Lemke also assesses the teachings of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, noting the absence of the theory of irresistible grace taught within its pages (129-131), and concludes with seven theological concerns about the implication of irresistible grace, including, most notably, the shocking potential that irresistible grace can lead to the denial of the necessity for conversion, which is proven by anti-scriptural and heretical statements quoted from Calvinist David Engelsma (who studied at the Protestant Reformed Seminary in Grand Rapids, MI, for three years under Calvinist Herman Hoeksema), and the supralapsarian heretic R. C. Sproul, Jr. (my words, not those of Lemke).

Lemke notes that Arminius’s followers, the Remonstrants (because they held to a high view of Scripture), maintained the biblical teaching that the grace of God is

the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places. (110)

Classical Arminians appeal to Scripture when addressing the grace of God in salvation and are not stymied by a philosophical presupposition, such as unconditional election or limited atonement, which necessitates a theory of irresistible grace. Lemke quotes from Dortian Calvinists who denied the following:

God in regenerating man does not bring to bear that power of his omnipotence whereby he may powerfully and unfailingly bend man’s will to faith and conversion, but that even when God has accomplished all the works of grace which he uses for man’s conversion, man nevertheless can . . . resist God and the Spirit in their intent and will to regenerate him (111).

Calvinists often balk at the biblical teaching of resistible grace because, at least for them, it makes God’s effectual work less effectual. But they are operating under a presupposition, one which is absent in Classical Arminian theology: God effectually draws His unconditionally elect unto His Son Jesus Christ in His sovereign time by the operation of regeneration through the Holy Spirit. This entire construction, as noted above, necessitates a theory of irresistible grace.

Arminians and other non-Calvinists (and not a few moderate Calvinists) reject the speculation of irresistible grace (that regeneration precedes faith) and often charge Calvinists as teaching that God imposes (others suggest forces) regeneration and conversion and faith and salvation upon unsuspecting sinners. Many Calvinists tend to soften the term “irresistible grace” by replacing it with a term like “effectual calling” (112). They do not want people to misunderstand their doctrine. Someone such as John Piper admits the following in an article on his site: “the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible” (112). Yet, Piper (and his staff at Desiring God) also affirms: “irresistible grace never implies that God forces us to believe against our will” (112). Lemke comments: “No attempt is made in the article to reconcile these apparently contradictory assertions” (112).

R. C. Sproul, Sr. is convinced that the word “draw” at John 6:44 is “‘a much more forceful concept than to woo,’ and means ‘to compel by irresistible superiority”‘ (113). Thus, God does not force sinners to convert, He compels them irresistibly to convert. Lemke asks: “So which way is it? If God compels persons with ‘irresistible superiority,’ in what way is it inaccurate to say that God is forcing people to choose Christ?” (113) He concludes:

The problem is that Calvinists cannot have their cake and eat it, too. They cannot insist that an omnipotent God overwhelms and bends human will powerfully and unfailingly, and then transform this doctrine into something other than it is by softening it with more palatable language such as “effectual calling” and “compatibilism” [compatibilist volition]. The effectual calling means precisely the same thing as irresistible grace. Effectual calling just sounds nicer. At the end of the day, people have no choice but to do what God has programmed them to do. (114)

This truth corresponds well, however, with the Calvinists’ distorted view of God’s “absolute sovereignty.” Lemke comments: “When pressed by their own words, Calvinists sometimes seem to play word games or equivocate their words in order to make their beliefs more palatable” (116), which is of course dishonest.

Ultimately, however, the problem with the conception of irresistible grace is its utter lack of scriptural warrant. Lemke underscores many biblical passages which explicitly exemplifies resistible grace and the genuine offer of salvation to all people, not solely to the unconditionally elect (partially quoted here): Ps. 78:10; 81:11-13; Prov. 1:23-26; Jer. 32:33; Joel 2:32; Hosea 11:1-9; Matt. 7:24; 10:32-33; 11:28; 13:1-23; 18:14; 21:28-32; 23:37; Mk. 4:1-20; Luke 6:47; 7:30; 8:1-15; 12:8; 13:34; 18:18-23; John 1:7; 3:15-16; 4:13-14; 6:40; 11:26; 12:46; Acts 2:21; 7:51-60; 10:43; 26:14; Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2, 23; 5:1.

The last 21 pages of Lemke’s chapter addresses what he notes as seven theological concerns about irresistible grace:

1. Irresistible Grace Can Lead to the Denial of the Necessity for Conversion:

Calvinist David Engelsma, when asked when he was converted, shockingly responds: “When was I not converted?” (132) Is he promoting the hyper-Calvinist heresy of eternal justification? He states: “As a Reformed minister and parent, I have no interest whatever in conversion as the basis for viewing baptized children as God’s dear children, loved of him from eternity, redeemed by Jesus, and promised the Holy Spirit, the author of faith. None!” (132) This, of course, completely contradicts Jesus’ teaching at John 1:12. Noting that Engelsma’s position is perhaps “embarrassing and unpopular among some contemporary Calvinists,” Lemke notes that it “is consistent with the teachings of John Calvin himself, as well as affirmations in the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Confession” (132).

Supralapsarian heretic R. C. Sproul, Jr., affirming the heresy that the sprinkling of infants removes the guilt of original sin, making their covenant secure as one of God’s unconditionally elect and eliminating one’s need for repentance and conversion, berated Billy Graham for his insistence that the children who died in the Oklahoma City bombing were with Jesus in heaven. Lemke writes:

Sproul Jr. insisted that since we are born guilty of original sin, and infants have no opportunity for justification by faith, they have no real hope of salvation. He accused Graham of advocating “a new gospel — justification by youth alone” [perhaps Sproul Jr. prefers justification by sprinkling alone]. Sproul’s article was infamous not only in quickly setting the record for the number of letters to the editor but also in setting the record for producing not a single letter affirming Sproul’s position. (133)

Lemke comments: “Hopefully, few Calvinistic Baptists are tempted to practice nonconversionist Calvinism in the manner of Engelsma,” especially since repentance and conversion, coupled with faith in Christ Jesus, are at the heart of the gospel (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 11:20; 21:32; Lk. 13:3, 5, 7; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:10). He continues:

When Baptists go out of their way to organize fellowship with such Presbyterians rather than fellow Baptists, or when they push to allow people christened as infants into the membership of their own church without believer’s baptism [such as John Piper, see endnote i], or when they speak of public invitations as sinful or as a rejection of the sovereignty of God, seeing much difference between them is difficult. (134)

Lemke’s other six concerns include: 2) Irresistible Grace Reverses the Biblical Order of Salvation (134-40); 3) Irresistible Grace Could Weaken the Significance of Preaching the Word of God, Evangelism, and Missions (140-45); 4) Irresistible Grace Creates Questions About the Character of God, Particularly Regarding the Problem of Evil (145-50); 5) Irresistible Grace Does Not Have an Adequate Account of Human Freedom (150-52); 6) Irresistible Grace Has an Inadequate View of Time and Eternity (152-53); and 7) Irresistible Grace Does Not Maximize God’s Sovereignty and Glory (153-62).

He rightly concludes: “I believe the cumulative case that has been raised against irresistible grace is compelling” (162). Lemke’s chapter is more than merely compelling; it is one of the most definitive articles on the subject of not only the resistibility of God’s grace but the manner in which God relates to mankind salvifically.

Steve W. Lemke, “A Biblical and Theological Critique of Irresistible Grace,” Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, eds. David L. Allen and Steve Lemke. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.

ENDNOTE

i. John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis (a Baptist General Conference church) sought to implement the following amendment in 2002: “Therefore, where the belief in the Biblical validity of infant baptism [emphasis added] does not involve baptismal regeneration or the guarantee of saving grace, this belief is not viewed by the elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church as a weighty or central enough departure from Biblical teaching to exclude a person from membership, if he meets all other relevant qualifications and is persuaded from Bible study and a clear conscience that his baptism is valid. In such a case we would not require baptism by immersion. . . .” Piper suggested this amendment due to the possibility of a Calvinist, in particular any Presbyterian, desiring to join his church. Piper’s admission that infant baptism is “biblically valid” should be enough to question his loyalty as a Baptist! Lemke notes: “After the issue was discussed for several years, an amended policy was approved eventually by the elders in August 2005 but later was withdrawn in the face of public outcry” (134).