IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
Calvinistic theologians generally distinguish between the external call of theGospel and the internal call of the Word and the Spirit. The external call ofthe Gospel is given in the preaching of the Gospel, and calls all without exceptionto repent of sin and believe in Christ. This call is resistible, and thus theLord teaches: “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt 22:14; cf. Jn8:43–44a. On the other hand, the internal call is given only to the elect. Thiscall, which is referred to in Romans 8:30, involves the planting of spiritualears in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore always efficacious.The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of this effectualcall thus:
All those whom God hathpredestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed andaccepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that stateof sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by JesusChrist; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand thethings of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heartof flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them tothat which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so asthey come most freely, being made willing by His grace (WCF 10.1).
When the Calvinist speaks about Irresistible Grace, he is referring to thenature of this efficacious call.
Controversy with Arminians
We are plucking the petals of TULIP one by one in order, in our discussion ofthe Five Points of Calvinism. This order in the acronym beautifully shows thework of the Triune God in our salvation: The Father electing unconditionally,the Son dying for the elect, and the Holy Spirit quickening the elect who areby nature dead in sin, and planting spiritual ears so that they may respond tothe Gospel.
However, this may not be the best order to discuss the subject because thedoctrine of Irresistible Grace follows logically the doctrine of Total Depravity.In the Remonstrantia, the Arminian expression which corresponds tothis doctrine is found in Article IV, which immediately follows Article III onFreewill or the ability of man (antithesis of Total Depravity). The fathers ofDort, when drafting the Canons, which follows the order ofthe Remonstrantia, found it necessary to treat the two articlestogether, viz. Head III & IV: “Of the Doctrine of Man’s Corruption, and ofthe Method of His Conversion to God.” This is because it is quite impossible toknow how the Arminians differ from the Calvinists in the third article withoutbringing in the fourth article. In the same way, we cannot get a full pictureof Total Depravity without at least some reference to Irresistible Grace.
The reason for this is that the Arminians also claim to hold to Total Depravityand that without grace not one may be saved. Thus, a Calvinist reading thethird article of the Remonstrantia by itself will probablyagree with it wholeheartedly. It is only when we begin to discuss what grace isand does, that we begin to see where the two systems differ. When the Calvinistspeaks about grace in the salvation of sinners, he is referring to Godsovereignly and monergistically changing the heart or nature of the sinner sothat his will, which is bounded to his inclination which is hitherto dead tosin, is now made alive and freed from the bondage of sin to embrace Christ(see Canons Head 3 & 4, art. 11). Arminius, on the otherhand, writes: “grace is so attempered [sic] and commingled with thenature of man, as not to destroy within him the liberty of his will, but togive it a right direction, to correct its depravity, and to allow man topossess his own proper motions” (Works 1.628–9). Note also that forthe Arminians, regeneration does not involve a permanent change. This is whythe 4th Article of theRemonstrantia (shrewdly) refers to theoperation of grace in the lives of the regenerate rather than unregenerate. Forthem, no substantive change is wrought by regeneration, whereas for a Calvinistthe change is drastic, and is the very subject of the doctrine of IrresistibleGrace.
From a different angle, one way of looking at the difference is that Calvinistsbelieve that grace is particular and monergistic: that it proceeds from thefountain of God’s electing love and sovereignly brings about regeneration andconversion; whereas Arminians hold that grace is universal and synergistic:that it proceeds from Christ’s death for the world and co-operates with thefree-will of man to effect faith and regeneration.
Another way of looking at the difference is as proposed by Arminius himselfwhen he quite rightly asserts: “The whole controversy reduces itself to thesolution of this question, ‘Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?’”(Works 1.664). We would of course not say that God’s convertinggrace is an “irresistible force,” which is an Arminian caricature to suggestthat Calvinism teaches that the elect are forced into the kingdom kicking andscreaming. But it is fair to say that the difference is whether grace isresistible or irresistible, or whether grace properly denoted is necessarilyefficacious or not. Thus the fourth article of the Remonstrantia insiststhat grace “is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many,that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.”
We will have to examine the Scripture cited as well as others cited byArminius, but before we do so, it is useful, I believe, to think for a momentwhat the Arminians are essentially saying. They are saying that when the Gospelis preached, the Holy Spirit tries His best to woo the hearer to believe, butthat ultimately, it is the hearer who finally decides if he wants to believe.If the hearer refuses to believe, there is nothing the Holy Spirit can do aboutit. In this way, whether we profess to hold to Unconditional Election or not,we will have to conclude that God’s grace can be rejected and His will can befrustrated.
Verses that Suggest “Resistible Grace”
Although the Remonstratia asserts that “it is writtenconcerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost… in many places,” itdoes not give any specific examples. Arminius, however, lists three classes ofverses, viz: (1) such as teaches that grace is capable of “being resisted”—Acts7:51; (2) such as teaches that grace can be “received in vain”—2 Corinthians6:1; and (3) those that suggest that “it is possible for man to avoid yieldinghis assent to it; and to refuse all co-operation with it”—Hebrews 12:15; Matthew23:37; Luke 7:30 (Op. Cit., 1.629). These verses must be examined. Butonce again, in the interest of space, we will not quote the text but requestthe readers to check them up in the Bible.
Acts 7:51
This verse does indeed teach that the Holy Ghost can insome sense be resisted. Firstly, He is resisted when the hearers resist theHoly Spirit speaking to them by the prophets, Apostles and ministers of theGospel. Secondly, He is resisted when the hearers resist the convictions anddictate of their own conscience when their minds are in some sense irradiatedwith some sparks of truth by the Holy Spirit (cf. Hebrews 6:4 and Calvin inloc).
In other words, the resistance against the Holy Spirit that this verse speaksabout is resistance to the work of the Spirit in the external call of theGospel, which no Calvinist will deny is possible. But the external call for thereprobate, in the final analysis, can hardly be regarded as grace, for to theseGod “designs the call to be a savour of death [cf. 2 Cor 2:16], and the groundof a severer condemnation” (ICR 3.24.8). In any case, this versedoes not at all suggest that the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration can beresisted.
2 Corinthians 6:1
Again, this verse does not refer to the regenerating workof the Spirit in the heart of sinners; rather, it refers to the preaching ofthe Gospel (cf. 2 Cor 6:2). The offer of the Gospel is here denoted “grace ofGod” simply because it is a presentation God’s grace. It may be argued, fromwhat we have said regarding Acts 7:51, that it seem incongruous to call thepreaching of the Gospel “grace of God.” But we must remember that the primarypurpose of the Gospel is for salvation rather than condemnation (Jn 3:17).Moreover, as Paul is addressing the members of a church of Christ, it isperfectly natural that he speaks of the Gospel in the designation as itappertains the better part of the congregation, namely the elect. In otherwords, the Gospel to the church viewed organically (as a whole) is the offer ofGod’s grace, and the reprobates are those who would receive the “grace of Godin vain.”
Hebrews 12:15
In this verse, it is unlikely that the phrase “grace ofGod” refers to the Gospel. Rather it probably refers to the work of gracepertaining to regeneration and conversion, albeit, the Apostle is not writingto an individual but to a body of believers with the possibility of falseprofessors being found in it. Again with the principle that the whole is to beknown by the better part, the congregation regarded as a whole may be said tohave received grace. But ultimately, those “fail of the grace of God” werenever, in the first place, recipients of grace (cf. Mt 24:13).
Matthew 23:37
We assume that Arminius is using this verse to show thatChrist desired the salvation of the Jews, but His desire is frustrated becausethey refused to come to Him, and this implies that the grace of God can befrustrated. But this interpretation could only stand if, in the Lord’sstatement, “Jerusalem” refers to the same group of people as “thy children.”But a plain reading of this verse would show us immediately that this is notthe case. Although “Jerusalem” as a city is personified in the Lord’sstatement, His statement can only be understood substantively if we view it asbeing received by the religious and political representatives of city. In otherwords, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem” would refer to the leaders while “thy children”would refer to the (elect) citizens in the city. The resistance to beinggathered under the wings of Christ come not from those whom Christ desired togather, but from the opposition of the leaders of the city. Whatever we mayderive from this verse, it certainly does not mean Christ desires the salvationof everyone in Jerusalem, much less the world.
Luke 7:30
The “counsel of God” must surely refer to the revealed willof God, rather than the decretive will of God since the latter cannot be known,much less rejected. Therefore, this verse again furnishes no prove that graceis resistible.
Irresistible Grace Proven
In order to prove Irresistible Grace, we need only to prove (1) that thenatural man will not choose Christ; (2) that regeneration is wholly a work ofthe Holy Spirit without any co-operation from the sinner; and (3) all who areelect will come to Christ.
The Natural Man will Not Choose Christ
If the natural man is able, by prevenient grace (graceprior to regeneration) or otherwise, to choose Christ, and all who come toChrist come through co-operation with prevenient grace, then it must followthat the grace that leads to salvation is resistible. On the other hand, if noone,—whether elect or reprobate,—has any ability to choose Christ, and yet theelect are saved, then it must follow that the grace of conversion is particularand irresistible.
When we examine the Scriptures we find that it is indeed true that the naturalman cannot choose Christ. We have seen this fact more or less when we examinedthe doctrine of Total Depravity, so we will simply highlight some verses fromScripture here. First, the Lord says: “No man can come to me, except the Fatherwhich hath sent me draw him” (Jn 6:44a). The word translated “draw” (Grk: helkuô)is never used to mean “persuade” or “woo” or “co-operate with.” This can beseen in the six other times in the New Testament, that it is used in adifferent context with John 6:44. In these instances, the word is used todescribe the drawing of a sword (Jn 18:10); the dragging up of a net (Jn 21:6,11); dragging a person by force (Acts 16:19; 21:30; Jas 2:6). In none of these casesdo we find the objects being drawn co-operating. So, it is quite clear thatwhen the Lord say “except the Father… draw him,” He is referring to a sovereignwork rather than simply moral persuasion.
Although man is a free agent, his will is bounded to his inclination which,prior to regeneration, “loved darkness rather than light” (Jn 3:19). His willis taken captive by Satan, and he cannot but sin. Paul expresses this fact whenhe suggests that in our unregenercy, we walked “according to the course of thisworld, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that nowworketh in the children of disobedience…, fulfilling the desires of the fleshand of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath…” (Eph 2:2–3).
Regeneration is Wholly a Work of theSpirit
The grace of regeneration can only be resistible if it isreceived synergistically: through the co-operation of the wills of man and ofGod. But we find in the Scripture, that this is not the case. Regeneration isalways portrayed as wholly and sovereignly the work of the Spirit. This fact istaught very powerfully and clearly in the Scriptures by the use of severalmetaphors to describe regeneration.
The Lord Himself uses the metaphor of child-birth and blindness when He toldNicodemus: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, hecannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:3). One who is not born again is blind inhis heart (Eph 4:18), cannot see the kingdom of God (with spiritual eyes), andso there is no way for him to enter into it. But just as a baby is totallypassive in childbirth so is a man being born again by the will of God throughthe Spirit of Christ (see John 1:12–13). The new-birth or regeneration, inother words, is monergistic. It is totally the work of the Spirit with nocontribution from man. Similarly just as a blind man cannot help his ownblindness, a spiritually blind man cannot help himself, but needs the healingof the Lord (through regeneration).
Another metaphor, which is used both by the Lord and the Apostle Paul, is thatof resurrection from the dead. The Lord says: “For as the Father raiseth up thedead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will” (Jn 5:21;see also John 5:24–25). Writing to the Ephesians, Paul says, “But God, who isrich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were deadin sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)” (Eph2:4–5; cf. Col 2:13).
This metaphor is especially important because it shows us that the unregenerateperson is not as Arminius claimed him to be: a beggar who is able to extend hishand to receive alms. Arminius had argued that such a stretching out of thehands to receive the gift does not at all make the gift not a ‘pure gift’ (Works2.52).But the fact is that the Scripture tells us the sinner is dead. He has to bemade alive. Before he is made alive, he contributes precisely nothing to thereceipt of the gift.
Indeed, Paul goes on to say that even our faith is a gift of God: “For by graceare ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8–9). Of course, faith is notsomething that can be poured into the heart, and so it must be a gift by way ofspiritual resurrection, or effectual calling.
Yet another metaphor of regeneration is that of heart change representing atotal change in nature. This is particularly used by the Lord through Ezekieland Jeremiah, for example, He said through Ezekiel:
And I will give them one heart, andI will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out oftheir flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in mystatutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people,and I will be their God (Ezk 11:19–20; cf. 36:26–27; Jer 31:33).
Notice how the words “I will” are repeated and emphasised to indicate that thechange will be effected by God sovereignly, without co-operation from thesinner.
In the same vein of thought, in the New Testament, Luke uses the idea of anopening of the heart to describe the conversion of Lydia: “And a certain womannamed Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God,heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things whichwere spoken of Paul” (Acts 16:14). Notice the order: The Lord opened her heart,and then she attended to the Gospel. Again, it should be noted that this changeof heart, which results in repentance and faith, is not something that is self-generated,but is granted sovereignly by God (Acts 11:18; Phil 1:29; 2 Tim 2:25–26).
So great is this change in heart or nature, that the Scripture speaks theregenerate as being a “new creation”: “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he isa new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new”(2 Cor 5:17; see also Galatians 6:15).
If we examine all these instances of Scripture without bias, it is hard toescape the conclusion that the regenerating grace of God is wholly the work ofthe Spirit without any co-operation from the sinner. If that is so, then, itnecessarily follows that the grace of regeneration is irresistible: there is noroom for co-operation, much less resistance.
All the Elect Will Come
Yet another argument for the particularity and efficacy ofthe grace of regeneration is the fact that all who are elect will be saved. Inother words, all whom God intends to save will be irresistibly drawn to Christ.Again, this is clearly taught in the Scripture.
First, the Lord says: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and himthat cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Jn 6:37). In other words, allwho are elected will come.
Luke, writing under the inspiration of the Spirit, affirms this fact when hedescribes the conversion of the Gentiles in these words: “And when the Gentilesheard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many aswere ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).
The Apostle Paul puts it in another way when he paints the order of salvationas an unbroken chain of God’s work beginning from election (foreknow) tocalling to glorification:
For whom he did foreknow, he alsodid predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be thefirstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he alsocalled: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, themhe also glorified (Rom 8:29–30).
Notice how Paul speaks about the certainty of glorification for all the elect.If all the elect will definitely attain unto glorification, and the grace ofGod is only for the elect, then it follows, once again, that the grace ofconversion is irresistible.
Conclusion
I believe we have proven beyond doubt that the grace of God in conversion isirresistible. Many Calvinists today talk about common grace. I have no greatdifficulty with the thought if by it is meant that God sends the rain and thesunshine on all without distinction (Mt 5:45). However, we must be careful notto extrapolate from there that God therefore desires all to be saved; or thatcommon grace is prevenient grace which so assists, awakes, follows andco-operates with the unregenerate without distinction so that all who comesunder the preaching of the Gospel is able to exercise faith unto salvationwithout being irresistibly drawn by Christ. Such a doctrine is inherentlyArminian.
One of the most powerful illustrations of salvation is entering a door: “I amthe door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved” (Jn 10:9).
Hearing the outward call is like seeing the door to salvation, but left toourselves, we would refuse to enter it. The world and sin seem to have so muchmore to offer. But when the Holy Spirit grants us a new birth, we find the doorcompellingly attractive, and we enter into it willingly. No, we are not draggedthrough the door kicking and screaming; we enter in willingly, our heartshaving been changed. We enter, thinking that we have found the door. But oncewe enter the door, we discover that written at the back of the door are thewords: “You have not found me, I have found you.” It was the Father who markedus out from eternity in the first place; Christ had in the second place paidfor our sin; and the Holy Spirit had made us alive, and implanted spiritualears and eyes to see the door and to behold the majesty and greatness of theKing.
Calvinism alone is true to the Scripture and highly exalts the sovereignty andglory of God. Arminianism exalts human free will and leads to humanism and liberalism.Arminians have also no real argument against the soteriology of RomanCatholicism (which is semi-Pelagian or Arminian) or even those who hold toBaptismal Regeneration (which is founded on the premise that faith precedesregeneration and therefore it is not wrong to add baptism before regeneration).
—JJ Lim
