephrase it. If all are enabled, then the distinction Jesus makes about people not believing is no real distinction at all. It is empty. The statement “no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” has bearing on the preceding passages only if he is giving an example of those who are not enabled.

3. “Some are enabled, not only those who are enabled come to Christ.”
- It is not abundantly clear what enabling really means here. In some respect, this could be understood as some form of Semi-Pelagianism (which will be discussed in its own post in the future, Lord willing). Basically, what this claims is that God may cause some to change their hearts that they have saving faith, but that’s not the only scenario.

There are, then, cases where people change their own hearts and go to God without him prompting them. To give a dogmatic answer: this denies the tenet of Total Depravity. Total Depravity, as explained and supported in earlier posts, simply claims that on every level humanity has a corrupted nature such that their hearts are dark and they will live in rebellion unless God changes their hearts. The conclusion I am bringing out is that while Total Depravity says we will live in rebellion because our hearts are dark and hardened, the statement above claims that we can have some light within us and our hearts are not too hard such that we could go to God with the Holy Spirit’s quickening and giving faith. It comes from ourselves.

Now, the difficult thing is that this is so commonly believed and accepted that it does not get questioned. In any case, the verse given prior “no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” is still contradicted in that it says some can come though not enabled. The next will take a similar but stronger stance.

4. “None are enabled, those who people come to Christ need no enabling.”
- This is, I believe, an accurate representation of Pelegianism. According to this line of thought, there is no original sin (guilt and corrupt nature acquired from Adam) and there is no true sense of Total Depravity. For they reject the idea that our hearts are dark and cold as stone to God, instead believing that we have within ourselves a light of goodness and a free will that is not corrupted objectively. We can choose God without any prompting, whether he gives it to all or some or none. This was declared a heresy in the AD 400s.

Therefore, in each of these four scenarios, we see issues. No salvation, no distinction, no acceptance of Total Depravity, or no orthodoxy. Admittedly, there may be additional ways to render the reductio. But as stated thus far we have no good conclusion and assuming that the other ways to render it are not significantly different in what conclusions they bring (again, admittedly not completely justified), we will desire to reject the original assumption (it is not the case that “only some are enabled, only those who are enabled come to Christ”) we arrive at an affirmation of that very statement (i.e. we now have reason to believe “only some are enabled, only those who are enabled come to Christ”).

There are many things that are good, enjoyable, productive, or praise-worthy activities that we often long to experience and participate in. We know or see others enjoy it, or we have taken part in it in the past. But as with many things in life, we are called to wait. Everything has its proper time, including being patient for good things.

Take the example of the early Christians, recorded in Acts of the Apostles chapters 1 & 2. The context of the events is that Jesus Christ has been raised to life and dwelt among the disciples to give evidence and enjoyment for their faith and relationship with God. Just as he foretold, he was killed, raised and will need to go back to the Father so that the Holy Spirit may be poured out upon the people. He just gave the great commission: Go unto all nations to make disciples. Do what they’ve been passionate about and show love to many.

Then Jesus says to the disciples to wait. Wait for the Holy Spirit before they go preach. They, his disciples, were given power and authority and training in order to go out and preach. Preaching is good. But now they aren’t to go out and preach everything they have seen and heard and experienced.

Let’s read from Acts 1:3-5 (NIV).

After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

So, what did the disciples do? After a brief confusion and hesitation, they were obedient and waited. Unknown to them, this was in their best interest – and for the whole church. But what is important is that they were obedient to what Jesus commanded. Even so, how was it in their best interest?

First, it prepared the disciples in a sense. They devoted themselves to prayer together. This aligned them spiritually, mentally and emotionally with the will of God and of the needs of each other. They were more sensitive to what God has commanded, and the very act of asking God for the Spirit shows the desires of their hearts. Thus, they are closer to God and more willing to be obedient. They also are more tight-knit and their fellowship grew in devotion to Jesus’ teaching and to the respect they had for one another.

Second, the city of Jerusalem became a better environment for preaching the gospel – I say “better” in a loose way, for it was still dangerous. It had been a short while (a little over a month) since Jesus was crucified after his influential 3-year ministry. In Jerusalem things had been percolating and finally boiled over. But by this time, it had simmered down … despite having a lot of tension and unanswered questions. But one of the most important factors is that Pentecost was going to be observed. Jews from all over the known world were coming back to Jerusalem according to the Law’s requirements. This means they were less likely to have been aware of the events surrounding Jesus’ following, and the Pharisaic and Roman counter-offensive. Also, it means that whatever they heard while in the city they can bring that news back with them to their respective towns, whether it is Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, or beyond.

Third and perhaps the most important factor is that the Holy Spirit came upon them at a particular time in history, and his outpouring was related to the time after the Day of Atonement and various other festivals, but during the Day of Pentecost – all times that God had ordained that they should follow and remember what he had done for them. The Holy Spirit is the power and confidence that the gospel will be effective.

Having the Holy Spirit share his presence in their lives gives them power to preach the gospel boldly and persuasively, but his presence also shared in the lives of those who hear the gospel will quicken many to bring them into redemption and sanctification.

So, what would’ve happened had they left without waiting? They would not have had the words and the boldness to preach. They would have had no success in their preaching, for the Holy Spirit would not have quickened their hearts. They would’ve preached to people who had a deaf ear to the gospel, and perhaps lost confidence – the gospel would have come to those foreign Jews under different terms, with a different tone, and might have been snuffed out by the religious leaders. Essentially, in every way the gospel would have been hindered or ineffective.

Many good things we are called to wait for. For some things, it is obvious why we are commanded to wait. For others, it is less obvious. But the fruit of obedience is not sour, it is ripe and fresh. It is for our benefit, and not only ours – instead, the goal is the best outcome according to God’s purposes.

What good things, whether activities or utilities, have you struggled with waiting for? Does God command you to wait for them, even though they are good? (This is not a trick question. Does what you want to do or have – whatever it is, whether to preach or be peaceful – does it have a commandment to wait? This includes things implied from other commandments) Are you willing to be obedient and wait, whether you know what the benefits are? Are you willing to be obedient and wait, even if you never see it?

Argument form (back to table of contents)
2a. God the Holy Spirit can be resisted (uh-oh! clarify!).
2b. Suppose God the Holy Spirit would himself never be resisted.

Acts 7:51-53
“You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him—you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it.”

For those who do not believe Irresistible Grace, they have many reasons for refusing to believe it but little support Scripturally. Thus when it comes to debates on this topic, they often quote this passage and expect the weight of their doctrine to rest on this pillar of support to be their foundation. Let’s look at the passage, break it down what it means basically, theologically, and practically. Then we’ll look at the clarifications of this passage so that we know what resisting the Holy Spirit amounts to and what it is not.

Acts 7:51-53
“You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him—you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it.”

Paul and Barnabas are speaking before the crowd and most of them are Jews, many are Gentiles. The Jews here are disbelieving that their Messiah has come, do not have a right relationship with God, pick and choose which parts of the Mosaic Law to obey, add laws that are man-made. When Paul and Barnabas preach, they try to persuade the mind and the heart, but only the Holy Spirit convicts and can soften their hearts to be receptive to the rebuke from God. The Holy Spirit comes to them and convicts them in their sin, convicts them in their disbelief, and they continue anyway. They do not repent.

This is the resistance: that the Holy Spirit tugs on your heart, but you do not respond; you continue in your unbelief despite the prompting otherwise. You know what is right and do what is wrong. You are convicted, but refuse to come in repentance. This sense of cooperation with the Holy Spirit, or the lack thereof, does not deny the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. For the former (continuing in disbelief) is exactly what you expect of the unregenerate, but the latter (grace irresistibly shown) changes the heart and regenerates the sinner to bring about the right response: faith, hope, joy, repentance.

We can legitimately say someone resists God when they walk in disobedience, according to their nature, desire, efforts and free will. We can even say this when we assume that they would walk in obedience, according to the Spirit and not their nature, repenting and glorifying God only if God enabled them to do so. There is this tension, therefore, of our thinking that someone is resisting God when God does not change his heart, but at the same time unable to resist when Get does change his heart; he is unable to resist, for were he to resist every prompting of God, then God is neither sovereign nor would man ever be saved. (To claim otherwise is to accept Pelegianism, or at least Semi-Pelegianism)

I will give two analogies, albeit limited in application and not the best representation. Consider a small circuit board, with all the thin, complicated wires and complex interworkings. Clearly it has a design for a function, but in order to perform its function it needs power. Suppose the wiring redirected the electricity into something else or had some part of it a poor conductor? The resistance in the circuit would not perform its function, but rather make it get hot and start a fire. For God to change our hearts is to fix the circuit board, allowing the power of the Holy Spirit to flow through us and glorify God as we were intended by design. Without that change, we are broken and resist that power — starting the fire of Hell as we destroy ourselves even yet before we get to that point. (there are dissimilarities, e.g. the power source, but forgive them for the sake of imagery) But even so, the circuit would not perform its function without that fix, and it is resistance is our natural state. Performing the function implies the fix was made. And further, it is legitimately called “resisting the Holy Spirit” when he comes into our lives and we do not respond in faith but continue in sin, just as the circuit melts and is burned instead of performing that for which it was made.

Another analogy, if your remote control to your TV does not work, you are justified in throwing it away. Even if you point with it at different angles, even if you put new batteries in it — and how much more deserving of that fate since it doesn’t work even with new batteries! Even if you could have gotten a technician to fix it, you are justified in throwing it away. It does not perform that which it was designed to, and does not act as an instrument of use. You can press the buttons but if they don’t do what you want, you throw it away. It was not fit for service. That is how God treats us when we refuse to respond, if we never get fixed. It is not cruelty that we are tossed as trash when we refuse to act in repentance due to our sinful hearts. But even so, it is legitimately called “resisting the Holy Spirit” when he comes into our lives and we do not respond in faith but continue in sin. However, when he comes into our lives and changes our hearts to come into repentance, he is following through in his plans in salvation which is particular and sufficient to bring it about in our lives — in this free gift, since it is linked to a promise ahead of time and to his infallible plans, it is irresistible.

The basic idea to be discussed here, therefore, is that the Holy Spirit shows grace, convicts people of their sin, sanctifies people, gives power, enables people to listen, etc. and they are not all the same grace. Some are general (for all people), some are particular (for only some). None are in themselves sufficient for the believer to be saved, but all are necessary. Some of these things that lead to salvation can be resisted, but some cannot. Above all, however, God’s plan in salvation — that is, to regenerate someone, working various unmerited gifts together to bring about one’s change of heart and right response — is one of the ever-reaching facets of God’s grace that cannot be resisted. That said, let’s look at the individual unmerited gifts which God works together, and how when they are not worked together for salvation it is considered resisting according to depravity.

1. One can be shown grace and be ungrateful. Jesus healed many, but not all responded with praise. For example, the ten leprous men came to Christ to be healed, but only one came back to Christ, praised God in a loud voice, thanked Christ while at his feet, and was “saved” (Luke 17:11-19). Just because you are shown the grace of the Holy Spirit to convict you does not mean that you are given the saving grace of the Holy Spirit to change a hard heart to a repentant heart. Hebrews 6:7-8 gives a great imagery of this: the land takes in the rain, and if it produces back fruit of repentance it is good, but if it sprouts thorns and thistles in disbelief and sinfulness it will be burned. Likewise, to keep on sinning though you have heard the good news of salvation (Hebrews 10:26-27).

2. One can be sanctified yet also not justified. You can receive grace in becoming set apart, but not be declared righteous and acceptable in God’s sight. As is the case of Hebrews 10:29 and 1 Cor 7:14. In the Hebrews passage, it discusses how thoroughly deserving a man is who does not consider Christ worthy (though he is the Son of God) or treats as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant (though it sanctified that man). In a similar way, Paul talks about how the Holy Spirit sanctifies the wife and through her the husband is sanctified — the children are too on account of even only one parent. This means that the Holy Spirit works through other people by God’s grace. But even so, that does not in itself become sufficient for causing people to believe or change their hearts to accepting the gospel. It may be one of the parts, but not the full measure. Thus, you can have the benefits of the Holy Spirit even changing your life, but still refuse to repent and be justified in Christ.

3. One can be given power to perform miracles, but not be saved. That is, someone may taste the gifts of the holy spirit — including miracles and power to cast out demons– but not have a change of heart. For Jesus speaks of some who experienced just that, but Christ “never knew” them, according to Matthew 7:21-23. Similarly, in my opinion, Hebrews 6:4-8 speaks of those who have tasted the power of the Holy Spirit but falls away from the fellowship of the Church and thus never fully incorporate Christ into their life. That is, they do not make their faith their own and trust Christ’s blood to wash them of their sins.

4. Can one be enabled to come, but not come? We will discuss this later, but basically the question is whether the individual can resist God even if he has enabled him to come. If one can be enabled but not come, then the most important link between God’s infallible plans and the free will of the individual, the bridge between eternal salvation and the depravity of man, is lost. So we will discuss this much further and in depth. It will require a post to stand alone touching this topic.

That being said, these examples given above might make you think of this struggle and situation between man and God as the darkest dark. That we are shown grace but are not enabled to come, and thus resist. But I want to reemphasize that not everyone receives the same graces in the same measure, and this according to God’s plan and perfectly consistent with his nature and justice. It is on this premise, which is backed up with Scripture several fold (as shown above, but not limited to what was quoted), that we continue to discuss these doctrines.

And with this discussion on God’s grace, consider the second stanza of Amazing Grace.

‘Twas grace that taught my heart to fear
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed!

I leave this last thought with you, that you might ponder it anew how God’s love and unmerited gift is simple, but deep. We will continue to talk about enabling salvation as the hinge which connects the pane of depravity to the open door of salvation.

So, a while back I asked for some requests from my readers.

truefusion has recommended I write on TULIP (the acrostic of the basic, rough sketch of Calvinist doctrine), and I have posted a couple entries but have a few more on that topic. Then I’ll be done with that for a while. By the way, the acrostic is done up top! There is a link for each letter! Anyway, back to the requests. truefusion has also asked for an entry on Job’s ending (typically ch 39 thru 42), and on heresies in the church: Donatism and Montanism. I will get to these after I finish some requests from the other readers.

badtimin has requested some posts on the ecumenical creeds/heresies in the Church, particularly on Nicene-Constantinople creed (reaction to Arianism). In addition, some systematic theology is in order, ’cause we’ll be looking at the doctrine of justification.

Meanwhile, jawood2005‘s requests have been ignored because he’s an arse. I love him all the same. I might get into Dispensationalism’s failures by default, though, because I don’t want him to feel bad.

You can still make requests by posting a comment over in this post here!

Thanks for your requests! I hope to get into them soon! Irresistible Grace has got me writing a lot though. Blame truefusion for it!

And by “soon”, I mean you will see a new post every week. Hopefully.

Grace and peace
Jonathan, der Mensch, der nach dem Geist wandelt.

Argument form (back to table of contents)
1a2. God has a plan and appointment for those who are to believe

In the last argument, we covered the success of God’s plans — that they always succeed. God’s plans cannot fail, for it would mean his unfaithfulness in his promises. Assuming that the previous argument demonstrated that such a conclusion follows and that we do not accept the statement implicated (“God is unfaithful”), we must establish more ground for thinking that God has plans in salvation. For if God did not make a plan for salvation, i.e. God promises or decrees beforehand some to be saved, then the previous argument is irrelevant to the discussion of Irresistible Grace.

Keeping this in the forefront of our minds, we look at Irresistible Grace as the following: that God is intervening in the present, captivating his Bride with his love and softening hearts, just as he has planned and promised beforehand. This is not a cold process of robotic submission; it is an interactive, awe-inspiring, supernatural response to a loving, awesome, supernatural God.

Now, regarding the plans of salvation, one should look at the series of arguments on Election (conditional and unconditional), which I demonstrate elsewhere from Scripture. But while this is sufficient for most readers, let us continue to break down some passages that speak to this (that were not used elsewhere).

Acts 13:48
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

As a tangent, it is worth noting for those who argue that Paul is the only one who talks about election in this way (which is a horrible argument since it is all God’s Scripture), here we have the physician Luke’s account of various people being saved in the early church. The Scriptures are consistent, and it is not just an over-emphasis of Pauline theology nor a misunderstanding of his use of language. That said, let’s look at the context of this passage and discuss whether they are really talking about what we are talking about.

Context: Paul and Barnabas have entered Pisidian Antioch to spread the gospel in the synagogues and the surrounding area. There are Jews to whom they preach first, and then to Gentiles whom they preach after there was a number of Jews who rejected the message of Jesus Christ. The Jews just rejecting their preaching, Paul and Barnabas continue in this passage:

Acts 13:46-49
Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us:
” ‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ” When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. The word of the Lord spread through the whole region.

And we see in the above passage that this has everything to do with salvation and the gospel, and everything to do with their responsiveness to the good news. What is emphasized by those who deny Irresistible Grace is that whether God’s grace is imparted to someone depends on the response of those who hear the gospel. In this case, however, it is clear that only those who responded to the gospel, who received eternal life, did so according to their appointment. They were appointed to believe. It wasn’t just a set time known ahead. In the phrase, “and all who were appointed for eternal life believed”, the word for “appointed” is τεταγμενοι (tetagmenoi). It is a verb meaning to arrange in an orderly manner, i.e. assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot) — addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set. (source) This is similar in meaning to the Greek proginosko (foreknowledge) and more closely associated to proorizo (predestine). The idea being conveyed here is that the people were set up for salvation, that they were arranged, by God, to receive the salvation that they accepted. It was ordained by God that they should be saved; all who are ordained accept (for “all who were appointed … believed”).

Here is how the verse 48 is rendered in various translations:

(NIV) When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
(NASB) When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
(KJV) And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
(ESV) And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
(AMP) And when the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified (praised and gave thanks for) the Word of God; and as many as were destined (appointed and ordained) to eternal life believed (adhered to, trusted in, and relied on Jesus as the Christ and their Savior).

(As you can see Amplified is rather unnecessarily exhaustive, and it does so for the purpose of bearing out what the word means more fully.)

These verses and this discussion is a good example of the link between God’s plan and his intervention according to the plan. In the next arguments, we will look at clearer examples of the intervention side. For this is the Irresistible Grace of which I will argue more clearly.