I recently heard a sermon by an SBC pastor. He was speaking on TULIP. One of his points was against irresistible grace. He basically calls the doctrine irresistible predestination. Then, goes on to say the following.
Forced love is rape. And God is not a divine rapist. God offers His love. He desires that we come to Him. But He doesn’t force us to come to Him.
Aside from this not being what Calvinism teaches there are several things wrong with these statements. Briefly, I have three points of disagreement. The charge 1. in general, 2. within this man’s own view and 3. the nature of the charge.
Rape?
When has anyone ever considered rape to be a form of love? Especially, when it comes from God. How can grace be rape? Considering that when God changes a persons heart it is always the greatest most beneficial thing God can do for that person. This is not even close to rape. When does anyone ever actually want to come to God outside of His grace? This view would make one a heretic in the pelagian sense.
Regardless of your theological position the Christian must hold that God’s grace not only effects, but changes our stone hearts. I’ve mentioned before prevenient grace is irresistible. Either way, the person whom God regenerates must still exercise faith. God is not forcing the person to exercise their faith.
What shall we call Paul before conversion being made blind so he could see? Was that an evil thing that God did? No. It was the most gracious thing God could do for Paul by giving him eyes to see.
His View?
This pastor’s view is that God offers His love and desires we come to Him. Good. This doesn’t really explain anything. In other words, God is loving those who haven’t come to Him. This means in a sense that God is forcing His love on those people. He is giving them life. He is letting them live through all of their sins even though they are enemies of God. What does it say about God the He lets those sinners who will never come to Him continue to live a full life storing up wrath upon themselves? Is this love? Even in this pastor’s view there is no way around God’s sovereignty.
A Christian Approach?
Is rape the best way for another’s doctrine to be described from the pulpit? I could understand if this man thought Calvinists were teaching a damnable heresy. He did say that. He admitted there are Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention. He even called himself a “2 point Calvinist”. Ironic.
OK. I’ll ask. Is this approach of calling this doctrine rape the proper biblical and Christian approach? No. It’s neither biblical nor fair. Especially, given his stance that there are fellow Southern Baptists whom he calls brothers holding this view. And people wonder why Calvinists sometimes feel the way they do in the SBC.
God freeing a person from slavery to sin is not rape in any capacity whatsoever. In fact, it’s just the opposite. God is reconciling and restoring that person who has been raped by sin. Restoring them to wholeness.
For what it’s worth…
Mark
tagged as irresistible grace in Arminianism,calvinism,Gospel,Southern Baptist,theology
About the author
Mark is a Christian, husband and father. He is a businessman attending seminary in the off hours working on his M.Div. preparing for vocational ministry.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Now, Mark Driscoll had a good point on this argument. He likened irresistible grace to a time his daughter was running towards the road about to get hit by a truck. He snatched her out of the way. He did not respect her will. That’s a better analogy.
But I’m not sure if I’m allowed to talk about Mark because he thinks Song of Solomon is about sex, and he preached about it. Plus, I heard that he said bad words at one time…
Thanks for addressing this, Mark. Well written.
So sad to have this foolishness coming from SBC pulpits.
Tyler, that is a good analogy. Thanks for bringing it up. There are several other good ones too. When we realize that it is actually God doing the saving we move away from foolish talk about God raping folks.
Please don’t mention Mark Driscoll on this blog. People might find out that I appreciate him in many ways.
Mark
Darrin, thanks. I tried to limit the content. There is so much more that could be said. There are actually several things in this sermon that could be addressed. He assumed so much without actually establishing his points.
I do have at least one more post I want to make from this sermon. It’s concerning foreknowledge and predestination.
Mark
Mark,
I like the new format.
Your challenges were spot on. Many SBC pastors are beginning to make arguments against Calvinism in much the same way that the KJV onlyists are making arguments against the NKJV and other translations. I wonder if they see this?
Could you email me a link to the sermon?
thanks.
Tony,
Thanks!
And check your email.
Thanks for the link Mark.
Two things continually amaze me about these “Anti-Calvinism” speeches that we see from time to time.
1. There is a pastor who doesn’t do research to determine what his adversaries actually believe before preaching against them (of course, this allows the use of the “straw man” argument without him being called out as being dishonest; he can always claim “I didn’t really know”)
2. There are congregants who sit and listen to these “sermons” and believe them without ever investigating the matter for themselves.
I find it hard to understand how a Christian could stand before God and say that there was something in themselves that caused God to elect them. This is the logical end game of denying the doctrine of unconditional election isn’t it?
abclay, that is the logical conclusion of the conditional election argument, yes.
I find the equating any doctrine to rape absolutely shameful. My perception may be off, but I think it can only come from a bitter and divisive spirit whose intent (knowingly or not) is to spread disunity among the body.
It’s also an important reminder to me to not do likewise in embracing irresistible grace and unconditional election.
Aaron’s last blog post..Week Four: A Step in Faith
At the most basic level and definition the term “election” is robbed of meaning.
Funny, in trying to show him he falls within the Arminian camp I quoted Roger Olson. He didn’t post my reply. Here it is.
Mark
Aaron,
Amen!
Mark
Even John Wesley wantedGod to force people to become Christians. Mr. Spurgeon said Mr. Wesley used more extreme language than he would. I know of a friend who God as he said literally knocked him out of his chari from a dinner tabee and he lit on his knees, praying, begging God on mercy on his soul. Another prson said, “O, it was so wonderful that I could not resist it.” That statement to the man who won her to Christ eventually led him to accept irresistible grace. His name is Spurgeon, and according to a family researcher he migh be kin to CHS.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.