The History of Irresistible Grace

[Vince Massi]

The Greek word "charis," translated "grace," is related to other Greek words that refer to kindness. The idea that grace is a force, much less an irresistible one, is so foreign to the Bible, classical Greek, and the definition of the word, that it just never came up. No Church Council ever discussed it. No Pope ever believed in it. No Protestant Reformer believed in it. They didn't reject it--it just never came up.

In the third century, the false prophet Mani taught that Christianity was an inferior religion, but by blending the best of Christianity with the best of other religions, you would get the best religion. Clearly understanding that unconditional election entailed a rejection of Christianity, he made it an integral part of his new religion. Mani claimed that he got his new religion from a gigantic angel. Although I think he was lying, such an angel would have been accursed, because he taught another Gospel.

 

[Ransom]

Mani claimed that he got his new religion from a gigantic angel.  Although I think he was lying

Well, to be fair, Mani was also lying when he said:

Christianity was an inferior religion

or

by blending the best of Christianity with the best of other religions, you would get the best religion.

Yet, with three strikes already in evidence, you allege that when he said:

unconditional election entailed a rejection of Christianity

we should take him at his word.

Pfft.

 

[Vince Massi]

St. Augustine, a Manichean philosopher, was forced by the Roman Empire to convert to Catholicism. Obsessed with guilt over his immoral life, Augustine became the greatest of the Manichean philosophers after his conversion. Let me repeat that: St. Augustine became the greatest of the Manichean philosophers AFTER his conversion to Catholicism.

Making the depravity of man a major doctrine, St. Augustine taught that statues, intercession of saints, sacraments, a powerful priesthood, the blessing of the Church, and unconditional election were all essential to salvation. He was not confused about what he was doing: Augustine correctly understood that Christianity and Catholicism were two different religions. By blending the best of Christianity with the best of paganism, he hoped to build Catholicism into the truth.

Augustine's blend of paganism and Christianity was so successful that the Catholic Church later made his a "Doctor of the Church."

In blending Mani's pagan doctrine of unconditional election into Christianity, Augustine invented two doctrines: man is unable to respond to God, and God only gives grace to the elect. Both doctrines contradict Scripture, but Augustine was not building a Scriptural religion.

 

[Ransom]

Well, apparently Vince has no interest in interacting with what other people say, and just wants to go on with his blogging. So be it.

Also . . .

St. Augustine, a Manichean philosopher, was forced by the Roman Empire to convert to Catholicism.

Factual error, right off the bat. Augustine was raised as a Christian by his mother, but left the church and became a Manichaean at around age 19. He was never more than a novice in the Manichaean hierarchy, and left that religion when he realized how ignorant their foremost "scholars" were. He then dabbled in skepticism and neo-Platonism, before converting to Christianity in 387 due to the persuasive preaching of Ambrose of Milan, and of course the persistent prayers of Monica, his mother.

Come on. If you can't get the basic facts about Augustine's life correct - have you even bothered to at least read the Confessions? - you can hardly expect us to take your understanding of his theology seriously either.

 

[Vince Massi]

Raider, I'm surprised that you believe St. Augustine's story of his conversion, which is similar to other fairy tales about the saints that I was taught in Catholic school. The Roman Emperor Theodosius the Great was engaged in large-scale persecution of non-Catholic religions, as was Ambrose (who "converted" Augustine.)  From Wikipedia:

"The Christian persecution of Roman religion under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years of his reign in the Eastern Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on former customs of Roman religion, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of Magistrates who did not enforce laws against polytheism, broke up some pagan associations and tolerated attacks on Roman temples.

Between 389–392 he promulgated the "Theodosian decrees"[18] (instituting a major change in his religious policies),[19] which removed non-Nicene Christians from church office and abolished the last remaining expressions of Roman religion by making its holidays into workdays, banned blood sacrifices, closed Roman temples, and disbanded the Vestal Virgins.[20] The practices of taking auspices and witchcraft were punished. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as asked by non-Christian senators.[19]

In 392 he became sole Emperor (the last one to claim sole and effective rule over an Empire including the Western provinces). From this moment till the end of his reign in 395, while non-Christians continued to request toleration,[21][22] he ordered, authorized, or at least failed to punish, the closure or destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of piety throughout the Empire.[23][24][25][26][27][28]

In 393 he issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any public non-Christian religious customs,[29] and was particularly oppressive to Manicheans.[30]"



If you had spent as much time in catechism classes as I have, you would know that the Catholic Church has all kinds of fantastic stories about saints who taught salvation through the Church. I'm not accusing you of dishonesty--you don't realize how much nonsense Catholics are taught, and Augustine's conversion is part of that nonsense. Augustine wasn't free to walk around and explore different religions as he claimed--the Roman Empire was persecuting every religion except Catholicism.  Augustine was a pagan philosopher who never converted to Christ. Within Catholicism, he found doctrines that dealt with his unresolved guilt, and he blended those doctrines with pagan doctrines, including unconditional election.

 

[Ransom]

Raider, I'm surprised that you believe St. Augustine's story of his conversion, which is similar to other fairy tales about the saints that I was taught in Catholic school.

Well, isn't that special.  I guess that if you say so, I'll have to take you at your word, even though you couldn't even get my screen name right, which doesn't speak volumes for your ability to read actual history.

The only thing about Augustine's conversion that is even vaguely supernatural, is the child's voice he hears encouraging him to "take up and read," which leads him to read from Romans 13.  He himself isn't certain the voice wasn't just some neighbour kid, and his actual conversion comes after a period of spiritual turmoil.

If there are any fairy tales being thrown around here, it's the conspiracy theories you're concocting as an alternative to reality. I'm not aware of any serious church historian who doubts the main facts of Augustine's life, or specifically his conversion. As for Ambrose's complicity in persecuting pagans, that's not an argument against Augustine's Confessions, it's a good example of poisoning the well. It certainly does nothing to discredit the doctrine of irresistible grace. May I assume you have abandoned that assertion, since you are so quick to change the subject?

 

[Vince Massi]

Sorry about getting your name wrong.

 

[Vince Massi]

Contrary to some belief, John Calvin did not invent the doctrine that unconditional election is taught in Scripture. Some Catholic groups had taught that salvation was only through a combination of works and the Church, but God unconditionally granted the ability to do those good works to the elect.

A professionally trained lawyer and philosopher who had left his studies for the priesthood, Calvin developed into a confused theologian so inept that he couldn't even understand baptism. He gives two very different accounts of his conversion. Studying St. Augustine, Calvin failed to realize that unconditional election is a pagan doctrine blended into Christianity, not part of Christianity itself. There is no record of anyone believing in salvation by faith who had believed that unconditional election is taught in Scripture before John Calvin.

And Calvin continued with two of Augustine's false doctrines: the lost cannot respond to God, and God only gives grace to the elect.

 

[Ransom]

Yep. Indeed you have abandoned your original topic by changing the subject. Twice.

OK, if you don't want to be treated as a serious critic, that's fine. Bye.

 

[Vince Massi]

Jacob Arminius was a Godly Dutch reformed pastor and theology professor when he began seeing the errors of Calvinism. It is true that man does not have free will, but the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It is true that men are spiritually blind, but Jesus enlightens every man who comes into the world. It is true that we are spiritually ignorant, but God the Father teaches all men. It is true that man naturally runs from God, but Jesus draws all men to Himself. And it is true that men are totally depraved, but it is not God's will that a single one perish.

And Arminius realized a philosophical truth: if men cannot respond to God, then when God gave grace to the elect, they couldn't respond. Period. Calvinism doesn't work. Period.

The false prophet Mani was right--unconditional election entails a rejection of Christianity. St. Augustine was wrong-you cannot blend the pagan doctrine of unconditional election into Christianity. And John Calvin was so far off that he actually believed this philosophy was Scriptural.

 

[Ransom]

Subject change #3. Now the "history of irresistible grace" has become a diatribe against original sin.

Are you having ADD troubles? Are you off your meds?

 

[Vince Massi]

Well, Ransom, Calvinism is a religion of fear and false accusations. So you're not out of line when you make false accusations. Well, you're out of line with God. Anyway, back to our history of irresistible grace:

To the dismay of the Calvinists, revival broke out in the Dutch Reformed Church. After years of trembling under the fear that they weren't the elect, the Dutch learned that the glad tidings of Christ were to ALL men, not just some. They learned that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL men, that Christ enlightens ALL men, and that God has granted repentance to everyone. They learned that election is according to foreknowledge and that God is not willing that any should perish.


Desperate to stop this revival, the Calvinists couldn't do it with Scripture. And Calvinism's strongest strong point, philosophy, had failed. Even poorly-educated people could understand that if the lost can't respond to God, the elect can't respond when God gives them grace. Period. Calvinism doesn't work. Period. And the lost were responding to God, as many members of the Dutch Reformed Church accepted Christ.

So the Calvinists turned to government persecution. There were instances of born-again saints being brought before the magistrates and being released, because the magistrates had also accepted Christ. Knowing that France had lost about 6 million killed in a recent civil war between Catholics and Protestants, the government was unwilling to risk a civil war between the saints.

Dutch Reformed pastors were openly preaching salvation to their congregations, and people were accepting Christ without being arrested. So many Dutch were casting off the gloomy chains of John Calvin and accepting the good news of Jesus Christ that they couldn't be stopped.  If the Calvinists were to stop this revival, they had to come up with something new.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Vince Massi]After years of trembling under the fear that they weren't the elect, the Dutch learned that the glad tidings of Christ were to ALL men, not just some. They learned that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL men, that Christ enlightens ALL men, and that God has granted repentance to everyone. They learned that election is according to foreknowledge and that God is not willing that any should perish.[/quote]

When did you become a universalist?

 

[prophet]

Name calling thread.  Where do I sign up?

Anishinaabe

 

[Ransom]

Well, Ransom, Calvinism is a religion of fear and false accusations. So you're not out of line when you make false accusations.

And now I'm topic #4, thereby proving my accusations true.

Well, you're out of line with God. Anyway, back to our history of irresistible grace:

Um . . . you left that pseudo-history posts ago.

To the dismay of the Calvinists, revival broke out in the Dutch Reformed Church.

Arminian revival in the Reformed Church . . . change of subject #5.

Wow, that's two in the same post! Talk about a short attention span . . .

 

[Vince Massi]

rsc writes "When did you become a universalist?"

Brethren, this is a good example of Calvinism being a religion of fear and false accusation. I have heard from several Calvinists that if you believe the Biblical doctrines that Jesus died for all men, enlightens all men, and draws all men, then you MUST be a universalist.

The accusation is just plain not true. John R. Rice wrote booklets on Hell being a literal place and also wrote a book against Calvinism. Jack Hyles, Lee Roberson. R. G. Lee, and Jerry Falwell all believed these same Biblical doctrines. Good Heavens, even Jim Vineyard believes all these Biblical doctrines. The AOG church I attend here in Mexico believes all these Biblical doctrines.

As the Dutch Reformed leaders learned, you CANNOT uphold Calvinism with Scripture.

 

[Vince Massi]

History has lost the name of the man who invented irresistible grace, telling us only that he invented it in the first decade of the seventeenth century. Before that, no one had ever heard of it.

No Pope had either believed in irresistible grace or condemned it.
No Protestant Reformer, including John Calvin, had either believed in it or condemned it.
No Church Council had either believed in it or condemned it.
Neither Mani nor St. Augustine had either believed in it or condemned it.
None of history's Christian or pseudo-Christian movements had ever heard of it.

The Council of Trent has been Catholicism's answer to Protestantism, closing about a half century earlier. The Council of Trent had not even discussed irresistible grace--neither the Catholics nor the Protestants had ever heard of it.

There had been a Catholic movement that had taught that God used unconditional election to give the ability to earn your way into Heaven to certain Catholics-but those people didn't believe in irresistible grace.

I have looked up quotes of older writers used by Calvinists to show that those writers believed in irresistible grace, but the writer was always using grace in the Biblical manner.

The Dutch Reformed Church, along with all other Calvinists, did not believe in irresistible grace.

Brethren, irresistible grace is not a doctrine. It is not based on Scripture, nor on a misunderstanding of Scripture. It is a philosophical concept, designed to patch a fatal philosophical flaw in John Calvin's philosophy. Finally, the leaders of the Dutch Reformed Church had a weapon they could use.

 

[subllibrm]

Jesse Ventura was once governor of Minnesota.

 

[Vince Massi]

Ya like to bounce around like Tigger.

Calvinism is a religion of fear and false accusations.

God's saving grace is always irresistible. Please tell us who has resisted the will of God in salvation. Paul was one of the first to tell us that God's saving grace is irresistible. Consult Ro 9:19

Romans 9:19 is talking about God's rejection of the nation of Esau in favor of the nation of Israel. Grace, salvation, Heaven, and Hell are not referred to. And although God rejected Esau, He still blessed them.

 

[Ransom]

Vince continues to expound on the history of irresistible grace by expounding on everything but the history of irresistible grace:

Romans 9:19 is talking about God's rejection of the nation of Esau in favor of the nation of Israel.

"You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?'" (Rom. 9:19).

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of v. 13. As usual, Vince, sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. It seems that your grasp of the geography of the Bible is about as reliable as your grasp of history.

Put simply: if Rom. 9:13 uses Jacob and Esau as types of nations, then the implied question that begins Romans 9 - have God's promises to Israel failed? - remains unanswered. As John Piper writes,

The interpretation which tries to restrict this predestination or unconditional election to nations rather than individuals or to historical tasks rather than eternal destines must ignore or distort the problem posed in Rom 9:1-5, the individualism of 9:6b, the vocabulary and logical structure of 9:6b-8, the closely analogous texts elsewhere in Paul, and the implications of 9:14-23. The position is exegetically untenable.

Paul's solution to the problem of 9:1-8 is that "all those from Israel are not Israel" (9:6b). Within the context of Rom 9 this means that God maintains his sovereign purpose of election by determining before they are born who will belong to the "saved" among Israel. And this determination is not based on what any man is or wills or does (9:11,12,16), but solely on God whose word or call effects what he purposes (9:12b). For this reason Paul is confident that God's word has not fallen but is in fact working out God's sovereign purpose even in the unbelief of Paul's kinsmen. (John Piper, The Justification of God, 2nd. ed [Grand Rapids; Baker, 1993], 73)