Prevenient Grace: What is it?

[crimsonleaf]

I clicked on the link hoping to get a better handle (I'm guessing that you don't want to address this for some reason?). But I didn't find what I had hoped to find. So I was wondering if you could help me out as this is something I'm hoping to get a better grasp on.

Thanks.

Some say it's the grace given to all mankind which enables them to take a step towards God.

My problem is that the Bible says all men are opposed to God. If they all, without exception have prevenient grace from the outset then something doesn't ring true. None of them would be opposed to God.

However, if prevenient grace is given only to the elect, then it's exactly equal to the effectual grace we believe in.

Can someone put me right too please.

BTW. I've read Oz's linked article and it's inconclusive in answering my point.

 

[OzSpen]

I clicked on the link hoping to get a better handle (I'm guessing that you don't want to address this for some reason?). But I didn't find what I had hoped to find. So I was wondering if you could help me out as this is something I'm hoping to get a better grasp on.

Thanks.

So what is it that you are wanting to get a better grasp on? I can't help when you don't specify.

What causes you to state that I don't want to address this topic? Because I give a link to another person's article says nothing about my ability or inability to address this topic. I have provided a link a number of times on CF to my article: 'Is prevenient grace still amazing grace?'

Read Titus 2:11 and it will give some of the biblical basis for prevenient grace.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Some say it's the grace given to all mankind which enables them to take a step towards God.

My problem is that the Bible says all men are opposed to God. If they all, without exception have prevenient grace from the outset then something doesn't ring true. None of them would be opposed to God.

However, if prevenient grace is given only to the elect, then it's exactly equal to the effectual grace we believe in.

Can someone put me right too please.

BTW. I've read Oz's linked article and it's inconclusive in answering my point.

It's amazing how you continue to ignore one of the most pointed Bible verses in addressing the theology of prevenient grace. Titus 2:11 reads,

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people (ESV).

Oz

 

[JohnWho?]

So what is it that you are wanting to get a better grasp on? I can't help when you don't specify.

What causes you to state that I don't want to address this topic? Because I give a link to another person's article says nothing about my ability or inability to address this topic. I have provided a link a number of times on CF to my article: Is prevenient grace still amazing grace?[/URL]'

Read Titus 2:11 and it will give some of the biblical basis for prevenient grace.

Oz

Okay. I'm sorry I bothered you. I guess I was hoping that maybe you'd address the starting post. Last time I was here I was attacked by Calvinists for saying the Holy Spirit was a gentleman. I didn't expect this kind of treatment from others.

Again, my apologies. God bless.

 

[Hammster]

It's amazing how you continue to ignore one of the most pointed Bible verses in addressing the theology of prevenient grace. Titus 2:11 reads,

Oz

Is it possible, based on the context (Paul addressing various types of people) that the "all men" in v. 11 could refer to "all types of men"?

 

[SolaOne]

Isn't prevenient grace irresistible grace (which has no explicit texts either) that can be resisted?

not sure about the wording, but can you understand the question?

 

[Ignatius21]

This term gets used from time to time around here. I think some just assume that everyone understands it.

So, here's a chance for proponents to set the record straight.

1. What is it?
2. Why is it necessary?
3. What is the biblical support?

I have only ever heard the term used in Arminian-Calvinist debates. I've always heard it associated with Weslyan theology.

I have heard some Catholic theologians make reference to the term...I don't know if it has a specific meaning within Catholic circles or if they were just adopting the term from the Weslyans.

From what I've read of it in the past, when such arguments actually mattered to me, it seems more like a philosophical construct whereby one can still hold to an "Augustinian" concept of original sin, and even a Calvinist construct of "depravity" while still defending man's ability to choose freely. Sort of like God, wanting to guard our free will despite having allowed everyone to fall into such a state as to not have a free will, injects just enough grace into every one of us to allow a sort of feeble but real movement toward Him.

I've heard a few Orthodox use the term, but I suspect they had either carried it over from an Evangelical past, or were using it out of convenience because it's become such a common term. As best I can understand it, though, the concept is unnecessary in Orthodox thought because we do not hold to the "Augustinian" understanding of original sin.

(And I put "Augustinian" in quotes because I cannot say first-hand whether it's really what Augustine himself taught. I've never read his own writings on it. But So many people attribute that thinking to him, that I will assume it's accurate enough.)

 

[crimsonleaf]

It's amazing how you continue to ignore one of the most pointed Bible verses in addressing the theology of prevenient grace. Titus 2:11 reads,

Oz

It's not that I'm ignoring it Oz, it's that I understand it differently to you, just as a large chunk of Christendom does. Don't be amazed.

PS. I don't agree with the Catholics either, and they say both you AND I are wrong.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I have only ever heard the term used in Arminian-Calvinist debates. I've always heard it associated with Weslyan theology.

I have heard some Catholic theologians make reference to the term...I don't know if it has a specific meaning within Catholic circles or if they were just adopting the term from the Weslyans.

From what I've read of it in the past, when such arguments actually mattered to me, it seems more like a philosophical construct whereby one can still hold to an "Augustinian" concept of original sin, and even a Calvinist construct of "depravity" while still defending man's ability to choose freely. Sort of like God, wanting to guard our free will despite having allowed everyone to fall into such a state as to not have a free will, injects just enough grace into every one of us to allow a sort of feeble but real movement toward Him.

I've heard a few Orthodox use the term, but I suspect they had either carried it over from an Evangelical past, or were using it out of convenience because it's become such a common term. As best I can understand it, though, the concept is unnecessary in Orthodox thought because we do not hold to the "Augustinian" understanding of original sin.

(And I put "Augustinian" in quotes because I cannot say first-hand whether it's really what Augustine himself taught. I've never read his own writings on it. But So many people attribute that thinking to him, that I will assume it's accurate enough.)

Addressing the emboldened part above, I think we agree upon the oddness of the concept, unless I'm reading too much into what you're saying. If every man is given enough grace to over-ride his opposition to God, all the bible verses which speak of man's incapacity become virtually meaningless.

You'll know that as Calvinists we believe in a form of prevenient grace, it's just that ours is targeted on the elect, and is anything but feeble. I know you'll disagree with that, but it seems to make more sense than God cursing all of mankind then immediately effectively giving them some form of spiritual cashback to get them halfway to where they were before.

 

[SolaOne]

Acts 2:37
When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Is this an example? it says their heart was affected, but it doesn't say they were regenerated.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Acts 2:37
When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Is this an example? it says their heart was affected, but it doesn't say they were regenerated.

I can't see any relevance.

Someone could have told them their dog had died and they would have been cut to the heart.

 

[Ignatius21]

Addressing the emboldened part above, I think we agree upon the oddness of the concept, unless I'm reading too much into what you're saying. If every man is given enough grace to over-ride his opposition to God, all the bible verses which speak of man's incapacity become virtually meaningless.

You'll know that as Calvinists we believe in a form of prevenient grace, it's just that ours is targeted on the elect, and is anything but feeble. I know you'll disagree with that, but it seems to make more sense than God cursing all of mankind then immediately effectively giving them some form of spiritual cashback to get them halfway to where they were before.

I think I pretty much do agree with what you've said. As I've heard "prevenient grace" defined and defended by its evangelical advocates, it has always struck me as a bit of a philosophical double-take...realizing that a truly operative free will is inconsistent with an "Augustinian" view of sin and guilt, and a Reformational view of depravity, it seems like a bit of a round peg shoved into a square hole for the sake of defending a pre-commitment to a particular understanding of free will.

For a variety of reasons I think that something like Calvinism (by which I mean, some form of non-fatalistic, compatibilism-styled divine determinism...I'm told this could also include the Thomistic strand within Catholicism) is the most self-consistent, and most consistent with the underlying presuppositions.

As you see, it's the presuppositions that I don't hold to.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I think I pretty much do agree with what you've said. As I've heard "prevenient grace" defined and defended by its evangelical advocates, it has always struck me as a bit of a philosophical double-take...realizing that a truly operative free will is inconsistent with an "Augustinian" view of sin and guilt, and a Reformational view of depravity, it seems like a bit of a round peg shoved into a square hole for the sake of defending a pre-commitment to a particular understanding of free will.

For a variety of reasons I think that something like Calvinism (by which I mean, some form of non-fatalistic, compatibilism-styled divine determinism...I'm told this could also include the Thomistic strand within Catholicism) is the most self-consistent, and most consistent with the underlying presuppositions.

As you see, it's the presuppositions that I don't hold to.

You're right, in that a defence of libertarian free will is what it's all about. Thanks for the reply.

 

[OzSpen]

Is it possible, based on the context (Paul addressing various types of people) that the "all men" in v. 11 could refer to "all types of men"?

There is not a word in context that indicates that Titus 2:11 refers to 'all types of men'. That is the way your Calvinistic theology requires it to be interpreted but it's not in the text. It's based on your reading into the text what you want or need to be there.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

There is not a word in context that indicates that Titus 2:11 refers to 'all types of men'. That is the way your Calvinistic theology requires it to be interpreted but it's not in the text. It's based on your reading into the text what you want or need to be there.

Oz

Then your tradition has blinded you. There's nothing in the grammar that wouldn't allow for it. It's the context that determines the usage. And I admit that your usage could be correct. I just don't think it is because of the reasons I've stated.

 

[SolaOne]

I can't see any relevance.

Someone could have told them their dog had died and they would have been cut to the heart.

This prompted them to want to take steps toward the Lord.

Acts 2:36-38
36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

 

[guuila]

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people..."

For the sake of argument, let's say this really does mean the grace of God somehow "visits" every single person. I'd like to know this:

1. How do we know that grace "undoes" Total Depravity? Where in this verse are we taught that this grace unshackles the will of man from its God-hating, in the flesh, hostile, unable to understand the things of the Spirit of God state, and brings it to a more neutral point such that it can make a libertarian free will decision? Any honest person will admit that's reading quite a lot into this verse. It's also worth noting that nowhere in the entirety of Scripture does Paul mention a 3rd category of person. Every single person living is either A) In the flesh or B) In the Spirit according to Paul. Supposed prevenient grace puts a person in a different category altogether because the attributes of this person no longer match those described by Paul of people who are in the flesh.

2. If you continue reading verse 12-14, you see this:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. (Titus 2:11-14 ESV)

So whoever this grace of God appears to, it brings salvation, training to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ..."

Is it true that 100% of the human race is being trained to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, etc? Because from what I understand from Paul here, that's what this grace does. Obviously the synergists here are changing the meaning of the word "salvation" in v11 to "way of salvation" so they can shoehorn in their freewill-ism. If salvation has been brought to 100% of humanity, universalism is true.

 

[guuila]

*crickets*

 

[Hammster]

*bullfrogs*

 

[SolaOne]

Originally Posted by crimsonleaf
I can't see any relevance.

Someone could have told them their dog had died and they would have been cut to the heart.
​

This prompted them to want to take steps toward the Lord.

Acts 2:36-38
36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
​