Total Depravity, Prevenient Grace, and John 16:8
Posted by Chris Roberts on September 10th, 2011 at 5:40 pm.
Subscribe to Comments.

Classical Arminians agree with Calvinists about total depravity and man’s natural inability to respond to the gospel. We are born depraved, fallen in sin, with a natural hatred for the things of God. No man will be saved (because no one would want the grace of God) unless God first does something to undo man’s natural inability.

The Calvinist response is irresistible grace, by which God regenerates sinners, taking away their dead hearts and giving them hearts of faith. The Arminian response is prevenient grace, by which God lifts all people out of their totally depraved state, bringing the conviction of sin and desire for holiness that makes it possible for individuals to respond to the gospel.

A recent post at the Evangelical Arminians (originally posted at The Arminian) blog explains the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace. While the post does a good job of explaining the what and why of prevenient grace, it is weak in one area. After saying that “the Calvinistic claim is contrary to Scripture”, the writer nonetheless fails to show that prevenient grace is a biblical doctrine. It has been my contention that prevenient grace, while a useful theory that would reconcile the problem of total depravity, is not found in Scripture and as such is not an option available to us.

In fact, throughout the entry, the only verse cited to demonstrate prevenient grace is John 16:8:

John 16:8

8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: (ESV)

This verse is used to show that prevenient grace “is performed by the ministry and work of the Holy Spirit, who was sent by the Father and the Son to ‘prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment’.”

The main problem with using this verse to show the Spirit’s work in prevenient grace is a question of timing. In the above quote, a rather important part of John 16:8 is left out: “…when he comes, he will…” Jesus was telling the believers about an event yet to take place. The Spirit had not yet come, his special convincing work had not yet begun.

Human depravity did not begin after the time of Christ. Men were totally depraved from the time of Adam onward. Despite this depravity, we find people from the time of Adam onward, through Jesus, and on to our day, who have had faith in God and sought to walk in obedience. If John 16:8 demonstrates the Spirit’s work in prevenient grace, how did anyone follow God prior to the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2?

The Old Testament does not tell us what God did to change the hearts of the saints, but this is not altogether unusual. Many details are missing from the Old Testament which are later given in the New. One demonstration is with the Old Testament practice of sacrifice. The OT faithful were not told that the sacrificial system was not salvific in itself, that it pointed instead to a coming Messiah. Hebrews 8:5 says these practices were a “copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” Later in the Old Testament we receive a clearer revelation about the coming Messiah, but even with the prophecies of Isaiah 53 and some other passages, there is still a mystery which is only revealed after the revelation of Christ.

The problem with prevenient grace is not that it cannot be found in the Old Testament, but that it also cannot be found in the New Testament, and the only verse used as an example of the Spirit’s work in prevenient grace points clearly to the work the Spirit does only after Jesus has returned to Heaven. It does not and cannot be used to explain something that happens prior to the Spirit’s coming in Acts 2.

I continue to wait for a clear demonstration of prevenient grace from the pages of Scripture.

Tags: , ,
Posted in: Theology.
Trackback: http://www.seektheholy.com/2011/09/10/total-depravity-prevenient-grace-and-john-168/trackback/.
Short link: http://tcnr.me/cwigf
 
  • William Watson Birch

    Chris,

    Thank you for allowing me to briefly respond to your query. Prevenient refers to that which comes before or precedes. Hence, Prevenient Grace is grace which precedes any action or response of the one who has been graced. The John 16:8-11 reference is certainly a form of grace, among other works and ministries of the Holy Spirit, but that verse is not intended to teach the doctrine of Prevenient Grace in toto, nor did I grant it such in my post. 

    Therefore, any and all passages of Scripture whatsoever (e.g., Eph. 2:5, 8-9; Phil. 1:29 et al.) which insist on God’s proactive grace prior to anyone’s response to that grace is Prevenient Grace. In a very real sense, all Calvinists believe in Prevenient Grace, because the term merely refers to grace which precedes an action or response. Calvinists’ “Prevenient Grace” is termed Effectual Grace (Regenerating Grace, Irresistible Grace), etc. Nonetheless, whatever name we attach to it, it is prevenient in that it happens prior to the action or response of the individual.

    God bless.

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    William,

    What I am looking for is a demonstration from Scripture of the specific form of prevenient grace present in Arminian theology. Namely, a work of God to lift all people out of their total depravity, enabling all people to respond yet not bringing people to full spiritual life. While I absolutely believe, as you noted, in a kind of prevenient grace, it is grace that speaks of God’s definite work with particular individuals, not a general work with all people.

    The Bible speaks clearly that all men are dead in their sins and hostile to God. Where does the Bible say that God lifts all men out of their hostility, enabling them to see the beauty of the gospel, if they so choose? 

  • Dale Wayman

    Chris – Mr. Birch is extremely busy this week and may not realize you have a question out to him.  In the mean time, this topic is covered extensively at the Society of Evangelical Arminians site if you want to search that site.  Here is a good start:   “Is prevenient grace Biblical?”    http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/246

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    Dale,

    Thanks for the link, but it’s still not what I’m looking for. Where in the article does the author show from Scripture the message that God lifts all people out of total depravity? I’m not looking for those terms, but I am looking for that message, and it is simply not present.

    About half of the article is an attack against a misunderstanding of Calvinism, and the other half of the article is an explanation of Arminian prevenient grace, but none of the article is an actual demonstration from Scripture. 

    Go back and read my earlier post on unconditional election. I lay out from Scripture why I believe this point of doctrine. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my interpretation of these passages, but at the very least it can be said that I have tried to draw a biblical understanding. But I have yet to see a biblical argument made for Arminian prevenient grace. Despite the title of the article you linked, it does not offer a biblical argument for Arminian prevenient grace.

  • Dale Wayman

    Chris – There is TONS of information on the SEA site.  To help you a bit more, maybe this article will address your concerns better:  ”Prevenient Grace Explained”   http://evangelicalarminians.org/Kevin-jackson-prevenient-grace-explained

  • William Watson Birch

    Chris,

    As Dr. Wayman mentioned, this week is extremely busy for me in seminary. I should be able to answer your question by Thursday, Lord willing. In the meantime, you may be surprised to learn that Arminius, the Remonstrants, and myself (as a former Calvinist) do not hold that God lifts all people everywhere at all times from their total depravity (as do Wesleyan-Arminians), but instead hold the Reformed view that only through the preached Gospel is God’s grace active in sinners (cf. Rom. 10:13-17). I shall respond, Lord willing, by the week’s end.

    The Lord bless.

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    Dale,

    Thanks for the link, that’s closer to what I’m looking for, but even in that article there isn’t an explanation as to how these verses work to demonstrate the Arminian notion of prevenient grace. The author notes that no single verse clearly demonstrates the Arminian notion of prevenient grace. I would agree that this in itself is not a problem – no single verse clearly demonstrates what we understand of trinitarian theology. But the problem is, I’m not sure how a proper, contextual understanding of any of those verses – individually or taken together – demonstrates prevenient grace. From the author’s selection of verses I can anticipate what his argument would be, but I see a lot of eisegesis taking place – reading into a passage something that is not there. 

    To pick an example at random: under the heading “Prevenient Grace is Given Generously” the author starts with Romans 8:32, most likely because Paul mentions God who gave his son up for us all and graciously gives us all things. It seems clear in the context of this passage that Paul is talking not about every human on earth but about believers. You don’t have to hold limited atonement to draw this conclusion: Paul is speaking to believers and he says, in v31, if God is for us, who can be against us? Then in 33-39 the whole point is that we, as God’s people, are secure in Christ. No enemy of God can remove us from the hand of God. The whole focus is directed at believers. Paul is giving comfort to God’s people that they are secure in God’s hand. 

    We cannot look at verse 32 and say, “Everything else Paul says in this passage is about believers, but here he’s talking about unbelievers, too!” The “us” in verse 32 is going to be the same as the “us” in verses 31, 35, 37, 39 – he is talking about believers. There is no hint of a special grace given to unbelievers enabling them to respond to the gospel.

    Pick just about any verse in the list you cited and similar problems could be shown.

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    William,

    I’ll look forward to your response, if your schedule allows. I had not realized that some believed prevenient grace to come only through the Scriptures rather than a general application to all people, but that does answer one question – namely, how that grace comes to be received by sinners. But in some ways, it’s a distinction without a difference. Even if God elevates all people, the only ones who can respond to the gospel are those who hear the gospel. 

    Either way, the question remains. Where in Scripture do we see it taught that those who receive revelation have their eyes opened to be able to understand that revelation, their hard hearts softened to be willing to receive that revelation, and the deadness of their flesh revived enough to enable them to respond? 

  • William Watson Birch

    I have caught a bit of time, so I thought I might briefly outline the Classical Arminian approach to God’s grace. While the Wesleyan-Arminian insists that, due to John 12:32, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (NASB), then the grace of God is somehow at work in all people at all times today, the Classical Arminian approach (at least as far as Arminius and the Remonstrants were concerned) differs significantly. Classical Arminians have been accused of being “too Reformed” and “too Calvinistic,” which I always take as a compliment!  

    First I realize two truths as I begin: 1) Your hermeneutical grid is not going to accept what I offer here, in that, no matter what scriptural evidence I provide, no matter the logical argumentation, it will not suffice for your system (I understand and accept that); and 2) We both are trying to be as biblical as possible — none of us approaches Scripture hoping to “get it wrong,” so to put it. I am always glad to accept Calvinists who trust in Christ as my brother or sister. I do not consider them heretics or false teachers. Otherwise, I used to be a heretic and false teacher as a Calvinist back in 1998. We can’t have that, can we? 

    To answer your question directly, “Where in Scripture do we see it taught that those who receive revelation
    have their eyes opened to be able to understand that revelation, their
    hard hearts softened to be willing to receive that revelation, and the
    deadness of their flesh revived enough to enable them to respond?” we could point to at least two significant passages, though there are others. For the sake of brevity, let us examine two examples.

    Cornelius was a Gentile proselyte, who was “a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually” (Acts 10:2 NASB, and henceforth). An angel appeared to him, saying, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God” (Acts 10:4). Could Cornelius accomplish these things without the aid of the Holy Spirit? We believe not, and so we believe that the Holy Spirit was at work in his heart during this period. Yet he was genuinely seeking the things of God apart from his regeneration (cf. Acts 10:44), a point which John Piper also makes in his Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions (160). Prior to his regeneration, what was the condition of Cornelius’ spiritual eyes? Where is the evidence of his alleged hard heart?

    More to the point is the case of Lydia. Prior to her regeneration, she was “a worshiper of God” (Acts 16:14). (But how can this be? How could she desire to worship God apart from being regenerated? I thought her eyes were blind, her heart hardened against God, etc. I’m being rhetorical.) While Paul preached the gospel, the Lord “opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). Note carefully the Text: God “opened her heart to respond to” the gospel. This action of God is not cause and effect as much as it is enablement and response. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:5, 8), not to faith. God graced Lydia by “opening her heart” so that she could “respond” to the message of the Gospel. Response is the key here. She responded in faith, not rejection. 

    Such grace, however, does not always lead to response in faith. The Parable of the Sower and the Seed serves as a case in point (cf. Matt. 13:1-9, 18-23). We will certainly differ in our interpretation of these events. The contrary would be impossible, given our own hermeneutic. Nevertheless, I am at least hopeful that, though you will sorely disagree with the Classical Arminian position, you will at least take comfort in that it is much closer to your own view than other views, such as Wesleyan-Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism. Let me be a bit more specific. 

    Since Classical (or Reformation or Reformed) Arminians agree with their Calvinist brothers and sisters wholeheartedly that the Gospel is the only means by which the Holy Spirit will work preveniently (John 16:8-11) in the heart of sinners (cf. Rom. 10:13-17) — since the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe (Rom. 1:16) — and since no one can inherently respond to the things of God without His work (cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-14), then we must conclude that Grace precedes Faith in Christ, and the only ones who are thus Graced (enabling grace) are those who hear the Gospel in the enabling power of the Holy Spirit.

    This grace is sufficient to effect salvation, yet it is only effectual when one’s response to that grace concludes with faith placed in Christ. In this manner, no one contributes to his or her regeneration, which is an impossibility: only God can regenerate (cf. Titus 3:5). But who will God regenerate and save? The answer is, “those who believe” (1 Cor. 1:21; Heb. 7:25 et al.).

    Again, I realize completely that we will not agree on every single issue here. But I at least hope that you better understand the Classical Arminian approach to God’s grace, which is only active through the means of the Gospel and the activity of the Holy Spirit. We believe such statements induce a missionary fervor, so that all may hear the truth of Christ’s Gospel, and be graced by the Spirit of God. Should you have further questions, you may state them here at your site, and perhaps, should time permit, I could construct some future posts on this fascinating subject.

    To God’s glory, always,

    Wm. Birch

  • Chas

    It seems odd that God would enable some to experience “prevenient grace” knowing that they will not respond because they are not “predestined… called… justified” because if they were, they are guaranteed to be “glorified” (Rom 8:30). One question I have is, why would God give prevenient grace to some but not all? It is not a matter of fairness, because apparently, the classical Arminian rejects that God must give prevenient grace to all – because they believe he does not. I understand logically why a Wesleyan-Arminian would hold to this doctrine, that is, God is being just/fair by giving all an “opportunity”, but what is the classical Armenian explanation of this, since they obviously reject this reasoning. In other wards, A Wesleyan-Arminian says God must give prevenient grace to all to be just. The Calvinist says God only gives this grace to the elect because they are the only ones who will be saved. The “Classical-Arminian” says God does not give prevenient grace to be just or else he would be unjust in not giving it to all, but he has decided to give it to some who he knows will not exercise saving faith… just because.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dax-Summerhill/1526563829 Dax Summerhill

    William and Chris,

    I appreciate the tone with which this often “hot” topic has been discussed and so I will throw my hat into the ring and join in.  I see that you are busy and I respect that.  I am a Calvinist and I have done some extensive study of Open Theism.  I say that because I was actually unaware of the differing views of prevenient grace you expressed between Classical Arminians and Wesleyan Arminians.  I was under the impression that all Arminians believed that God draws all men to himself so I am thankful for your clarification on this point.  I’m not surprised that many Wesleyans find you Classicalists too Reformed for their comfort.  I found much to agree with in your post and I thank God for that.   As you pointed out, I imagine we could find plenty of points of disagreement if we backed up and discussed God’s overarching plan for mankind and the scope of His sovereignty. Nevertheless, I wish you would clarify a couple of points so that I could better understand what you are saying and then perhaps you would be kind of enough to answer a couple of questions for me (when you have time of course).  You argued that God enables men through the preaching of the gospel to “possibly” respond in faith.  The response of faith, therefore, results in regeneration of the individual.  So I believe that I am right in saying (I don’t want to misrepresent you)  that you indeed believe that faith precedes regeneration. Points of clarification: 1.  Is the ability to respond in faith at the hearing of the gospel given to some who hear or all who hear?  If your answer is some, then that is all my Calvinism and the discussion can end as far as I am concerned.  Nevertheless I fear you will say all and then the discussion will continue. 2.  In your view, is the ability to respond that is given by God continuous or momentary?  In other words, once a person hears the gospel does this prevenient grace remain upon him regardless of his response or is his opportunity to believe a particular window of time that closes until perhaps the next time he hears the gospel? Questions: 1. Doesn’t Ephesians 2:1-10 (part of which you quoted) speak of this grace as being effectual to regenerate, especially in light of 1 John 5:1 which describes the believer as one who has been born again (verb tense indicates regeneration preceded faith?  2.  How does the Arminian response of faith fit with the biblical notion that “we shall not boast” about our salvation (Eph. 2:9; Rom. 4:2-4, cf. 4:16)?  I realize your answer is because salvation is by grace, but what I can’t figure out is how the Arminian accounts for the fact that he has responded to the gospel and another hearer did not.  Was the Arminian smarter than he who rejected because he saw the wisdom of the gospel?  Was he more righteous than the rejector in that he made the righteous decison while the other man did not? Is so, then aren’t these reasons to boast?  If not, then what is the reason for some responding and others not if not for the effectual grace of God? 3.  Does not the tight logic of John 6:37-44 indicate that man is unable to respond without the “drawing” of the Father.  These that he draws will most certinly “be raised up on the last day.”  They are the same ones that “the Father gave Him” and that “come to Him” and of which ”He will not lose one.” This phrase “those who the Father gave him” is talked about frequently and expressly in the High Priestly Prayer of John 17 (2, 6, 8-13, 20, 24).  They are distincguished from the rest of the world.  In John, the phrase functions much in the same way as Jesus’ “sheep” of John 10 (cf. v. 29). In this discussion of John 10, v. 26 says that the unbelievers do not believe because they are not a part of Jesus’ flock.  It does not say, as one would expect if Arminianism is true, that “they are not a part of Christ’s flock because they do not believe.” This same logic is used in John 8:47 which says “Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” Okay, so maybe my questions got a little longer than I originally intended.  Sorry about that.  I’ll try to await your answers patiently. 

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    William,

    Thanks for the response. As you expected, I’m less than satisfied with the explanations given. I don’t think the passages used imply Arminian prevenient grace. I continue to believe that no strong – or even moderate – biblical case can be made for prevenient grace. 

    I understand why people argue for and defend a kind of libertarian free will choice in salvation. I know where the biblical argument comes from, I know the case that can be made for saying man is free and able to choose or reject, desire or despise, love or hate, etc. I think the Arminian conclusion is incorrect, but I understand where it comes from. But I do not understand where prevenient grace comes from. I cannot find it in Scripture, I cannot see this or that passage or passages which a person might read and draw the conclusion of Arminian prevenient grace. That includes the two main passages you cited.

    As for the close relations between Calvinism and Arminianism, I’ve no doubt of that. I’ve noted before that Calvinism and Arminianism are, in many ways, fairly close cousins. You Arminian folks may be wrong, but at least you’re kin!

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    Dax,

    I’ll let William clarify if I’m incorrect, but I believe the answer would be that prevenient grace is received through revelation itself – that is, when a person hears the gospel or receives the Scriptures, that Word of God enables a person to freely reject of accept. God does not, in the Arminian system, choose some for prevenient grace while rejecting others; rather, this grace is given to all who hear the gospel.

  • William Watson Birch

    Dax,

    I haven’t the time to respond in full. I’m preparing for my three-hour Ethics night class. However, I will very, very briefly offer a response, and plan to respond further on my own site this coming Monday. (Perhaps I will make it a series. You all have been inspiring.)

    We believe the notion of regeneration preceding faith to be purely philosophical: a philosophical necessity in search of scriptural warrant. Colossians 2:13 (et al.) is explicitly against the notion, and the few verses you’ve offered here suggest nothing of the sort, we believe. (Col. 2:13 places “forgiveness of sins” prior to our “being made alive.” We are only forgiven of sins and thus justified by grace through faith in Christ. Hence faith precedes regeneration.) 

    Dr. David Alan Black, Greek NT prof. at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC, was asked by a student where regeneration precedes faith can be found in the Bible. He admitted that he holds to the teaching, being a five-point Calvinist, but admitted that there is no explicit Scripture whatsoever to maintain such a belief; it is held merely by systematic necessity. He adamantly opposed using 1 John 5:1, as you used here, for teaching the theory. And as much effort as some Calvinists have tried at straining the theory at 1 John 5:1 (think James White), it is completely rendered insufficient. Again, so we believe.  

    What I find odd for Calvinists is their felt need for the theory in the first place. Why not just suggest that God graces His unconditionally elect by granting them faith, in His sovereign time, and then justifies, regenerates, sanctifies, etc., the individual? There really is no need for the theory, and, honestly, there is no text which supports the theory, we believe (as do some other Calvinists). Forgive me for being so very brief. 

    Chris,

    I am most grateful for this dialogue. I am hopeful for further on-line conversations such as this one.

    God bless you all.

  • Dale Wayman

    Chris – I notice that no one responded to the examples of Cornelius and Lydia.  Obviously, a Calvinist would interpret those two examples differently.  However, I do believe that Birch has used a couple of great Biblical examples to support some aspects of Arminianism.

    You wrote to me, “but the problem is, I’m not sure how a proper, contextual understanding of any of those verses – individually or taken together – demonstrates prevenient grace.”  

    What would it take for you to be convinced that prevenient grace is a valid, Christian concept?  I’m not saying for you to believe in prevenient grace but to accept that this concept has some real validity?  

    I think Birch put it well, “Your hermeneutical grid is not going to accept what I offer here, in that, no matter what scriptural evidence I provide, no matter the logical argumentation, it will not suffice for your system (I understand and accept that);…”  

    I think that Birch is correct.

    You know how when we Arminians and Calvinists join together to fight the lie of atheism?  No matter what biblical proof, proper contextual understanding of the Bible is offered, the atheist refuses to consider.  Why?  Because to see it, they have to believe that God exists (Hebrews 11:6).  Hence, you would need to be open to the possibility that prevenient grace exists to see it.

    As Arminians, we can understand how irresistible grace works and can accept it as a valid, Christian concept.  That does not mean that we agree with it, but that the concept has some real validity.  Can you offer the same charity?  Are you open to the concept of prevenient grace as a biblical reality?

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    Earlier I gave the example that I can understand the biblical argument for a free will decision, but I think the argument is wrong. It is an Arminian position that I understand but disagree with. I see where the argument is coming from in Scripture, and it is based on conclusions which are not altogether unreasonable, but they are still incorrect conclusions and lead to an incorrect view of the human will.

    But in the case of prevenient grace, I have yet to see anything I consider a reasonable argument. I can read those lists of Scriptures you have given and the examples William has given and see why you posted those verses, but know the verses have nothing to do with what you propose. The conclusion cannot be reasonably drawn from the supporting verses. I gave you one example from the Romans 8 passage. 

    As for the examples of Cornelius and Lydia, I generally don’t like dragging out discussions too long, so I didn’t try to jump deeper into them but I’ll go ahead and mention a few observations.

    First, one thing to keep in mind is that the apostles and early missionaries occupied a peculiar place in history. They lived at a time when, before Christ, faithfulness to God meant believing and obeying the revelation of the Old Testament. Such people were the Old Testament saints whose faith was credited to them as righteousness, as it had been with Abraham. I believe such people were already regenerate, though this would not have the same meaning for the OT as for the NT (for more on OT regeneration, I’ve got a few comments in the post at the top). 

    This seems to be clearly the case with Lydia, a Jew who was already a worshiper of God. God still does something unique with her in “opening her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul”. We don’t read that this happens with everyone who hears, or even most who hear, or even several others who hear, but with Lydia. We aren’t told that this happens with all who hear the gospel; it is something unique that happens with this already faithful Jewish woman.

    Cornelius is similar, but different since he was a Gentile rather than a Jew. But he is also described as a worshiper of God, and we know there are those Gentiles who believed the Old Testament message but had not entered into the ceremonial life of Israel. Cornelius is not someone who in Acts 10 is shown enabled to believe so he then has to make a choice whether or not to follow God; he already was a worshiper of God. Neither of these examples can be used to show God doing something to partially awaken or enliven people who were pagans but are now presented with the gospel.

  • Dale Wayman

    Chris – I must confess that when it comes to relaying theological concepts, my ability to describe them sufficiently to others’ satisfaction is quite limited.  Unlike Mr. Birch, that is not a strength of mine.  What I tend to do is have conversations with people that come and go and are interspersed with other conversations and events over time.  Hence, I typically don’t debate, especially online.  Rather, I feel my strength is to form relationships and then discuss over time, in more of a tone of brotherly affection, realizing that I am far from having all the answers and that I may even go back and change my opinion also realizing that only God’s Word has all the answers and is never wrong.

    I feel as if I have reached an impasse in our conversation.  I have given you two resources, both of which you have reviewed.  First of all, let me say that I am impressed that you took the time to read these two resources, rarely does that occur in my online conversations with others.  Secondly, both of those resources are good yet brief synopses to such a well-refined and well-defined theological concept, prevenient grace.  

    I was disappointed that what I offered wasn’t sufficient for you to acknowledge the biblical viability of such.  Hence, I offer two last things and know that I will most likely be leaving the conversation at this point and may or may not jump back in later.

    First, if you want to research the concept of prevenient grace and the subtle differences between Calvinism and Arminianism from an Arminian perspective, I encourage you to continue to peruse the site of the Society of Evangelical Arminians at http://evangelicalarminians.org and Mr. Birch’s blog, The Arminian at http://thearminian.net.  Of course, primary sources by Arminius and The Remonstrants is especially helpful.

    Secondly, a terrific resource that should be read by all Christians, IMHO, is the book, ARMINIAN THEOLOGY:  MYTHS AND REALITIES by Roger E. Olson.  You will find the concept of prevenient grace interspersed throughout as prevenient grace needs to be understood in the larger context of Arminianism.  In my opinion, many people start with Arminianism at free will or prevenient grace and miss the core of what brought Arminius to break away from Calvinism.  The breakaway point was that Arminius believed that Calvinism, brought to its logical conclusions, damaged the character of God.  Of course, Calvinists deny such.  Hence, Arminians frame most of their concepts around the character of God as expressed in the plenary revelation of the Bible.  

    Anyway, thank you for the time.  Also, a big, huge, thank you for allowing me to correspond with you on your blog.  I sincerely appreciate the tone that you take when you disagree.  It is obvious that you are a pastor who loves people and loves God Word.  I pray that God may bless the ministry to which you were called.  

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    Thanks for more links, I’ve bookmarked those for future review.

    As for Olson’s book, I’ve already got it and read it a couple of years ago. I found it quite helpful, one of the best overviews of Arminianism available. (I wish the attitude Olson displays in the book was also on display on his blog!) 

    An additional resource I find helpful is The Works of Arminius, which I have in my Logos library ( http://www.logos.com/product/8820/the-works-of-arminius ) and peruse from time to time, particularly if looking for something Arminius said on this or that doctrine or passage.

  • Dale Wayman

    Chris – Ok, this will be my last reply, LOL…

    What you wrote confuses me more.  You have read Olsen and some of Arminius’ original work.  Also, you have an MDiv from Beeson.  My understanding, unless I’m sorely mistaken, is that Beeson is fairly balanced and has faculty from both camps?  Or, maybe I am confusing it with the Beeson Center at Asbury?  If I am correct that Beeson is balanced, then I would think that you would have figured out the Biblical basis for prevenient grace back in seminary and would have moved beyond this.

    Maybe you are confusing/conflating Wesleyan-Arminianism with Reformation Arminianism in regard to the concept of prevenient grace?  Or maybe you’re confused by the pelagian and semi-pelagian behavior by some of those who call themselves Arminians?

    Nevertheless, I would think that I could not explain any better than Olsen and Arminius.  I don’t know what Mr. Birch will do, however…

    That’s my $0.02 :-)

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    Despite its title, Olson’s book doesn’t set out to explain Arminian theology but to respond to 10 myths Olson identifies about Arminianism. As such, Olson does not go into any detailed explanations about Arminian theology. Prevenient grace is mentioned in the book, but Olson does not (that I recall, or could find just now) offer a biblical argument for the doctrine.

    As for Arminius, as I say, I’ve made some use of his works but haven’t done extended reading. I’ll check some later for what he has to say on prevenient grace.

  • http://www.transformedtheology.com Bob Hadley

    Hey Chris,

    Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving. I am planning on delving into the various discussions in this post later this week… just made my way here tonight.

    I have a question that I have posted on my site that I would appreciate your response to (as well as your readers): Is it possible for God in His sovereignty to create man with the responsibility of making choices that would not only determine the quality of his life but his eternal destiny as well? Almost everyone I know, Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike, agree that sanctification is synergistic. Could God have made the conversion process synergistic as well?
    I am not asking for a theological dissertation on the ramifications or the Scriptural basis for such a possibility, but rather the plausibility of the possibility that God COULD have created man with the responsibility of choosing his own eternal destiny?

    Grateful to be in His Grip!

    ><>”

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    “Is it possible for God in His sovereignty to create man with the responsibility of making choices that would not only determine the quality of his life but his eternal destiny as well?”

    Of course it is possible; in fact, God has already done so. God has already created man with the responsibility of making choices that would determine quality of life and eternal destiny. Adam and Eve in particular were completely free to choose which way to go. The possibility, or even necessity, of individual choice is not really the issue. We all must choose. But since the fall, our individual choice would always be against salvation. We must make a choice; on our own, we will always make it against God. But when God brings regeneration and faith, that choice changes from sin to salvation. Our desire is for God. Irresistible grace does not mean we come against our will; it means our will, our choice, will be for God.

    “Almost everyone I know, Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike, agree that sanctification is synergistic. Could God have made the conversion process synergistic as well?”

    Sanctification is a little tricky. I am reluctant to call it synergistic, but I’m reluctant to say it isn’t, so I guess that makes me undecided. :) There is certainly the component that must come from us, but any good that comes from us ultimately comes from God. In Galatians 3:3 Paul seems to attack the notion of sanctification by work: “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

    Also passages like Philippians 1:6: “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

    And especially Philippians 2:12-13: “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

    Take these together, and at the very least we must acknowledge that any good we do in the direction of sanctification is God at work through us – him who works in us to desire and to do his will. The only synergistic aspect is that he is doing it in and through us.

  • http://www.transformedtheology.com Bob Hadley

    Hey Chris,

    Just stopped back in to re-read your post here. I found your concluding comment most interesting: “The problem with prevenient grace is not that it cannot be found in the Old Testament, but that it also cannot be found in the New Testament.” I agree with you! How big of a shock is that! May be a first huh.  JK

    I also agree 100% with William’s statement below, where he writes, “Prevenient refers to that which comes before or precedes. Hence, Prevenient Grace is grace which precedes any action or response of the one who has been graced… Therefore, any and all passages of Scripture whatsoever (e.g., Eph. 2:5, 8-9; Phil. 1:29 et al.) which insist on God’s proactive grace prior to anyone’s response to that grace is Prevenient Grace. In a very real sense, all Calvinists believe in Prevenient Grace, because the term merely refers to grace which precedes an action or response. Calvinists’ “Prevenient Grace” is termed Effectual Grace (Regenerating Grace, Irresistible Grace), etc. Nonetheless, whatever name we attach to it, it is prevenient in that it happens prior to the action or response of the individual.”

    Now here is the problem that I have… believing BOTH statements to be true, I find your argument equally relative to irresistible grace or effectual grace and the whole concept of regeneration PRIOR to repentance and saving faith, for as you correctly acknowledge, “prevenient grace cannot be found in the Old Testament nor in the New.”

    Grateful to be in His Grip!

    ><>”

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    It should be pretty clear that what I mean is what we usually call “prevenient grace” cannot be found in the Bible. The term more formally refers to the Arminian notion of enabling grace, a notion I believe to be unbiblical.

    As far as the Calvinist belief of God’s irresistible work, there are plenty of places to point, and perhaps John contains some of the clearest references – i.e., John 6:44 and its surrounding context. I know non-Calvinists will not agree with the Calvinist understanding, but the message seems clear enough to me: no one will come unless the Father draws, and everyone drawn by the Father will be raised up by the Son. It is not a universal drawing, for not all are raised up by the Son, and it is an irresistible – or, better, effectual drawing since everyone drawn by the Father will be raised by the Son on the last day. Salvation thus begins with and is guaranteed by the Father’s drawing, even when there has yet been no repentance on the part of the sinner.

    I’ll probably not say more on the subject, this post is a wee bit dated. :)

  • http://www.transformedtheology.com Bob Hadley

    I know… I could not help but poke at ya on how everything was written. 
    ><>”

  • Bob Hadley

    Chris,

    I have a question that you may be able to help me with. Where does “Total Depravity” begin in the Bible? 

    Now, before you give me a “cookie cutter” answer, think about your assertion from the standpoint of regeneration being necessary BEFORE man can respond to God…   and THEN tell me where TD is clear in the Old Testament.

    I simply do not see it.

    Happy New Year!

    ><>”

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    Bob, 

    What I wrote at http://www.seektheholy.com/2011/08/15/total-depravity-doing-theology-as-a-calvinist-in-the-sbc/ should provide a sufficient answer as to my views.