Talk:Irresistible grace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Calvinism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism (marked as Mid-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

Article missing non-Calvinist views?[edit]

I've added a "limited template", because this article narrowly focuses on Calvinism. Efficacious grace, however, is not restricted to Calvinism, as shown by the debates of the Congregatio de Auxiliis and between Jesuits and Jansenists. In two words, classical Augustinists and Thomists asserted simultaneously human free will & efficacious grace, while Calvinists claimed (at least according to the Catholic Church) that there was only efficacious grace and that man could not resist to it (depriving him of his free will). St Augustine claimed, on his part, that God's efficacious grace made man unwanting to resist to it; hence, he could voluntarily resist to divine grace, but, because of the efficacious nature of this grace, did not want to resist to it. An ambiguous doctrine, for sure... Whatever the case, this article should not be limited to Calvinism. Furthermore, maybe adding some more recent examples of the Catholic Roman Church's doctrines concerning it would improve the article. Spirals31 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Calvinist doctrine follows Augustine on this matter (cf. Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will), though Calvinists do say that efficacious grace is properly called irresistible. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying the Calvinist do or do not, I'm simply saying that the question of "efficacious grace" belongs to Christianism in general rather than specifically Calvinism. Your very reference to Augustine implies very much the same. Spirals31 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in the field but isn't the doctrine of "irresistible grace" rather a anti-thomist doctrine? Thomism, and particulary the dominicans, has a augustinan root; but the outcome of Thomism is rather free will and aristotelism than predestination and platonism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.159.65 (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Calvinist vs. Lutheran view[edit]

User:Epiphyllumlover and I have been co-editing the section on the Lutheran view. In the latest revision, s/he has restored some text that s/he says is essential but that I think is superfluous in this context. I bring it here for further review and discussion between us and anyone else who is interested.

The essence of the difference between the Calvinist and Lutheran systems seems to me to be that the Holy Spirit works "independently" in the former to make the means of grace effective, but "dependently" in the latter. Hence, in the Lutheran system, resisting the means of grace, particularly the ministry of the word, is identical to resisting the Spirit, whereas in the Calvinist system it is not.

Is there more to it? --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for soliciting my opinion. I am a "he".
Lutherans approach the issue of irresistible grace from different angles:
1. Constant, uniform efficacy of the Holy Spirit, as noted in the Lutheran Cyclopedia (General Council, 1899). This also includes an inward work of the Holy Spirit whenever there is an outward work of the Holy Spirit, as noted by Jacobs, General Council.
Therefore, Lutherans reject it as contrary to certain Bible passages, and that it is obvious that not everyone is converted.
2. The resistibility of man, as noted by the LCMS FAQ & the Christian Cyclopedia LCMS, (2000).
Therefore, Lutherans reject it as contrary to certain Bible passages and as limiting total depravity.
3. What you term the dependent nature of the Holy Spirit upon the Word. (Although I have never heard the term dependent used by Lutherans. Lutherans typically say that the "power of the Holy Spirit" is inherently part of the Word.) This is the flip side of #1, which includes the demand that the Word & Sacraments always have the Holy Spirit with them and therefore be efficacious.
Therefore, Lutherans reject it as contrary to certain Bible passages and as lessening the status of God's Word & Sacraments.
4. In conjunction with double predestination & limited atonement, as noted by the Ohio Synod and quoted in the Lutheran Witness as part of a charge of false doctrine against the Missouri Synod. The same idea is found in more organized form in the Ohio Synod position article on Conversion in the Lutheran Cyclopedia. Irresistible grace is treated as a logical conclusion to these two doctrines. The Christian Cyclopedia adds in the doctrine of special & common grace as part of the logical system.
Therefore, Lutherans reject it because accepting it means accepting Double Predestination & Limited Atonement, which Lutherans view as being against certain Bible passages.
As far as I'm concerned, if the article omits #4, that is fine with me, but the first three are essential. If we can do this with only one "disagreement" paragraph, that would be nice, but the quote from the Smalcald Articles should stay, since to the best of my knowledge it is the most representative prooftext of in the Lutheran Confessions on the topic and may be the only one that rejects irresistible grace outright. My question is how to merge the last two paragraphs in the Lutheranism section without omitting any information, without sacrificing the SA quote, and without ruining the grammar or making the paragraph too unwieldy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Lutherans on the basis of Matt. 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" point out that when God comes to people through the Gospel, which is coming to them with His grace or favor, He can be resisted. Also, Lutherans do not say that the Holy Spirit is dependent upon the "means of grace": He has determined to work through them or has limited Himself to them, but He is not dependent upon them as if one could lay a necessity upon God. They are His instruments, and in His grace or favor He does not work apart from them or alongside of them, but only through them. I do not find anything wrong with the section on the Lutheran view of this point of Calvinism (TULIP) T-total depravity, U-unconditional election, L-limited atonement, I-irresistable grace, and P-perseverence of the saints. Epiphyllumlover has improved the section. What is interesting is that Lutheran theologians believe that God can be resisted when He speaks through the Gospel, but He cannot be resisted when He speaks through the Law. Lutherans believe that when God comes to us through the means of grace or means of the Holy Spirit, man can resist Him. And when man rejects the Gospel he is rejecting the Holy Spirit as well. This is pointed out in the paragraph.--Drboisclair (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Numerous controversial moves without consensus[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Grace (Irresistible)Irresistible graceUser:Gregbard 03:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.