Lectures on Monergistic Regeneration

The Reformation Theology blog has posted two free lectures on Monergistic Regeneration by Dr. Art Azurdia III.

I've almost jumped up and ran around the room shouting like Billy Sunday several times during the first lecture!

Soli Deo Gloria!


Photo: Billy Sunday showing out... Can't remember where I found it.

Kangaroo D'Oh!

I lifted this from the meta of a post over at Triablogue. Our sometime commenter/fomenter of dischord, Kangeroodort, a/k/a Ben left it there. I don't know that they'll answer it (although I may already be wrong about that) because it is off-topic, so I thought I'd interact with it a bit. The blue font below is all Ben's stuff.

I asked the following comment which has so far been ignored directly, but answered indirectly by saint and sinner:

In the meantime, I have a quick question for you regarding John 6:44. Do you believe that one can "come" prior to regeneration? If not, then I suspect you see the drawing of John 6:44 as a reference to irresistible regeneration.

Is that the case? Would you object to an interpretive translation along these lines:"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me first regenerates them [gives them life]"?

S&S later said [concerning the contention that John 6:44 had reference to resistible prevenient grac]:This is a basic exegetical error in interpreting John 6. The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus is quoting the Prophet Isaiah. The quote comes from Is. 54:13, which is in the midst of a passage on the renewed creation and covenant. Like other passages in the prophets (Jeremiah 31:33-34 and Ezekiel 36:26-27), it is thus speaking about regeneration, not a preaching of the gospel which we must then decide upon. Thus, those who are "taught of God" are the regenerate.

So it would seem that the drawing of John 6:44 refers to regeneration in the Calvinist scheme. To say it refers to something less is to concede prevenient grace, which the Calvinist will not do. So it is quite resonable to understand Jn. 6:44, in Calvinism, as saying:No one can come to be unless the Father who sent Me regenerates them [i.e. first gives them life].

I assume that S&S would also equate "come" with "believe" as most Calvinists do. So we could further define the passage as:No one can believe in Me unless the Father who sent Me regenerates them [i.e. first gives them life].

We could then simplify the teaching by saying, "no one can come unless the Father first gives them life."

Therefore, the giving of life, according to Calvinism, must precede coming or believing.I dare say that no Calvinist would object at this point.

What then did Jesus mean when He said in John 5:40:"...you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."

Here Jesus plainly says that "coming" precedes the giving of life. This flatly contradicts the Calvinists interpretation of John 6:44 and renders such an interpretation impossible.

In view of John 5:40, the drawing of John 6:44 can have no reference to regeneration.

God Bless,Ben

First, let me give Ben some props here for having a grasp on the Calvinist interpretation he seeks to argue with. I would state things a little differently than he has above, but not all that much. So, yes, it is the standard Calvinist intepretation of John 6:44, that it teaches that regeneration precedes faith.

See what a nice Calvinist I am, Ben. I gave you some props. In fact, I'll go ahead and give you some more. You have proven to me that you are a thoughtful Christian man who is zealous in the pursuit of truth.

But, sadly, those last props come in spite of what you've written in this comment, and not because of it. After reading what you've written, I stubbornly refuse to believe that this is really how you go about studying the Scripture. I choose to believe better of you, in spite of the current lack of evidence. (I'm a hopeless fideist...)

1. It looks like what you've done here is this: recognized that the Calvinistic take on John 6 is all about who comes to Jesus and why, and you've seen it has something to do with the new life of regeneration. Then, you took some of those key words, specifically "come" and "life" and you've looked with your concordance for other places where the two terms occur in close proximity. Having found a place like that (John 5:40,) you've compared the way that place speaks of life and coming to Jesus and the way John 6 speaks of life and coming to Jesus. And, lo and behold, we see that you prefer the way that John 5 puts it, and have thus determined that the view you don't like, from John 6, must be wrong.

2. Let me illustrate why this is a truly horrible way to study the Bible. Let's say, as a Calvinist, I don't like the insistence that John 3:16 shows that God loves every individual in the world. And so, I hunt around in my Bible for other places that speak of the world, until I come to 1 John 2:15, where it says, "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

"Eureka!" I shout. "Now I've got all those synergists dead to rights! They'll never overcome this challenge from Scriptural fact, for I have proven that love for the world is really the opposite of God's attitude!"

Does it not immediately occur to you why that would be really dumb?

I'm sure it does, Ben, but for our readers let me spell it out: To do that would be to ignore simple considerations of context. Any synergist would be totally correct to then come and rebuke me for being too stupid to see immediately that the passages are not talking about the same things. And that's true, even though John 3:16 and 1 John 2:15 use the same key words, like "God" and "love."

A very simple, surface reading would show me, if I had bothered enough to check, that different things are in view. Again, that's true even though the same author uses the same key words: He's still talking about different things. The only reason I would possibly fail to see that is if I was so ideologically blinded that I was willing to deal fast-and-loose with the Word of God so long as I got to prove my point with it. And shame on me.

3. Apprapos 1 and 2, you try to make your point here by citing a place where the same author uses the same key words, and you've simply assumed that the two different discussions are talking about the same thing.

4. But is the assumption of 3 above warranted? The discussion in John 6 is about why some come to Jesus in faith and are saved, and some do not. The matter at hand in John 5 is the sin of the Jewish leaders, who had refused to listen to any of the witnesses that God sent to them. Though they both have in common the presence of sinful unbelief, they really are two different conversations. In John 6, Jesus is explaining to His disciples the "why" of faith, and in John 5, Jesus is rebuking the Jews for the fact of their unbelief.

In addition, I would grant that the "coming" of both passages is a metaphor for faith in Christ. But it is truly a stretch to assume that the "life" the Jews were actively refusing in John 5 is the new spiritual life of regeneration. Can you not see in the passage itself that there are different sorts of "life?" I mean, the Jews were certainly "alive" in one sense, and yet had refused another sort of life. How you conclude that they were refusing regeneration specifically, and neither the spirit-life of faith in Christ (as in Romans 8) nor eternal life with Him in heaven is beyond me. Regeneration is certainly not the focus in John 5: faith in Christ is.

5. And many such things you (synergists, generally) do. Use a passage that isn't about why some believe and some don't in order to argue with the grammatical-historical exegesis of a passage that plainly is. Another example of this sort of argumentation is the resort to John 12 to blunt the force of John 6. (Hey, they both mention a drawing of men to Christ: It has to be the same...except that it's obviously different. But still, the one in John 12 is more likeable, so let's go with that one.)

David Cloud: Lessons in Exegesis

I'm pressing on with my fairly detailed answer to IFB pastor David Cloud's article against Calvinism. I know it's looking bad for him, like another Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, but it's really not. He's built his empire, and a low-level wise guy like me ain't about to dislodge him. I am no threat to pastor Cloud, and do not desire to be. But his article is a convenient target for two reasons: First, he claims to be an expert on the topic. So much so, that if he still doesn't understand what's going on after all the detailed study he's done, then Calvinism is well nigh incomprehensible to all but the most impressive, bulging craniums. And second, his article consists of many isolated, out-of-context proof texts, which lends itself well to evaluation one-by-one.

As always, Pastor Cloud's words are in blue below. Enjoy.

THE JEWS BROUGHT THE WRATH OF GOD UPON THEMSELVES -- “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost” (1 Thess. 2:14-16).

According to this passage, the Jews that killed the Lord Jesus and persecuted the early believers were not sovereignly reprobated to that evil work. They filled up their sins and brought God’s wrath upon them by their own actions.

This is such juvenile exegesis, that I loathe calling it by that term. I’m sorry, but it is a bit ridiculous, especially coming from one who claims, because of the plethora of books he’s written, that he is an expert in the field of Bible doctrine.

Here is the argument: The passage doesn’t mention God’s predestination at all. Therefore, it argues against it. See, what could be simpler?

You will go a long way in your Bible study by assuming that what the Bible doesn’t say would surely argue against what it does say…a long way toward making shipwreck of the faith, that is. Since it doesn’t mention anything about God’s preordination of the evil done by men in Christ’s crucifixion, then it must necessarily argue against what the Word says about that very topic in other places. Ah, yes, it's all making sense to me now. Since this passage puts the blame on the Jews, then God could not have ordained it…even though He says He did in other places! (Specifically, Acts 2:23, for only one such instance.)

Cloud is obviously confused on this point. He thinks no one can be blamed for doing evil if God ordained the evil should be done. So, if the Jews are to be blamed here, then God must not have ordained it, since any such ordination would release them from their responsibility.

Again, I find myself scratching my head in wonder at the fact that even in a tome like Calvin’s Institutes, which Cloud supposedly studied, he never ran across the notion that God can both ordain evil and yet still hold men morally responsible for their choices.

David Cloud may have a philosophical reason for hating that idea (as do some of the Mafia’s regular commentors) but this verse gives no ammunition for that hatred. Every Calvinist can heartily amen everything in the text.

Note, too, that Paul says the Jews forbade the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles “that they might be saved.” Thus we see that the Gentiles to whom the gospel would otherwise have been preached could have been saved through that preaching.

Again, Mr. Cloud proceeds on a false notion. If the Gentiles might be saved through preaching, or “could have been saved,” that is a much different thing than saying that any particular one of them would have been saved. Could have and would have are different concepts. Calvinists fully affirm that God could save the whole world through the preaching of the Gospel, the world without exception. But will He? Obviously not, since many have since perished without the knowledge of God. But He could, if that’s what He wanted to do.

So the fact that many Gentiles might have been saved, or could have been saved, by the preaching of the gospel to them, is no ammunition against Calvinism. It is certainly no obstruction of near-camel-size that a Calvinist must swallow in order to maintain his doctrine. We fully affirm that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and that the shed blood of Jesus Christ has enough virtue to save the entire world. The issue isn’t can it? But rather will it? And if it does not, and only some are saved, what is it that makes the final difference in their destinies? Every synergistic answer to that question necessarily throws the glory for man’s salvation back on the man.

THOSE WHO ARE SANCTIFIED BY THE BLOOD CAN COUNT IT AN UNHOLY THING AND DESPISE THE SPIRIT OF GOD -- “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:29).

Either this verse means that a saved person can lose his salvation, or it means that a person can come close to being saved without actually being regenerated and can then turn away finally from salvation by rejecting the efficacy of the blood and the gospel of grace. We believe that it teaches the latter.

In our church planting ministry we have seen many Hindus and Buddhists attend church services and purchase Bibles and look eagerly into the things of Christ and even desire to be baptized and publicly testify that they believed the gospel only to finally turn away and to return to human religion and idolatry and to renounce the blood of Christ and salvation by grace. These were not sanctified in the sense of salvation but they were sanctified in the sense of having been enlightened and convicted by the Spirit and in the sense of having professed to believe in the covenant or gospel of grace.

There is nothing in any of these three paragraphs that represents a Biblical argument against Calvinism. Many Calvinists could’ve probably written them. So, where’s the beef?

This verse contradicts the Calvinist doctrines of Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace.

This baffles me. No explanation given: It’s sort of, “I said it, so you ought to believe it.”

Limited, or Particular Atonement means that although the virtue of Christ’s atoning sacrifice was infinite, yet He did not actually atone for every individual man (or else all would be saved!) but He died specifically for the elect of God. His sacrifice was sufficient to save every man, but will only actually save those whom God has predestined to glory.

And, as we’ve seen before, Irresistible Grace means that the elect are not able to thwart God’s saving purpose in the process of salvation, beginning with regeneration, and culminating in glory. Jesus will lose none that the Father gives to Him, but will surely save them. Though the elect may struggle and resist in their carnal flesh for a season, their hearts and minds eventually warm to the things of God and they most willingly come to Christ for salvation. Their temporal resistance will not be enough to cause their loss.

Okay, now that we’ve got those definitions, I still don’t see how David Cloud thinks the verse in question argues against either doctrine. If one falls away from the status of his former confession, and ends up despising the blood of Christ, all that means is that he was never regenerate in the first place. If he persists in that state to death, then we can be assured that he was not one of the elect, for if he had been, he would most surely have repented and found new life in Christ.

At the verse [sic] least this verses [sic] teaches that the blood of Christ was available to them for salvation but that they rejected it.

No Calvinist would argue anything different (although most would care enough to half-way fix the grammar.) The Gospel offer is free and sincere, given in good faith to all who hear it. But it is often rejected. Calvinism isn’t at odds with that. Cloud may be unknowingly addressing Hyper-Calvinism as opposed to Calvinism on that count, for Hypers do not believe that the Gospel is truly or properly offered to all men.

DAVID CLOUD ARGUES THE OBVIOUS

This is the latest in my series of posts responding to Pastor David Cloud’s attack on Reformed theology, “Calvin’s Camels.” His words are in blue below.


THE JEWS RESISTED THE HOLY SPIRIT -- “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51).

Stephen charged his Jewish persecutors with resisting the Holy Spirit. Here again we see that the Holy Spirit strives with men and that they can willfully resist Him.

As I’ve pointed out previously, Cloud thinks that any instance in which men resist God is proof that man’s will can thwart God’s purposes in the earth. He keeps harping on this in an effort to show that God is not sovereign (at least not in the Calvinistic definition of “sovereignty”.) But we’d stress that the Bible shows men doing evil things that God has ordained must be done. Therefore, their rebellion is no threat to our take on sovereignty. God has ordained their sin, so their sin is no threat to God’s rule.

The Calvinist answer [sic] this by claiming that the “bondage of the will” works only one way, meaning that the unsaved can reject the truth but they cannot, on the other hand, receive the truth.

Yes, but we didn’t make that up. We get that from places like 1 Corinthians 2:12-15. It says we have “received the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand” and that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit. In the context of the passage, from the beginning of the book, it is the Gospel of Jesus that is being discussed, and nothing else. We are given the Spirit to understand it, and if left to ourselves, we cannot receive it. Calvin didn’t write that passage of Scripture.

We would also stress that man’s inability to receive the truth is not something that is forced upon him. His inability is not due to the fact that he’s not “allowed” or even that he doesn’t have the mental capacity to make a choice. He doesn’t choose righteousness because he hates it. Men love darkness rather than light, for their deeds are evil. Fallen man is free to repent and do right, but he simply will not. He isn’t “bound” by anything other than his own affections. It is not as if God has to force him to choose the wrong option.

According to this doctrine, only the elect are given the ability to believe the gospel while the non-elect are left in their Totally Depraved condition with their will in bondage and unable to believe. The Bible nowhere teaches this.

This is a very bold statement. And, we note, it is an assertion totally lacking an argument. You see, I thought that’s what this whole article was about: showing where Calvinism disagrees plainly with the Bible. Simply stating what you need to prove is not the same as actually proving it. I find it amazing that in all of the studying of Calvinism that David Cloud has done, he’s found not one instance in which a Calvinist has offered Biblical proof of this doctrine. In all the volumes he poured through in an effort to get this right, not one scholar pointed to places like Romans 9:15-18, or to the conversion story of Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened so that she could receive what Paul preached?

Instead, from the beginning to the end of the Bible, from Cain to those who follow the antichrist, men are called by God and are expected to respond and obviously are able to respond and are condemned when they do not.

I am at a loss to think which particular Scriptures show that the fallen people of the world “obviously are able to respond.” Which text or texts make that obvious? I see many places where the command to repent is given. I see no places where the Bible makes it obvious that every person who hears the call is able to do what is commanded. Surely, these places ought to be legion in the Scripture for Cloud to argue that it’s obvious, right? Or, is it possible that this is a philosophical presupposition he has brought to the text, one in which responsibility can only be co-extensive with ability (which, by the way, was the founding principle of the Pelagian heresy?)

Where does the Bible teach that everyone who is commanded a thing is fully capable of doing what is commanded? Many have pointed out that Scripture commanded the Jews to keep all the commandments of God, knowing full well that the sinfulness of their flesh made this an impossibility. Scripture also commands us to be perfect. So, logically, and obviously, the Bible teaches perfectionism, since we have got to be able to do what it tells us to all on our own.

That some do and some do not respond to the light that God gives is not because only some are pre-ordained to respond.

Okay. I’m glad to see David Cloud come this far in being honest about his beliefs, but he stops here, just on the verge of dropping off the cliff. He’s bold enough to say that the difference between belief and unbelief does not lie with God’s election. So, where does that difference lie? When one believes and one does not, what is the explanation for the difference? Who gets the credit? He’s already said it isn’t God, so…am I over-reaching here to suggest that the only other option is the believer himself? “Thank you, Lord, that I am not like other men. I fast twice a week. I give alms of all I have to the poor. I was spiritually sensitive enough to respond to the Gospel where others failed.”

David Cloud's Disappointed God

This is Part 3 of my evaluation of David Cloud's article against Calvinism. Again, his words are in blue below.

JESUS WOULD BUT ISRAEL WOULD NOT -- “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Mat. 23:37).

Here we see that it was the will and desire of the Son of God to save Israel throughout her history and He sent His prophets to her, but He was refused. Christ would; Israel would not. Knowing that Christ is God, this teaches us that God’s will can be thwarted by man’s will?

I’m guessing that Cloud didn’t mean to end that paragraph with a question mark, but from my perspective, I think it’s more appropriate than the other, possible punctuations. Question mark, as in, “Huh?”

But before showing why Cloud is wrong about this, take careful note of what he is positively asserting. “God’s will can be thwarted by man’s will.” That is what he believes. Let’s make no bones about it and be sure that’s out in the open. What God wants to do can be blocked and thwarted by man’s will. Not only can it happen, but it happens literally all the time as unsaved people die, having rejected the Gospel offer of salvation in Christ. God’s will is thwarted continuously in Cloud’s world. But brother Cloud began this article protesting that it was unfair to charge him with not believing in the sovereignty of God. I would dearly like to hear his definition of sovereignty, then, because it apparently does not have anything to do with being in charge.

As to the text itself, Cloud’s interpretation suffers from his reading his preconceived image of God into it, rather than simply reading what it says. You see, for Cloud, God has to actively desire the salvation of every individual on the planet. That’s a given, before he even comes to the text. So, it is no surprise that he finds in this verse a statement of the heart of Jesus toward the unsaved Jews. He finds Jesus shedding tears over their obstinacy. He finds Jesus sorely disappointed by how things have turned out.

But if we’ll just read the text, here is a startling thing: it really doesn’t say a thing about how Jesus felt at the time. Cloud has to “feel” the Lord’s disappointment for Him, because it is not present in the text itself. What Jesus says is that He would’ve gathered the Jews as a hen gathers her chicks, if they had responded to His overtures through the prophets and those sent to her.
All this has to mean is that when the Spirit of Christ spoke by the prophets, the promise of Israel’s restoration upon their repentance was a genuine promise that He was fully ready to keep. When the prophets said things like, “If you will do A, then I will do B, says the Lord,” then the Lord really meant that. If the people had kept their end, He would’ve done what He promised.

Sometimes that’s called the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel. When Calvinists (as distinguished from Hyper-Calvinists) speak of the Well-Meant Offer, we mean that it is right and good to preach the Gospel to people even though they may not be the elect of God. The things said in the Gospel offer are still true. Repent, believe, and you will have eternal life in Christ. If you do A, then God will give you B. We believe that’s really true.

Where we differ from Cloud and other synergists, is our belief that the natural man, who is dead in sins and trespasses, lacks the ability on his own, apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit, to do what the Well-Meant Offer requires. God will do what He’s promised, but the fallen man can’t keep his end of the bargain without miraculous help.

So, in the text in question, all Jesus is saying is that He made real, genuine offers of restoration to the nation of Israel, conditioned on their repentance. And they chose not to repent.

What is absent from the text is any hint that Jesus is all broken up about it. Cloud’s theology must manufacture God’s dismay, because the Spirit opted not to put it into the text. All the verse is saying is, I would’ve kept my end of the covenant bargain, but you did not keep yours.

Cloud’s next spoof-text against Calvinism is of the same sort, where Paul writes to the Roman church, “But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people” (Rom. 10:21).

If we’ll confine ourselves to the actual words of the text, and not bring along all our emotional baggage with it, we’d see immediately that there is no hint of God being thwarted or disappointed here, either. He is merely saying that He has put up with Israel for a very long time (“all day long”) and has made sincere offers (“I have stretched forth my hands,”) which were rejected.

There is nothing that argues against Calvinism in that. Monergists agree that the Well-Meant Offer is often rejected. That’s not the issue.

The issue is this: when the Well-Meant Gospel offer is accepted by some, and rejected by others, what is the ultimate reason for the differing response? We further assert that this is very close to exactly the question Jesus was answering in John 6:44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” The differing reactions of men to the gospel are to be attributed to the active will of the Father.

David Cloud on Limiting the Holy One

I'm continuing with my evaluation of pastor David Cloud’s article against Calvinism, called Calvin’s Camels, in which his premise is that Calvinism strains out gnats and swallows camels. (The first installment of this evaluation is found here.) Now, we find out that the camels of which he speaks are a series of isolated “proof texts,” which Cloud is convinced argue strongly against ideas like God’s ultimate sovereignty in salvation. I look at the first of these below. Pastor Cloud’s words are all in blue.

GOD CAN BE LIMITED -- “Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel” (Psalm 78:41). [sic]

According to Calvinism, if man can resist God or thwart His purposes then God is no longer a Sovereign God and man must be Sovereign. Thus they claim that it is impossible that man could accept or reject God’s salvation. But the fact is that the Bible says man does resist and reject God on every hand, and this has been going on since the earliest days of his history. Adam rejected God’s Word. Cain rejected it. Noah’s generation rejected it. The men gathered at the Tower of Babel rejected it. And it will not do to allow that man can resist God in some things but not in the matter [sic] salvation. If man can resist and reject and limit God in any way and God can still be God, then God can still be God if He offers salvation to all and some receive it and some reject it, as the Bible so plainly says. “And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17).

I confess that I hardly know where to start with this. Is it possible for a paragraph to contain more misconceptions than actual words?

I guess prudence dictates starting at the beginning.

1. Cloud yanks a verse out of its context, (Psalms 78:41) and uses it to prove that man has the ability to “limit” God. It is apparent from what he says about it, he believes the “limiting” mentioned is one in which actual boundaries or limitations are placed on God’s ability/authority/power to do what He pleases.

However, if we go back and read the verse in its context (imagine that) we would see without much trouble that this is not what is meant. Rather, what it is saying is that the unbelieving nation, by forgetting God’s power (v.42), failed to believe that He could accomplish what He promised to do for them. In fact, this is the thrust of the entire Psalm. They forgot His power, and failed to believe His promises.

Thus, they limited God in v.41, but this was not a thwarting of His sovereignty. Rather, they merely ascribed to Him some grossly limited sovereignty. They didn’t actually limit God’s power: they only believed it was limited.

Ironically, that is the same error David Cloud winds up advocating. Israel tempted and provoked God by believing He was limited in what He could do. And Cloud’s interpretation winds up saying a big, hearty “Amen” to that. He freely, and apparently without any shame, teaches that God’s power can be and often is thwarted by man’s will. Cloud’s version of God really is limited.

2. Commenting on his spoof text, Cloud explains: “According to Calvinism, if man can resist God or thwart His purposes then…man must be Sovereign.”

There is a sense in which this statement is true. That is what Calvinists think. However, it is apparent in Cloud’s article that he would define that “resist” a bit more broadly than we would.

Calvinists do not believe, for instance, that if the kingdom of God on earth experiences opposition, and even apparent defeat, that this is proof of a lack of total sovereignty. Cloud believes that any instance in which humanity opposes God’s work, is proof that God can be resisted, and therefore God’s grace cannot be Irresistible Grace.

Rather, we believe that when God sets out in time and history to regenerate one of His elect, then the human in question has no power to thwart this intention. Irresistible Grace (the I in Calvinism’s TULIP) is not about whether or not sinful man will rebel and offer opposition to the kingdom of God in the earth. Irresistible Grace is speaking specifically of saving grace, and the fact that God gets every one He goes after. He loses none. He wins out over man's opposition. It is impossible that one who has been eternally elected to salvation in Christ would be able to resist this and wind up in hell. This is so basic to Calvinism, I really have to wonder how someone who has studied this could mess it up.

3. And speaking of things that someone who has diligently studied this issue ought not be caught saying, Cloud goes on: “Thus they claim that it is impossible that man could accept or reject God’s salvation.” (Emphasis mine.)

I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and approach this as if what he meant to say was that it is impossible for fallen man to accept God’s salvation without first being regenerated. (That would be the Calvinistic view.) And, it is impossible that the elect man could ultimately reject God’s salvation and end up damned. That would also be Calvinism.

But the way he wrote it leaves open the interpretation that he thinks Calvinists believe that no reaction at all to the gospel is possible. That’s not Calvinism.

4. Cloud says, “But the fact is that the Bible says man does resist and reject God on every hand, and this has been going on since the earliest days of his history. Adam rejected God’s Word. Cain rejected it. Noah’s generation rejected it. The men gathered at the Tower of Babel rejected it.”

This quote is perfectly true in all it asserts. But Cloud thinks it does much more than it really does.

See, David Cloud thinks this proves that the doctrines of Irresistible Grace and God’s Ultimate Sovereignty are wrong.

Quite to the contrary, what it does prove is that the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity is correct. It doesn’t speak to Irresistible Grace at all, as explained above. Irresistible Grace is not damaged; nay, it’s not even touched, by the fact that sinners reject the offer of salvation. For Irresistible Grace to be harmed, you’d have to prove, for instance, that those who perished in Noah’s flood were the elect of God, but then wound up condemned for their unbelief. That would destroy Irresistible Grace. Or, you’d have to show that Adam was predestined for heaven, and yet is in hell.

That the reprobate reject God’s offer of mercy, or that the elect sometimes rebel and sin, are facts that are not playing on the same ball-field as the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. Irresistible Grace means that all the elect wind up saved, without exception, in spite of their temporal rebellion. They eventually come to faith. So pointing out their temporary resistance in no way disproves our doctrine. Calvinism fully acknowledges that fallen man will reject God at every opportunity, so how can spotlighting that rejection be damaging to Calvinism?

5. More, “And it will not do to allow that man can resist God in some things but not in the matter [sic] salvation.”

Depends on your definition of "resist." We believe men resist God all the time, including in the matter of salvation (the preaching and receiving of the Gospel.) What we deny is that any of this resistance actually hinders God’s plan. In fact, we’d assert that God preordained every detail of this resistance. If God ordained the rebellion of sinners, and then they go on to sin just as He ordained, I’m not seeing how this is any proof that God can be thwarted.

Cloud thinks man “resists” God in the sense of actually, genuinely, foiling or disrupting His purposes. But he cannot prove this, and to try to prove it, he must carefully avoid any passage at all that shows God ordaining evil for His own purposes. The presence of evil does not disrupt God's plan. It is rather part of God's plan.

That's not a Calvinistic concept only: there are synergists who recognize that as Bible teaching. To deny that concept is to launch out into Open Theism, in which the good god is always doing his best to eliminate the bad god, but can't seem to get it done.

6. Finally, David Cloud quotes Revelation 22:17, apparently as proof of his assertion that some of the elect may reject God’s salvation and end up condemned. But this baffles me utterly: there is nothing in this verse that even comes close to touching on that matter. The only reason I can think that he has quoted it here is that it contains the Arminian Holy Grail, the wording of “whosoever will,” which many synergists believe is some magic bullet against the monster of Calvinism. Again, it leaves me wondering how much study was really done to understand Calvinism, if Cloud has yet to be disabused of that sort of thing.