Prevenient Grace: What is it?

[Lovely Jar]

which is it? You (the reformed posters here) keep telling me that God changes the HEART. By saying that we do not become a child by our own will is to suggest force, which is NOT love.

I think it may help to understand that those who think people don't choose to follow Jesus but that their salvation is predestined by God, are speaking in the Calvinist tongue.

The John 1:10-13 verse states what can be read to mean people choose to receive Jesus who came as the light of the world and was not at first received by his own people, the Jews. And when the people did choose to receive Jesus, Jesus gave them the power to become children of God by his God's grace and desire that they be reborn and made children of God.

pre·ven·ient

[pri-veen-yuh

nt]
adjective 1.coming before; antecedent.
2.anticipatory.

The link that was posted early on is to the Christian reference site: Got Questions.
Prevenient grace is what is addressed in that link. For those who can not access it on their phone.


This is an excerpt from that page:
Simply put, prevenient grace is the grace of God given to individuals that releases them from their bondage to sin and enables them to come to Christ in faith but does not guarantee that the sinner will actually do so. Thus, the efficacy of the enabling grace of God is determined not by God but by man.

In order for a person to be born again, regenerated as a new being washed clean of their faults and predilections as sinners, they have to believe in Jesus and choose to accept him as their savior, renounce their sins, and go down in water to be washed clean, Baptized, so as to arise to a new life.

Jesus said no one comes to the father but through him. But, Jesus was the father. John 3:16 says, God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Whosover believeth, is the key. How would you be saved prior to choosing to believe in a savior?

This is why Prevenient grace is not Biblical.

 

[nobdysfool]

I've never once read anything by John Calvin. Weird.

Neither have I, with the exception of quotes that others have provided here. and since most of those are taken out of context (funny how the non-Calvinists tend to quote him more than the Calvinists do...), I do not rely on such quotes to shape my theology.

And yet, Calvinists are accused of following a man rather than Christ. Talk about a straw man!

 

[nobdysfool]

If it falls to man to make the Grace of God efficacious, we are all still in our sins, for we are relying on God to do that which He is relying on us to do!

I'd call that Mexican standoff (no offense meant to Mexicans)

That doesn't square with the God of Scripture, fortunately.

 

[guuila]

Neither have I, with the exception of quotes that others have provided here. and since most of those are taken out of context (funny how the non-Calvinists tend to quote him more than the Calvinists do...), I do not rely on such quotes to shape my theology.

And yet, Calvinists are accused of following a man rather than Christ. Talk about a straw man!

Excellent observation. This is my experience as well. The only John Calvin I've read is from synergists quoting him.

 

[SolaOne]

Well, since he's writing to a church...

Do you think it is a church door?

Do you think everyone at the church of Laodicea was born again?

 

[Hammster]

Do you think it is a church door?

Do you think everyone at the church of Laodicea was born again?

I thinks it's metaphorical for standing outside of the church as a whole. And I don't think everybody in any church should be considered born again.

 

[OzSpen]

Neither have I, with the exception of quotes that others have provided here. and since most of those are taken out of context (funny how the non-Calvinists tend to quote him more than the Calvinists do...), I do not rely on such quotes to shape my theology.

And yet, Calvinists are accused of following a man rather than Christ. Talk about a straw man!

I actually do read Calvin in his commentaries and Institutes of the Christian Religion. That's why I'm able to show that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement.

I would have thought that if I wanted to understand a particular author, it would pay me to read him/her. Have I missed something here?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Excellent observation. This is my experience as well. The only John Calvin I've read is from synergists quoting him.

That's a sad admission.

 

[guuila]

That's a sad admission.

Why?

 

[guuila]

I actually do read Calvin in his commentaries and Institutes of the Christian Religion. That's why I'm able to show that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement.

Let me guess - Spurgeon was a four pointer too right?

 

[Hammster]

I actually do read Calvin in his commentaries and Institutes of the Christian Religion. That's why I'm able to show that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement.

I would have thought that if I wanted to understand a particular author, it would pay me to read him/her. Have I missed something here?

Oz

You need to remember that "Calvinist" is just a convenient term. Most if us would be better described at Dordtists. But that doesn't roll off of the tongue very well.

 

[Hammster]

That's a sad admission.

Not really. It's already bad enough that we get accused of "following a man". At least this way we have an out.

 

[nobdysfool]

I actually do read Calvin in his commentaries and Institutes of the Christian Religion. That's why I'm able to show that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement.

I would have thought that if I wanted to understand a particular author, it would pay me to read him/her. Have I missed something here?

Oz

Actually, my intent and goal is to understand the Word of God, not Calvin. And just because I tend to identify with the Calvinist understanding of some points of theology doesn't mean I am a "Calvinist, right or wrong!" I'm not what would be termed 100% Calvinist, in that I am not a cessationist, I am not (as far as I know) an Amillenialist, and I'm certainly not a paedobaptist. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Perhaps it's the unfortunate tendency most people have of trying to so tightly categorize people, theologies, and philosophies, for the purpose of "pigeon-holing" them. I have learned to think "outside the box", which actually forces one to listen more closely, and thereby increase understanding.

Just my two-cents....

 

[guuila]

Well, that was fun.

 

[OzSpen]

Let me guess - Spurgeon was a four pointer too right?

Another red herring logical fallacy.

What was I discussing to which you replied. This is what I wrote:

I actually do read Calvin in his commentaries and Institutes of the Christian Religion. That's why I'm able to show that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement.

I was discussing Calvin, not Spurgeon. So by bringing Spurgeon into your reply you have committed a red herring logical fallacy.

Bye, Oz

 

[Hammster]

So much for the informal debate structure.

 

[SolaOne]

Originally Posted by Skala
Not exactly.

One is a mere wooing on God's part to try to entice sinners to do the right thing.

The other is God himself actually doing a miraculous, spiritual work in the person so that the blindfold is removed, the heart is changed, the hostility is disarmed, and we are quickened from spiritual death to life. The natural result of this is being willing to repent and believe the gospel.
​

Skala, would you say some more about the wooing to TRY to entice sinner to do the right thing? You don't mean the Holy Spirit is trying to entice sinners to believe do you?

 

[SolaOne]

I thinks it's metaphorical for standing outside of the church as a whole. And I don't think everybody in any church should be considered born again.

Rev 3:20
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

"If anyone"

 

[Hammster]

Rev 3:20
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

"If anyone"

And...?

 

[SolaOne]

Just that you think it is metaphorical for the church as a whole, but he seems to be talking about individuals.