Tuesday, July 01, 2014

Prevenient grace


Brian Abasciano is president of SEA. He's a well-trained NT scholar. So it's instructive to see his positive case for prevenient grace:
As we have noted, because human beings are fallen and sinful, they are not able to think, will, nor do anything good in and of themselves, including believe the gospel of Christ (see the description of Total Depravity above). Therefore, desiring the salvation of all and having provided atonement for all people (see “Atonement for All” above), God continues to take the initiative for the purpose of bringing all people to salvation by calling all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel (Acts 17:30; cf. Matt 28:18-20), and by enabling those who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith. Unaided by grace, man cannot even choose to please God or to believe the promise of salvation held out in the gospel. As Jesus said in John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” But thanks be to God, Jesus also promised, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32). Thus, the Father and the Son draw all people to Jesus, enabling them to come to Jesus in faith.  
Continuing Jesus’ mission to save the world, the Holy Spirit has come to “convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8). Even though unbelievers “are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart” (Eph 4:18), the Lord opens people’s hearts to respond positively to the gospel message (Acts 16:14). 
All of this is what is known in traditional theological language as God’s prevenient grace. The term “prevenient” simply means “preceding.” Thus, “prevenient grace” refers to God’s grace that precedes salvation, including that part of salvation known as regeneration, which is the beginning of eternal spiritual life granted to all who trust in Christ (John 1:12-13). Prevenient grace is also sometimes called enabling grace or pre-regenerating grace. This is God’s unmerited favor toward totally depraved people, who are unworthy of God’s blessing and unable to seek God or trust in him in and of themselves. Accordingly, Acts 18:27 indicates that we believe through grace, placing grace preveniently (i.e. logically prior) to faith as the means by which we believe. It is the grace that, among other things, frees our wills to believe in Christ and his gospel. As Titus 2:11 says, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.” 
http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvation-a-summary-of-arminian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/
i) We might starting by asking what motivates the doctrine of prevenient grace. The answer, I believe, is that Arminians wish to avoid Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism. They wish to stake out a mediating position between Calvinism and Pelagianism. So they assert the priority and necessity of divine grace in relation to faith. God, not man, must take the initiative. 
ii) What's noteworthy about Abasciano's documentation is that not one of his prooftexts suffices to prove his distinctive claim. It's striking that he isn't even aware of the palpable disconnect. 
On the face of it, none of his prooftexts selects for prevenient grace rather than irresistible grace. Yet that contrast is crucial to his position. 
Notice what I'm not saying. In this post I'm not attempting to show that his prooftexts really teach irresistible grace. Rather, I'm commenting on what they don't show. 
None of his prooftexts indicates that the grace in question merely enables the unregenerate to believe. None of his prooftexts indicates that the grace in question frees the will to either believe or disbelieve the Gospel. They don't say or imply that the recipient of this grace is at liberty to respond positively or negatively. 
Even if his prooftexts were consistent with resistible grace, they seem to be equally consistent with irresistible grace. Likewise, none of his prooftexts distinguishes pre-regenerating grace from regenerating grace. 
For some odd reason, Absciano acts as if his prooftexts obviously establish his claim, even though they evidently fall short of what he claims for them. Yet, presumably, these are his best prooftexts for prevenient grace. 
iii) It's also strange to see him quote Tit 2:11 in this context. Given the Arminian interpretation of "all," why isn't this a prooftext for universal salvation rather than prevenient grace? Admittedly, there's more than one way to render the Greek syntax, but given the translation he quoted, how does he avoid universalism? (And if he takes issue with the translation, why quote that version?)
Likewise, given the Arminian interpretation of "all," why doesn't Jn 12:32 teach universal salvation? If I draw water, does the water refuse me? 
iv) Finally, are contemporary Arminians still committed to the historic fall of Adam? Don't many modern Arminians subscribe to human evolution? If so, how do they finesse original sin, which is a presupposition of prevenient grace? 

13 comments:

  1. Great post. I suppose that Arminians would argue that to complete Abasciano case for prevenient grace, he would have to show from Scripture things like:

    1. that men have (presumably libertarian) "free will", 2. show that Scripture indicates people can choose or not to choose to accept God's offer of salvation; 3. instances when God's redemptive grace was offered to someone or group and he/they refused and rejected.

    Some classic passages they will cite include:

    I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: - Deuteronomy 30:19

    And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.- Joshua 24:15



    As a Calvinist, I would have to require them to show that such choices are themselves not ordained by God. Yet, there are many passages that do teach that God ordains our choices. So much so that some Arminians admit God does ordain or at least makes certain *some* of our choices, but not our choice for salvation. Ironically, the one thing it would be most "loving" for God to do (as some Arminians define "love"). Yet, there are many passages in Scripture that do teach unconditional election and how our choice for salvation is ordained by God.

    Rightly or wrongly, HERE'S a LINK to what I understand to be the difference between Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism and why I don't believe Arminianism commits either error.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But in that case his prooftexts don't prove his point. Moreover, his interpretation of these prooftexts depends on other Arminian prooftexts, to shore up these prooftexts, so the exercise becomes circular. Using one Arminian interpretation to prop up another Arminian interpretation.

      Delete
    2. But in that case his prooftexts don't prove his point. Moreover, his interpretation of these prooftexts depends on other Arminian prooftexts, to shore up these prooftexts...

      Agreed

      ...so the exercise becomes circular. Using one Arminian interpretation to prop up another Arminian interpretation.

      I'm not sure it would be circular. It would merely be (from their perspective) an inference to the best explanation. That the prevenient grace theory/hypothesis has the best explanatory scope and power.

      Delete
    3. Of course it would be circular. Arminian prooftexts for prevenient grace depend on Arminian interpretations of their prooftexts for prevenient grace. When it's demonstrated that their prooftexts underdetermine their claim, if they resort to other Arminian doctrines to supplement their interpretation, that appeal presumes the Arminian interpretation of other Arminian prooftexts for other Arminian doctrines.

      Delete
    4. ANNOYED PINOY

      "2. show that Scripture indicates people can choose or not to choose to accept God's offer of salvation."

      Not only is that consistent with Calvinism, but entailed by Calvinism. Calvinism predicts that the reprobate will reject the offer of the Gospel.

      Delete
    5. Right. I didn't phrase that properly. Let me try again.

      "...2. show that Scripture indicates people can choose or not choose to accept God's offer of salvation independent from God's involvement or interference."

      All Calvinists believe that God is involved in the human choice to accept God's salvation. However, different Calvinists disagree to what degree, if at all, God is involved in the choice to reject His offer of salvation. Generally, Calvinists deny that God creates "fresh evil" in the reprobate. I understand that the Reformed tradition tries to deny an "Equal Ultimacy" regarding God's decrees or that God actively intervenes to work sin in the reprobate (cf. Sproul's article "Double" Predestination or here). Some however (like Robert L. Reymond) are willing to affirm equal ultimacy in the decrees, even though he suggests that "we must not speak of an exact identity of divine causality behind both." Some self-professing Calvinists believe God does actively intervenes to work sin and unbelief in the reprobate (maybe circumstantially via compatibilism, metaphysically via occasionalism or whatever). But that's not technically part of the Reformed tradition. In fact, some Reformed sources positively deny it.

      Echoing the Catholic Council of Orange (529) when it states, "We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema."

      So, such a view would necessarily fall under the category of Hyper-Calvinism. I'm however open to the possibility that God does actively do. While at the same time being open to concepts of Common Grace as well as a sense in which God can be said to desire the salvation of the non-elect (which isn't necessary part of some definitions of Common Grace). I don't see a contradiction in affirming all these "extreme" positions.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. typo corrections:

      "...2. show that Scripture indicates people can choose or not choose to accept God's offer of salvation independent from God's involvement or interference."

      "independent of God's involvement..."

      or

      "independently from God's involvement..."

      I've never been good at grammar.

      " I'm however open to the possibility that God does actively do [does so]."

      At the very least circumstantially since God does seem to actively deceive people without technically lying (as I've explored in the comments here).

      Delete
    9. Although they may have different causal/providential modalities, election and reprobation both ensure their respective outcomes. They are equally certain in securing their appointed ends.

      Delete
    10. Agreed.

      I also agree with Reymond's willingness to affirm equal ultimacy in the decrees as a supralapsarian.

      Delete
  2. BTW, historically, a classic baseline for what constitutes Semi-Pelagianism or not has been the Canons of the 2nd Council or Orange (529).

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/ORANGE.htm

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...God continues to take the initiative for the purpose of bringing all people to salvation by calling all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel (Acts 17:30; cf. Matt 28:18-20), and by enabling those who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith."

    I notice that Ben provides Scriptural support for the call to repentance, but no verses at all about the "enabling" portion.

    Curious. One may be tempted to think it's because the verses that speak of God's work say things like "All that the Father gives me WILL come to me" instead of "All that the Father gives me are ENABLED to come to me."

    But that'd just be crazy....

    ReplyDelete