Simply Irresistible Part 6

In this post I want to respond to some objections to Irresistible Grace. The article I used to find these three objections can be found here. I will not be responding to everything said in the article or even every point of the article (some of the facts stated are just plain wrong). I do encourage you to read it and let me know via the comments section if I missed something to which you would like me to respond. I would be happy to respond to any further objections (whether in the article or not) in the comment section. If you are a Calvinist you can even raise questions that others have brought to you. Let's have fun with this!

Objection #1: Was not Israel elect? Didn't they reject God's grace?
Proverbs 1:22-24, "How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you. Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded..." (Also see Matthew 23:37 and Acts 7:51).

This objection can come from one of two misunderstandings: (1) The misunderstanding that Irresistible Grace teaches that the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted under any circumstances, or (2) a wrong understanding of election. The article from which I got this defined Irresistible Grace with a correct understanding of #1 so I will assume they don't understand the election of Israel.

The logic used to for this question is: God draws the elect irresistibly, Israel is God's chosen people, therefore God must draw all of Israel irresistibly.

The problem text for this understanding is not a small text, it's Romans 9-11. I will discuss election in another post but here is enough to answer the objection. Romans 8 is the peak of the letter, from it we see that God truly does save His people and nothing can separate us from Him. Then Paul anticipates the thought that must be coming to the minds of his readers, namely "What about Israel?!" Paul's response is a mini dissertation on election and Israel. The clearest solution Paul gives, "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring...This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring" (Romans 9:6-8). So the New Testament is not ignorant of the question of God's election and Israel. God is not bound to drawing the nation of Israel.

Objection #2: Doesn't the Bible Teach that God Draws Everybody?

John 12:32, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."
1 Timothy 2:3, "[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

John 12 seems to present a big problem for Irresistible Grace whereas the text in 1 Timothy looks like a problem for Calvinism in general. Let's look at the verses individually.

The ESV (which is what I use above) is more friendly to the Calvinist position with John 12:32 than most. If you use the NIV or NASB you will find, "[I] will draw all men to myself." With "people" there is wiggle room (I could say he is talking about nations, see below), with "men" it looks like he is talking about each individual person. So which translation is correct? Neither. The reason we have different translations of this word is because it is an English supplement. It should read, "I will draw all to myself" but that doesn't make sense in English. Is this an argument for Irresistible Grace? No, but it is no longer an argument against it. But if you are looking for a text that supports Calvinism just read after 12:32 to the end of the chapter.

There are several problems with the non-Calvinists' use of 1 Timothy 2, the biggest being context, context, context. First, in 1 Timothy 2:1 Paul begins the text by using similar language to what we will find in verse four. Paul says "all people" but then what does he say? "...for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life..." (2:2). So now Paul has elaborated on what "all people" means, namely every type of person (or every nation). I have two other objections to this text but they relate to election and the atonement so I will save them.

Objection #3 Grace is Not Unmerited Favor on Individuals.
Romans 2:11, "For God shows no partiality."
The text cited, Romans 2:11, is taken out of context. Paul just finished talking about God's judgment and it is all described as "to the Jew first and also to the Greek." He then inserts his words in Romans 2:11 to explain this.

As for the objection that Grace is not unmerited we must look at the argument given in the article. In this objection they argue that "grace" is primarily used in contrast to "law." So, they would say, it is unfair to the text to make "grace" mean "unmerited favor." Their argument is based partially on the common phrase, "there, if not for grace, go I." They argue that this is a terrible thing to say as if God has given them something that He has not given another. What is the problem with this argument? Read Romans 11:28-32, it shows God's grace in the way they are arguing against.

(See part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Grace and Peace,
Stephen