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?
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.
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 ----------
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'?
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 ----------
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 ----------
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?
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.
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.
