Prevenient Grace – God's "Go" Signal?

I’m not persuaded of the Arminian view of Prev. Grace, but I have to appreciate what the best of the Arminian thinkers were/are trying to do. The best of them want to take a position that answers well to all of the Scriptures that relate to the topic, that doesn’t make God “the author of evil/sin,” that avoids Pelagianism, and that seems to fit our experience of how people come into the Faith.

Roger Olsen is a helpful contemporary representative of classical Arminianism. But I haven’t been able to find a clear statement from him as to the scope and timing of God’s enabling grace. Maybe someone who has read more of Olsen can point me to it.

Here’s a helpful excerpt from Olson, in a 2012 post at Patheos: Prevenient Grace: Why It Matters

Calvinists also believe in prevenient grace. “Prevenient grace” is simply a term for the grace of God that goes before, prepares the way, enables, assists the sinner’s repentance and faith (conversion). According to classical Calvinism this prevenient grace is always efficacious and given only to the elect through the gospel; it effects conversion. According to classical Arminianism it is an operation of the Holy Spirit that frees the sinner’s will from bondage to sin and convicts, calls, illumines and enables the sinner to respond to the gospel call with repentance and faith (conversion).

Calvinists and Arminians agree, against Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, that the sinner’s will is so depraved and bound to sin that it cannot respond positively to the gospel call without supernatural grace.

Emphasis mine.

As Olson has defined it (enabling, drawing, etc.), it’s not hard to find in the NT. The more difficult part is the who, when and how. I’d like to see his thoughts on that.

[TylerR]

Don’t worry; I haven’t even been able to find a clear statement in Scripture about the very idea of prevenient grace!

For starters, how about Titus 2:11 - “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men”. I’m sure there will be plenty of argument about why this doesn’t mean what seems to be clear in the verse. But I can certainly see how the idea of prevenient grace could be gleaned from scripture.

In this post, Olson is reviewing an Arminian book on prevenient grace, and disagrees with the author a bit:

Shelton strongly affirms the idea that through the cross event all people—past, present, and future—receive sufficient assisting but resistible grace to believe and be saved. While I recognize that many of my fellow Arminians are convinced of this, I’m not as certain of it. Romans 10:17: “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” It seems to me that even if some measure of prevenient grace is given by God to all people, sufficient faith to believe and receive the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ is especially tied to the gospel message and its proclamation in some form. Link

I recall seeing similar vagueness in Arminius on this point. I was not able to determine if his view was that all who hear the gospel receive sufficient grace to believe the moment they hear it, but that seems implied by some of what he says and so also with Olson.

Whatever else one might say about this view, it is certainly not accurate to call it semi-pelagian.

Later in the same post he writes.

With Calvinists I can affirm that we are all spiritually dead apart from supernatural grace, but I add only that 1) even the spiritually dead possess the formal image of God, and 2) supernatural grace heals that deadness so that sinners can at least make a decision to repent and trust in God and Christ or not.

I appreciate the way he tries to only disagree about what is genuinely a point of disagreement.

I tend to think that, in a sense, prevenient grace boils down to “everyone can believe and can make this choice in contradiction to their nature,” but I also believe that “no one will believe, given that choice.”

To my way of thinking, election is very provable, Scripturally. And the call to believe is offered legitimately to all because they can, but they won’t. It takes regeneration to make them want to believe. So prevenient grace, like unlimited atonement, is another argument of condemnation for the lost. Not that God needs another argument, but God does things lavishly and with overkill quite often.

2 Thessalonians 2:12, “in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

If the grounds for condemnation in 2 Thess. 2 is not believing the truth (i.e., that Christ died to atone for my sins), then you could see another argument, namely, you chose to not believe but could have.

this postulated understanding may not be correct, but we have often too easily (IMO) acknowledged that man is responsible without articulating (in a convincing way) how this reasonably possible in light of election. Prevenient grace coupled with election (which is contrary to Thiessen who rejects election) might be an interesting match up.

Thiessen is an interesting choice. His section on soteriology is the worse in the book. If I recall he sails close to semi-pelagianism, which is not the classic Arminian position (though Doerksen made them more Calvinist). Anyhow, for me election is real, but its mechanism is a mystery. A sinner will not come to Christ unless God calls him (i.e. convicts and illuminates), and certain formulations of prevenient grace would tie into that view. That said, many Arminians seem to teach that prevenient grace is given to all men, which I just don’t get.

Thiessen was the doctrines textbook at BJU when I was there. Undergrad. I’m sure they are using something better now. I seem to recall a prof or two who also felt the book was weak on soteriology.

As for the perennial debates, I find it interesting that there is a large non-semipelagian segment that doesn’t generally notice how much they agree on, because they’re divided over terminology.

I don’t want to trivialize terminology, but so many who agree that an act of divine grace is required before any sinner ever chooses to believe, disagree about what that gracious intervention should be called….with a degree of passion that often seems disproportionate.

I sometimes wonder if a completely fresh articulation might be healthy.

For those interested, you might look at my article on the subject:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12FKxIGtjGnOeSkbXr2LiAgjxgfo1yuJN/view

[Paul Henebury]

Thiessen is an interesting choice. His section on soteriology is the worse in the book. If I recall he sails close to semi-pelagianism, which is not the classic Arminian position (though Doerksen made them more Calvinist).

However, Roger Olson in his Arminian Theology views Thiessen as classical Arminian. But it seems for Olson that prevenient grace being universal or restricted to gospel call is not a clear defining point of classical Arminianism. Because I do not currently have access to Olson’s book to reference directly, I quote from my dissertation summary (p.52 n.54, carried over from p.51) with some additional information in brackets added here for clarity:

Roger Olson distinctly argues Thiessen was “classical Arminian” based off Thiessen’s 1949 work [Lectures in Systematic Theology (1949; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963; prior to Doerksen’s getting hold of it and changing some theology*] and specific position on prevenient grace (Arminian Theology[:Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006)] , 42–43). However, what is not quite certain from Olson’s information is whether classical Arminian always holds to universal prevenient grace. His categorizing Thiessen as classical implies it, and his categorizing of John Wesley as classical (169), who he recognizes as also holding to universality of that grace (167), also implies it. Yet Olson considers Simon Episcopius to be a classical Arminian (169), but he did not hold to universal prevenient grace (167), rather believing prevenient grace only came “when the Word of God is heard” (166). Olson also notes, “Arminius left this question open” regarding universality, but “tended to restrict the reach of prevenient grace to the
scope of the evangelized” (167).

Regarding the * on Doerksen’s edits noted above, the paragraph prior to the one above in my dissertation I said this:

In the original edition, Thiessen is very universal about prevenient grace (155-156, 230-231). In the revised edition, Doerksen takes liberty, both steering the conversation away from Thiessen’s original view of conditional election to an unconditional election (106-108; cf. 155-156 in original), and in simply eliminating whole sections of Thiessen’s discussion (163-164; cf. 229-232 in the original, where most has been removed by Doerksen). Thiessen classifies the universal prevenient grace as a common grace (155), which is a category of graces he does deem secured by the atonement (330).

So I don’t know which version Tyler used, Thiessen originally or the Doerksen’s edits. Well, actually, his footnote says it is a 1949 original, so that is good.

Regarding

[Aaron Blumer]

Roger Olsen is a helpful contemporary representative of classical Arminianism. But I haven’t been able to find a clear statement from him as to the scope and timing of God’s enabling grace. Maybe someone who has read more of Olsen can point me to it.

I seem to recall that Olson’s book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities does more explicitly show him taking a view that prevenient grace comes at the time of the gospel witness, but since I do not have a copy to look at right now, I cannot confirm or guide to where that was, but if you have not looked at it, you might get a hold of a copy.

BEGIN UNRELATED GRIPE: I hate the fact that Sharper Iron’s “blockquote” feature italicizes all the text of the quote. I know italicizing has become somewhat “common” on web page representations of quotes (it may even be the default of the

HTML tag in browsers), but academically, it creates issues because italics should only be used for emphasis and styling of titles to books and other major works, so it creates confusion to have whole sentences of text in italics. I would love to see a site wide, style fix to prevent blockquotes from doing that. The gray box and indent is enough of a style change to distinguish it as a quote. END GRIPE.

In his review of Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, Olson gives somewhat of a statement of his position:

Shelton strongly affirms the idea that through the cross event all people—past, present, and future—receive sufficient assisting but resistible grace to believe and be saved. While I recognize that many of my fellow Arminians are convinced of this, I’m not as certain of it. Romans 10:17: “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” It seems to me that even if some measure of prevenient grace is given by God to all people, sufficient faith to believe and receive the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ is especially tied to the gospel message and its proclamation in some form. I would prefer to say that the gospel message is made available to many people in some form, even to those who are not reached by Christian evangelism.

And in the comments section he adds:

I wonder, though, whether God is an equal opportunity savior or whether he depends on us (the church) to disseminate prevenient grace by means of gospel preaching (and other evangelistic means)? I think Wesley would have agreed with all that you say here. I’m just not sure prevenient grace is automatically universal.

You can read the entire review here.

It’s relatively easy to edit the theme so quote blocks don’t italicize. Unfortunately, that causes other problems. One of them is that blockquote doesn’t indent properly when it appears next to an image in a teaser… So there’s little visual clue that it’s a quote in that situation. There are are various solutions, but they all involve tradeoffs, unfortunately. This is one reason italicized blockquotes are common on the web.

… having said that an idea just hit me that I don’t think I’ve tried before. It may show up in our next style update.

Ok…so back to the real topic…

Thanks to Dr Combs for the article link above. Interesting read. It seems like the question of Original Sin and imputation always ends up connected to the question of how grace operates to bring sinners to life.

And the connection makes sense. What one needs to get out of the mess one is in depends on the nature of the mess.

Article Eight: The Free Will of Man
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.
Genesis 1:26-28; Numbers 21:8-9; Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15; 1 Samuel 8:1-22; 2 Samuel 24:13-14; Esther 3:12-14; Matthew 7:13-14; 11:20-24; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 9:23-24; 13:34; 15:17-20; Romans 10:9-10; Titus 2:12; Revelation 22:17

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

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

David R. Brumbelow

As Olson pointed out, by failing to include any mention prevenient grace, the statement is not quite classical Arminiansim.

But without at least that much, it’s hard to see how the intent is not semi-pelagian.

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.”

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.

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?

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.

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)

[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.”

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

[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?