Zeal

Paul wrote of having a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. This reminds one of Calvinism. The zeal for God seems misdirected in both cases. In Calvinism, micro-manipulative control is magnified beyond love, and also beyond scripture. However, the Bible tells us that God exalts His word higher than his name. This seems to imply that what God says should take precedence over how we feel regarding glorifying God's name. Also, the Bible says God is love - it does not say God is control. God is love, and has power.  Being something seems to take precedence in a real sense over having something.

Zeal for God did not make the resultant actions correct in the case Paul wrote about. It might have made those involved candidates for some mercy, but it did not make their actions correct.

We might therefore give individuals, who may have good intention while promoting false doctrine, some consideration if they have good intent, but the person and the ideology of the person need to be separated. The intent of the person, good or bad, does not change the truth, or lack thereof, of the doctrine they espouse.

Lesson to be learned

Zeal in and of itself does not suffice for determining correct behavior - nor for determining correct doctrine. Therefore, zeal - even zeal for God's glory - does not suffice to prove one's doctrine correct.

Application

Consider the following Calvinistic argument:

"If man can choose to reject God's salvation, that makes man stronger than God! My doctrine glorifies God by making God stronger than man!"

Here, above, we see an example of incorrect application of the use of zeal for God's glory as proof of (incorrect) doctrine. 

To see just how incorrect this approach is, consider the same approach used elsewhere, which will illustrate the invalidity of this approach.

"If man can kill Jesus, who is God, that makes man stronger than God! My doctrine (that Jesus shall NOT go to the cross and die) glorifies God by making God stronger than man!"

We see that when Peter used this approach, telling Jesus not to go to the cross, Jesus himself contradicted it. Apparently, this approach was not what God wanted; it was not the correct approach. Man did indeed kill Jesus, but ... that did not make man stronger than God.

Let's learn from Peter and not make the same mistake!

If letting man choose to accept or reject God's gift makes mans stronger than God, then certainly killing God makes man stronger than God, even more so!

So, if this reasoning were valid, then Jesus would have told Peter, "Thanks for trying to glorify God. You are correct! I will not go to the cross," and Jesus would not have gone to the cross. 

If this reasoning is not valid for the case of Peter arguing for Jesus not going to the cross, it is not valid either in the argument for Irresistible Grace. It is not valid for Peter's case, and is not valid for the Irresistible Grace case either. The two stand or fall together.

Arguing that they don't stand or fall together, is using a double standard. The above, coupled with a respect for God, ought to give us pause to reconsider before making such a claim. If Calvinists really want to glorify God, then they would do well to promote what He says, rather than contradicting and disagreeing with what He says.

If God is God, let Him be God; if God is sovereign, then let God decide how He wants to implement His plan of Salvation; let Him decide whether He wants to let men reject salvation. That is His prerogative; He is God, you know. He can still be sovereign when men choose freely. (He was still sovereign even when Jesus was crucified; how much more so when men just choose!)