Irresistible Grace: Coercion or True Love?

Introduction: The Calvinist Claim

Calvinism’s Irresistible Grace asserts that God unilaterally and monergistically regenerates the elect, enabling faith without their cooperation. James White defends this doctrine in The Potter’s Freedom, comparing regeneration to Lazarus’ resurrection:

“Just as Lazarus could not resist Christ’s call to life, so too the spiritually dead cannot resist God’s regenerating grace” (p. 299).

Critics argue this reduces salvation to coercion. This article challenges this view by affirming God’s initiating grace while upholding human responsibility through Scripture, theology, and practical implications.

Calvinist Proof Texts Revisited

1. John 6:44 (“No one can come unless drawn”)
   • Calvinist Interpretation: “Drawing” (Greek helkō) is effectual, forcing the elect to believe.
   • Counterargument:
     • John 12:32 (“I will draw all people”) universalizes Christ’s invitation. Helkō also appears in Acts 16:19 (Paul/Silas “dragged” by force), showing context determines meaning. God’s general call is resistible (Acts 7:51).
2. Ephesians 2:1-5 (“Dead in sins”)
   • Calvinist Claim: Spiritual death = total inability to respond.
   • Counterargument:
     • “Dead” metaphorically denotes alienation (Luke 15:24), not incapacity for relational response.
     • Ezekiel 37:1-14: The Spirit resurrects dry bones, yet Ezekiel cooperates by prophesying (v. 7). Synergy, not coercion, marks God’s work.

Biblical Counterarguments for Synergistic Grace

1. Revelation 3:20 (“I stand at the door and knock”)
   • Christ’s invitation implies freedom to open or refuse. White dismisses this as “general call” (p. 283), but the context (Laodicean church) addresses believers, urging repentance.
2. Matthew 23:37 (“You were unwilling”)
   • Jesus laments Jerusalem’s resistance. Calvinists argue this reflects human inability, but Christ’s grief presupposes moral responsibility.
3. Acts 7:51 (“You resist the Holy Spirit”)
   • Stephen’s rebuke shows grace can be resisted, contradicting monergism. White calls this “pre-conversion resistance” (p. 299), but Scripture assigns guilt for rejection (John 5:40).
4. 2 Peter 3:9 (“God desires all to repent”)
   • Universal desire for repentance assumes enabling grace (Titus 2:11). White redefines “all” as “elect” (p. 193), but Peter addresses unrepentant mockers (v. 3), affirming God’s patience for universal response.

Theological Critiques

1. Coercion vs. Loving Persuasion
   • If grace is irresistible, divine love becomes manipulative. Contrast with Hosea 11:4: “I led them with cords of kindness,” appealing to the will.
2. Prevenient Grace: Enabling Without Overriding
   • Arminians affirm God enlightens all (John 1:9), removing sin’s barrier to allow voluntary response. Regeneration follows faith (John 1:12-13), not precedes it.
3. Moral Accountability
   • If God unilaterally regenerates, how are the non-elect culpable? Romans 2:14-15 asserts even pagans have a moral conscience, implying responsibility without excuse.

Practical Implications

1. Evangelism and Urgency
   • Irresistible grace negates the need for persuasive preaching. Yet Paul reasoned (Acts 17:2-3), appealing to the will (2 Cor. 5:20).
2. Assurance of Salvation
   • Calvinist doubt (“Am I elect?”) contrasts with 1 Timothy 2:4-6’s universal offer. Assurance rests in Christ’s sufficient atonement (1 John 2:2).
3. God’s Character
   • Coercion distorts God’s love (1 John 4:8). True love invites (Rev. 22:17) without violating personhood.

Addressing Calvinist Rebuttals

1. “Regeneration Precedes Faith”
   • Calvinists cite John 7:37-39 (Spirit given post-resurrection). Yet John 7:17 (“choose to do God’s will”) links understanding to volition, not monergism.
2. “Ezekiel 36:26: God Unilaterally Gives New Hearts”
   • Context pairs this with Ezekiel 18:31 (“Make yourselves a new heart”). Divine action enables, not bypasses, human response.
3. “Faith is a Gift (Ephesians 2:8)”
   • Grace is the gift; faith is the enabled response (John 1:12). Dōron (“gift”) refers to salvation, not faith.

Conclusion: A Synergistic Gospel

God’s grace initiates, but love invites. James 4:8 (“Draw near to God”) balances sovereignty and responsibility. White’s “resurrection analogy” overlooks Christ’s call to “come forth” (John 11:43)—a summons requiring response. True grace empowers without coercion, reflecting a God who “desires all to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4) yet honors human dignity.