How Can You Affirm Both Monergism and Resistible Grace?

In this video, I address the issue of monergism and resistible grace which are both affirmed within Lutheranism. We affirm a view that is neither Calvinist nor Arminian.

[killingtime]

This is one reason I respect Lutheranism, it sees these different truths from scripture that's hard to put together, but they are not afraid to admit that it's hard. I mean I just can't harmonize these things without losing something in the process, and either end up with arminiaism or calvinism, I'm surely not smart enough, but I know that God is. Sometimes I wonder if it's even possible for humans to comprehend this. Dr. Cooper, if you see this, would it be wrong, as a Lutheran, to simply say "I don't now? These truths are all revealed in scripture but I don't know how to harmonize them"

[crafterman]

Even though I'm a Calvinist, I can see how these two could work together

[josuepizarro]

I feel stuck between reformed and lutheran theology

[villarrealmarta]

This is really well addressed in Brian Wolfmeullers YouTube video “why are some saved and not others”

[PepeLeFunk]

Classical Arminianism doesn’t teach libertarian free will, though. Arminius himself certainly didn’t. He taught Total Inability, resistible enabling grace, in a way that I find functionally indistinguishable from what you’re saying in this video.

[BoondockBrony]

How Can You Affirm Both Monergism and Resistible Grace?
Easy, if you don't subscribe to Perseverance of the Saints. Which you are forced to even if you don't know it or claim to if you believe in irresistable grace.

[CarlosGomez-gjtg]

Please make a video about your thoughts on Molinism

[marekfoolforchrist]

I think I can rightly say this is the ambulatory model presented by Kenneth Keathley in his book Salvation and Sovereignty

[lc-mschristian]

Thank you. God's peace be with you

[catfinity]

But is our not rejecting the grace of God in some inexplicable way God's accomplishment of his election? Does he elect, but not in any way operate to infallibly accomplish his election?

[reformedcatholic]

For me I believe grace is resistable but then it's not, since my belief is God desires to save all people but then again He has chosen a few people for salvation so as John Oecolampadius stated " Salvation is of the Lord, perdition is of man". This is the Lutheran and Augustinian tradition influence.

Edit: I believe as Calvin stated God invites all to be saved as is grace given to all, but God's grace is irresistable.

[Joshtheigbo]

ROSES of molinism has overcoming grace and we also use that analogy.

[SibleySteve]

I love this video. It strikes a great balance to avoid speculative over-reach and human philosophy. I like to think that when St. Paul tells us to avoid quarrelsome debates, human philosophy and arguments over sabbaths, that should be a warning against Hyper Calvinism/Sabbatarianism. I wish all of these videos on predestination came with the humility I saw in this video, where he says we follow Scripture and we stop where Scripture stops. The foray into the rabbit hole of lapsarianism and decrees and logic chopping drives me nuts. Irresistible Grace is presented as higher order thinking, like you won't get it unless you have a high IQ, so of course you get all of these young reformed seminarians falling for the trap, Ahh, they think, God has hidden these things from the idiots and revealed them to me. But if Jordan Cooper is right about Augustine, then who are we mere mortals to disagree with the likes of Augustine? Honestly I don't even think I would be bothered by Mr. Calvin if we met on the street, it's the neo-Calvinists who remind me of the "I am of Paul" and "I am of Apollo" cliques.

[henrka]

I do not think Augustine ever taught that grace was resistible. In his book “on the predestination of the saints”, Augustine clearly taught that God teaches only his elect to come to Christ, and all those that God teaches how to come to Christ do co e to Christ. Augustine believed in the effectual call (irresistible grace) every bit as much as Calvin. As a matter of fact Augustine stated that the sole difference between grace and predestination was that predestination was the basis for grace. Prosper did teach teach that grace was resistible, Augustine did not.

[beowulf.reborn]

A simple illustration, I think, is to take two people (A and B) who are both diehard supporters of X and both absolutely hate Z, they have the same reasons and emotional propensity to hate Z and love X, same experiences, etc.

Now, along comes E who makes a persuasive and compelling argument for Z. Despite A being completely unwilling, and having absolutely no desire to believe Z, he is nevertheless persuaded by Z. Note, that A did nothing, they didn't ask to believe in Z, they didn't want to believe in Z, they almost certainly argued with E against Z, but in the end they were persuaded. This is monergism.

Now E makes the same compelling arguments to B, however, unlike A, who was persuaded, B hardens their heart. It's not that the arguments are not persuasive, but rather despite them being persuasive, B simply closes their eyes, blocks their ears, and hardens their heart. They do not resist the argument logically, or rationally, they simply refuse to listen.

[Edward-ngoo]

If the only people who are saved are those whom God has predestined to be saved, then it follows that it's not possible for those who aren't predestined to be saved to be saved. And since they can't be saved, and there's no intermediate destination between heaven and hell they're destined to be damned. Those who aren't selected by God to be saved inevitably are going to end up in hell. So the idea that man alone is responsible for his damnation is therefore untrue because those who aren't elected by God to be saved will inevitably be damned, - which means the responsibility for people's damnation, whilst resting with man for being sinful, is also God's responsibility, because He decided not to predestine them to be saved. He passed by them when He made his choice in eternity to save only certain individuals. Therefore it follows that God has predestined them to be damned.

There's no way of escaping the conclusion that God has predestined those He hasn't elected to save to be damned. Lutherans try to avoid this conclusion by arguing that the Holy Spirit is as efficacious in the Word and sacraments towards those who are predestined to be saved as He is towards those who aren't predestined to be saved, and that the Holy Spirit in conversion can be resisted. But this can't possibly be the case. If this was true then it would be impossible for God to predestine only a certain select number of people (i.e. the elect) to be saved. It must be the case that God irresistibly converts those whom He has elected to save, because if they could resist God they would be able to thwart His election of them to be saved.

When it's argued that the above reasoning is false because God is above human reason, this is fundamentally mistaken. This isn't just human reasoning it's also universal logic which applies to everything in existence including God. God is as subject to logic as we are. For instance that there are three Persons in one God is beyond human understanding but it isn't illogical, however the statement that there are three Gods in one God is illogical and therefore can't be true. So likewise God can't choose in eternity to save only certain individuals without it also being the case that He chooses and wills not to save the others. Consequently when Lutherans argue that God wills from eternity to save everyone and He doesn't pass over anyone so they will be damned, they're stating something which can't possibly be the case.

I accept, as did Luther, that God through His revealed will desires to save everyone through Christ, but this will, unlike His hidden will, only desires our salvation. It’s not the same as God's hidden will of Majesty (as Luther termed it) through which He determines and predestines who will be definitely saved. The Lutheran teaching that God implements His desire to save everyone by trying to convert everyone through the Word contradicts His election of only some people to be saved, and therefore can't be true. The Lutheran belief that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in the Word and sacraments (i.e. the Lutheran doctrine of the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace) is based on Scriptural misinterpretation, because logically it can't be true, and the Scriptures don’t teach logically contradictory doctrines. Lutheran authors have written books (e.g. Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions by William Arndt) in an effort to explain that apparent contradictions aren’t actual contradictions whilst ignoring the very real contradiction that they’re involved over predestination.

Luther in The Bondage of the Will made the distinction between God's revealed will which desires everyone's salvation, and His hidden eternal will which determines everything that happens. Luther affirmed that everything happens to people according to whether God by His hidden will has loved or not loved them from all eternity. If they have been loved, they will be saved, if not, they will be damned. In his explanation of Romans 9:13 (“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”) Luther wrote:

“God’s love toward men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred is eternal, being prior to the creation of the world, .... and everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity, ” (p.199, vol. 33, Luther’s Works).

The way I look at this is through an analogy. A judge for instance could desire to set a convicted criminal free because he sympathises with his plight, but the demands of justice mean that he must do otherwise and sentence him to prison. Likewise God desires to save everyone, but the demands of justice (a justice beyond human understanding) means He must predestine some to be damned.

Luther in TBOTW most definitely taught that God predestines people to be both saved and damned, and therefore when Melanchthon wrote the Augsburg Confession Luther didn’t understood this as endorsing the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace. This understanding only became official Lutheran doctrine several decades after Luther’s death when the Formula of Concord was drawn up by Martin Chemnitz. The reality is Chemnitz didn’t follow Luther’s teaching in TBOTW. He rejected Luther’s teaching that God predestines people to both saved and damned, and only endorsed predestination to salvation. Because of the illogicality involved in holding this position it required an enormous amount of explanation and misinterpretation of Scripture on Chemnitz's part in order to make it appear plausible. In particular he had recourse to Romans 11:33 (“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!”) as a means of justifying the illogicality and making it appear that single predestination could be true. However Paul can't have been meaning that God can do illogical things. He must have been meaning that we can’t understand the reasons for why He does what He does, and we can’t comprehend His mysterious ways. In the context of predestination, we don’t know why God doesn’t predestine everyone to be saved since He could if He willed to, and we don’t know why He predestines people to be damned.

Lutherans have convinced themselves that their doctrines of single predestination and universal grace are taught in Scripture when that isn’t the case. Lutherans read into Scripture what they want to see. It’s the same with Roman Catholics when it comes to the Papacy. They’re convinced that the Scriptures teach that Christ established the Papacy, whereas any knowledgeable Christian who hasn’t been indoctrinated with Roman Catholic teachings can see that they’re reading this into Scripture when it isn’t there. I don’t see it’s any different with Lutherans over grace and predestination.

For instance Romans 9:18 (So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills) is interpreted by Lutherans to mean that God wills to have mercy on everybody, and He only hardens in unbelief those who have resisted His mercy, whereas the text says nothing of the sort. The plain meaning is that God has mercy on only some people (i.e. the elect) and He hardens in unbelief those He wills to damn.

Similarly Acts 13:48 (....and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.) The plain meaning is that God has only willed to save those He has appointed to believe, not the Lutheran understanding that God wills to save everyone, and the reason why people don't believe is because they've resisted the Holy Spirit.

Similarly Matthew 13:11 (“To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.") doesn’t mean that God wanted to give them the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven and convert them but that they resisted Him. The plain meaning is that God didn't give them this knowledge because He willed not to do so.

It's clear that Lutherans read their theology into the Biblical text when the text doesn't support it.

[WaterMelon-Cat]

If grace is resistible than how do the elect persevere ?

[thrownness]

You say that Scripture doesn’t go as far to explain how this is possible, but isn’t that exactly where St Paul goes in regards to vessels of wrath?

PS - Please talk about Virtue ethics please. I find virtue/vice to be very helpful in how to live, but it seems like Lutheranism has often rejected all kinds of ethical frameworks, historically. Evagrius and such seemed to place high emphasis on living virtuously

[michaelkelleypoetry]

Amen. Irresistible grace is the only point in "tulip" that I have a problem with. I don't even have a problem with limited atonement because I see that as part of the Lord's foreknowledge regarding who wouldn't reject grace. Yet, if theoretically, the Lord's omniscient foreknowledge was "wrong" (again theoretical), the blood of Christ would still be sufficient to be applied to that person. I believe the Spirit regenerates every single person who hears the gospel, but, Genesis 6:3, he strives with people and there eventually comes a time when he stops striving with someone, leaving them dead in sins, and they never have the desire or capability to believe again.

[TheDroc]

This question is def one of the biggest when observing Lutheran theology from Reformed side. Thanks for the succinct video.