Irresistible Grace?

I was recently asked to address scriptures that seem to promote the doctrine of Irresistible Grace–the doctrine that God's grace cannot be resisted.I have a short list of passages showing that God's grace can be resisted:
Luke 7:30
John 5:40
Colossians 1:23
1 Thessalonians 2:16
Hebrews 10:26
2 Peter 2:1

These are the ones I have currently tagged in my Olive Tree Bible App as being contra-Irresistable Grace. I don't always remember to tag my notes; so these lists are far from exhaustive. My intent with this article will be to cite each passage and to share with you my notes on it. I am certain that my conclusions will at times be vulnerable to refuting arguments. I will leave it to the reader to draw his/her own convictions.

Verses that tend to promote the doctrine of Irresistible Grace:

Isaiah 30:19

Truly, O people in Zion, inhabitants of Jerusalem, you shall weep no more. He will surely be gracious to you at the sound of your cry; when he hears it, he will answer you.

I am not sure how this verse promotes the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. Perhapse it is clear when read with the unconditional mindset. If nobody is weaping any longer then they will cry to God and God will hear. What other choice do they have? Even the calvinistic Reformation Study Bible says, "Like the father of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), the Lord is quick to listen for the voice of His returning people. It is they who are hard of hearing" (R.C. Sproul).

The calvinistic ESV Study Bible begins its comment at verse 18. "Note the amazing logic of grace: God's people forsake him for a false salvation (vv.1-17); therefore, he is gracious to them (v. 18); but he waits, for the LORD is a God of justice, i.e., he knows the porfect way to achieve his purpose, the perfect tme to go into action, and the perfect disciplinary process that awaken Judah" (Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.).  In order to conclude that God is gracious before the people repent one must see it before he reads it. The text says the complete opposite. God is gracious in response to the people's cries.

Jeremiah 31:3

the Lord appeared to him from far away.
I have loved you with an everlasting love;
therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.

This passage is often presented as proof of Irresistible Grace.

Hat tip to Jamie Saunders who wrote this Facebook comment:

The drawing that Jeremiah is speaking to is that general drawing which was rejected of Israel, but is of such a kind that God will persist in continually putting it forth unto their national restoration after the Babylonian captivity–or the end of the ages–comes to it's end.  Jeremiah's point there is to show that God in the wilderness had attempted to woo them in love, but he 'failed' of the result due to their obstinacy–cue captivity.  Yet, God will once again do this work and the results will be clearly manifest to all in the future.  Meaning?  The so-called "internal call" is in no sense conveyed within this text and in fact the exact opposite of that is relayed in the context.

In summary: God's continued faithfulness to Israel/Judah has always been from the perspective of repeated invitations to faithfulness–not from continued blessing irrespective of Israel's unfaithfulness.

Ezekiel 36:27

I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

Make you -- does this language require divine determinism? If so then the priests did the same thing in Ezekiel 44:12. Also, such determinism contradicts Ezekiel 18:31. This verse should be seen as consistent with Hosea 2:14.

Therefore, I will now allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her.

Matthew 22:14

For many are called, but few are chosen.

The Calvinist take on this verse seems to be at odds with Romans 8:30. The Reformation Study Bible defines two kinds of "call." The first is a general call that Christians extend to everybody. The second is an "effectual" call.

The preaching of the gospel represents the outward call of God. This call is heard audibly by both the elect and the nonelect. Human beings have the ability to resist and refuse the outward call. He will not respond to the outward call in faith unless or until the outward call is accompanied by the effectual inward call of the Holy Spirit.

The second is the powerful call that God places on the heart of the unbeliever. That "effectual call" is ultimately irresistible.

Effectual calling is irresistible in the sense that God sovereignly brings about its desired result. This sovereign work of grace is resistible in the sense that we can and do resist it in our fallen nature, but irresistible in the sense that God’s grace prevails over our natural resistance to it.

Elected and chosen are the same gk word (Gk 1588)

Election is about individuals choosing God. Those who are not chosen are thus not chosen because of their own resistance.

John 6:29

Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Belief is a work. Calvinists read this verse as if belief is irresistible.

Faith is not a gift. Salvation is a gift (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Believing refers to the entire process of human reception of God's act of grace. In that sense, faith can be seen as a gift because it comes out of God's work of self-revelation. The final choice is nevertheless our own.

Acts 1:16-20

“Friends, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus— for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
“For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘Let his homestead become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;
and
‘Let another take his position of overseer.’

 As much as Calvinists would like to argue, this passage does not support the notion that Judas was destined to betray Jesus.

This was not a prophecy about Judas that needed to be fulfilled.

The scripture is Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8. Psalm 69:25 speaks of David's enemies in the plural, not singular as Peter quoted it. Peter modified it a bit to refer to Judas. Peter merged the two verses and applied them to his current situation because he believed there was an apostolic vacancy that needed to be filled. Peter was arguing the scriptures needed to be fulfilled, but not prophetically. They were fulfilled through parallelism.

Jesus similarly applied Psalm 41:9–about David's betrayal by (probably) Ahithephel–to his current situation with Judas in John 13:18.

The passage fulfills the OT language by similarity or applicability but they were not prophetic fulfillments.

Jesus said that the Father gave Judas to him but that he had lost him (John 17:12). Judas chose to be an apostle (Luke 6:13; John 6:70) but Judas fell from his apostleship by his own choice (Acts 1:25).

On Judas' salvation, consider John 17:12.

While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.

 Do not overlook the fact that Jesus says he lost Judas.

What scripture? Since there are really no prophetic passages regarding Judas in the Old Testament, the scriptures must have been fulfilled through similarity or applicability.

Note that Judas started out as a saved man but he lost his salvation due to his own choices.

Judas left everything to follow Jesus (Mark 10:28 = Matthew 19:27).

Judas was given authority to cast out demons, heal the sick and preach the gospel (Matthew 10:1-27).

Judas' name was written in heaven (Luke 10:20).

He had a throne in Heaven upon which he would judge Israel (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). Note: Luke places the saying after Judas' failure but Matthew places it before (Matthew 26:14).

Although Jesus called Judas a devil (John 6:70) he also called Peter "Satan" (Matthew 16:23).

Even Peter lost his salvation at one point (Mark 8:38; Matthew 10:33; cf Matthew 26:34). Peter's restoration to salvation required conversion (or repentance) (Luke 22:31-32).

On the word "fulfill," consider James 2:22-23

You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God.

Note: Genesis 15:6 is not a prophecy. Neither are most of the OT passages that the NT says are "fulfilled."
cf.
Matthew 1:18-22 = Isaiah 7:14
John 19:24 = Psalm 22:18

It does not make sense to think of Genesis 15:6 as something that will someday come true.

"Fulfill" does not mean that the current point is a prophecy that is now coming true. It means that the current point matches a text in the OT. The usual reason a NT writer says that something fulfills an OT text is not because it was originally intended to apply in that situation or even that it has the same truth value or lesson. It is quoted for its rhetorical impact. Its meaning here is

When we, by faith, do good works, we fulfill the scripture that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

Today, instead of saying "fulfilled" we would probably say "We might verbalize the current point in classical Old Testament verbiage" or, "I am reminded of the text" or "This idea gives new meaning to the Old Testament saying."

So, Matthew 2:17-18

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:
“A voice was heard in Ramah,
wailing and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.”

becomes more clear as...

This terrible thing that Herod did brings new meaning to the words of Jeremiah: "A voice was heard in Ramah....."

Romans 3:7

But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

This verse seems to support the notion that God authorizes sin in order to receive self-glory. The verse does not really make that point at all. Paul is actually arguing against the notion that God authorizes sin. If it were true, then sinners would not be condemned. Some people do a hat-dance around this one; but it just doesn't stand up. (Maybe it is a.... MYSTERY!) Paul is making a closely parallel argument in Romans 9:19.

2 Corinthians 1:21-22

But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us, by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.

Here is the HarperCollins Study Bible note:

The Spirit, whom believers receive at the time of conversion (see Gal 3.2–3), is the “down payment” that provides assurance that all God’s saving promises (v. 20) will be fulfilled (see Rom 8.11; Eph 4.30). (John T. Fitzgerald)

Compare the HarperCollins note with the Reformation Study Bible:

Those who are guarded by God in this way continue to trust in Christ throughout their lives (13:5; Col. 1:23; Heb. 3:14), because God protects them through the faith He gives them (v. 24). None of them can fall away. If one has been justified, one will most certainly be glorified (Rom. 8:28-30).

In other words, the Holy Spirit does not guarantee God's promise of salvation (i.e., to those who believe). It is, instead, salvation itself that is guaranteed irrespective of a person's choices. To place this passage under the heading of ultimate salvation misses the meaning of the verse. The problem with the "irresistible grace" take is that the passage deals with an aspect of salvation (Jesus is really coming again) but not salvation in its broad sense (suggesting that a predestined believer cannot ever become an unbeliever). It is easy to apply this verse too broadly and arrive in the wrong doctrinal place.

Ephesians 1:13-14

In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit; this is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s own people, to the praise of his glory.

When this scripture is invoked to support Calvinism, it is conscripted to support the doctrine of Preservation of the Saints (that it is impossible to lose faith). It becomes important in our analysis to notice that Preservation of the Saints and Irresistible Grace are logically consistent. One implies the other.

If you must believe then you must continue to believe indefinitely.

If you must continue to believe indefinitely, then your beliefe is God's sovereign choice that also cannot be resisted. Thus the moment you first believed was also a result of God's sovereignty and thus irresistible.

This scripture actually refutes the second syllogism.

Ephesians 2:10

For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.

This verse may suggest that we are what God has made us because we had no other choice. The verse means that the death of Christ had purpose for our lives that are now covenantally intimate with Christ's resurrection and new life.

Thus, it does not mean a prior choice of individuals and not other individuals. It is a preparation of a kind of person... a kind of person who has accepted new life in Christ Jesus. All this preparation God intends for us is still resistible. The verse does not suggest otherwise.

Ephesians 4:21-24

For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus. You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

I may have made a mistake here. This scripture promotes the idea that a person's choice is required and teaching to be like God is resistible. Maybe readers can help me wrap my mind around the "irresistible" model in this passage. I don't see it.