Prevenient Grace – God's "Go" Signal?

Article Six: The Election to Salvation

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

Once again the Traditionalists misunderstand or misrepresent the view they oppose.

Calvinists affirm that all men are destined for destruction. We also affirm that in His mercy and grace God withholds that destruction from all who believe. God is active in extending mercy and grace to some, predestinating certain people for salvation, but is inactive in predestinating others for condemnation. There is no equivalency between extending mercy and grace, and withholding mercy and grace. In the case of the elect God extends mercy and grace, and in the case of the non-elect he withholds it. It is not that God walked down the line of humans and picked one for heaven and another for hell.

Since mercy and grace cannot be demanded - if they could they would cease to be mercy and grace - and since all are destined to hell to begin with, we rejoice that God shows mercy to anyone. I recently read or heard (not sure which) an individual say that most of the folks who he met who expressed opposition to particular redemption, were in fact not opposed to it, but rather were opposed to unconditional election.

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

Here is one of many Calvinist responses regarding the verse:

I also believe that rather than undermining the case for Christ’s death for His elect sheep, 1 John 2:2 actually affirms it.

Semi-Pelagianism needs to be defined. Very few Baptists have ever heard the term, and it seems to have many meanings. Some wield it, not really knowing what it means.

It seems to many that “Pelagianism” and “Semi-Pelagianism” are used by Calvinists to accuse others of heresy because they do not agree with Calvinism. Some have done this with Sovereignty. If someone does not believe in the Calvinist variety of Sovereignty, then they are accused of not believing in Sovereignty at all. Not saying all Calvinists do this, but it often happens.

Kind of reminds me of some who accuse a non-Premillennialist of heresy; or a non-Amillennialist of heresy. No, they just disagree on some biblical teachings.

If the Traditional Statement (TS) is heretical, then a large portion of the leaders of the SBC Conservative Resurgence are heretics. Among the TS’s first signers, endorsers were: Bailey Smith, Bobby Welch, Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, Morris Chapman, Jimmy Draper, Steve Gaines, Frank Cox, David Allen, Chuck Kelley, Roy Fish…

The above first seven names all served as SBC presidents. There is not a heretic among them.

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

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.

If the second of these is not the semi-pelagian view, how does it differ?

In Combs’ study, the defining characteristic of the semi-pelagian view is that Adam’s sin is not imputed to his descendants. What distinguishes this from Arminiansim in general is prevenient grace. Since the semi-pelagian view sees no need for PG, the implication is that man’s natural state includes ability to respond positively to the general call.

(So semi-pelagian = nonimputation + natural ability)

Am I missing something?

The Traditional Statement mentions the call and work of the Holy Spirit prior to salvation. How can anyone can miss it?

TS excerpts:

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.

We affirm that grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith.

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

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2012/06/traditional-southern-baptis…

However, no one, Calvinist or not, is going to mention that prior call of God every single time. If someone wants to get that picky, they can accuse John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, 13; etc., of being Semi-Pelagian.

David R. Brumbelow

I believe you were asked about your own comments not what the TS says. Your comments were about inherited guilt which the above does not address in the way that you did.

Original sin does not necessarily equal original guilt. My comments above simply pointed out the different views and that both were within orthodox Christianity.

“Second, presuppositions like ‘original sin entails original guilt’ are considered fact and any denial of such is considered to be a part of Semipelagianism. This was the approach of Herman Bavinck and appears to be followed by some Calvinists, including some commenting in ‘The Baptist Review.’ As Dr. Yarnell has accurately pointed out, on such a partisan definition of Semipelagianism, The Baptist Faith and Message would likely be classified as “Semipelagian” since the BFM makes no reference to original guilt. Not even Reformed theologians are in agreement on whether original sin includes original guilt. Henri Blocher in his book Original Sin notes the different views among the Reformed.” -David L. Allen

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

This also speaks to the false idea of some that if you are not a Calvinist, you must be a heretic.

David R. Brumbeow

For anyone that wants the other side to this issue on Original Sin and Original Guilt, as well as a more detailed defense of the Traditional Statement, see:

Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology, Editors: David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, Adam Harwood

https://www.amazon.com/Anyone-Can-Saved-Traditional-Soteriology/dp/1498…

David R. Brumbelow

You are calling something orthodox based on your own opinion and then criticizing the “presupposition” that negates it. Rejecting Adamic guilt is unorthodox.

Here is Romans 5 to clear it up: “Romans 5:18–21 (NAS): 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

I am not part of the SBC and therefore don’t really have a dog in this fight. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that you are misrepresenting the traditional position until I have a chance to read more about it.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Original sin does not necessarily equal original guilt.

It’s been a while since I looked at the history, didn’t the Council of Carthage (414?) where Pelagius’ teaching was rejected specifically insist on Adamic guilt as inherent in the orthodox doctrine of Original Sin? If not, what was it that got Pelagius’ stuff branded as heresy?

If we say it was his denial of the corruption of the Fall rather than Adamic guilt, that kind of brings our focus to a problem with this angle of defense: What does guilt have to do with the natural capacity to chose God?

It’s inability that is seen by orthodox views to require divine intervention — at the very least, in the form of prevenient grace.

The “guilt” question doesn’t seem to actually be relevant.

(Edited to add: sometimes folks get hung up on “inability,” and prefer to say natural man is able but always refuses. I believe this is just saying it a different way. “Unalterably unwilling” = “unable.” It’s just more specific about why. )

So, the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition affirms that all people, even as infants, have inherited guilt. In explaining this view, theologian Wayne Grudem wrote that “even before birth, children have a guilty standing before God and a sinful nature that not only gives them a tendency to sin but also causes God to view them as ‘sinners.’” Calvinists point to Rom 5:12-21, in which Paul parallels the work of Adam and the work of Christ. But despite the teachings of Augustine and Calvin, Paul was not arguing for our guilt in Adam. Rom 5:12 states, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Paul connects sin to death and states that all have sinned.

Some people read Augustinian-Calvinism into Romans 5, insisting that every person will die because “all sinned,” adding these words that are not in the text: “in Adam.” They say Romans 5 means we’re all guilty because of Adam’s sin. But the text only states that “death spread to all men, because all sinned.” We need to be careful not to read a theological system into the text of Scripture. -Adam Harwood

https://soteriology101.com/2015/12/31/born-guilty/

David R. Brumbelow

“A third possibility, which I am inclined to follow, is that the Greek words serve as a consecutive conjunction meaning ‘with the result that.’ In this case the primary cause of our sinful nature would be the sin of Adam; the result of that sin would be the history of sinning on the part of all who enter the human race and in fact sin of their own accord.” -Robert H. Mounce, Romans, The New American Commentary, B&H; 1995.

“Moody notes that Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, or inherited guilt, resulted from his small knowledge of Greek. Thus he followed the Latin translation of in quo (in whom). His position is rejected today even by Roman Catholic scholars who admit that it is not in the Scripture. This does not in any sense deny the consequences in those who follow Adam’s example, but it does place the burden of responsibility upon each individual person (Jeremiah 31:29-30).” -Herschel H. Hobbs, Romans, Word Books; 1977. Hobbs is a former SBC president.

“This last statement is commonly interpreted to mean that the guilt of Adam has been imputed to his descendants. It more probably refers to the actual guilt which men incur because of that tendency to evil which they inherit, which is believed to be a result of the disobedience of Adam. It is probably to be interpreted as a simple statement of the universal prevalence of sin, and of death which is its penalty, in order that Paul may compare with it the wide influence of the saving work of Christ.” -Charles R. Erdman, Romans, Westminster Press; 1966.

These quotes are simply to show that the belief that man inherits the tendency to sin, but not the guilt of sin, is a common evangelical, biblical belief. It is wrong and unfair to accuse someone of heresy, or semi-heresy, just because he disagrees with some Calvinist doctrine.

David R. Brumbelow

Pastor Brumbelow: You’ve provided a number of quotes on a number of topics, but you’ve avoided my original question (and other questions that others have asked). The Statement you’re defending says: “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.”

If that sentence is correct, there is no need for prevenient grace at all, is there? (If in our natural state we’re capable of exercising our free will to respond to the gospel, we don’t need prevenient grace, right?) Do you and the other signers of the Statement deny the existence of or the need for prevenient grace to enable a person to trust Christ?

To put the same question a different way: Dr. Combs’s chart of the contrasting positions on original sin and grace summarizes Semi-Pelagianism on Original Sin (“Man is born spiritually weak. No imputation of Adam’s sin.”) and on Grace (“Man cooperates with God’s grace”). The chart also summarizes Arminianism’s positions on the same issues (“Total depravity (?) and total inability (hypothetical). Imputation of Adam’s sin usually denied.” and “Prevenient grace leads to cooperation,” respectively). Which column best describes your/the Statement’s positions on Original Sin and on Grace?

I’d appreciate just a straightforward answer, followed by whatever explanation or support you wish to add.

In response to your last comment above (“These quotes are simply to show that the belief that man inherits the tendency to sin, but not the guilt of sin, is a common evangelical, biblical belief. It is wrong and unfair to accuse someone of heresy, or semi-heresy, just because he disagrees with some Calvinist doctrine.”), two points. First, it’s completely unpersuasive to equate “common evangelical” with “biblical” belief. The Ligonier survey of evangelical Christians’ doctrinal beliefs demonstrates that a lot of “common evangelical” beliefs are in fact heretical. Second, no one here has accused anyone of heresy or semi-heresy “just because he disagrees with some Calvinist doctrine.” That’s a straw man argument — another avoidance tactic.

Looking forward to some clarity — I want to understand what your position is and/or what the Statement means to say on these specific issues.

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