The basic lines of defense offered by Calvinists for
this doctrine is really six-fold. First, they assert its truth
on the basis of the supposed truth of the other major tenets of the TULIP.
While it is true that these central dogmas of Calvinism do follow
logically and are built upon each other, likewise they must fall
together if even but one of them is false, which they all are! The
doctrine of Irresistible Grace falls with the refutation of any part
of the TULIP.
Second, the defense involves an appeal to the idea
of absolute sovereignty on behalf of God. They reason that because God
is absolute in His attributes, and one of His attributes is the fact
of His sovereignty (His rulership and control) over Creation, then He
must likewise be absolute in His sovereignty. If He is absolute in His
sovereignty, then it must be the case that man possesses no free will
but is totally subject to Him and is under His total control. However,
absolute sovereignty, when properly defined, does not necessarily
demand the absence of free will. Certainly, God has ultimate control
over the universal order of things, but He also has constituted things
to provide an environment or condition of things that does not negate
or infringe upon the free will of man (or angels for that matter).
Free will is the ability to choose (Deut.30:19-20; Jos.24:14-15;
Eze.33:11) and is taken into account in the very nature of the
universe which God in His wisdom has made. Sin, therefore, is the free
will violation of God’s law (Gen.2:16-17; 3:1ff; 1 John 3:4).
The word "absolute" does not inherently
demand that God must have or hold immediate control or that He
foreordains every single aspect, activity or thought that transpires
in this world. Some Calvinists go so far as to suggest that God
controls such things as our body movements, the beating of the heart,
laughter, crying, a mistake in typing – even sin. The implications
of this view are rather obvious. If God foreordained the movement of
the finger that pulled the trigger of a gun that committed murder,
then God had really foreordained the murder of life. Every act or
thought would be the result of the active decree and control of God.
Of course, as you can see, this line of reasoning is blasphemous.
Third, the doctrine of irresistible grace is
defended on the grounds that the fact of lower grace
necessitates it. In Calvinism, grace is pictured as involving two
levels or kinds of grace: "upper" grace, which
is the kind contemplated by the phrase "Irresistible Grace,"
and "lower" grace." Sometimes these are
called "special" and "common" grace
respectively. The latter contemplates the general goodness and
kindness of God given to the entire human race. All men, whether elect
or non-elect as per Unconditional Election, experience this
"lower" grace, whereby God causes "the rain
to fall upon the just and unjust." The doctrine further holds
that it is the free rejection of this lower grace by the non-elect,
which justifies God withholding His "upper" grace
from them and reserving it only for the elect. This also serves as a
way for Calvinists to obfuscate the charge that God is the active
author of sin. But here’s the catch; if man is free enough to reject
the proffer of God’s "lower" grace, then why is he not
likewise free to reject His "upper" grace, and thereby
resist the supposedly irresistible? Essentially, the non-elect
is free enough to choose to go to hell, but not free enough to choose
to go to heaven? The elect is free enough to choose to go to
heaven, but not free enough to choose to go to hell? If the
"lower" grace can be resisted, because of man’s freedom,
then why can not God’s "upper" grace be resisted?
The fourth line of defense is made by appealing
to John 6:44 as expressing or implying the truth of the doctrine of
Irresistible Grace. The assumption is made that since the passage says
God "draws," then it must be done miraculously by the Holy
Spirit. First, there is no mention, not even an implication, that this
text suggests that the Holy Spirit directly and immediately
"draws" anyone. The text simply says that God
"draws" but how does He draw? We will answer that shortly.
Second, concerning the same passage, did the Lord expect these
unregenerate people, or the non-elect, to understand His words? Could
they, as dead, alien sinners, hear His words and understand that they
could not come to Christ without some Divine (direct and immediate)
help? If so, then these dead men are not so spiritually dead as
Calvinism would like us to believe. If not, why speak to them?
Third; earlier in the same chapter (John 6), Jesus fed
five thousand folks. Later, Jesus withdrew from them and went to the
other side of the lake to Capernaum Part of that same crowd looked for
Jesus and would eventually find Him. Jesus told them that they ought
not to work for the food that spoils but for the food that Christ
offers, which is eternal (John 6:27). Why would Jesus even address
them if He knew they were dead and could not respond? Was He mocking
them by commanding them to do something they could not do? Or was He
expecting these dead, alien sinners to obey Him and work for the bread
that is eternal? Fourth, how did these dead, alien sinners who were
allegedly without the will to come to God, ask Jesus, "What
shall we do that we might work the works of God" (John 6:28)?
How could unregenerate people ask such a question given the
Calvinistic doctrine that sinners can not respond to God? Furthermore,
why did Jesus tell these totally depraved, dead, alien sinners, that
the work they needed to do was to believe in Him (John 6:29), when He
knew very well that they could not do so of their own free will? Perhaps
the reason is because He felt they could respond and decide to follow
Him themselves, without having to have some miraculous work of the
Holy Spirit to get them to respond! You see, according to our
Calvinist friends, Jesus should have answered, "What do you
mean, ‘What shall we do?’ There is nothing you can do! And, unless
God effects a miracle in your hearts, you are doomed to hell anyway."
The whole problem with Calvinism, when it comes to
John 6:44, is that it completely ignores the entire context of John 6
but it especially ignores verse 45. How is one drawn? How does one
come to Jesus? Here is how verse 45 reads, "It is written in
the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man
therefore that hath heard, and learned of the Father,
cometh unto Me"(John 6:45, emphasis mine DLP). Was Jesus
correct when He said that the prophets had said, "And, they
shall be all taught of God"? Did the prophets
say that? "Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the
Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach
us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths" (Isa.2:2-3).
This is perfectly consistent with the Great Commission, "Go ye
therefore and teach all nations" (Matt.28:19).
Therefore ,the one who is drawn is the one who is taught. The one who
hears, learns and comes is the one who is drawn. Now, with regards to
the word "heard" - "In Him you also trusted,
after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your
salvation" (Eph.1:13). "For whoever calls upon the
name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in
whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom
they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a
preacher? (Rom.10:13-14). Obviously, then, one must hear the
gospel of Jesus Christ because it is the power of God to salvation
(Rom.1:16-17) and after hearing the message they must believe it since
they have learned it. Regarding the word "learned"
– "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of Me…and you shall
find rest for your souls" (Matt.11:29). "And you
shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free"
(John 8:32).
Those who have been taught; those who have heard
and learned – these are the ones who are drawn by the Father;
they are the ones who come to Christ. However, according to Calvinism,
John 6:44-45, should read like this: "No man can come to Me
except the Father which hath sent Me draw him. It is written in the
prophets, And only the elect shall be miraculously and mysteriously
regenerated of God. Every man therefore that hath been regenerated of
God shall come to Christ while those whom God fails to regenerate
shall die in their unbelief and be sent to hell for it. Whether the
regenerate ones ever hear and learn of the Father, they are still
saved eternally." Furthermore, sinners are called to Christ
by the gospel (2 Thess.2:14) and not by a
"better-felt-than-told" whammy from on high! It is by the
teaching of Scripture and by persuasion. Paul would say, "Knowing,
therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men" (2
Cor.5:11). Again, these verses wouldn’t make any sense at all if it
only took a miraculous working of the Holy Spirit to zap men into
believing and responding. Moreover, if it only takes the working of
the Holy Spirit, who unconditionally elects some to heaven, then why
in the world would we be told to, "Go into all the world and
preach the gospel"?
The Fifth line of defense for the false
doctrine of Irresistible Grace is in the Calvinist’s misuse of the
separate cases of Pharaoh (in Exodus) and Lydia (in Acts). The Bible
affirms that God "hardened" the heart of Pharaoh
(Ex.7:13). God prophesied to Moses that He would do so (Ex. 4:21;
7:3). The Bible also affirms that God "opened" the
heart of Lydia (Acts 16:14). Calvinism asserts that these things were
done by a direct, immediate, and miraculous operation of the Holy
Spirit on the heart of each individual. Along the same lines,
Calvinists will often turn to Romans 9:17 and suggest that God "made"
Pharaoh to do what he did, despite Pharaoh’s own will in the matter.
However, the argument "begs the question." Calvinists ignore
the force of Romans 9:22, which implies that the act of
"fashioning" Pharaoh, as well as others, into a vessel of
dishonor "fitted for destruction" was done in keeping his
free will, as demonstrated by the fact of God’s long suffering and
patience with the same. The imagery of the potter and the clay does
not preclude human free will. The Calvinist fails to observe the
connection between the Divine action of Romans 9 and the human
obligation in Romans 10! By calling on the name of the Lord in obeying
the gospel (Rom.10:13-17), "whosoever" can be saved!
Whatever understanding we are to have of the figure of the potter and
clay must certainly take these verses into account, as well as many
others. We ought not to be about the business of pitting Scripture
against Scripture, but this is what many denominationalists are
accomplishing. They prefer remaining faithful to their man-made
doctrines, rather than to what God actually teaches in His Word. The
prophet Jeremiah also uses this imagery in Jeremiah 18:1-6 but clearly
affirms the fact of free will in verses 7-12.
As to the specific case of Pharaoh, it should be made
known, and shouted from the mountain tops, that it was actually
Pharaoh who hardened his own heart (Ex.8:15, 32; 9:34). Any
explanation of the means by which his heart became callous must also
account for these passages as well. When one excludes these passages
from our understanding of the matter, then one becomes disingenuous in
handling the Word of God. This is exactly what Calvinism is guilty of
doing! It’s nothing more than cafeteria style theology. Take
whatever Scripture you like and leave the ones you don’t like.
Friends, all of God’s Word must be taken and it must be harmonized.
Calvinists want us to believe that Pharaoh was simply an automaton, a
robot, a puppet, doing only what God forced him to do. Friends, that
is absurd! As Paul Harvey would say, "And now, the rest of the
story."
Calvinism fails to account for Pharaoh’s own part in
hardening his heart. The fact of the matter is that God, being
omniscient, foresaw what Pharaoh would freely choose to do, and God so
arranged and orchestrated the flow of human history as to bring such
to pass.
Moses and Aaron were the human instruments God used to
present to Pharaoh with a demand to free His people. This demand went
against the political, economic, and personal interests of Pharaoh. It
placed his obligation to God, the Creator of all things, against the
king’s selfish interests and concerns. After all, he was
"Pharaoh," meaning "the Great House," of Egypt.
His people worshipped him as a god. His power and prestige came from
his control over his territories – his empire, and this included his
control over the Hebrew slaves. Pharaoh’s pride and arrogance ruled
his own decisions. Yet, God knows all things and certainly knew
Pharaoh’s heart (Prov.23:7). Pharaoh hardened his own heart and let
his self-interests dry up his conscience. Of course, this is the very
idea behind the word "hardened." God allowed Pharaoh to
rebel against His wishes and then led him to defeat. In that sense, it
can be said that God, figuratively, hardened Pharaoh’s heart because
He allowed him to rebel, but Pharaoh rebelled on his own free will!
As to the case of Lydia, the text, as found in Acts
16:13-14, shows that the "opening" of her heart was
through the means of the Word preached by Paul and his companions.
First, Lydia does not seem to be one who is totally depraved because
she is depicted as responding to God. Luke describes her as "one
that worshipped God." Her worshipful attitude toward God
evidences the fact that she was a devout individual – hardly a
sketch of one who could do no good! Previously, she had become a
proselyte to the Jewish religion, for she was meeting with her
associates on the Sabbath day for prayer. She was, therefore, a good
woman, doing the best she knew how to do, though she was still
unexposed to the gospel and lost.
The text speaks of Lydia’s "heart."
The term is clearly used in a figurative sense. The Bible often speaks
of the heart in the sense of the intellect. With the heart man
perceives (John 12:40), thinks (Matt.9:4; Heb.4:12), understands
(Matt.13:15), reasons (Mark 2:6), and believes (Rom.10:10). The
suggestion, therefore, that one’s heart was "opened"
was simply a way of saying that the person came to an understanding
of, and a belief in, the message under consideration. The apostle Paul
says this very thing concerning the heart when he says, "having
the eyes of your heart enlightened" (Eph.1:18).
The key question is this: just how did the Lord open
this noble woman’s heart? Notice first of all, that the text does
not mention the Holy Spirit at all. It simply says the Lord
"opened" her heart. To assert that the opening of her heart
was the by the miracle of some direct operation of the Holy Spirit,
distinct from the truth, is an example of eisegesis (reading something
into the text that is not there) rather than exegesis (interpreting
the text itself without any bias). There are literally scores of
Biblical examples which demonstrate that God, as a general rule, works
through a means, and not directly (2 Kings 5:1; Matt.6:11; 2
Cor.9:10). The New Testament repeatedly affirms that the gospel is
"the power of God unto salvation (Rom.1:16). The Word of God is
able to effect the salvation of the soul (Jam.1:21). It is by the
preaching of the gospel message that people are saved (1 Cor.15:1-2;
Eph.5:26).
The very context of Acts 16:14 indicates that it was
by the power of the Word of God that Lydia's heart was opened. First,
Luke writes that Lydia "heard us." Her attention was
upon the preaching of the Word and upon the instruction of Paul and
his companions. The implication is the exact opposite of what
Calvinism demands! She simply heard the message, listened intently,
learned and then obeyed. The design in all this was that she might
"give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul."
The term "give heed" suggests an obedience to the
teaching. The same is found in Acts 8 where many in Samaria had
formerly given "heed" to Simon the sorcerer (8:10-11)
but when Philip proclaimed Christ to them, they "gave heed"
to his message (8:6), and so many were baptized, both men and women
(8:12). "Giving heed" is contrasted with disobedience
in Hebrews 2:1-2. The point is this: Calvinism contends that there is
absolutely nothing that one can do in the matter of his or her
salvation, but the case of Lydia stands in direct opposition to that.
No direct operation of the Holy Spirit is even contemplated here. She
responded freely on the basis of the evidence of the preaching. Again,
if one cannot respond to the gospel until there is a supernatural
working of the Holy Spirit upon the heart, then who is to be held
responsible if the heart is never opened? Calvinism, as you can see,
actually reflects on the justice and character of the Creator and,
therefore, it is false!
A sixth line of defense is often urged by the
Calvinist on the case of Cornelius. After all, he received a direct
"outpouring" of the Holy Spirit. The Calvinist asserts this
was to save him immediately and completely. However, the text clearly
shows that the outpouring was for the sole purpose of convincing the
Jews that the Gentiles were now acceptable with God and were to be
recipients of the blessings of the gospel as were the Jews (Acts
11:1-18). Cornelius and his household were saved by the "words"
which Peter preached (Acts 11:14), and not by the direct operation of
the Holy Spirit.
In our next article, we will continue to refute the
Calvinistic notion of Irresistible Grace and then proceed to analyze
the third plank of modern Calvinism, "Once saved, always
saved." May God bless your continued study in God’s Word!