Argument form (back to table of contents)
1a1. God’s plans cannot be resisted
1b. Suppose God’s plans could be resisted (reductio ad absurdem)

Romans 9:18-19
Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?”

Last time I came upon those passage, I intentionally left it unpacked because I wanted to save this analysis for later. As previously discussed, this is in the context of the chosen people, those who are called by God to be his very own. We covered the topic of God’s sovereign election, and his decision (as to who are the ones chosen for himself) is entirely contingent on his purposes and not dependent on our will or our works. We don’t make ourselves elect, God elects us and makes us his own. We don’t make ourselves predestined, he predestines us and brings us in conformity with his will. God does not even choose us in reaction to foreseeing our faith, will, desires, efforts that we will have, according to his omniscience. While he does foresee our faith and efforts, and he does have foreknowledge, that is not the basis for our election. That’s the result of God’s grace, which we will take into account now.

The above passage talks about how God shows mercy and compassion on those whom he will, according to his wisdom and his purposes. But then Paul takes the into consideration what people are thinking if what he says is true. Stop and consider that for a moment. Paul is conveying an idea about God’s will, and the natural reaction to that idea is to question how God can attribute blame (or hold responsible) someone. Flowing from the consideration, there is a response … and how does Paul answer it? Keep in mind, that many times in the letter to the Romans Paul asks questions from the perspective of the opposing side: e.g. “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!”, “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!”, and earlier in the same chapter, “What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!”

But see here again, what does he say? “One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?’” He answers this very question, but not with rejection of the misunderstanding, as was the form in previous passages. No, instead he intends to mean just that, but gives clarification so that we can get a chance to swallow it. He assumes we accept the premise that no one resists God’s will, but the problem with us: we are setting ourselves up against the Almighty God to judge him, and that it is not our place. See his reply:

“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?”

The very problem with personal responsibility for us is that it becomes a self-centered focus, wherein we look at our rights and get defensive when someone holds us accountable. It’s our nature, our knee-jerk reaction. Why does God still blame us? (How childish that sounds!) If no one can resist his will, then doesn’t that mean I can get out of responsibility? Don’t I have a right to plead innocence on the basis that it was involuntary? But Paul does not give us that out: God’s will is sovereign, AND you are held responsible.

Again, consider the passage. It talks about mercy and compassion in the context of election into his chosen people. God’s prerogative in electing some is mercy and compassion; and not being elected does not remove you from responsibility. Paul speculates regarding how God remains just while doing this, and that discussion is unpacked [here].

Consider this: those who are shown compassion and mercy by becoming his chosen people is the result of God’s grace according to his sovereign, irresistible will. Notice that Paul falls back on this and not something else, like the luck of the draw, or on appeasing God so that he will have mercy. No, Paul appeals to God’s irresistible will. And there is good reason for that. It is the backbone of the inheritance of the elect. There is much at stake if we deny the irresistible nature of God’s will. Namely, we forsake the Jewish tradition of the one true God being over all creation, commanding and sustaining all nature by the power of his word.

Take a glance at the page in the link, whose passages about God’s will are put on a pedistal:

http://nachdemgeist.xanga.com/658341079/god-is-in-control—ot/

From them I have included here a few passages for my current purposes:

Psalms 33:
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.
10 The Lord foils the plans of the nations;
he thwarts the purposes of the peoples.
11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever,
the purposes of his heart through all generations.

Proverbs 21:
1 The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord;
he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. [...]
30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan
that can succeed against the Lord.

From these simple verses, we see clearly that to deny the irresistible nature of God’s plans is to deny the Scriptures’ direct teaching on the subject.

But suppose that God’s plans could be resisted, that they could be thwarted by man or circumstance, what would follow?

God’s promises would not have the same weight. He could be a liar, for when he says something will come to pass or that he will do something, he might be proven wrong. We would realize that God’s faithfulness is always at stake, for he could let us down if some man wrecked his plans or some event was not foreseen. Please, admit that this clearly follows; for I know some people who simply do not grasp the gravity of the implications if God’s plans can fail. For if man can thwart God’s plans, then God is unfaithful either because he is not all-powerful or because he has willfully decided not to do as he has planned. Neither of these options are acceptable.* Therefore, man cannot thwart God’s plans.

The biggest question, then, is whether God really does plan salvation. That is partly included in the previous discussions on Unconditional Election. But let’s follow through with this idea. That will continue with the doctrine of Irresistible Grace: that God is intervening, captivating his Bride with his love, and softening hearts just as he has planned.

* If you find either conclusion acceptable, this debate is not for you. You need a completely different angle, a completely different argument and foundation.

At one time, we were married to a man. He ruled us, domineered us, judged us, punished us. We were adulterers, being wayward from him and refusing to submit to him. But even so, we had children by him. And they are just like us, but still under his household. It was a horrible tyranny.

But we saw a way out. We had met a lover, and we wanted to belong to him. But how can we escape our husband? He will follow us and hold onto us as long as he is still our husband. Except this: that while either the husband or we lived, we were married; but if either of us had died, we would be unbound.

Then we died to him, so that our marriage would be nullified. We died to him, so that we could belong to another. Thus, we died and there was no funeral, only a memorial left behind. Thus we died and we held a celebration, for our freedom and for new marriage. We know what the old husband is like, and understand how good our new husband is. And we now gladly bear children for a better man.

How great it is to be a bride!

The inspiration for this: By law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.  So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. (Taken from Romans, chapter seven, verses two through four)

[originally posted July 20, 2010 7:40 PM]

Please choose your top 5 recommendations from this list, that you’d like to see me post on in the next 2 months.

a) Reactions, exposition, cross-references on…

b) Reflections on Psalms (throw some chapters out to me)
c) Systematic theology

d) Ecumenical Creeds, heresies in the Church &/or Church history

e) My boring life put to novel and interesting words
f) More poetic stuff
g) More metaphysics!!! (e.g. substance, existence, time, logic, etc.)
h) “Whatever you’ve been doing, it’s …cool … I guess!”

EXAMPLE
“do (a) 5. Hebrews … do some stuff on the sacrifices and the old vs new covenants, dunno which passages; (c) 2. Eschatology (whatever that is); (f) More poetic stuff; I guess you could do (b) Reflections on Psalms, like chapters 1 and 2; and (d) 2. Pelagianism and Augustinianism. ‘K? Thanks!”

<> This is a reply to suggestivetongue’s post <>

Marriage is first and foremost about oneness. You get tied to one another, emotionally, physically, financially, etc. You make a commitment that you make to no other. You submit your desires for your spouse’s needs. You get intimate. You work things out in such a way that your life is fully integrated, and codependent. Committed to one another.

Marriage recognizes that for a relationship, commitment is more important than romance, more important than sex, more important than money, more important than convenience, more important than escape-routes, more important than self-actualization, and more important than self-reliance.

If you value independence, no-strings-attached policies, individualist goals, and sexual gratification more than commitment to someone, then marriage is not for you. And, more importantly, marriage makes little sense to you.

“A good relationship” should not look the same as “a good marriage.” That is, if the only difference (previously stated) is the wedding and binding agreement. Why? Because it is imbalanced. There is not enough commitment.

Consider the famous Triangle of Love

Any relationship that does not have the binding vow of matrimony is lacking a necessary component of the healthiest relationship: commitment. There may be a lot of commitment, but if you’re having sex then you need to back it up with a commitment.

To quote Nietzsche (albeit out of context): “A girl who surrenders her virginity to a man who has not first sworn solemnly before witnesses that he will not leave her again for the rest of her life not only is considered imprudent but is also called immoral.”

This has so many practical applications I wish I didn’t have a headache, so I could rattle them off.

Think about it.

Just think about it.

I – T. U. L. I. P.

Last time we discussed Irresistible Grace, part of a series of doctrines put forth by Calvinists to explain the interworkings of God’s salvation, and how it is implied from the other doctrines we have good reason to believe and affirm. Now, previously we have taken a strictly dogmatic approach, wherein we just analyze the doctrines which we already affirm, and see what follows. The issue, however, is that if Irresistible Grace is a necessary conclusion of the other doctrines and yet is contradictory to Scripture (at the very least), then there is much at stake: the doctrines we affirmed before would be wrong too.

Thus, we turn to a stronger foundation: Scripture. As we will see, Scripture is not only consistent (that is, it doesn’t contradict), but it also upholds it with great clarity the very doctrine in question. Here is the argument form I will take for the issue:

1a1. God’s plans cannot be resisted
1a2. God has a plan and appointment for those who are to believe
2. God the Holy Spirit can be resisted (uh-oh! clarify!)
3a. No one can come but those who are enabled
4a. All those who are enabled will be saved
5. “Becoming alive in Christ” is passive

Reductio ad absurdem (arguing by bring it to its necessary, but absurd, conclusion):
1b. Suppose God’s plans could be resisted
3b. Suppose those who come might not be enabled by God
4b. Suppose there are some who are enabled but did not come

The conclusion for both sides is that the particular grace of God ensures the salvation of the elect. This conclusion summarized as Irresistible Grace.

And we will look at the following verses, as they give fuller perspective to the whole issue, both for those who agree and those who disagree. We need to view them so that we sharpen our focus and get the greatest clarity. We may dig into additional verses, but this is the preliminary scope.

Romans 9:18-19, Acts 7:51-52, John 6:35-40, John 6:43-44, John 6:64-65, Acts 13:48, Acts 16:14, Ephesians 2:1-10, and Colossians 2:13-14. (What is important to imply here is that the Bible is not silent on this subject, but it is rather interwoven in the background and foreground of several passages. We have great support to believe that God’s sufficient grace, rightly understood, compels us to follow after him)

Thus far, I have not yet covered Irresistible Grace. Most of my dealings were on topics I felt Scripture spoke on heavily or clearly — with the exception of Limited Atonement. And now I get to another tenet. It is controversial, confusing, or, at least, it goes against our intuitions very strongly. Thankfully, I think it has good grounds in both Scripture and the doctrines previously stated.

An important reflection is that the various parts of TULIP are intertwined. Some of them imply the other, or rather, that if you take hold of two, the third follows. I believe this is the case with the irresistibly powerful nature of God’s particular grace. Let me try to demonstrate it from dogma, then from Scripture.

First, let me say something with respect to Calvinism and Arminianism, in general. I don’t seek to demonstrate that Calvinism — the teachings of the Reformed tradition most closely associated with John Calvin, though by far not limited to him — is wholly true and wholly trustworthy. All I seek to do is clarify misunderstandings, and try to show that it is, as far as I know, one of the best interpretation of the texts, and that it does adequately –compared to the other perspectives, such as Arminianism– cause us to have a right attitude about God and man. I do not hold onto Calvinism unwaveringly. I do not worship it, or its founder. I believe that it puts me in the best position to worship God appropriately.

Total Depravity states that humans have acquired from Adam the sin nature, in which we are all corrupt morally, spiritually, mentally, emotionally — and on every level within those. Not that we are as bad as we can be. No, society proves that through having its diversity of criminal and upright citizen, of the whore and the soup kitchen worker, of the philosopher and the truck driver. Instead, we are dead spiritually, we do not want the things of the Spirit, and we live in contradiction with God. We are on the wrong side of the war, being enemies of God, in spite of the fact that his loving, mighty arms are open to us.

This is probably the most significant point of the doctrine. Not only are we on the wrong side, not only are we living contrary to God and in rebellion: in this spiritual death, we are oriented in such a way that we will never seek God or pursue him or love him apart from his own initiative and enablement. This means that if God leaves man alone, he will stay in this state, never turning to God or seeking forgiveness from him. He will operate in rebellion according to the sinful nature, forsaking God.

Unconditional Election states that humans have a place in history in which God has promised to save an individual from sin and restore him back to himself. Where God has placed a purpose in history that he would show someone particular love. And this purpose is according to a plan can never fail. God is not surprised by what happens, nor anticipating it merely in foresight. His number of people who will be saved is the same, and was decided before Creation who will be included in that unknown number. It was decided by God independently, not in reaction to something else. He decided out of his own mysterious purposes and wisdom when, where, how, and who to love. And love them he does indeed.

Perseverance of the Saints states that anyone whom God chooses to be saved initially, will be saved finally. The old creation was dead. They are now a new, undying creation. God finishes what he starts; he who began a good work in the elect will carry it on to completion. He does not disown the very sons he adopts. There is no sin too great that he does not forgive you and restore you. There is no sin too captivating that you cannot go home to the Father. The grace that showed you salvation continues to operate in your life; though you may sin, though you may leave the community of saints, though you may break fellowship with God, you still have the Holy Spirit pulling within you and he will restore you to himself.

I won’t even get into the other, though it can be supportive. Let’s just get a glimpse of Irresistible Grace and relate them back to the others.

Irresistible Grace states that the Holy Spirit not only nudges but resurrects, not only guides but gives life, not only influences but indwells the believer in such a way that the Holy Spirit is the cause of faith, repentance and salvation in the individual. He is logically prior to the saving faith, for he is the very one who gives it. At the appointed time set for redemption, he comes in power in such a way that the person’s desires, thoughts, and orientation toward God change. The cause is sufficient to produce the consequence of being saved.

It is a process, but he is the ultimate cause and without him, there is no repentance, no saving faith, no new life, no new creation. There is no justification, for it cannot be imputed. There is no sanctification, for it cannot be worked out. There is no glorification, for the body raised is still dead spiritually. God’s grace in changing the heart and renewing the mind of the individual is in itself a miracle; for in man there can be nothing to change his standing before God, and the greatness of his sin and corruption of his nature are so thorough that it can only be God who overcomes. Who can, and must, that they be saved.

Take this doctrine, and look at it from a standpoint of necessity. That is, if you analyze the others summarized, you are led to accept that grace is irresistible. They imply it. For example, if you hold onto Total Depravity and know that there exist some Christians, then God must have changed them, overcoming their dark hearts. If God’s grace could be resisted, Total Depravity means that they will always resist it, and indeed they would never be saved. In our nature, apart from God’s grace, we are enemies, and, more importantly, we are dead and insensitive to God.

Or take another: if you hold onto Unconditional Election, you understand that God’s plans will work out because he is interacting and faithful to his promises. As such, nothing can stand in his way with regard to his plans in salvation. Or, thinking about it another way, if he has elected you before Creation and you can resist grace to the very end of your life, then his plan has failed. You were elected but his grace was insufficient to compel you beyond your nature. This is false; may it never be!

Or finally, if you accept Perseverance of the Saints, you trust that God’s grace which caused you to forsake the sinful nature and hold onto him, which not only raised you but sustains you, which sanctifies you into all righteousness, must be powerful enough to bring about the very salvation which justified you in the first place. Anything that could not overcome your sinful nature in salvation could never sustain you throughout your life.

Thus, if you accept any of these three, Irresistible Grace is considered implied. What is more, if you accept more than one, you would be ready to accept it as another way of saying the same thing. As such, we have strong ground to accept the doctrine. As I said originally, this is the dogmatic approach. In the next post, I will give exposition of Scripture to further lend credence to it, for it must have clear Scripture if we are to accept it, rather than go on the teachings of men and their reasoning alone.

I’ve been dreaming a lot lately, and I’m not sure why. But last night was less than appealing. I was reminded that America will be destroyed. The country will fall. Now, I am not a fatalist, who thinks “Why delay the inevitable?” It may fall, but let’s go down kicking and screaming. Just because your pursuer is faster and fitter doesn’t mean you can’t run your legs out, or worse, that you shouldn’t. This is not my home, it is not my inheritance, it is not my joy, and it is not going to last. I can’t control that.

The thing is, though it may be obvious, we don’t live like this. We don’t orient ourselves in such a way that takes this into account. Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and thieves break in and steal. Instead, store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy and thieves do not break in and steal. Then you’ll have an inheritance. A lasting inheritance, not given or earned by man — but rather given out of grace by God. That is far better.

It has been two years, two months… and I think 2 weeks. … And, if so, then three days. The end is nearer than we think.

I could feel the fortress in my hands.

Hard as steel.

I tried, time and time again.

Used several techniques.

But I could never get in.

Locked out.

Falling is something we learn to do wrong. At least, that’s how my hapkido instructor told me. Pretty much, we learn when we are very young to fall rolling and distributing energy outward. When social awareness comes into play, we learn at a young age that people laugh at us and it is not appropriate to fall, so we put our body in poor conditions to take the fall — like putting down a hand, sometimes breaking the wrist or forearm, due to all the weight and pressure exerted in one small area on our body. Bracing yourself can actually make things worse; you want to be loose, so your body can distribute the force naturally, instead of straining muscles or joints as they are tense and lock.

Falling is something people, however radical and dangerous it may be, like to embrace: falling out of a plane, falling off a bridge with a bungee, falling off a 2-3 story building in le parkour, etc. How strange! They make it an art or a science, whatever you want to call it, to fall well. That is, to do it safely and not get hurt.

Falling is a strange phenomena. If you’re in a plane going down, you experience zero gravity. You don’t feel like you’re falling, per se: you’re in a chamber of air, so there is no wind rushing, there’s no objects around you zipping past you. Your frame of reference is confused, disoriented. Of course, you don’t want to get into this situation unless the plane can start flying again.

When two objects fall, all other things eliminated, they fall at the same rate. E.g. a feather and a bowling ball fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum. When they fall together, to view the other, if it were possible, would be as if the other were still. Without one moving faster than the other, they don’t drift apart, if they are headed in the same direction. They appear to be normal, without a frame of reference — some other object to tell how fast they are going. (this was actually Berkeley’s point about motion being relative to us, a charge against Newtonian physics with “absolute space”)

But falling in love is something entirely different though. ….Isn’t it?

Maybe not.