pr even ient grace research paper final draft

8/14/2019 Pr Even Ient Grace Research Paper Final Draft

1/10

1

CAN PREVENIENT GRACE BE

SUPPORTED BY SCIRPTURE?

One of the more popular debates in Christian soteriology concerns predestination and

election, ironically it is also one in which there is a fairly large amount of ignorance. The two

main facets of the debate are between groups loosely defined as Arminians and Calvinists. There

is ignorance on both sides, however this paper will focus on a topic that many Calvinists are

ignorant of within Arminian soteriology, the doctrine of prevenient grace. The goal of this paper

is to identify what the doctrine of prevenient grace is, its importance in Arminian soteriology,

and show that it is not born out of careful exegesis but of logic, and therefore is not a viable

option.

What is Prevenient Grace?

Prevenient grace is birthed out of a doctrine that is held in common between Arminian

and Calvinist theologians, what Calvinists call total depravity. If you were to have a conversation

with an Arminian and a Calvinist about this subject, it would be hard, if not impossible, to tell

them apart. Calvinist Michael Horton states it thus, After the fall, people are bent toward

unbelief and sin. The heart chooses that which it approves and desires. A person who is dead in

trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1) and does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are

folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor.

2:14) has lost this freedom for righteousness before God.1Arminius when speaking of the will of

man states, in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think,

1Michael Horton,For Calvinism(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 39.


2/10

2

to will, or to do that which is really good.2There is even more agreement if you push the issue

further. Both sides agree that if man is ever to escape his sorry state it can only be done by a

supernatural work of God. Arminius continues his statement, but it is necessary for him to be

regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers by God in Christ

through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will,

and perform whatever is truly good.3The Westminster Confession of Faith 10:1 states from a

Calvinist point of view, [God] is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,

by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace

and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the

things of God. It is important to note what exactly the opposing views agree on. First, they both

agree that man as a result of the fall is born into a state of corruption and bent toward sin.

Second, they agree that in this fallen state of a corrupted will, man is in essence blind to spiritual

truths and is incapable of taking that first step towards God. Third, both agree that it is God who

makes the first move in salvation by changing the will and calling men to salvation. This is

where the agreement ends and the debate begins. Although both sides agree on the last statement,

that God is the first cause in salvation, they differ very much on how it happens and whom it

applies to.

The Arminian doctrine that attributes the first act of salvation to God is prevenient

grace. [Prevenient] Grace heals the deadly wound of sin and enables humans, who are otherwise

in bondage of the will to sin, to respond freely to the message of the Gospel.4Arminius had two

conceptions of grace in salvation, if on a timeline, there is grace that comes first, preceding any

2James Arminius, The Writings of James Arminius, Vol. 1 trans. James Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker

Book House, 1956) 252.3Ibid., 252.

4Roger E. Olson,Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006),

160.


3/10

3

human decision, operating solely from God outside us (extra nos) in a monergistic way.5This

grace is monergistic because it does not require a human response it only calls for one. The

second grace Arminius speaks of is synergistic, in that only after the sinner responds to the

Gospel, God saves them; their response to the Gospel is impossible without prevenient grace

because to the Arminian - the will would still be in bondage and therefore unable to respond.

How does it Work?

While that is prevenient grace in a nutshell there are still questions to ask in order to

have a fuller understanding before we examine the doctrine against the scriptures. First, how

does it work? How does God effectively, free the will of man from its corrupt state? The answer

is pretty straightforward, it is provided by Christs sacrifice on the cross. Thomas Oden writes

that, gracious ability is enabled through Christ.6He uses passages like Romans 5:8 and

Ephesians 2:1 to support the idea that Christs death on the cross has been applied to us in the

sense that it has awakened us from a sinful state.

Who Benefits From Prevenient Grace?

In his sermon on Free Grace, John Wesley used texts like Romans 14:15, John 4:42,

and 1 Timothy 4:10 to show that when Christ died for the world, he died for literally everyone.7

This conception of the sacrifice of Christ is commonly called universal atonement. One of the

benefits of a classical Arminian conception of a universal atonement is universalprevenient

grace; it applies to the whole world. This idea is foreign to those who would identify themselves

as Calvinist. Though Calvinists have a conception of grace that is universal in scope. Whats

called common grace is different from prevenient grace in that it is not a result of the atonement,

5Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace, (New York: Oxford

University Press, 2012), 152.6Thomas C. Oden, The Transforming Power of Grace, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993), 46.

7John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions, (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2009),

1138.


4/10

4

and it does not free the will of man.8Sinners and saints alike feel the benefits of common grace

such as some sort of conscience, universal structures in human society like family or

government, even talents that people are born with.9But common grace cannot be equated with

prevenient grace because prevenient grace leads to saving grace and common grace does not.

Why is Prevenient Grace so Important

in Arminian Soteriology?

The argument can be summed up by Roger Olson when he says, Thesole reason

non-Calvinist evangelical Christians object to monergism is because it makes God the ultimate,

even if indirect, cause of the reprobates unbelief and damnation. It does serious harm to Gods

reputation.10

The key issue for Arminians in this debate is the character of God; according to

them it can only be sustained as good and just if salvation is understood in a synergistic way,

which is impossible without prevenient grace. The Arminian reads texts like John 3:16 and

phrases like whosoever wills may come, and say that if the Gospel and salvation are to be

genuine offers by God then people must have the freedom to accept or reject the call, the

doctrine of prevenient grace allows for that. If prevenient grace is not there to enable the

corrupted will of man to accept the offer of God or reject it, then the only viable option left is

monergism.11

But that would make God, what Roger Olson calls, a moral monster.12

Scriptural Examination of Prevenient Grace

Now that a correct understanding of prevenient grace has been established it is

appropriate to examine texts which Arminian theologians base this doctrine on to see if it can

withstand scrutiny. There are a fair number of passages used as support for prevenient grace,

8Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1994), 658.9Ibid., 660.

10Roger E. Olson,Against Calvinsim, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 158.

11Robert E. Chiles, Theological Transition in American Methodism: 1790-1935 (Nashville: Abingdon,

1965), 50.12Olson,Against Calvinism , 23.


5/10

5

such as John 3:16 which says that For God so loved the world whoeverbelieves, and 2

Peter 3:9 that testifies abut Gods own will, not wishing that anyshould perish There are

many more that will be mentioned.

It is only fair to mention that all Arminians have attempted is to take these scriptures

for face value and try to understand salvation in a logical way. Its not as if they are doing

theological back-flips inspiteof what the Bible says. All they are doing is taking passages like 2

Peter 3:9 and John 3:16 and saying, all means all, and, the world means the world. The

necessary questions we need to ask concerning the biblical support for this issue are: 1) Are these

passages being interpreted correctly? And 2) Does the face value interpretation of these

passages cohere with what the rest of the Bible says about salvation? The scriptures will be

separated into two groups, the first group will deal with the first question, and the second group

with the second question.

Universal Offer of Salvation

The first set of scriptures to examine would be those passages that give the impression

that salvation is equally offered to all people. Titus 2:11 demonstrates this well, For the Grace

of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people. As does John 12:32, And I, when I am

lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself. Other passages that fall into this

category are Romans 8:32, 1 Timothy 4:10, John 1:9, and perhaps most famous, John 3:16 which

reads, For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in

him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

John 1:9 is one of the most referred to passages by Arminians because of how it reads

as enlightening or awakening people, as prevenient grace renews the corrupted will of man. The

irony of John 1:9 often referred to as support for prevenient grace is that it is also one of the


6/10

6

weakest texts. There are several other highly probable interpretations that speak nothing in

support of prevenient grace.13When considering verse 11 that says, he came to his own, and his

own people did not receive him, an acceptable interpretation would be that Jesus did not come

to save only the Jews but also the gentiles. This theme continues throughout John when Jesus

testifies that there are others who will be brought into the fold of God (John 10:16; 11:51-52).

This particular interpretation can be applied to many of the texts Arminians use to support

prevenient grace. Another more probable interpretation is that the light does not enlighten in the

sense of renewing the mind of man, rather it enlightens or exposes his sin. The idea of this

exposing light is also found in John 3:19-21.

Titus 2:11 is often used by Arminians to support their idea of a universal atonement

that includes prevenient grace. It needs to be stated that if one holds to a universal atonement,

they are not required to hold the doctrine of prevenient grace. So putting the issue of atonement

aside, Tom Schreiner concludes that, Even if the text were suggesting that salvation is

potentially available for all people (cf. 1 Tim. 4:10), that is a far cry from saying that through the

atonement God has counteracted the effects of Adam's sin so that all people have the opportunity

to accept or reject him.14

Which is exactly what prevenient grace is. So, Titus 2:11 doesnt

support or refute prevenient grace, it is simply silent on the issue.

Another text commonly used by Arminians that Schreiner examines is John 12:32. He

makes a strong argument from John 6 that, the Johannine conception of drawing is not that it

makes salvation possible, but that it makes salvation effectual.15That would mean the

implication of John 12:32 would be universalism since Jesus will draw all people to himself; the

same word for draw is used in chapter 6 and chapter 12. An alternative interpretation is

13Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, eds. Still Sovereign, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000)

14Ibid., Schreiner.15Ibid., Schreiner.


7/10

7

supported by the larger context of 12:12-36. When the disciples told Jesus that the Greeks were

seeking him out, he ignored them and told them that in order for his death to bear much fruit he

must die. In context, this whole section of scripture seems to be indicating that when he says he

will draw all people to himself, he is referring to his death bearing much fruit as being inclusive

of the gentiles not only the Jews. Such an interpretation is certainly more in tune with the Bible

than one that results in universalism.

Protecting the Character of God

The other category of scripture that is put forward by Arminians in support of

prevenient grace is passages that have to do with the good, loving, just, and merciful character of

God. These include but are not limited to 1 John 4:8, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9, and Romans

2:4. There are two main sides to this argument, in the first Arminians see a contradiction between

a monergistic soteriology and passages that say God desires all to be saved and none to perish,

because not everyone issaved.16

They accuse this conception of God of double-talk, saying in

one place, I desire for all to be saved, and then in another, I have decided only to save some.

This point more concerns the doctrines of election and reprobation. To the Arminian, God cannot

elect individuals (unconditionally) and then say that he desires all people to be saved, because if

he desired all people to be saved he would elect everyone. Roger Olson specifically states in

relation to irresistible grace (which is intrinsically connected to unconditional election) that he

would not have a problem with it, so long as he did it for everyone, because it would not be a

contradiction for God to say that he desires all to be saved since he saves everyone.17

The other side of this argument is the one that says God would not give commands

unless we had some ability to obey them. This derives from passages that call people to

16Olson,Against Calvinism , 109.17Ibid., 171.


8/10

8

repentance such as Romans 2:4 and Acts 2:38. This is one of the strongest arguments in favor of

prevenient grace, because it is very logical and coherent, making it attractive.

The issue with both sides of this argument is that when you examine the scriptures the

logic that prevenient grace offers is nowhere to be found. The doctrine of prevenient grace is

seen as a fix to a logical issue and is why many Christians see synergism as the only option if

you are not to slander the character of God. It is observable that the doctrine itself cannot be

formulated out of the passages on hand; it can only be imposed on them. It must be recognized

that no one has ever or will ever come to the Bible completely devoid of his or her

presuppositions; no one is neutral. But if we are to be faithful to the scriptures we cannot

sacrifice what they say, or dont say, to make them logical. Which is exactly what Arminians do

when they use these arguments. There are dozens of examples in the Bible where God

commands something that the commanded is unable to do. One of the clearest examples is God

commanding Pharaoh to free his people from their slavery, yet in Exodus 9:16 God explicitly

says that he raised Pharaoh up specifically so that he could show his power. In other words, God

knew that he wasnt going to let his people go, yet he commanded him to do it anyway. Even

more scandalous, in Exodus 10:20 it is recorded that Godwas the one to harden Pharaohs heart,

keeping him from letting his people go. In essence God kept Pharaoh from following Gods

command.

Jesus himself sometimes says things that seem contradict one another. In Matthew

11:27-30 Jesus says on the one hand, come to me allwho labor, but just before he says, no

one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. A

similar passage is found in John 6:41-51. In it Jesus makes statements such as whoeverbelieves

has eternal life, and, if anyoneeats of this bread. But just before he said, No one can come to


9/10

9

me unless the Father who sent me draws him. This is the point at which an Arminian would feel

comfortable saying that the revealing of the Son and the drawing of the father are included in

prevenient grace. Again the issue with saying such is that prevenient grace is a logical fix

imposed on scripture rather than demanded by exegesis.

So whats the alternative? If there is no prevenient grace to reconcile the issue, and if

scripture does not give the solution to the conundrum then we must conclude that they dont need

to be reconciled, or at least God in His wisdom decided that we dont need to know how they are

reconciled. J.I. Packer attributes this phenomenon as an antinomy, which, exists when a pair of

principles stand side by side, seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable.

18

Solutions such as

this are seen by Arminians to be no solutions at all, rather as turning a blind eye to the issue. One

must ask the question: which makes you more uncomfortable, supporting a doctrine that is not

born out of careful exegesis, or being okay with not fully understanding how Gods saving

activity works? If we are to stay faithful we must go as far as the scriptures take us and no

further. The creation of such major doctrines such as prevenient grace - without sufficient

scriptural support inevitably leads down an unnecessary and dangerous road.

Conclusion

Based upon a fairly comprehensive examination of the texts used by Arminians to

develop the doctrine of prevenient grace, it is my opinion that such a doctrine does not hold up to

biblical scrutiny. Though it is attractive because it seems to solve many problems there is simply

not enough in the Bible to create a doctrine of such proportion, it relies more upon logic than

scriptural exegesis.

18J.I. Packer,Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1961), 18.


10/10

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Arminius, James. The Writings of James Arminius. Translated by James Nichols. Vol. 1. Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956.

Chiles, Robert E. Theological Transition in American Methodism: 1790-1935,Nashville:

Abingdon Press, 1965.

Crawford, J. Gregory. Streams of Mercy: Prevenient Grace in the Theology of John and Charles

Wesley. Asbury Theological Seminary Series: The Study of World Christian RevitalizationMovements in Pietist/Weslean Studies, No. 3. Lexington: Emeth Press, 2010.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1994.

Horton, Michael.For Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

Oden, Thomas C. The Transforming Power of Grace. Nashville: Abingon Press, 1993.

Olson, Roger E.Against Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

Olson, Roger E.Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,2006.

Packer, J.I.Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1961.

Schreiner, Thomas R. and Bruce A. Ware, eds. Still Sovereign. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.

Stanglin, Keith D. and Thomas H. McCall.Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace. New York:

Oxford University Press, 2012.

Wesley, John. Sermons on Several Occasions. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics EtherealLibrary, 2009.

pr even ient grace research paper final draft

Documents