Prevenient Grace – God's "Go" Signal?
Image
In this excerpt from his classic Lectures in Systematic Theology, Henry Thiessen explains the concept of prevenient grace:1
All Christians are agreed that God has decreed to save men, but not all are agreed as to how He does this. We must, in this connection, particularly remember that God must take the initiative in salvation, that man, even in his present helpless state, is really responsible, and that God’s decrees are not based on caprice or arbitrary will, but on His wise and holy counsel. To our mind, the following things seem to be involved in the decree to save sinners:
The freedom of man
God has a very high regard for freedom. He could have made the creature an automon, but He preferred to make him capable of choosing whether or not he would obey and serve Him. The idea of freedom appears in two forms in Scripture.
On the one hand, freedom is thought of as simply the ability to carry out the dictates of one’s nature, whether as that of a holy unfallen being or as that of a sinful and fallen one. On the other hand, freedom is conceived of also as the ability to act contrary to one’s nature. Originally the creature (both angels and man) had freedom in both senses of the term. It had the ability not to sin and also the ability to sin. With the fall, the creature lost the ability not to sin (Gen 6:5; Job 14:14; Jer 13:23, 17:9; Rom 3:10-18, 8:5-8). It is now free only in the sense that it is able to do so as its fallen nature suggests.
Since man neither looks to God for deliverance, nor has any claim on God’s help, he is in a pitiable condition indeed (Rom 7:15-24). We, therefore, ask, How can he help living in sin? How can he ever choose contrary to his evil nature?
Prevenient grace
The upshot of the matter is that God must take the initiative if man is to be saved. God cannot relax His law simply because man is no longer able to obey it. Now all Calvinists believe in common grace. They teach that, since the race fell in Adam and lost all claims to consideration before God, we have in the blessings of life, health, friends fruitful seasons, prosperity, the delay of punishment, the presence and influence of the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and the Church, manifestation of the common grace of God. Common grace is not sufficient for salvation, yet it reveals the goodness of God to all sinful creatures.
This is true, but why stop there?
We believe that the common grace of God also restores to the sinner the ability to make a favorable response to God. In other words, we hold that God, in His grace, makes it possible for all men to be saved.
That God does take the initiative in salvation is evident from His dealings with Adam and Eve after they had fallen (Gen 3:8-9). It is also evident from the teachings of Scripture in general (Isa 59:15-16; John 15:16). Paul says: “Not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance” (Rom 2:4). This is a conative idea: it tries to lead thee to repentance.
Paul also says: “For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men” (Titus 2:11). This results in the freeing of the will in the matter of salvation. That the will has been so freed is implied in the various exhortations to turn to God (Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6, 18:32; Joel 2:13-14; Mt 18:3; Acts 3:19), to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Mt 3:2; Mk 1:15; Lk 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38, 17:30), and to believe (2 Chron 20:20; Isa 43:10; John 6:29, 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil 1:29; 1 Jn 3:23).
But we should note exactly what this means and what it does not mean. It does not mean that prevenient grace enables a man to change the permanent bent of his will in the direction of God; nor that he can quit all sin and make himself acceptable to God. It does mean that he can make an initial response to God, as a result of which God can give him repentance and faith. He can say: “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned” (Jer 31:18-19; cf. Lam 5:21; Ps 80:3, 19; Ps 85:4).
If he can say this much, then he has had a measure of freedom restored to him; then he can in some measure act contrary to his fallen nature; and then he becomes doubly responsible, even in his present helpless state. And, if he will say this much, then God will turn him, grant him repentance (Acts 5:31, 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25) and faith (Rom 12:3; 2 Pet 1:1). The common grace of God is now seen to be intended to induce men to make this response.
Thiessen goes on to briefly discuss election based on foreknowledge of response to prevenient grace. We close our excerpt with the first portion of Thiessen’s discussion on “special or saving grace.”
We have seen that prevenient grace makes it possible for a man to respond favorably to God; but it does not compel him to do so. Because of it he can say: “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned” (Jer 31:18-19); in other words, he can now indicate some measure of desire for God. This positive response does not yet save him: it merely gives God the “go” signal, as we would say in this day of traffic signals. There are further conditions to meet; and in response to man’s “go” signal, God can now enable man to meet them. These conditions are, as we have already intimated, repentance and faith.
Notes:
1 Henry Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 154-157.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 105 views
[David R. Brumbelow]dmyers,
I’ve already answered your questions above. The Traditional Statement also answers them. Read it and read the link.
“While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.”
David R. Brumbelow
You hadn’t answered my question or I wouldn’t have re-asked it. And if you have answered my question (straightforwardly), what’s the harm in repeating the (straightforward) answer here? I have read the Statement and I think it does answer my question, but you seem to be claiming that it says something different, but you won’t address the question head on. The different sentence from the Statement that you quote in your response here does not answer the question. There’s a difference between the Holy Spirit’s drawing and prevenient grace. If you don’t or won’t get the distinction, I can’t help you. Just be aware that if you’re not preaching to your choir on these subjects (or at least to people who don’t/won’t ask follow-up questions), you’re being incomprehensible. You may think your answers/presentation are “cute” and clever, but the only one you’re impressing is yourself. You’re not advancing the dialogue.
For all the quotations of others, we could just quote God:
“For if by the transgression of the one the many died, … the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, … by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one … as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men … For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners.”
What does this mean if not that the sin of Adam brought condemnation and death to all of us?
The point of Romans 5 is that we become sinners in the same way we become righteous: By something we didn’t do.
If you become a sinner by your own acts of sin, then you must become righteous by your own acts of righteousness. If, on the other hand, you are declared a sinner by the sin of Adam, you can be declared righteous by the obedience of Christ. The whole beauty and truth of the gospel depends on the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt.
The idea that one can have original sin without original guilt seems to question the justice of God. How can sin not bring guilt? And if we are not guilty, on what basis are we condemned by the sin of the one man? Does God condemn people who aren’t guilty?
The whole idea of the “traditional statement” is misleading, it seems to me. I think what they mean is “majority view.” Traditionally there has been a strong Calvinistic component in Baptist life.
If Adam’s guilt is not inherited, then it seems to me you have an interesting problem re. children dying in infancy.
In the first place, since they have no guilt or share in Adam’s sin, one would think it unjust that they bear the penalty of that sin (death). They shouldn’t have to die at all, since they’re receiving “wages” for which they didn’t pay.
Now should one argue that those dying in infancy are simply the innocent victims of Adam’s sin, the whole discussion over “elect infants” or “age of accountability,” et al, is moot; as individuals innocent of any guilt (Adam’s or personal guilt), they would naturally proceed directly to heaven, no questions asked. In this case, it truly would be better for most people to die in infancy.
The guilt question isn’t really relevant to the prevenient grace issue. It comes down to inability. If natural man is able to turn to Christ on his own—or sort of partly turn, as some of the views seem to say—no prevenient grace is necessary. On the other hand, if his mind and will are hostile toward God, something must make it not hostile, something outside him.
The Statement seems to try to have it both ways, denying natural inability but also insisting the Holy Spirit’s work is required, which seems to only shift the original problem to a (slightly) different location: does the Holy Spirit draw/convict every single person, or only some?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The guilt question isn’t really relevant to the prevenient grace issue.
I think it is at least somewhat relevant. Total inability is due to spiritual death which is because of the guilt of sin. If man is not guilty of sin, then then there would be no need for the kind of grace we are talking about here—prevenient or not.
Why need grace unless you are guilty of sin?
I see the connection — spiritual death as consequence of culpability. On the other hand, the argument could be made that man inherits inability as a consequence of Adam’s sin without each person being culpable for that sin, sort of like if some evildoer poisons a well in a village: one is “guilty,” but all are damaged.
This is not my own view, of original sin and its consequences though. (In my view, we are all both culpable and damaged.) So, my point is that since it’s possible to conceptually separate guilt and inability, it’s really the latter that is the problem for those who want to find some way to see everybody as able… and how to come up with that and yet fit it to Scripture and avoid the errors of Pelagius. It’s a tall order. (To me, it doesn’t seem worth it, especially if you’re going to turn around and say nobody comes to the Faith unless the Spirit directly acts on him/her first. If you’re going to do that, you’re back at inability again, and the whole exercise was a turn on a merry go round. Seems to me, if you’re going to posit universal prevenient grace, that grace should be sufficient to allow a person to come to Christ without any additional divine intervention. If more intervention is required, then the sinner is not able.)
(I mean “you” generically, not “you”=Larry :-) )
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Now back to point number three above. Calvinists and Arminians err when they claim that theologically, it’s either Calvinism or Arminianism. This approach does not do justice to the varieties of orthodox Christian traditions. Augustinianism is not identical with Calvinism. Nor can Lutheranism be identified as Calvinism. As Michael Horton rightly noted, Confessional Lutherans “cannot be pressed into Calvinist-Arminian categories” because they affirm unconditional election and monergism, but deny double predestination, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of believers (Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, 314.n.11). Douglas A. Sweeney (professor of Church History at Trinity) informs us that Lutheranism is … Lutherans. They are neither “hesitant Calvinists” nor “two-and-a-half-point Calvinists.” (See https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/was-luther-a-calvinist/). Baptists are Baptists, and we are a varied bunch! Those who affirm the TS reject the notion that one has to be either Calvinist or Arminian … and Baptist history is on our side. Seehttp://www.baptisttheology.org/white-papers/neither-calvinists-nor-armi….
https://soteriology101.com/2018/10/08/dr-david-l-allen-what-semipelagia…
Appealing to Lutheranism as a “third way” between Calvinism and Arminianism (or full-blown semipelagianism) is problematic. Little wonder those who do so rarely elaborate on the issue, other than to raise it as an objection.
Confessional Lutheranism (contra mainline Lutheranism [which is pointless] or Luther himself [who strongly affirmed Augustinian predestination] ) has developed mechanisms by which it can evade the issues at the heart of the disagreement between Arminianism and Calvinism.
These mechanisms, however, are rooted in a uniquely Lutheran sacramentology and Christology. Furthermore, they allow for a wide latitude of what they refer to as “mystery,” but most of us—Calvinist or Arminian—would label “contradiction.” Mechanisms that, upon scrutiny, would make your typical Arminian very uncomfortable.
Unless you a) agree with them on some of these points, or b) have developed similar complex theological superstructures of your own, appealing to Lutheranism is not a valid move.
Discussion