“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost…”

Acts 7:51

“…Lydia, a seller of purple…  which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.”

Acts 16:14

.

.

Order of Contents

Intro
History  2
Articles  2
Quotes  20

.

.

Intro

Herman Bavinck and William Cunningham, two respected reformed theologians, describe below how the historical origin and intention of the term (and concept) of ‘irresistible grace’ was not meant to deny resistible grace.  Shedd closely describes and synthesizes the Holy Spirit’s sincere, common strivings with those who resist them and finally perish under the gospel call, and His choice to put forth His irresistible power in overcoming the resistance of, and effectually drawing, some unto salvation.

For an introduction to this teaching of scripture, of the compatibility of resistible and irresistible grace, with many Bible verses and 60+ quotes demonstrating it from reformed history, see The Common Operations of the Spirit.

.

.

On the History of this Teaching

.

Herman Bavinck  1854-1921

Reformed Dogmatics  (1895-1899), 4:82-83

.

.

William Cunningham  1805-1861

Historical Theology, vol. 2  (1862; Banner of Truth, 1994), ch. 25, ‘The Arminian Controversy’, Section 6, ‘Efficacious & Irresistible Grace’, pp. 408-9

“Calvinists, indeed, do not admit that it is an accurate mode of stating the question, to put it in this form,—whether or not the grace or gracious operation of the Spirit be irresistible?  for they do not dispute that, in some sense, men do resist the Spirit; and they admit that resistance to the Spirit may be predicated both of the elect and of the non-elect,—the non-elect having operations of the Spirit put forth upon them which they resist or throw off, and never yield to,—and the elect having generally resisted the operations of the Spirit for a time before they yielded to them. 

Accordingly, although the only thing in the Arminian declaration, as given in to the Synod of Dort [1618-9], which was regarded as containing a positive error in doctrine, was the assertion that, as to the mode of the Spirit’s operation in conversion, it was not irresistible, there is not, in the canons of the synod, any formal deliverance, in terminis [in such terms], upon this precise point, though all that the Arminians meant to assert, by denying the irresistibility of grace, is clearly and fully condemned.  This statement likewise holds true, in all its parts, of our own [Westminster] Confession of Faith.  It does not contain, in terminis [in such terms], an assertion of the irresistibility, or a denial of the resistibility, of the grace of God in conversion; but it contains a clear and full assertion of the whole truth which Arminians have generally intended to deny by asserting the resistibility of grace, and which Calvinists have intended to assert, when—accommodating themselves to the Arminian phraseology, but not admitting its accuracy—they have maintained that grace in conversion is irresistible.

They [Calvinists] object to the word irresistible, as applied to their doctrine, because of its ambiguity,—because, in one sense, they hold grace in conversion to be resistible, and in another, not.  It may be said to be resistible, and to be actually resisted, inasmuch as motions or operations of the Spirit upon men’s minds—which, in their general nature and bearing, may be said to tend towards the production of conversion—are resisted, or not yielded to, by the non-elect, and for a time even by the elect; while it may be said to be irresistible,—or, as Calvinists usually prefer calling it, insuperable, or infrustratable, or certainly efficacious,—inasmuch as, according to their doctrine, whenever the gracious divine power that is sufficient to produce conversion, and necessary to effect it, is put forth, it certainly overcomes all the resistance that men are able to make, and infallibly produces the result.”

.

.

Articles

1600’s

Pareus, David – ‘Examination of Article 4’  in Epitome of Arminianism: or the Examination of The Five Articles of the Remonstrants in the Netherlands  in Zachary Ursinus, The Sum of Christian Religion...  (London: Young, 1645), pp. 832-37

Polhill, Edward – Quaere 3, ‘Whether the work of conversion be wrought in an irresistible way?’  in ch. 9, ‘Of the Work of Conversion’  in The Divine Will considered in its Eternal Decrees & Holy Execution of them  (London: Shelmerdine, 1695), pp. 486-537

Turretin, Francis – sections 3-7  of Question 6, ‘Whether efficacious grace operates only by a certain moral suasion which man is able either to receive or to reject.  Or whether it operates by an invincible and omnipotent suasion which the will of man cannot resist.  The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Romanists and Arminians.’  in Institutes, vol. 2, 15th Topic, pp. 547-48

.

.

Quotes

Order of

Bradford
Vermigli
Calvin & Zanchi
Arminius
Willet
Bremen Delegation at Dort
Dort
Du Moulin
Synopsis
Prynne
Pemble
Collinges
Ross
Hall
Lawson
Ambrose
Lightfoot
Henry
Shedd
Berkhof

.

.

John Bradford

The Writings of John Bradford…  Parker Society  (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1848-1853), “Election & Free-Will”, vol. 1, p. 217

“After this work, in respect of us and our sense, comes regeneration, which altogether is God’s work also: for, as to our first birth we bring nothing (bring, quoth I? yes, we bring to let [prevent] it many things, but to further it nothing at all)…”

.

.

Peter Martyr Vermigli  d. 1562

Commentary on Judges, ch. 9, pp. 167-68

“Whether we can Resist the Grace of God, or No?

But now arises an other doubt as touching our nature as it is now fallen and corrupt, whether it can resist the grace of God and his Spirit being present, or no?

(There are sundry degrees of grace of God)

I think we must consider that there are, as it were, sundry degrees of the help or grace of God: for his might and abundance is sometimes so great that He wholly bows the will of man and does not only counsel, but also persuade.  And when it so comes to pass, we cannot depart from the right way, but we are of God’s side and obey his sentence.  Wherefore it was said unto Paul: “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

(There is no violence or coaction inferred to man’s will)

And yet must we not think that when it is so done [that] there is any violence or coaction brought unto the will of man: for it is by a pleasant moving and conversion altered, and that willing, but yet so willing that the will thereof comes of God: for it is it which wills, but God by a strong and most mighty persuasion makes it to will.

But sometimes that power of God and spirit is more remiss: which yet (if we will put thereunto our endeavor and apply our will) we should not resist: yea we should obey his admonishments and inspirations: and when that we do it not, we are therefore said to resist Him, and oftentimes fall.

And yet this is not to be understand as touching the first regeneration, but as concerning those which are regenerated, which are now endowed with grace and Spirit.  For the will of the ungodly is so corrupt and vitiate, that except it be renewed, it cannot give place unto the inspirations of God and admonishings of the Holy Ghost: and it in the first immutation of man’s conversion, it only suffers: and before the renewing, it continually (as much as in it is) resists the Spirit of God.  But the first parents, whilst they were perfect, if with the help of grace being somewhat remiss, they had adjoined their endeavor, they might have perfectly obeyed the commaundments of God.

But we, although we be renewed, saving grace is more remiss, remitting nothing of our endeavor, we shall not be able constantly and perfectly to obey the commandments of God, but yet we may be able to contain ourselves within the bounds or limits of an obedience begun: which thing because we do not, therefore oftentimes we sin, and grievously fall.

(Why the grace of god works not alike always in us)

But why God gives not his grace always to his elect after one sort and one increase, but sometimes He works in them more strongly and sometimes more remissedly, two reasons may be assigned:

First, lest we should think the grace of God to be natural strengths which remain always after one sort.  Wherefore God would most justly alter the degree and efficacy of his help: whereby we might understand that it is governed by his will and not as we lust. Moreover it oftentimes happens that our negligence and slothfulness deserves this variety.”

.

.

On Jerome Zanchi & John Calvin

Edouard Bohl, “Separation of the Lutheran Church from the Reformed in the Sixteenth Century”  in Presbyterian & Reformed Review, vol. 5, no. 19  (July, 1894), pp. 419-22

“Zanchius, in fact, found then so much support in the council of the city [of Strassburg] that the printing of the book of [the Lutheran] Hesshusius [on the Lord’s Supper] was interdicted.  For this Marbach, who was superintendent in Strassburg, was determined in conjunction with Pappus, and other colleagues, to have revenge.  He accused Zanchius before the Scholararchs on account of certain theses which Zanchius uttered in his prelections [lectures]…  In the accusatory libel presented by Marbach to the rector of the university, the celebrated John Sturm, complaint was made chiefly that Zanchius denied the falling away of the elect…  There were still in the city many of Bucer’s friends, who saw no difference between Bucer’s views on the perseverance of the saints and the incriminated doctrine of Zanchius…

He [Zanchi] questioned in person the different faculties and expert authorities touching the orthodoxy of his theses.  Heidelberg, Marburg, Basel, Schaffhausen, Zurich declared in his favor…

On on epoint only did the scale incline decidedly to the side of the opponents of Zanchius [according to Bohl].  The amissibility [capable of being lost-ness] of grace was conceded, though only in a very cursory manner.  Zanchius durst hardly have signed this formula [respecting other doctrines also], rigorously understood.  He did so only for the sake of peace,a nd ont he repeated recommendation of Calvin, who gave his advice to Holbrac also in the same conciliatory spirit.  Zanchius, as also the French minister Holbrac, belonged up to this time [1563] to the company of Strassburg ministers.”

.

.

James Arminius

The Works of James Arminius, tr. James Nichols (Auburn: Derby, Miller, Orton, 1853), vol. 1, Public Disputations, Disputation 4, ‘On the Nature of God’, pp. 453-54  Arminius was a theological professor at Leiden.  He tended not to go into controversial things in his Public Disputations.

“LVIII. 3. The will of God is also distinguished into that by which He wills to do or to prevent something, and which is called “the will of his good pleasure,” or rather “of his pleasure” (Ps. 115:3), and into that by which He wills something to be done, or to be omitted, by creatures endued with understanding, and which is called “the will [signi] which is signified.”  The latter is revealed; the former is partly revealed, and partly hidden. (Mk. 3:35; 1 Thess. 4:3; Dt. 29:29; 1 Cor. 2:11-12)

The former is efficacious, for it uses power, either [tanta] so much as cannot be resisted, or [tali] such a kind as He certainly knows nothing will withstand: (Ps. 33:9; Rom. 9::19)  The latter is called “inefficacious,” and resistance is frequently made to it; yet so that, when the creature [excedit ordinem] transgresses the order of this revealed Will, the creature by it may be reduced to order, and that the Will of God may be done [de] on those by whom his Will has not been performed. (2 Sam. 17:14; Isa. 5:4-5; Mt. 21:39-41; Acts 5:4; 1 Cor. 7:28)  To this twofold Will is opposed the remission of the Will, which is called “Permission,” and which is also two-fold.  The one, which permits something to the power of a rational creature, by not circumscribing its act with a law; and this is opposed to “the revealed Will.”  The other is that by which God permits something [potentiae] to the capability and will of the creature, by not interposing an efficacious hindrance; and this is opposed to “the Will of God’s pleasure” that is efficacious. (Acts 14:16; Ps. 81:13)”

.

.

Andrew Willet

A Six-fold Commentary upon Romans  (Cambridge: Legge, 1611), on Rom. 2, 3. Questions, Question 7, ‘Whether the leading of men to repentance by God’s long sufferance argues that they are not reprobate’, p. 104

“2…  But here we must distinguish between effectual calling, which always takes place and none can hinder it, and calling not effectual, yet sufficient if men did not put in a bar by their own hardness of heart: God’s absolute will then is not resisted when men come not to repentance: for his will is to leave such to themselves by his just judgment: and not to give them of his effectual grace.”

.

.

Bremen [Germany] Delegation at Dort  1618

‘On Intellect & Will, i.e. Free Will’, pp. 33-34  in ‘On Predestination, Reprobation, Christ’s Death, Regeneration, Free Choice & Perseverance’  in The Acts of the Synod of Dort  (1618)

“V. What is the grace of conversion and regeneration, and is it resistible or irresistible?

Response: Grace is broadly defined. But in this context, we distinguish:

– The external preaching of the Gospel
– The internal illumination and conversion granted to the elect

True regeneration is understood to be singular, internal, and effective.

VI. External preaching is resisted when a person scorns or neglects the Word, or hears with carnal affection.

VII. Common grace is resisted.  When men resist the knowledge and assent to truth, this blocks conversion.

VIII. Special grace is never resisted by the elect.  Even though at times they resist, they are eventually overcome by divine power and drawn in.

IX. The reprobate resist even this divine illumination, especially those who commit the sin against the Holy Spirit.

X. There is, however, a singular grace by which the intellect is powerfully and effectually disposed, moved, and illuminated by God.  It is accompanied by promises in the Gospel.  The will is raised above its natural state and drawn to God, so that it now sees the good clearly, and is no longer able to persist in rejecting it.

XI. Furthermore, this grace is given only to the elect, though in individuals it is measured out and distinguished according to divine determination and various degrees. For God teaches and draws some more intensely by grace, others less so, and some He leaves in just condemnation for their unbelief or obstinate rejection. The flesh is more cunning and fierce in some, and more sluggish in others. The Spirit of God calls men under whose command and direction they are truly called. This grace regenerates, renews, and raises up the will; it conquers resistance and makes the unwilling willing.

XII. So we see that God does not act in the same way toward all men: some are able to resist grace, others are not able, even if they wished; some are able by nature, others are neither able nor willing.

XIII. This third mode destroys the will entirely rather than perfecting it, and utterly destroys and overturns its nature.”

.

.

Canons of Dort

Note

The below does not say explicitly that God’s grace is resisted (probably out of an aim for consensus with those who may disagree), but the implication may be readily drawn from the face value language of Dort.

.

Heads 3 & 4

Article 16

“…this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor takes away their will and its properties, neither does violence thereto; but spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it; that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign, in which the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consist.”

.

.

Peter Du Moulin  1619

The Anatomy of Arminianism…  (1619; London, 1635)

pp. 478-79

“III. But they [Arminians] do unwisely prove that which is not in controversy.  For we do not teach, we do not acknowledge that irresistibility which they attribute to us.  This conclusion therefore does not hurt us, who do willingly confess that the Holy Ghost does not always so work in men’s hearts that He takes away all resistance…

the question is, whether it may be that they may never be converted, and may finally resist the spirit of adoption.  To the proving of this, the places which speaks of reprobates, which we confess do finally resist God calling, and do want the spirit of adoption, are plainly besides the purpose.  Finally, these sectaries do not prove that in all these places [of Scripture] it is spoken of a final resistance, of which alone it is spoken here.”

.

p. 492

“We have already advertised that this opinion is falsely laid upon us: That God does draw a man unresistibly [being unable to resist].  We only say that the elect, although they may resist a long time, yet at length they obey God calling, and their voluntary conversion is wrought certainly and infallibly, and that it cannot come to pass that they should never be converted, or being converted, that they should finally fall away and the grace of God should be at length extinguished, and be finally overcome by the resistance of the flesh.”

.

See also pp. 8-9, 356-7, 396 & 399  of The Anatomy of Arminianism…  (1619; London, 1635).

.

.

The Synopsis of Pure Theology  1625

Andreas Polyander, Disputation 30, ‘On the Calling of People to Salvation’  in Synopsis of a Purer Theology, vol. 2 (Brill, 2016), pp. 222-27

“32. The way of calling, when we examine it from opposing perspectives, is divided into external and internal.  The former is achieved outwardly through the administration of Word and sacraments, the latter inwardly through the working of the Holy Spirit.
…

34, Nor does God always link the two ways of calling equally or in the same way, but the concurrence of both of them is effective in some people and ineffective in others.†

† [Editor: …’concurrence’ refers to the external and the internal callings that mostly, but not necessarily, concur. Even if they do concur that is not always efficacious.  According to Arminius the concurrence of the outward and inward call was efficacious, be it that the effect ultimately depended on the consent of the believer.  After the Synod of Dort, Reformed theologians felt a need to specify when and how the internal call had effect and did no longer teach that the concurrence of the outward and inward calls was always salvific.  Cf. Van den Belt, ‘Vocatio in the Leiden Disputations,’ 552.]

35. The ineffective concurrence of the two ways is observed in three kinds of people.  For some people are not moved to embrace it, even though the light of the evangelical truth has shone fully upon them.  These are the people who receive the seed of the Gospel that is sown along the trodden path (Mt. 13:19).
…

37. To other people the Holy Spirit offers a little taste of his grace so that their hearts are touched by a momentary feeling of happiness.  These receive the Gospel like seed sown among thorns (Mt. 13:22).
…

40. Although some gifts flow forth from the concurrence of the two callings and are shared by hypocrites along with the elect (i.e., the gift of knowing and tasting God’s good Word, and the virtues of the coming age [Heb. 6:4-6]), they are not sufficient for the salvation of the hypocrites.  But in the elect they prepare the way for their salvation and–by God’s good pleasure towards them–these gifts do lead the way to more abundant grace, of which others are rightly, deservedly deprived because they do not employ those first gifts in the right way.
…

45. The form of the effective calling by which it is distinguished from the ineffective one, consists in the saving application of this benefit which takes some sinners from their natural communion to that particular grace…
…

46. The highest goal of both callings (shared by both the ineffective and the effective one) is the manifestation of God’s mercy towards those whom He calls.  The subordinate goal of the effective calling, and [the goal] proper to it, is the saving imparting of God’s grace; but the accidental goal of the ineffective calling is the conviction of stubborn disobedience and complete inexcusableness in the hearts of those who impudently withstand and interrupt the Holy Spirit as He speaks through the mouths of the preachers.†

† [Editor: …The finis accidens is not essential to the goal but as it were a side effect of it.]”

.

On the Synopsis

Van den Belt, ‘The Vocatio in the Leiden Disputations (1597—1631): The Influence of the Arminian Controversy on the Concept of the Divine Call to Salvation’  in Church History and Religious Culture, Vol. 92, No. 4 (2012), p. 552-4.  It appears that the below distinctions came about in the Leiden context (at least with regard to disputations on the call to salvation) after the fuller explication of Arminianism and the Synod of Dort (1618-9).

“To explain the efficacious call, Polyander (1622) refers to the parable of the seed.  The inefficacious concurrence of the internal and external modes of the call has three distinct forms.  Some are illumined by the light of the gospel, but not affected to embrace it.  Others permit the light of the truth conceived in the soul to be suffocated by the cares of this world, and to others the Holy Spirit gives some taste of his grace by which their heart is affected with a sense of joy for a moment.  These three forms correspond with the seed that falls along the path, among thorns, and on rocky places…

Polyander does not equate the internal call with the efficacious call for two reasons: 1) Because the universal call through nature also has an internal side, and 2) because the external and the internal call can concur in the hypocrit [Heb. 6:4-6].
…

When the call is divided into internal and external…  with respect to the reprobate however, they can be distinguished as species.  Following Polyander (1622) and Polyander (1627), Walaeus (1631) also distinguishes certain grades of the internal operation of the Spirit in the reprobate…  In short, all the disputations held on the vocatio after the synod [of Dort] differentiate the internal work of the Spirit.”

.

.

William Prynne

The Church of England’s Old Antithesis to New Arminianism…  (London: Matthewes, 1629), pp. 33-34

“These several passages quoted out of our [official] Homilies [of the Anglican Church] do abundanty testify:…  That God’s grace and Spirit do always work effectually in the hearts of his elect, in the act of their conversion, which they can never finally nor totally resist.  And that the elect and truly regenerate can neither fall finally nor totally from the state of grace, which is firm and stable.”

.

.

William Pemble

Vindiciæ gratiæ. = A Plea for Grace, More especially the Grace of Faith…  (London: 1627), pp. 154-55

“Now to shut up all touching this point of man’s liberty in resisting the grace of God, the sum of all is this:  Before true conversion all unregenerate persons do resist the gracious means and preparations to their conversion, the reprobate finally, the elect for a time, till grace become victorious in their perfect sanctification.  In this their first conversion or regeneration the elect are no way active either to work it or to hinder it.

After their conversion in the doing of all good works, immanent or transient, they resist not so far as they are spiritual; they cannot but resist so far as they are carnal.  And though in time of temptation and spiritual desertion the flesh do not only resist but also prevail, to the hinderance of many particular gracious actions, yet for those main and principal acts of faith, repentance, love of God, hatred of evil, etc. the Spirit is infallibly victorious both to do them after the first conversion and also finally to persevere in doing of them.”

.

.

John Collinges

The Spouse’s Hidden Glory & Faithful Leaning upon her Well-Beloved, wherein is laid down the soul’s glory in Christ and the way by which the soul comes to Christ, delivered in two lecture sermons…  (London: 1646), p. 26

“Nor do we say that any such previous action [to regeneration] can be performed by the creature ut de merito congrui teneatur Gratiam dare [so that it binds by congruent merit to give grace], that God is bound for the desert of any such previous action to give his inward and regenerating quickening grace:

But yet this we say, that in the church of God, where men are daily stirred up by the Word and Spirit to repent and believe savingly, God will give (though not for any of these previous or dispository actions, yet) freely, regenerating grace to all such as are capable of it, unless they have resisted the Spirit of God in the preceding operations and rejected his quickening grace; but yet we deny, that any man can perform these actions so but he will offend and resist the Spirit of God in them:

Now why when as all resist, God should reject some, as they have rejected Him, and leave them to the hardness of their own hearts, and work irresistibly on others who have resisted their God as much, and break open their hearts, though locked and barred against Him, and fill them with quickening grace, and pull a Lot out of Sodom by force, and draw a soul out of the wilderness by head and shoulders, I say, why He should do it, when two are grinding at the same mill, take one and leave the other…  I will conclude with Dr. Davenant, is Sacrum Misterium divinae voluntati reliquendum, ‘a sacred and secret mystery to be left to the divine pleasure,’ and the reason lies in the agent’s own breast; It is because He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and whom He wills He hardens; God is his own reason, and his free grace its own cause.”

.

.

Alexander Ross

A Century of Divine Meditations upon Predestination & its Adjuncts...  (London: 1646), sect. 25, pp. 24-25

.

.

Gisbert Voet

Select Theological Disputations (1655), vol. 2, Disputation 30, ‘On Regeneration’, pt. 2  (1639), p. 447 ff. tr. AI by Roman Prestarri  Latin at Confessionally Reformed Theology

“9. That it is infallible by reason of God’s intention and the event, and irresistible and invincible by reason of the mode and efficacy of operating. For although man according to his innate depravity can do nothing but resist in the divided sense, yet actually he does not resist nor can he resist in the composite sense, when the Holy Spirit regenerating removes resistibility by impressing a new principle of spiritual life.

10. Therefore no voluntary or involuntary of man has place in this first moment, because no human action intervenes, but it is the action of God alone. So that the will conducts itself neutrally and purely passively with respect to the new principle, here willing or not willing nothing. Yet regeneration could be called voluntary as to man by extrinsic denomination from the consequent effect, or by a certain extrinsic respect, on account of the subsequent (not indeed antecedent or simultaneous) consent of the will, or new and regenerate volition, by which, excited by second grace in the second moment, man himself begins to will the spiritual goods offered through calling according to the new will divinely impressed, and according as the Holy Spirit made him willing from unwilling, and works in him τὸ θέλειν [to thelein, the willing] and to accomplish.

11. Finally, that it is difficult if you look to nature and flesh, yet easy if you look to τὸ κράτος τῆς ἰσχύος [to kratos tēs ischuos, the might of the power] divine, Mt. 19:23–26, compared with Eph. 1:19; Prov. 21:1; Rom. 11:23.

Hence omnipotent facility and easy omnipotence are attributed to God regenerating.”

.

.

Joseph Hall

The Shaking of the Olive Tree, the Remaining Works of that incomparable prelate Joseph Hall…  (d. 1656; London: Cadwel, 1660), 5th Article, ‘Of Perseverance’

p. 382

“For the part that most constantly teaches the forceableness of conversion, holds such a kind of actuating the will as does no whit hurt or infringe the liberty thereof; yea rather, which profits it; and while they speak of an irresistible act in turning us, they mean not such an act as cannot be at all resisted, if we would, but such a one as the will, through God’s gracious inclination, would not wish to resist, for that their will to resist is so overcome by the sweet motions of God’s Spirit, that now yieldance is made powerfully voluntary;”

.

pp. 383-84

“True, God makes us willing of unwilling, and so we resist not.  But how does He make us willing?  Whether by an irresistible manner of working in us, or not, this, say the opponents, is the main question.  Surely so, as that, to use Aquinas his word, the will is impelled, though not compelled; so as that, though there is in the nature of the will a freedom and capacity of agreeing or dissenting, in respect of itself, yet as it is for the present moved and actuated by the effectual inclination of the Almighty, now it so sways one way as if it had for the time put off the power of refusing.

What need we then trouble ourselves with these upstart terms of ‘resistible’ and ‘irresistible’?  Let it content us that the gracious in-operation of God effectually draws the heart of man to will, to receive, to entertain the happy motions of his good Spirit to our renovation.  If we yield not this to God, we yield nothing; and if we give Him this, He will not quarrel us for more.

But what place soever these differences have found in foreign schools and pulpits, ours have reason to be free, if we shall listen to that wise and moderate voice of our [Anglican] Church, which our forecited reverend author [Bishop Overall] commends unto us, who, after the relation of the two extreme opinions, rests in this, medio tutissimus: that men are so stirred and moved by grace that they may, if they attend thereunto, obey the grace which calls and moves them; and that they may, by their free will, also resist it.  But withal, that God, when He will, and to whom He will, gives such an abundant, such powerful, such congruous, otherwise effectual grace, that although the will may, in respect of the liberty thereof, resist, yet it resists not, but does certainly and infallibly obey; and that thus God deals with those whom He has chosen in Christ so far as shall be necessary to their salvation.  Who so cannot sit down quietly in this decision, methinks, should be no friend to peace.”

.

.

George Lawson

Theo-Politica, or a Body of Divinity…  (London: Streater, 1659), pt. 2, ch. 4, pp. 113-14

“The manner of conversion is to us unsearchable, both because we are ignorant of the nature of the immortal soul, and because much more are we ignorant of the manner of God’s working upon that immortal spirit.  As for the resistibility or irresistibility of grace, we know that the power of God is almighty, and cannot be resisted by any created strength, if He please to exercise it to the full, or in some high measure:

But if God give power to the creature, or work by that created power given, it may be resisted by a contrary created power: And so grace or the power of conversion, as a created thing in man, may be so given as to be resisted by the will of man.  And both the understanding of man, will and does, either deny or doubt of divine truths represented to the soul; and the will will wrangle, oppose and reject or not sincerely affect and submit unto the divine commands, and promises.  And hence, the many conflicts not only in conversion, but after we are converted.

As for necessitation of the will in this work of divine calling, it’s certain and granted of all that the illumination of the understanding may be necessary so far as the soul in respect of the same is only passive, though in the apprehension and judgement concerning the truths represented by the Word it be active.  Besides, God may give an active power to the will, and it may be passive in receiving of it, and also necessitated to an act of complacency in general, so that it necessarily may approve by a general approbation of the justice and equity of the command, and the excellency of the good promised…

Yet notwithstanding this necessary and natural act of complacency, that act of the will, which Buridan calls acceptatio ad prosecutionem may be, and is free.  I pass by the philosophical speculations concerning the nature of the will, which few know, concerning the natural and necessary acts thereof, and also concerning those that are free; and what the natural liberty of the will is, and in what acts, and in respect of what acts, it is free.  Concerning the positive acts velle and nolle, and the negative, non velle, non nolle, and concerning the liberty of contradiction and specification;

It’s far more profitable for all such as are so blessed as to live in the Church and enjoy the means of conversion diligently to use the means and exercise that power which God has given them, and also earnestly and constantly pray for the regenerating Spirit, which God has promised to them that seek Him in an orderly way.  For upon this done, regeneration will follow; and by the divine and spiritual power given them, together with God’s special assistance, and concurrence, after all necessary preparations, they shall freely determine and the will shall wholly and most willingly submit to God-Redeemer, which is the ultimate product of divine vocation, the parts whereof are the outward Word, and the inward power of the Spirit which go together, according to the promise of the Gospel, and make up the essence of it…

And we cannot find in Scripture that God denies his Spirit to such as hear his Word till they give God cause either by their neglect or perversness, or apostasy from that degree of grace they have received to withdraw the same.  By all this we understand that Christ finds his subjects, to whom God has given Him a right, to be enemies, and He enlarges as He begins his Kingdom by a kind of spiritual conquest, dashing in pieces all such as will not submit, and are bound to submit, with his iron rod and irresistible strength, reducing the rest unto subjection, after some time of standing out…

And this publication of his laws is accompanied with a wonderful power of his Spirit whereby together with the Word of the Kingdom, He pierces the minds of men and breaks their stony hearts in sunder, as an hammer does a rock: In this respect the Lord says, ‘Is not my Word like as a fire, and like an hammer that breaks the rock asunder, Jer. 23:29.”

.

.

Thomas Hooker

The Application of Redemption by the Effectual Work of the Word & Spirit of Christ for the bringing home of lost sinners to God  (d. 1647; London: Cole, 1656), bk. 10, pp. 358-86

“1. There is no power in man to remove that resistance that is in his heart against God and the work of his grace; that which out of its own corrupt principles does wholly resist, and cannot but resist, the operation and dispensation of all spiritual means that would prevail with it for good, that cannot take away the resistance; for resistance cannot take away resistance; it implies a palpable contradiction, as that which is professedly cross to common sense.

But the corrupt heart of a natural man, while he is in the state of nature and corruption, does and cannot but wholly resist the work of God’s Spirit and grace, and all the saving operations of all the means thereof.  The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, and these two are contrary, Gal. 5:17.  And what is born of the flesh is flesh, Jn. 3:7; that is the temper and inward constitution of a soul in its natural condition; it is wholly born of the flesh, and therefore nothing but flesh, and therefore can do nothing but resist the Spirit; yea, it cannot but oppose whatever would take that resistance away; for it is a received rule of reason, and confessed of all hands, everything desires the preservation of itself and its being; otherwise the being and the causes that made up the being should be cross to the thing, if it should endeavor its own destruction; nay, a thing should be opposite to itself.

Hence it is that the corruption of the heart will put forth all the skill and strength it hath, or by the contrivements of carnal reason can compass, to fortify and preserve itself against the spiritual and saving dispensation of the work of God’s Spirit in his own ordinances; because wicked men look at the power thereof as that which works the ruin of their lusts; therefore they labor to avoid the light if they can; if not that, to oppose it, and overbear it by their delusions; if not that, to destroy it…

2. Before the soul can act against the evil of sin, or for the removal of this resistance wherein the destroying venom of sin lies, and that which stops the passage of the power of the ordinance and the work of grace, it is necessary that the Lord should not only concur with the act of the will of a sinner, to lead or draw forth the act thereof which He has ability to express, but He must let in an influence of the same power and virtue into the faculty of the will, whereby it may be enabled to put forth an act unto which it formerly had no power of itself…

3. The influence of this spiritual power whereby the Lord takes away this sinful resistance, is not by any gracious habit of sanctification, but by an irresistable motion of the work of his Spirit upon the soul…”

.

.

Christopher Love

Treatise of Effectual Calling & Election...  (London: Rothwell, 1653), Sermon 5, on 2 Pet. 1:10, pp. 64-65

“First, whether may a wicked man, a man as yet not called, be able to resist and keep off his own call?

And that you may understand the answer hereto, I must lay down this distinction: that there is a twofold calling of Christ: a significative calling, and an operative calling.

First, a significative calling, which is such a calling whereby Christ, in the ministry of the Word, signifies and declares what He would have men to do.  Now this kind of call wicked men may resist; this call, I say, and this revealed will of God, in declaring what graces he would have men act, and what sins he would have men forbear.  Therefore we read, Acts 7:51, “You stiff-necked people, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you have always resisted the Holy Ghost”; meaning the preaching of the Word by the ministry of his apostles.  So Prov. 1:24, ‘I have called, and ye have refused,’ etc.

But then secondly, there is an operative calling, and that is such a call whereby God does not only signify to a man what he must do, but with the signification of his will gives a man a power to do what He calls him to do, accompanying the Word with his Spirit, making the heart stoop and yield to Jesus Christ.

Now this call no man can resist; grace is irresistible; and this effectual calling, by the operation of the Spirit, a man cannot resist.  All the gainsayings of the heart, and all the stoutness of the will, it must stoop and must be brought under subjection to Jesus Christ. Jn. 6:37, ‘All that the Father hath given Me,’ says Christ, ‘shall come unto Me.’  They shall not be able to withstand Jesus Christ, but they shall come in unto Him.  So Isa. 55:10–11:

‘As the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, and returns not thither again, but waters the earth, to make it bring forth… so shall my word be that goes out of my mouth; it shall not return in vain, but shall accomplish that which I intended, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.’

As all the world cannot hinder the rain from coming down on the earth, no more can any man in the world, if God has an intent to convert and call him, hinder the benefit of the Word from redounding upon his soul.”

.

.

Isaac Ambrose

Looking unto Jesus…  (London: Chiswel, 1680), bk. 8, Ascension, ch. 1, sect. 9, ‘Manner how the Holy Ghost was sent’, p. 488

“3…  But more especially the Holy Ghost is compared to a wind in respect of its irresistable workings; as nothing can resist the wind, it goes and blows which way soever it will; so nothing can resist the Spirit of God, wheresoever it has a purpose to work efficaciously; I will not say, but the heart of a man may resist and reject the work of the Spirit in some measure, and in some degrees; Stephen told the Jews, they had always resisted the Holy Ghost (Act. 7:51); and the apostle tells of strong holds, and of every high thing that exalts itself against God (2 Cor. 10:5);

so there is a natural contrariety, a constant enmity and active resisting of God’s Spirit by our spirits; we must therefore distinguish between a prevalent and a gradual resisting; the Spirit in conversion so works that He takes away the prevalent, but not the gradual resisting; A man before he be converted is froward, and full of cavils and prejudices; he is unwilling to be saved; he cannot abide the truth; he does what he can to stifle all good motions: yet if he belong to the election of grace, God will at last over-master his heart and make him of unwilling, willing; He will omnipotently bow and change the will and work on his soul by his mighty power efficaciously, insuperably and irresistably.”

.

.

John Lightfoot

The Works of the Reverend & Learned John Lightfoot…  (London: Scot, 1684), ‘A Sermon preached at Hertford Assize, March 17, 1664’, on Jn. 8:9, pp. 1083-84

“II. Secondly, there is a conviction of conscience that brings with it some overpowering, some more, some less, some for one end, some for another.  I say, some overpowering.  In that dispute about the resistibility or irresistibility of grace, as far as I can see into the dispute, this distinction might be useful and advantageous toward the determining of it, viz. to consider what the Spirit of God does to the heart by way of trying it, and what it does with intent and resolution to overpower it.

The former part of the distinction you have in Ex. 20:20, ‘Fear not, for the Lord is come to prove,’ or try, ‘you.’  The latter in Isa. 26:11, ‘They will not see, but they shall see and be ashamed.’  The former in Rev. 3:17, Christ stands at the door and knocks, to try whether He shall be entertained.  The latter in Eze. 22:14, ‘How can thy heart endure and thy hands be strong in the day that I shall deal with thee, when I break in resolved to overpower thee?’  As in that blasted conviction I spake of before, there was a trying but no overpowering, so there is some overpowering conviction also, that is but for trial….

So that was a very overpowering conviction upon the conscience of Herod, that made him reverence John Baptist, and to hear him gladly and to do many things according to his doctrine; but it was far from attaining the utmost end of conviction: it was only by way of trial, whether he would come up to the utmost end or no.  This conviction neither they in the text, nor Herod could resist, for conviction brake in, whether they would or no; but the ultimate operation of conviction they resisted; because in this conviction the Spirit of God did only try them, not resolved to overpower them to the utmost fruit and effect of conviction…

For the first, it is well known how God tried the hearts and consciences of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, by Moses’ words and miracles, and how again and again He in some degree did overpower them; but still they resisted and came not up to the proper and ultimate effect of conviction, to own and to do their duty.”

.

.

Matthew Henry

Commentary on Acts, on 7:51, “…ye do always resist the Holy Ghost…”

“2. They resisted the Holy Ghost striving with them by their own consciences, and would not comply with the convictions and dictates of them. God’s Spirit strove with them as with the old world, but in vain; they resisted Him, took part with their corruptions against their convictions, and rebelled against the light.  There is that in our sinful hearts that always resists the Holy Ghost, a flesh that lusts against the Spirit, and wars against his motions;

but in the hearts of God’s elect, when the fullness of time comes, this resistance is overcome and overpowered, and after a struggle the throne of Christ is set up in the soul, and every thought that had exalted itself against it is brought into captivity to it, 2 Co. 10:4, 2 Co. 10:5.  That grace therefore which effects this change might more fitly be called victorious grace than irresistible.”

.

.

A.A. Hodge

Outlines of Theology  new ed. enlarged  (London: Nelson, 1879), ch. 28, ‘The Application of Redemption…’, pp. 451-52

“20. In what sense is grace irresistible?

It must be remembered that the true Christian is the subject at the same time of those moral and mediate influences of grace upon the will, common to him and to the unconverted, and also of those special influences of grace within the will, which are certainly efficacious.

The first class of influences Christians may, and constantly do resist, through the law of sin remaining in their members.

The second class of influences are certainly efficacious, but are neither resistible nor irresistible, because they act from within and carry the will spontaneously with them.

It is to be lamented that the term irresistible grace has ever been used, since it suggests the idea of a mechanical and coercive influence upon an unwilling subject, while, in truth, it is the transcendent act of the infinite Creator, making the creature spontaneously willing.”

.

.

William G.T. Shedd  1893

Calvinism: Pure & Mixed  (NY: 1893), pp. 100-103

“The Calvinist, on the contrary [to Arminianism], holds that the unregenerate man never ceases to resist and never yields to God of his own motion, but only as he is acted upon by the Holy Spirit and is thereby ‘persuaded and enabled’ to cease resisting and to yield obedience.  Ceasing to resist God, he [the Calvinist] contends, is holy action, and so is yielding or submitting to God.  To refer this kind of action to the sinful and unregenerate will as its author [as the Arminian does], the Calvinist asserts [this] is contrary to the Scripture declaration, that ‘the carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be,’  Rom. 8:7.  A will at enmity with God never of itself ceases resisting Him, and never of itself yields to Him.  It must be changed from enmity into love by ‘the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost’ in order to sweet and gentle submission.

The sinner, as such, cannot, therefore, assist and co-operate with the Holy Spirit in this work of originating faith and repentance, but the whole of it must be done by that Almighty Agent who can turn the human heart as the rivers of water.  Christ, through the Spirit, is the sole ‘author of faith’ (Heb. 12:2).  When the Holy Spirit puts forth a higher degree of his energy than He exerts in his ordinary operation, He overcomes and stops the sinner’s resistance instead of the sinner’s overcoming and stopping it of himself, and [the Holy Spirit] inclines the sinner to yield to the Divine monitions [admonitions] and impulse instead of the sinner’s yielding of his own accord [as the Arminian says].  If the sinner’s resistance is ‘overcome’, it is overcome by God’s action [according to the Calvinist]; but if it ‘ceases’, it ceases by the sinner’s action [by his own power, according to the Arminian]. 

To say that common grace [in the sincere strivings of the Spirit] would [hypothetically] succeed [in salvation] if it were not resisted by man, is not the same as saying that common grace would succeed if it were yielded to by man[‘s independent power, as in Arminianism].  [Hypothetical] Non-resistance is different from ceasing resistance [of the Arminian].  In the former [hypothetical] instance there is no opposition by the man [and thus the common, gracious striving of the Spirit in the gospel call would result in saving grace]; in the latter there is opposition, which is put a stop to by the man[‘s independent power, on the Arminian view].
…

According to the monergistic [God alone working] or Calvinistic view of grace, on the contrary [to Arminianism], no man receives a grace that is ‘sufficient for generating faith’ who does not receive such a measure of Divine influence as overcomes his hostile will; so that he does not stop his own resistance but it stopped by the mercy and power of God; so that his faith and repentance are not the result in part of his own efficiency, but solely of the Holy Spirit’s irresistible and sovereign energy in regeneration.  In a word, the dependence upon Divine grace in the Calvinistic system [in being saved] is total; in the Arminian is partial.  In the former, common grace cannot be made saving grace by the sinner’s co-action; in the latter it can be.”

.

.

Louis Berkhof

Systematic Theology  (1951)

III. Common Grace

B. Name & Concept of Common Grace

“c. Special grace is irresistible.  This does not mean that it is a deterministic force which compels man to believe against his will, but that by changing the heart it makes man perfectly willing to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation and to yield obedience to the will of God.  Common grace is resistible, and as a matter of fact is always more or less resisted.  Paul shows in Rom. 1 and 2 that neither the Gentiles nor the Jews were living up to the light which they had.  Says [W.G.T.] Shedd: “In common grace the call to believe and repent is invariably ineffectual, because man is averse to faith and repentance and in bondage to sin.” [Calvinism Pure & Mixed, p. 99.]  It is ineffectual unto salvation because it leaves the heart unchanged.

d. Special grace works in a spiritual and re-creative way, renewing the whole nature of man, and thus making man able and willing to accept the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ, and to produce spiritual fruits.  Common grace, to the contrary, operates only in a rational and moral way by making man in a general way receptive for the truth, by presenting motives to the will, and by appealing to the natural desires of man.  This is equivalent to saying that special (saving) grace is immediate and supernatural, since it is wrought directly in the soul by the immediate energy of the Holy Spirit, while common grace is mediate, since it is the product of the mediate operation of the Holy Spirit through the truth of general or special revelation and by moral persuasion.”

.

.

.

“And the Lord said, ‘My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh…'”

Gen. 6:3

“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”

Phil. 2:13

.

.

.

Related Pages

The Common Operations of the Spirit

Irresistible Grace

The Difference Between Reformed Common Grace and Arminian Common Grace