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.

Discussion

We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.

Here the Traditionalists (as they like to be called) affirm that the carnal unregenerate man has the ability to choose against his nature. The Calvinist affirms that man has freedom to choose but ONLY within his nature, in agreement with Romans 8:7

We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person.

Calvinists agree! The inclusion of this sentence shows that the Traditionalists either do not understand what they are attempting to refute, or are determined to misrepresent the opposing view.

We deny that there is an “effectual call” for certain people that is different from a “general call” to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.

This shows they believe that Christ’s atonement only makes salvation possible, but fails to secure the salvation of anyone.

Here is Spurgeon from Sermon 181 titled Particular Redemption

We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it, we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if”—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will just go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say, “No,” you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death, we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it. We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your
atonement, you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

It simply does not matter — logically, philosophically, theologically, or scripturally — whether there is such a thing as prevenient grace at all, whether it is universal, or whether it is associated only with preaching. If A and B both receive prevenient grace that enables them to choose contrary to their nature (whether because it’s universal or because they both heard the gospel preached), what is the sole difference between A and B when A responds to the gospel and B does not? According to Thiessen/Olson/Arminians, both were too depraved in themselves to respond, but both were enabled by prevenient grace (God’s activity) to respond if they chose to. Without any additional activity by God, A chose to respond; B did not. A is different from B in some critical way — he is smarter, wiser, more self-aware, more spiritually sensitive, less sinful, more righteous, less prideful, more humble … something. Where the rubber met the road, A had what it took and B did not. (No worries about God’s fairness to B — he never deserved whatever saving opportunity he had.) Arminians will deny this vehemently, but nonsensically: A has something to boast about (whether very quietly or very loudly), something to be self-satisfied about; he did something, or he was something, or his character was such, or any other formulation of his difference from B, but in some critical way, large or miniscule, his choice/decision/response/faith (whatever) made the difference between his salvation and B’s damnation. Unavoidable conclusion. Flatly contrary to the Bible.

I suspect that in fact the Arminians believe the critical difference between A and B resides in A without the construct of prevenient grace, but they can’t bring themselves to say so because it’s that much more obvious that they’re contradicting Scripture. But the concept of prevenient grace doesn’t solve the problem; it merely (briefly) delays it.

I can’t find anything to disagree with in your post other than the last paragraph.

It’s never been clear to me what the Arminians are thinking when confronted with that point, but everything I’ve seen suggests they sincerely believe their solution to be *more* biblical than the alternatives.

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.

Article Six: The Election to Salvation
We affirm that, in reference to salvation, election speaks of God’s eternal, gracious, and certain plan in Christ to have a people who are His by repentance and faith.
We deny that election means that, from eternity, God predestined certain people for salvation and others for condemnation.
Genesis 1:26-28; 12:1-3; Exodus 19:6; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Matthew 24:31; 25:34; John 6:70; 15:16; Romans 8:29-30, 33;9:6-8; 11:7; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2:11-22; 3:1-11; 4:4-13; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 1 Peter 1:1-2; 1 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 7:9-10

-A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation, May 30, AD 2012

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Charles H. Spurgeon ever preached on 1 John 2:2.

David R. Brumbelow

I appreciate what you’re saying, and the first part of my last paragraph probably isn’t fair to at least some. As a former Arminian (third generation Nazarene), I felt more leeway than I otherwise would have, and perhaps that was presumptuous rather than knowledgeable. I do think that the spiritual explanation for a belief in and a defense of synergistic salvation is pride, often or usually unrecognized. But we’re all prey to that sin in a million ways.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Article Six: The Election to Salvation

We affirm that, in reference to salvation, election speaks of God’s eternal, gracious, and certain plan in Christ to have a people who are His by repentance and faith.

We deny that election means that, from eternity, God predestined certain people for salvation and others for condemnation.

Genesis 1:26-28; 12:1-3; Exodus 19:6; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Matthew 24:31; 25:34; John 6:70; 15:16; Romans 8:29-30, 33;9:6-8; 11:7; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2:11-22; 3:1-11; 4:4-13; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 1 Peter 1:1-2; 1 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 7:9-10

-A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation, May 30, AD 2012

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Charles H. Spurgeon ever preached on 1 John 2:2.

David R. Brumbelow

The Statement you’re quoting really isn’t something one should rely on. It has no official status, it’s badly inaccurate historically (for example, what it calls the “traditional” SBC understanding was adopted in 1963 as the denomination was going liberal, before the conservative resurgence), and it denies (presumably due merely to sloppiness) the doctrine of original sin (and hence is — again, presumably not really intentionally — actually semi-Pelagian). https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-faqs-southern-baptists-c…

The Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation (TS) was made in 2012, not 1963. It was endorsed by a number of conservatives in the SBC, not moderates or liberals.

Contrary to the accusations of many (not all) Calvinists, the TS is not Pelagian nor Semi-Pelagian. Anyone can see that if they know what Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian really mean and actually, fairly read the Traditional Statement.

“According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the so-called Semipelagianism of the 4th and 5th centuries ‘maintained that the first steps toward the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later.’ As recent scholars have noted, this definition needs to be refined in light of the historical evidence. But setting that aside, let’s go with this definition for a moment, since this is, generally speaking, the way the term is used by many today.

By that definition, Baptist theologians Malcolm Yarnell and Adam Harwood have demonstrated from the language of the TS itself that it clearly denies Semipelagianism. The Statement affirms the priority of divine grace in nearly every article, including Article Two, which is the focus of the Semipelagian charge.” -David L. Allen

https://soteriology101.com/2018/10/08/dr-david-l-allen-what-semipelagia…

David R. Brumbelow

OK. I didn’t know how familiar you were with the Statement’s history and the criticisms of it. I get it — you’re committed to the Statement, so no reason to re-direct this thread to that topic. One point on the original sin issue though (and if it’s the Semi-Pelagian label that’s your main sticking point, I don’t care if we just call it the original sin issue). The Statement’s Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man says:

“We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell. We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. 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.”

The italicized sentence is a real problem, both biblically and as a representation about SBC doctrine (or Baptist doctrine generally), whether you call it historical, “traditional,” majority, or whatever. I grew up in the Nazarene church (Arminian), graduated BJU, spent decades after that in IFB churches, and spent additional years as attender or member at several SBC churches. In none of those environments did any pastor or teacher deny that we’re all guilty in Adam before we have personally sinned (which of course happens immediately anyway). Do you agree with that portion of the Statement, or do you agree that on that particular issue it goes too far?

Here is the disturbing part for me, from Thiessen (above):

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.

Prevenient grace is the mechanism which Arminian theologians think is necessary to make a Gospel call meaningful and legitimate. My issue is that I don’t see Scripture to support this concept of prevenient grace, either in the OT or the NT. I recently bought a book specifically on prevenient grace, but haven’t dug into it, yet. I’ve read Olson.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Some believe a man is guilty of sin when he is conceived, or born. He is directly guilty, because of Adam’s sin.

Others believe a man is born with a sin nature because of Adam, but is not guilty of sin until he actually commits sin. They point to Scripture about a man not being held guilty of his father’s sin (Deuteronomy 24:16; etc.), and other reasons.

Either view fits into orthodox Christianity.

David R. Brumbelow

[David R. Brumbelow]

Some believe a man is guilty of sin when he is conceived, or born. He is directly guilty, because of Adam’s sin.

Others believe a man is born with a sin nature because of Adam, but is not guilty of sin until he actually commits sin. They point to Scripture about a man not being held guilty of his father’s sin (Deuteronomy 24:16; etc.), and other reasons.

Either view fits into orthodox Christianity.

David R. Brumbelow

I am careful not to charge Arminians as semi-Pelagians but the latter view seems to be solidly in that camp.

I n my comment on the Statement, I worded my reference to “semi-pelagian” very carefully on purpose. I didn’t say it was semi-pelagian. Rather, I observed that it’s difficult to see how it is not. The quoted portion on original sin, doesn’t relieve the difficulty for me. Maybe it does for others.

I accept that those who claim the Statement don’t intend to take a semi-pelagian position, but I can’t seem to squint hard enough to see the difference. Assuming the problem is me, maybe someone can clarify some distinction(s) I’m missing.

Meanwhile, Dr Combs’ article has a table that seemed to lay out the major variations on original sin/depravity. I’ll give it another look.

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.

Aaron, just so you know I wasn’t referencing you post. I was just surprised to see David’s statement.

[josh p]

Aaron, just so you know I wasn’t referencing you post. I was just surprised to see David’s statement.

Understood. Thanks. I was responding to David’s post as well. (Maybe in a future site update we should bring back threading. It can be just as confusing though)

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.

[Aaron Blumer]

I can’t find anything to disagree with in your post other than the last paragraph.

It’s never been clear to me what the Arminians are thinking when confronted with that point, but everything I’ve seen suggests they sincerely believe their solution to be *more* biblical than the alternatives.

Dr. Combs put it more gracefully than I did, in the conclusion of his article: “Prevenient grace seems to be more of a theological necessity in the Arminian system than demonstrable teaching of Scripture.”