In 1966, many people in Marin County, California (where I grew up) developed an interest in spiritual experiences other than traditional Christianity. In accordance with that spiritual climate and influenced by a co-worker who liked experimenting with the various trends of that era, my mom donned a black leotard and enrolled in a local yoga class. (I have reason to suspect that other members of her church also took yoga.)
After a few sessions, Mom came to believe that, although I obviously couldn’t do the poses, the breathing exercises would be good for my lungs. Additionally, she hoped the meditation might reduce my muscle rigidity caused by my Cerebral Palsy. So she canceled our babysitter and took us to class with her.
Being the type of twelve-year-old who eagerly embraced anything new and different (remember, in 1966 very few people had even heard about yoga), I felt really special because my family took yoga. I remember trying to teach some of the breathing techniques to a friend at school. Far from being resistant, I loved yoga!
Yet I couldn’t seem to get the hang of meditating. I tried, but my active little mind simply refused to empty itself. And the breathing techniques demanded more effort than I wanted to make. After only a few weeks, the frustration at my inability to understand and achieve a meditative state led me to conclude that I couldn’t do yoga. I still thought it was wonderful; it just wasn’t for me.
I knew, even then, that yoga came from Hinduism. Back then, I believed all religions worshiped the same God, so I saw no contradiction between yoga and the liberal form of “Christianity” that my mom’s church modeled. But soon after the Lord convinced me that Jesus alone provides salvation, I realized the demonic origins of all eastern spirituality. Though I didn’t enjoy displeasing my mother, I had to renounce yoga, steadfast in my conviction that it represents darkness. Scripture commanded me to separate from it.
14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
17 Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
18 and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.” ~~2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (ESV)
So it troubles me that many evangelicals now incorporate yoga into their “devotions,” believing that their poses (which represent various Hindu deities) enable them to “worship” the Lord Jesus Christ on a deeper level. Those who practice so-called “Holy Yoga” in reality pollute themselves and, by extension, the Body of Christ. I stand so decidedly against yoga, particularly when professing Christians embrace it, because I love Christ enough to want His Church to worship Him in purity.
Let me repeat that my inability to practice breathing and meditation did not embitter me toward yoga. During the five years between my last yoga class and my conversion to Christ, I wholeheartedly supported Mom’s interest in yoga, and regretted my failure to grasp meditation.That failure, however, causes me to rejoice that God overruled my desire to practice even these two aspects of yoga. In His faithful providence, He protected me from yoga’s demonic influences so that I could worship Him biblically. May He likewise keep other Bible-believing Christians from this damning practice.
Generally, evangelism should present evidence of a person’s need for salvation, followed by an explanation that Jesus died as a substitute for that person, rising again as a guarantee of eternal life for those who would believe in Him. From there, evangelism should instruct the person to repent of their sin and put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. I have little doubt that I’ll write future blog posts elaborating on these points.
Neither John nor I came to faith as a result of such a presentation, however. Yet the Holy Spirit exposed us to Scripture, and worked through that Scripture to give us saving faith (please see Romans 10:17). I believe our rather unconventional conversions each testify to God’s Irresistible Grace.
An updated phrase for Irresistible Grace (and a phrase I used yesterday) is effectual call.” Both terms emphasize the idea that the people God elects for salvation will respond to Him. Obviously, I can’t type out all the verses and passages that substantiate this doctrine, but OpenBible.info provides this helpful compilation.
Our Armimian brothers and sisters, many of whom genuinely know and love the Lord, argue that Irresistible Grace violates the doctrine of free-will. I agree! The Bible, even in the verses that appear to teach free-will, consistently affirms the ultimate sovereignty of God. Therefore, He gives us a willingness to choose Him as a result of our regeneration.
In addressing the matter of the effectual call, it follows, we must maintain that the doctrine of free-will suggests that God is at the mercy of human choice. Arminians believe that God’s foreknowledge of who would respond to the Gospel determined who He included as His elect. I certainly used to embrace that theory. But eventually He confronted me with Ephesians 1:3-10.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (ESV)
Notice verse 4, which says that the Father chose us. It gives absolutely no indication that He looked helplessly down the “corridors of time” to see who would decide to follow Jesus. This passage depicts a God Who fully controls redemptive history (and all history, for that matter) according to His plans and purpose.
Making the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth dependent on whether or not or not we choose to be saved erodes His sovereignty. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of free-will pretty much transfers sovereignty to us. Isn’t that essentially blasphemous? I think so!
Additionally, the doctrine of free-will assumes that human beings possess an ability to choose to follow Christ. I’ll remind you, in considering this point, of Ephesians 2:1-3.
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (ESV)
These verses describe unregenerate people. In other words, this is who you and I were prior to becoming Christians (and who you are if you don’t yet have saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ). Our physical bodies functioned, but we had no capacity or desire to respond to the things of God. We lacked any ability to come to Him on our own volition (consider Romans 3:10-18). Consequently, we can only choose to follow Christ after the Holy Spirit does His regenerating work in us.
Of course, entire books devote themselves to refuting the doctrine of free-will, beginning with Martin Luther’s The Bondage of the Will (which I’m currently slogging through), so I hardly think that this minuscule article will settle the question. But I wanted you to see the Scriptures that have most helped me work through this objection to Irresistible Grace.
The Lord, in His mercy, blessed me with a husband who gently and patiently introduced me to the doctrines of grace, and finally brought me to the idea of Irresistible Grace. We’ll examine this doctrine in a little more depth tomorrow, but today I want to explain why this doctrine means so much to me. I’ll begin by giving you the back story.
But first, let me clearly state that I don’t know what may have transpired between my mother and the Lord just before she died two years ago. I begin today’s article with that admission, lest you suppose that I’m arrogantly judging whether or not she was saved. The evidence available to me indicates that she rejected Biblical Christianity up until the end, but 3000 miles separated us during the last nine years of her life. She didn’t even tell me she had been on Hospice for three months, or that her cancer had returned, until four days before her death, so she might not have told me about any conversion to Christ she may have undergone.
As a new Christian in 1971, I witnessed to Mom constantly. I continued being a typical teenager, rebelling against her authority, and I indulged my sins of anger and selfishness well into my 40s (I lived with her most of my life). So she saw, more clearly than most people, my failure to practice what I preached.
Whenever we’d talk about the Lord, she’d pretty much say that she didn’t believe in heaven or hell and that the Bible, though inspirational and of tremendous literary importance, wasn’t God’s Word. Once, she declared that all my talk of Christ’s shed blood was rather gruesome.
At the time, I could only see that my hypocrisy kept Mom from “accepting” the Lord. I believed that God held me responsible for her salvation. Despite those convictions, I couldn’t seem to behave in a more Christlike manner, and I grew less bold in proclaiming the Gospel to her as years passed. I worried that I’d feel guilty if she died without coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. If she went to hell, it would certainly be all my fault!
Yet my mom supported my Christianity, always making sure I did daily Bible reading, insisting that I give money to my church and letting us hold Tuesday night Bible Studies in her living room. Looking back, I believe she respected my faith. As imperfect as my witness was, obviously the Lord made sure that He showed Mom His presence in my life. Furthermore, in the five years before I moved to Massachusetts to marry John, He did help me model a lifestyle more consistent with a godly character. Still imperfect, mind you, but much better.
Have you noticed, in reading this blog entry, how often I’ve emphasized my actions? Yes, I did many things badly in my evangelistic efforts toward Mom, and I’ve confessed those sins with a repentant heart. But as God has exposed me to teachings on Irresistible Grace, He’s enabled me to understand that His effectual call would have brought her to salvation (and indeed may have done so) regardless of my sins and missteps. Although I had to confess those sins before Him, I also had to repent of believing that Mom’s salvation depended on anything I did.
In reality, He had exposed Mom to the Gospel long before she even met my dad, and He certainly made sure that she heard it several times from me and my friends. As I’ll show you tomorrow, when He calls a person to salvation, His Word gives that person the faith to respond to His call. Therefore, if He called Mom, even on her deathbed, nothing could have possibly prevented her from believing in Him. Conversely, if He didn’t call her, nothing I did could have given her saving faith.
God does command Christians to evangelize, both by declaring His Word and by living holy lives. But He makes it clear that only He does the actual saving. We can trust His sovereignty and wisdom, finding peace in knowing that He has prefect control.
A few weeks ago, Clint Archer wrote a piece for The Cripplegate entitled To Whom It May Concern: The Called, Loved, Kept, in which he examined Jude 1 in relation to the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. Boy, did that blog post get me excited! I’d already planned to write this Bible Study on Jude, and I knew I needed to do some essays on Irresistible Grace, so it thrilled me that Archer showed me the connection between the two!
Since I don’t want to simply reduplicate Archer’s article in my own words, however, I implore you to read it yourselves. As you do, please scroll down to the comments section to see his response to Benders, which offers important keys to understanding the distinction between the general call and the effectual call. I hope to write my own blog entry on that distinction later this week, Lord willing.
Piggybacking off of Archer’s blog post, let’s start looking at Jude 1 for ourselves.
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,
To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ: ~~Jude 1 (ESV)
Those words (“called,” “beloved ” and “kept”) obviously refer to Christians, and we usually read them rather quickly in our impatience to get to the meat of Jude’s epistle. But, as Archer’s essay so beautifully demonstrates, the three terms Jude uses to describe Christians should be examined in order to ascertain exactly who qualifies to be considered as a Christian.
Jude’s main theme (actually pretty much his only theme) in this letter concentrates on warning his readers about false teachers within their congregations (Jude 3-4). As we will see in later installments of this study, these false teachers had carefully infiltrated the churches, and their subtlety made them almost indistinguishable from the true Christians. With that as the case, Jude wants to assure his readers of their secure standing with the Lord (Jude 24).
The second word, “beloved,” keeps the words “called” and “kept” from becoming dry theology, as Archer so poignantly explains, so I’ll say little about it here. Yet I must emphasize his point that the calling and the keeping both result from the Father’s love. They are, as a matter of fact, direct expressions of His love. Ephesians 1:4-5, a necessary cross-reference for this issue, clearly states that predestination (the effectual calling to salvation) comes from the Father’s love.
So what does Jude mean by the term, “called?” Like Archer, I must go back to Romans 8:30 for explanation.
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (ESV)
This cross-reference blatantly shows the relationship between election and the effectual call to salvation. God calls Christians toward justification and glorification. False teachers, on the other hand, have been predestined to judgment and eternal condemnation (Jude 4).
In calling us to justification and glorification, the Lord also calls Christians to proclaim His excellencies (1 Peter 2:9), in contrast to the false teachers who essentially served their own sensual desires (Jude 16). Our calling, therefore has a distinct purpose which points back to bringing honor and glory to Jesus.
Let’s go back to Romans 8:30 as we briefly look at the phrase “kept for Jesus Christ.” As Archer’s essay shows, this “keeping” assures us that God’s calling is secure. Again, because it’s effectual, it cannot be taken away. 1 Peter 1:5 says that God’s power actually guards us for final salvation.
Our calling is effectual because it takes us into eternity. And it does so, not so much for our sake, but for Jesus Christ. The fact that the Father keeps us for Jesus lets us know that Jesus has a stake in whether or not our calling takes us all the way to salvation.
Sadly, I didn’t get to say much about Irresistible Grace in this entry today. When I address the topic later this week, however, perhaps you can draw from what we’ve studied today to gain greater understanding of how this doctrine works out in helping us discern false teachers. Certainly, Jude wastes no time in establishing a difference
Sometimes, in our busy lives saturated with technology, we need to step back and consider God’s amazing creation. That creation serves one singular purpose: to praise Him. Today’s magnificent hymn helps us do just that.
Writing for The Federalist, Hans Fiene tells us (tongue in cheek, of course) How To Make The Bible Support Any Sexual Practice In 3 Easy Steps. Dear sisters in Christ, we desperately need to understand Scripture properly exactly because people really do twist verses in the ways Hans describes in order to justify sin.
Along those lines, Rachel of danielthree18 shows us several Consequences of Mishandling Scripture in our conversations, or even on our social media posts. Ladies, we really must be careful to quote God’s Word correctly and with reverence.
In her article, Pastoral Propriety with Church Ladies and 7 Ways Women Can Help, Michelle Lesley offers practical tips for maintaining purity in interactions with your pastors. Most of her points reflect sheer commonsense, which really isn’t as common as it should be.
You might want to read Misconceptions of Grace by Sarah Bubar on the Biblical Woman blog, especially if you view grace as something that God gives us freely. Sarah takes us back to God’s Word to remind us what Jesus paid in order that we might benefit from His grace. She also encourages us that grace empowers us to respond to the Lord’s generosity.
Glen Chatfield of The Watchman’s Bagpipes shares an interesting quotation from Lloyd-Jones on How to Preach the Gospel that is decidedly more relevant today than it was when Lloyd-Jones first wrote it. How thankful John and I are to belong to a church that relies on the simple proclamation of God’s Word rather than than pragmatic gimmicks and worldly entertainment!
Superstitions permeate our culture, and even Bible-believing Christians struggle with them. Jessica Pickowicz of Beautiful Thing kicks off a new series on this seldom discussed topic with Portraits of Superstition: The Obnoxious Knocker. I like her gentle way of bringing us back to trusting the Lord.
Kim Shay has a wonderful article in Out of the Ordinary entitled Theological Objections that challenges the aversion to theology that floods evangelical circles today. She reminds us what theology is and why we need it.
I’m strongly recommending that you read Glen Chatfield’s Open Letter to “Worship” Leaders and share it on social media. Yeah — it’s that important!
I absolutely love Does God speak in unidentified promptings? by Elizabeth Prata of The End Time. She approaches the matter differently than people usually do, which makes her point all the more effective. Please read this exceptional essay and consider its Biblical perspective.