# Good Scripture Against Prevenient Grace



## Jared (Dec 20, 2011)

I was reading this last night and thought it was a good scripture to use against the doctrine of Prevenient Grace:


For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

What do you think? Wouldn't this counter the Arminian notion that Total Depravity was overcome for everyone by the grace of God at the cross?


----------



## KMK (Dec 20, 2011)

Jared Hanley said:


> Wouldn't this counter the Arminian notion that Total Depravity was overcome for everyone by the grace of God at the cross?



Is this the definition of 'Prevenient Grace'?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 20, 2011)

I ask first for passages that teach prevenient grace.


----------



## J. Dean (Dec 20, 2011)

Jared Hanley said:


> I was reading this last night and thought it was a good scripture to use against the doctrine of Prevenient Grace:
> 
> 
> For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.
> ...


Not all Arminians disagree with the notion of Total Depravity, although those who do believe in TD are being contradictory by attempting to mix it with the Arminian doctrine of Prevenient Grace.

I simply point to Jesus' words that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him. The Arminian, in order to justify his position, is forced to twist the passage with an unnatural meaning and application (just like they do with Romans 9). In fact, it is the Arminian position on these verses that helped to bring me to a Calvinist understanding, simply because Arminianism does not work with these Scriptures.


----------



## ladodgers6 (Dec 20, 2011)

Jared Hanley said:


> I was reading this last night and thought it was a good scripture to use against the doctrine of Prevenient Grace:
> 
> 
> For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.
> ...


To the layman and novice,please explain whats at stake or at the heart of the issue with this prevenient Grace teaching.Thanks from the new comer,my name is Jesse.


----------



## Jared (Dec 21, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> Jared Hanley said:
> 
> 
> > I was reading this last night and thought it was a good scripture to use against the doctrine of Prevenient Grace:
> ...



The way I see it, all Arminians believe in Total Depravity. Perhaps I should have made myself more clear on the Arminian view of Prevenient Grace.

John Wesley believed in Total Depravity. But, the way I understand Wesley's view of things is that he believed that Total Depravity was overcome at the cross. This is where Prevenient Grace comes in. Now, to be sure, Prevenient Grace weakens Total Depravity. But, nevertheless, Wesley did hold to some form of Total Depravity.

I think the Arminian view of Total Depravity mitigates the effects of the fall to some degree.

The reason I say that all Arminians believe in TD is that those who call themselves Arminians who reject TD are either Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. I agree with Roger Olson on that particular point although Olson's openness (pardon the pun) to the openness position concerns me and I don't think a true Arminian would embrace an Open Theist as a brother.

---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------




KMK said:


> Jared Hanley said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't this counter the Arminian notion that Total Depravity was overcome for everyone by the grace of God at the cross?
> ...



In the modern day, however, prevenient grace is mostly identified with the views of 
Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) and, especially, John Wesley (1703–1791). As used by 
them and modern day Arminians, prevenient grace is grace that enables depraved man 
to believe and be saved, but it goes not guarantee such since it may be rejected. 
Prevenient grace is sufficient for salvation but not efficacious (irresistible). What 
differentiates Calvinists from Arminians is that the former view “electing grace as 
given only to some (the elect) and insist that this grace cannot ultimately be resisted. 
The latter argue that prevenient grace is given to all people and that it can be resisted.” 
Calvinists could argue that they believe in prevenient grace since electing grace does 
come before any human decision in regard to salvation, but they generally 
to not use the term because of its association with Arminianism...

There is no doubt that Wesley’s view of depravity included total inability. Still this 
depravity and inability of man is only hypothetical since God gives prevenient grace to 
every man to offset the effects of depravity and enable each person to believe the 
gospel.

From http://www.apbrown2.net/web/PrevenientGrace_BillCombs.pdf

---------- Post added at 12:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> I ask first for passages that teach prevenient grace.



A lot of Arminians will present this passage as a proof-text for Prevenient Grace:

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,
Titus 2:11 NKJV

The ESV rendering of this verse does sound quite as Arminian:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,
Titus 2:11 ESV

The ESV renders this as only making salvation available whereas the NKJV renders it as making it possible for anyone who hears the Gospel.

Of course, there is still a lot of debate in Reformed circles concerning the well-meant offer but as far as I know, everyone who believes in a limited atonement believes that Jesus actually saved people on the cross and didn't merely make salvation possible.

Still, I don't think Titus 2:11 proves the doctrine of Prevenient Grace. There are a lot of other scriptures that the Arminian has to deal with concerning this issue. However, since many Arminians believe that certain texts are "sovereign texts" (that is that some texts hold more weight than others), it is difficult to convince them that Titus 2:11 should be read alongside all of the other passages that clearly contradict PG.

Also, this idea of "sovereign texts" is clearly a form of cherry-picking.

---------- Post added at 12:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------




ladodgers6 said:


> Jared Hanley said:
> 
> 
> > I was reading this last night and thought it was a good scripture to use against the doctrine of Prevenient Grace:
> ...



What an Arminian means by "Prevenient Grace" is that when people hear the Gospel, the ball is in their court so to speak when it comes to salvation. God has made His move, now it's up to us to make our move. There is no special sovereign grace needed, only a general "Prevenient Grace". To be sure, this Prevenient Grace is necessary and they hold that without it, no one can come to Christ. But, as R.C. Sproul says, to embrace Arminianism (of which Prevenient Grace is an important doctrine) is to set ones feet on the path back to Rome.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 21, 2011)

Jared Hanley said:


> Originally Posted by SolaScriptura
> I ask first for passages that teach prevenient grace.
> A lot of Arminians will present this passage as a proof-text for Prevenient Grace:
> 
> ...



I'm glad you cited that verse because it helps establish the point that there is no passage that speaks of prevenient grace. This passage may be construed as arguing against a "limited atonement," but the question of the extent of the atonement is distinct from the question of whether or not God gave grace that effectively overcame total depravity in all people. In fact, the doctrine of prevenient grace was invented to explain away total depravity because it is untenable with their desire to defend an unlimited atonement and libertarian free-will.

The doctrine of prevenient grace - that the passages speaking of total depravity are "technically" true in that they speak of man prior to the death of Christ as well as what man would be like if not for the death of Christ, but nonetheless, the passages speaking of total depravity are functionally dismissed by appealing to the idea that God dispensed grace to all people thereby overcoming total depravity and thus enabling men to believe.

Not a single verse argues this proposition.


----------



## Dennis1963 (Dec 22, 2011)

ladodgers6 said:


> Jared Hanley said:
> 
> 
> > I was reading this last night and thought it was a good scripture to use against the doctrine of Prevenient Grace:
> ...


Welcome brother, glad to see you here.

---------- Post added at 12:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 AM ----------




Jared Hanley said:


> What an Arminian means by "Prevenient Grace" is that when people hear the Gospel, the ball is in their court so to speak when it comes to salvation. God has made His move, now it's up to us to make our move. There is no special sovereign grace needed, only a general "Prevenient Grace". To be sure, this Prevenient Grace is necessary and they hold that without it, no one can come to Christ. But, as R.C. Sproul says, to embrace Arminianism (of which Prevenient Grace is an important doctrine) is to set ones feet on the path back to Rome.


Great answer!


----------



## August (Dec 25, 2011)

Just having a huge discussion about this elsewhere. I guess the thing that I found about Arminians that amazed me is that if one accepts prevenient grace, it necessarily means that one cannot hold that the work of Christ was fully done on the cross, because to make the work on the cross effectual, one has to add free will belief. It means that the death of Christ did not secure the salvation of anyone. I don't know how anyone reads Hebrews 7-10, and come to the conclusion that the work of Christ is not done, but there it is. Prevenient grace turns out to be of no consequence whatsoever, other than to give Arminians the excuse to distinguish themselves from Pelagians. And if no-one chooses to believe, a very real possibility given the determining factor of free will, then Christ would have died for nothing.

In addition, when it comes to the sincere offer, prevenient grace leaves the Arminian no better off than the Calvinist, whom they often accuse of lying when presenting the gospel. But in effect, they are lying too when they tell a non-believer that Christ died for his sins, because that would only become true if that person then chooses to believe. In his state of unbelief, it is not true anyway, by their own definition, and it also is not true should the person choose not to believe, thereby making the Arminian a liar. I don't know how that can be construed as a gospel offer that is necessarily truthful, as it is contingent on the belief of the person to make it true.

The only way out for the Arminian is then to be a unversalist or open theist.


----------

