Why I Resist Irresistible Grace

My friend recently shared a common defense of Irresistible Grace (the "I" of TULIP), quoting Philippians 1:6: "Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ." She concluded that if God begins to draw someone, He must irresistibly finish that work. That sounds reassuring at first glance. But there are some significant theological and philosophical issues that must be addressed. In this blog post, I want to explain why I reject Irresistible Grace, and why I believe that the better biblical and theological path is found in a model like Molinism.

1. Don’t Build a Doctrine on One Verse

It is always dangerous to build a theological system on one verse in isolation. This is why Greg Koukl says "never read a Bible verse." His point is that one should never read one Bible verse apart from the larger context of the whole of scripture. Philippians 1:6, rightly understood, affirms that God is faithful to complete the good work He began in those who remain in Christ. But it says nothing about whether grace is irresistible in all cases or whether individuals can freely choose to walk away from that grace. In fact, the Bible is filled with warnings about resisting God’s grace:

"You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you." (Acts 7:51)

This verse doesn’t prove that the Holy Spirit can be resisted in every context, but it clearly demonstrates that He

can

be resisted. That alone undercuts the universal claim that God’s grace cannot be resisted. Moreover, consider the numerous warning passages in Hebrews, which seem to imply that people who once believed can fall away. That doesn’t sit well with a deterministic reading of God’s grace.

2. What Is Evanescent Grace?

Many Calvinists have never heard of a doctrine that John Calvin himself affirmed:

evanescent grace.

According to Calvin, God can give a person a powerful experience of grace that looks and feels like salvation—but is actually a kind of divine trick. The person isn’t truly regenerate and never was. God simply gave them a temporary illusion of saving grace for His own purposes. Let that sink in: If Calvinism is true, you might not be able to know whether your assurance of salvation is genuine. It could be evanescent grace. This undermines assurance and casts God in a rather deceptive light. My friend Tyler Vela was a well-known defender of Calvinism. He and I debated Calvinism and Molinism for years. He affirmed Irresistible Grace and told the world he had assurance of salvation. Today, he has not only rejected Irresistible Grace—he has rejected Christ altogether.

If Calvinism is true, the most charitable explanation is that Tyler was never truly regenerate—that God gave him an experience of what felt like saving grace, but wasn't. In Calvin’s own words, this may have been a case of evanescent grace.

3. A Deductive Case Against Irresistible Grace

Here is the heart of the problem, expressed deductively:

1. If Irresistible Grace is true, then for any person x, if God chooses to bring x to salvation, x will necessarily be saved and not suffer eternal separation from God.

2. If irresistible grace is true and God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (i.e., a maximally great being), then for any person x, God both desires and is able to bring x to salvation, and knows exactly how to do so without fail.

3. There is at least one person who is not saved and is eternally separated from God.

4. Therefore, either: (a) God is not omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient, or (b) Irresistible Grace is false.

5. But God is a maximally great being (He is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient).

6. Therefore, Irresistible Grace is false.

7. If Irresistible Grace is false, then divine determinism (in the strong, causal sense) is also false.

8. Nevertheless, Scripture clearly affirms that God sovereignly predestines (Romans 8:29–30; Ephesians 1:5,11).

9. Therefore, predestination and determinism must not be conflated.

10.  The best explanation that affirms:

    • God’s maximal greatness,

    • genuine human freedom,

    • and biblical predestinationis Molinism.

If this argument is sound (and I believe it is), then Irresistible Grace must be abandoned by Christians devoted to truth.

Any view that affirms both God’s omni-perfection and the reality of eternal separation from God must reject the "I" of TULIP.

4. The Biblical Alternative: Resistible, Amazing Grace

Instead of TULIP, I suggest playing the TRUMP card:

• Total Depravity

• Resistible (but amazing) Grace

• Unlimited Atonement

• Middle Knowledge of the elect

• Perseverance of free saints

This is not an abandonment of Reformed theology. It’s a biblically and philosophically stronger alternative to Calvinism. God does draw people. He begins a good work. But Scripture and experience show that people can resist. The fact that many do not resist doesn’t prove Irresistible Grace—it proves that grace is effective when freely received. And that’s the beauty of it. God isn’t a manipulator. He’s a lover. And love, by its very nature, can be rejected.

Conclusion

Philippians 1:6 is a precious promise to those in Christ. But it should not be twisted into a theological straightjacket. If we want to uphold God’s maximal greatness, human responsibility, and the biblical witness, then Irresistible Grace must be abandoned. There’s a better way. It’s called grace. And it really is amazing.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

-- Dr. Tim Stratton