John Calvin and the Doctrine of Irresistible Grace - by Keith Mathison

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------

With a zealotry bordering on obsession Calvinists teach Calvinism. They will never teach the Bible unless they can teach Calvinism. Calvinism is their faith, not the Bible. What the Bible can be made to say about Calvinism is the goal.

Such is the case with today's article. We are yet again visiting Calvinism, reluctantly. We apologize. However, it is necessary because of the grievous errors committed by the author. He is here to tell us about one of Calvin's doctrines, Irresistible Grace, part of the Acronym TULIP:

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

These largely useless doctrines are continually pushed by Calvinists, along with incessant fawning praise of Calvin himself. We say "useless" because no matter which side you take in the doctrinal debate it makes absolutely no difference to any privilege or obligation we possess as Christians. No matter your preference, we are still called to faith, obedience, worship, holiness, and generosity. 

TULIP doesn't change any of this.

This author has been examined several times in our blog, and invariably explains Calvinism and Reformed Doctrine. In the space of a few paragraphs he will touch on every single petal of TULIP, couched with innocuous language which would cause the casual reader to think good doctrine is being explained.

Total words: 1493

Number of words from the Bible quoted: 14

Number of words from theologians: 786

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

----------------------

In 1610, the followers of the Dutch pastor and professor Jacob Arminius drafted a protest called “the Remonstrance.” The document contained five negative statements that rejected specific Calvinistic doctrines, followed by five articles stating Arminian doctrines. Among the Calvinistic teachings with which the Remonstrance took issue was the doctrine of irresistible grace.

In the fourth negative statement, the Arminians rejected the following:

That the Holy Spirit works in the elect by irresistible grace, so that they must be converted and be saved; while the grace necessary and sufficient for conversion, faith, and salvation is withheld from the rest, although they are externally called and invited by the revealed will of God.

The statement of the Arminian doctrine was then presented in the fourth article on Resistible Grace:

Grace is the beginning, continuation, and end of our spiritual life, so that man can neither think nor do any good or resist sin without prevening, co-operating, and assisting grace. But as for the manner of co-operation, this grace is not irresistible, for many resist the Holy Ghost (Acts vii). (This is the only actual statement from these eeeevil Arminians, which the author will not discuss. There is an actual Scriptural reference, Acts 7:51, which the author also avoids:  

 

Ac. 7:51 You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 

The author has no intention of examining any sort of opposition to his doctrine, so rather than discuss the doctrinal implications of this verse, he simply moves on.)

The publication of the Remonstrance led to a lengthy debate between Calvinists and Arminians in the Netherlands. Eventually, in order to resolve the debate, the Dutch Estates General called an ecclesiastical assembly, the Synod of Dort, which met from November 1618 until May 1619. In addition to the approximately seventy Dutch delegates present, there were twenty-six delegates from eight foreign nations, including England, Switzerland, and parts of Germany. The synod set forth its conclusions in the Canons of Dort. This document contains “the decision of the Synod of Dort on the five main points of doctrine in dispute in the Netherlands.” Each main point in the canons contains a positive exposition of the Calvinist doctrine, followed by a rejection of the corresponding Arminian error.

The synod’s defense of the doctrine of irresistible grace is found in Main Point III/IV of the canons. After setting forth the effects of the fall upon human nature and the inability of the light of nature or of the law to convert fallen man, (The "T" in TULIP.)

the synod declares that what neither nature nor the law can do, God “accomplishes by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Art. 6). In eternity, God chose (The "U" in TULIP.)

His own,  (The "L" in TULIP.)

and within time He effectively calls them and grants them faith (Art. 10). (The "I" in TULIP. Only the "P" remains, and we are sure the author will manage to slip it in somewhere.) 

The Holy Spirit supernaturally regenerates God’s chosen ones in an incomprehensible manner (Arts. 11–13). This regenerating work is irresistible: “all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe” (Art. 12).

The Westminster Confession of Faith, which was completed in 1646, sets forth the same doctrine of irresistible (or effectual) grace that was defended at Dort. Its statement of the doctrine is found in Chapter 10, “Of Effectual Calling.”

This doctrine is found as well in the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 67.7 We see, then, that by the seventeenth century, the doctrine of irresistible grace was considered to be an established point of Reformed orthodoxy. Here the Reformed churches were following the lead of John Calvin, who had simply set forth the teaching of Scripture. (Well, that's the matter to be demonstrated, isn't it?)

As we have seen, the doctrine of irresistible grace involves several doctrinal issues, including effectual calling and regeneration. Calvin addressed these themes in his biblical commentaries, his Institutes of the Christian Religion, and in several treatises, including one specifically addressed to the topics. Calvin found the doctrine of effectual grace in several texts of Scripture. One of the clearest of these references is John 6. Commenting on verse 44, Calvin explains how God draws sinners to Himself.

The statement amounts to this, that we ought not to wonder if many refuse to embrace the Gospel; because no man will ever of himself be able to come to Christ, but God must first approach him by his Spirit; and hence it follows that all are not drawn, but that God bestows this grace on those whom he has elected. True, indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant.

Jesus had said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44a). (Hooray, our first and only Bible verse. The issue is, what does it mean to be drawn? It does not mean what Calvin [and the author] thinks it means. They both infer an inexorable outcome to a specfically selected, limited number of people, but it cannot mean that since elsewhere in John Jesus says, 

Jn. 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

If the author thinks that being drawn is irresistible, then this verse necessarily means all men will be saved because all men are drawn. We're pretty sure that author doesn't believe all men will be saved. Therefore, being drawn does not result in inevitable salvation.)

As Calvin explains, this verse clearly expresses the truth that God is sovereign in man’s salvation. (The first and only appearance of the word "sovereign" in this article. What does it mean? Well, the author doesn't explain.

We explain sovereignty here.)

Man does not initiate the process, for he cannot come to Christ unless God acts first. This is the case because man is dead in sin, and a dead man can do nothing for himself. (This seems conventional, but the author is actually telling us that expressing saving faith isn't possible because it is a work. We're back to "T" in TULIP.

There is no verse in the Bible that tells us that exercising saving faith is a work. This is simply an undocumented assumption, which Calvinists need in order to preserve TULIP. )

Calvin’s most extended systematic treatment of the doctrine of irresistible grace is found in his 1559 edition of the Institutes. Here Calvin explains that God must begin the good work of salvation in us because our wills are evil and set against Him. (Notice that Calvin makes an unwarranted assertion from a biblical statement, using the word "must." But he does not explain this leap.)

Man’s will cannot turn to the good in its own power, (Here again is a biblical sounding statement, but is predicated on the idea that it is a human work to exercise saving faith.)

but must be changed by God. As Calvin explains, this divine change is efficacious: (Though the word "efficacious" usually means "effective," for the Calvinist it means "must and does occur.")

He does not move the will in such a manner as has been taught and believed for many ages—that it is afterward in our choice either to obey or resist the motion—but by disposing it efficaciously.

Because salvation is God’s work, from beginning to end, perseverance (At last, the final letter of TULIP, "P.")

ultimately depends on Him. It is a free gift of God, not a reward based on man’s merit.

In 1542, the Dutch Roman Catholic theologian Albert Pighius wrote a work titled Ten Books on Human Free Choice and Divine Grace. (No quotes from this work. The inclusion of this narrative is superfluous, and seems to be included only to further burnish Calvin.)

Pighius was critiquing Calvin’s teaching on the subject of free will and predestination as found in the 1539 edition of the Institutes. In 1543, Calvin wrote a response to Pighius titled The Bondage and Liberation of the Will. This book contains Calvin’s most extended treatment of the relationship between God’s grace and man’s will. In it, Calvin sums up his argument against Pighius in the following statement:

But all that we say amounts to this. First, that what a person is or has or is capable of is entirely empty and useless for the spiritual righteousness which God requires, unless one is directed to the good by the grace of God. Secondly, that the human will is of itself evil and therefore needs transformation and renewal so that it may begin to be good, but that grace itself is not merely a tool which can help someone if he is pleased to stretch out his hand to [take] it. That is, [God] does not merely offer it, leaving [to man] the choice between receiving it and rejecting it, but he steers the mind to choose what is right, he moves the will also effectively to obedience, he arouses and advances the endeavor until the actual completion of the work is attained.

Contrary to Pighius, Calvin affirms that grace is efficacious:

[In the Institutes] I say, then, that grace is not offered to us in such a way that afterwards we have the option either to submit or to resist. I say that it is not given merely to aid our weakness by its support as though anything depended on us apart from it. But I demonstrate that it is entirely the work of grace and a benefit conferred by it that our heart is changed from a stony one to one of flesh, that our will is made new, and that we, created anew in heart and mind, at length will what we ought to will. For Paul bears witness that God does not bring about in us [merely] that we are able to will what is good, but also that we should will it right up to the completion of the act. How big a difference there is between performance and will! Likewise, I determine that our will is effectively formed so that it necessarily follows the leading of the Holy Spirit, and not that it is sufficiently encouraged to be able to do so if it wills.

In his teaching on the subject of saving grace, Calvin merely followed the doctrine set forth in the Scriptures. (This is a matter to be demonstrated.)

The doctrine of efficacious grace is necessary because of the state of fallen man. (Ah, here comes some Scriptural documentation, finally. Unfortunately, it is unquoted.)

Man is born dead in sin (cf. Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13), (True.)

with his mind and heart corrupted (Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14). (True.)

He is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:20; Titus 3:3) (True.)

and therefore unable to repent and come to God (Jer. 13:23; Matt. 7:18; John 6:44, 65). (Oops. This is a matter to be demonstrated. Several correct statements leading to a false "therefore" conclusion.

Let's quote the proof texts:

Je. 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil. 

Mt. 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 

Jn. 6:44 “No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jn. 6:65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no-one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

No one doubts the evil nature of the unsaved, so the first two references are not related to the author's claim. 

The third verse was discussed above.

Only the last citation actually comes to bear on the author's claim. But understanding the context of the statement. Jesus was speaking to Jews about Jews. He explicitly came to save His people, the Jews [Mt. 10:5-7, Mt. 15:26]. Of course, He has always had a greater to purpose to include the gentiles [Ro. 9:25, Ro. 11:17], but He predestined the firstfruits of Israel [Ro. 8:23, Ro. 11:16], the children of the promise [Ro. 9:8] for salvation first [Ro. 1:16], and the rest of us were saved after [Ep. 1:13].

So, the Father enabled those first century Jews to believe as the chosen remnant [Ro. 11:5].

 John was not talking about us, and we should not insert ourselves into the narrative.

But more to the point, the author uses the phrase "unable to repent." This is the pernicious conclusion one must derive from Calvinism, that God selects some for hell and some for salvation. Which means that somehow God pretends that His justice is being exercised against those who refuse to repent. 

But if repentance is granted only for the ones God chose it is actually a cruel joke, because a man can only repent if God permits it. Therefore, sin, hatred, and murder are constructs. Holiness, doing good, making wise choices, it's all an elaborate ruse. We are just actors reading our lines, and God is pretending that it's all real, holding the lost accountable something they had no role in, and giving eternal pleasures to arbitrary others.

Calvinism. What an evil teaching.)

Because of this, man must be born again (John 3:5–7). (True.)

Those whom God elected (The "U" in TULIP.)

and for whom Christ died (The "L" in TULIP.)

are brought to life by the Holy Spirit (John 1:12–13; 3:3–8; 5:21; Eph. 2:1, 5; Titus 3:5). (Let's quote:

Jn. 1:12-13 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

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

Jn. 5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

Ep. 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins... Ep. 2:5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions — it is by grace you have been saved.

Tit. 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit...

All of these verses are pretty conventional "born-again" verses, except one, Jn. 5:21. But we should note first that Calvinists believe one must be born again before one can be saved. Which of course means that a born again person isn't necessarily saved, which is utter nonsense.

Regarding Jn. 5:21, for the casual reader this verse implies predestination. But let's examine the interlinear Greek:

even as for the Father raises up the dead and gives life, thus also the Son to whom he will gives life. 

"Will" is the Greek word theló, which means desire, disposed, willing. Hmm. It seems there's a bit of bias in the English translation, implying a meaning that isn't there. Based on that, let's do a quick corrective paraphrase:

Just like the Father, the Son is willing to raise up the dead and give life.

Being born again is another peculiar doctrine of Calvinism.)

God gives them faith and repentance (Acts 5:31; 11:18; 13:48; Eph. 2:8–9; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:25–26), and they are justified. (Sigh. Let's quote:

Ac. 5:31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. [That's not about gentiles.]

Ac. 11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.” [This means that salvation has now come to the gentiles. It does not speak of individuals.]

Ac. 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. [Let's contextualize this. A couple of verses before, we read:

Ac. 13:46 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."

Now it becomes clear. The Jew's rejection of salvation {obviously made of free choice} resulted in a pre-ordained number of gentiles to be saved. This of course does not speak to general predestination at all.] 

Ep. 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — 9 not by works, so that no-one can boast. [Salvation is a gift obtained through faith. Nothing to see here.)

Ph. 1:29 For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him... [This is Paul's statement to the Philippian church. We should not assume it applies to us.]

2Ti. 2:25 Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth... [Repentance is a gift. Gifts can be refused.]

The whole of Calvinism is built on assumption and inference. It misrepresents salvation, God, and man. It has no utility and no purpose. We reject it summarily.)