It never says irresistible. Anywhere. It says that nobody can snatch the Children of God out of His hand. It says that He will never lose them. It expressly does not say that they are trapped and cannot leave of their own accord.
If your standard is that irresistible grace isn't real because we don't see the term "irresistible grace" then by the same token people are NOT free to forfeit their salvations because we do not see the phrase "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand, EXCEPT that they may leave of their own accord and do not count as people for the purpose of the word "nobody"! :). It never says "nobody else".
FK: How much more authority does God have over us to give us irresistible gifts since He IS the law?
The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. God has been rejected millions, billions, trillions of times by man. God is faithful; man is not.
True, but that doesn't address God's authority to give irresistible grace. We know He doesn't give it to everyone because we see rejection, but nevertheless He does give it to some.
Through the OT history, we learn of the God of wrath; and through the NT, we learn of the God of love. Same God; why does He appear different?
Well, I'm not all that sure that He even appears all that different from OT to NT. I understand about God wiping out lots of people in the OT and not so much in the NT, but we also see countless acts of love and forgiveness in the OT. Look at how much He gave to Israel and forgave them over and over, etc. While we certainly do see God's wrath on display in the OT I think that the whole purpose of the OT was to point toward Christ. Perhaps some of what you're talking about could be due to the fact that Jesus was on a specific mission and did not deviate from it. So, for example, while Jesus had the full authority to zap people dead for committing sin that was not a part of His mission while on earth.
FK: However, God's permissive will is in accordance with His plan so we have verses like: Acts 4:27-28 : 27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.
They were firing up the troops. Do you have other verses or was this battle rhetoric?
They were firing up the troops??? :) Do you mean we are to interpret verse 28 as a flat out lie because they were firing up the troops? In any case there is more:
In addition, note that it was God's will that He alone be the King of Israel. However, His permissive will allowed human kings in Israel and He even gave rules for such in Deut. 17:14-20. Further, it was God's will that a man should have one wife (a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his WIFE). However, His permissive will allowed for polygamy, and He even set rules for examples such as the kinsman's duty to childless widows.
But many of the teachings of Jesus are about trying not to fall away and lose their salvation. The Beatitudes, again. Matthew 25 (all three) again. The foolish virgins lost their salvation. The bad servant lost his talent. This says very directly that you can lose your salvation and you will unless you follow Him.
True, but that doesn't address God's authority to give irresistible grace. We know He doesn't give it to everyone because we see rejection, but nevertheless He does give it to some.
That has not been established in our debate.
They were firing up the troops??? :) Do you mean we are to interpret verse 28 as a flat out lie because they were firing up the troops?
Not a lie, just battle rhetoric.
Gen. 50:19-20 : 19 But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.
We are speaking of Christ and His teachings. This passage does not address the idea of irresistible grace.
In addition, note that it was God's will that He alone be the King of Israel. However, His permissive will allowed human kings in Israel and He even gave rules for such in Deut. 17:14-20. Further, it was God's will that a man should have one wife (a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his WIFE). However, His permissive will allowed for polygamy, and He even set rules for examples such as the kinsman's duty to childless widows.
So are you saying that if I have plural wives that it is God's will? The Old Covenant is different in many ways from the New, correct? The dietary laws being relaxed is one. The repudiation of eye for an eye is another.