Prevenient Grace

[Guest]

I don't see how I'm asking the same question. I don't see our state after regeneration as comparable to Adam's either before or after the fall, because we have a dual nature, "simul justus et peccator." I don't see Adam in that way either before or after the fall. (Although we might discuss Adam's eventual salvation, but I don't think that's what you were getting at.)

Maybe I'm not seeing the question behind the question.

Cheers,
Bob

There's no "question" behind the question -- I'm really just trying to understand that Calvinist understanding of human nature, and what you believe about our spiritual condition after the fall and how that compares to now. I see now you would hold a different view of Adam's post-Fall condition and that of even Cain or Abel. I've never heard that before -- how is it that we would have inherited a condition not experienced by our progenitor, Adam for his own fall? How is it that man post-fall has two natures prior to regeneration?

Well, of course I didn't say that. What I said was (emphasis added):

• "I don't see <b>our state after regeneration</b> as comparable to Adam's either before or after the fall, because <b>we have a dual nature</b>, "simul justus et peccator." I don't see Adam in that way either before or after the fall.

We have a dual nature after regeneration and justification, as taught in e.g. Rom 7.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

So prevenient grace would have to be irresistable in accomplishing its (limited) purpose.

I think Bob wants the Arminians in this forum to understand that if his conclusion (stated above) is true for Arminians, then it follows that there should be no intellectual problem in believing that grace which Calvinistically elects some people to salvation from hell, is also irresistable.

[Guest]

Bob Hamilton has an essay on the subject here --

http://www.geocities.com/bobesay/original.html

though I haven't read it, his other essays are excellent.

If his other essays are excellent, this one is the exception.

I read the essay, and Hamilton is arguing against federal headship (although he never mentions the term), i.e. that we participate in the guilt of Adams sin as our representative of the human race.

What those who deny federal headship fail to appreciate is that our salvation depends on it. When you cut the foundation out from our participation in Adam's guilt, then you at the same time remove the foundation from our participation in Christ's righteousness. We are left to stand or fall on our own righteousness, which is a terrifying thing indeed.

Hamilton seems to realize the problem he's created, and so has another essay (http://www.geocities.com/bobesay/imputed.html) in which he denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness (or any righteousness for that matter) to us, with the mish-mash style of argumentation that smears mud over every passage and then declares an inability to discern the traditional understanding.

Sad, error begets error.

I strongly affirm the historic Reformation doctrines of federal headship and the imputation of Christ's active obedience as the basis for our acceptance by God.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Well, of course I didn't say that. What I said was (emphasis added):


"I don't see our state after regeneration as comparable to Adam's either before or after the fall, because we have a dual nature, "simul justus et peccator." I don't see Adam in that way either before or after the fall.


We have a dual nature after regeneration and justification, as taught in e.g. Rom 7.

OK, then my question remains -- I'm not asking about the post-justification regenerate here (after Christ). Let's use Abel as an example. How do you see Abel's nature? Was he regenerated? Did he have a dual nature? Did he desire to please God? Was he able to do so? On what basis? How is that different than me, either before I was regenerated or after?

[Guest]

What those who deny federal headship fail to appreciate is that our salvation depends on it. When you cut the foundation out from our participation in Adam's guilt, then you at the same time remove the foundation from our participation in Christ's righteousness. We are left to stand or fall on our own righteousness, which is a terrifying thing indeed.

Maybe we need a "federal headship" topic, but I understand the Adamic headship differently -- I don't know the classical views, but from my understanding of the scope of Scripture I see it as describing which way I'm inclined, not which one supernaturally tarnishes or cleanses me. My present headship in Christ means I incline towards Christ (whether by my will or God's will - that's a different question), and my identity is that I associate with Him. It is true that when I am in Christ, His Spirit also supernaturally affects my heart, but I don't think Adam is able to do the same thing in reverse when I am said to be "in Adam."

[Guest]

"Federal headship"; "subsitutionary atonement" ----- painted by the same brush. Both concepts fail to deal with the present live sins that human beings commit because of what we are.

According to the aforementioned concepts, Adam's sin is imputed to us, while after the forced generation of the elect, Christ's righteousness is imputed to them.

Who cares about Adam's sin now? It's over and done with. We don't inherit Adam's sin. It's not imputed to us ---- thrown around us like a cloak with the real "us" beneath. Rather we have inherited the sinful nature from Adam, so that we have a tendency to sin ourselves --- not because Adam's sin was thrust upon us.

With Christ's sacrifice we were delivered from sin --- acutal sin, sin which we practised --- not just a "cloak of righteousness" thrown around us which is not really us. We don't end up with a dual nature, a righteous/sinful one. With regeneration old things have passed away; behold all things have become new 2 Corinthians 5:17.

[_Rick_C]

Chiming in.

First, as a non-Arminian/non-Calvinist, my understanding of prevenient grace is pretty different from most of the views expressed so far. But I won't I won't go into that now (as I'd need to answer Bob's questions from the first post).

Bob, you wrote:

The purpose of prevenient grace is not to save anyone, but to make people able to save themselves if they so choose.

I've never heard an Arminian say anything remotely close to this.
No Arminian could ever say they "save" themselves...that's absurd!
(or were you referring to the beliefs of (at least some) Pelagians?).
Pelagians are non-Calvinists...and you wanted non-Calvinists viewpoints.
I don't think any Pelagians post on this forum (that I know of). Anyways, thanks.

[Guest]

Rick,

Pelagius' theology deemed that men did not need the grace of God in order to be saved BECAUSE every man does not inherit sin from Adam, they are born without sin and are born in the same state as Adam before the fall. Though it could help men to obey, it is not required. The church because of what it had already believed to be scriptural voted him a heretic.

Casianus trying to save the foundation of Pelagius' view stated that God's grace was needed because every man was born in sin, but grace was given to all (prevenient grace) for man to have the will to choose God. The church (not the Roman Catholic church by the way) because of what it had already believed to be scriptural voted him a heretic.

The reformation came and reclaimed the Biblical view of predestination and election (from which you get the 5 solas from).

Arminius denounced the reformation and claimed the EXACT same claim that Casianus did. That man is born in sin;that man NEEDS grace, but it is given to all men. Which ALL the churches at Dordt agreed to be heretical and a move back to the faith of the Catholic church.

From what I have seen, I haven't seen any Pelagianism (though I have seen some that say we are born without sin, which is Pelagianistic). But for the most part as far as the free will debate is concerned most on here are Arminianistic.

The problem is many on here do not agree with Arminianism which does LOGICALLY follow in the theology that Jesus did not die as a substatution for sin, but died to give man the ability to have a relationship with God.

Those who do not agree with the logical conclusion of Arminianism but adhere to the prevenient grace of Arminianism have conflicting theologies.

[Guest]

Paidion,

Christ's sacrifice wasn't for the satisfaction of God's justice but for our deliverance from sin.

Is it just for a judge to forgive men who do not glorify him in every thought and deed?

Can a holy and righteous God who puts Himself above all (and must) set aside the glory of his righteousness to forgive man who places himself above God in his actions?

Would a judge be deemed "just" if he pronounces "he is not guilty" to man who has been proven guilty of murder and releases him because the murderer said he was sorry?
The judge would be thrown out of the court. The public would decry that an injustice was performed. Why? Because the law requires that the penalty of the sin be executed. Or otherwise the murderer would be esteemed higher than the law by the judge.

Does God forgive sinners at the "expense" of justice?

whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ro 3:25-26). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

The penalty for sin is the wrath of God. This is why God CAN forgive those whom he atoned sin for because He can justify His forgiveness by placing the punishment for sin on Christ in the place of the sinner.

[_Rick_C]

J.Ed,

Wesleyan Prevenient Grace, and all it entails, as been called semi-Augustinianism.

You wrote:

Casianus trying to save the foundation of Pelagius' view stated that God's grace was needed because every man was born in sin, but grace was given to all (prevenient grace) for man to have the will to choose God. The church (not the Roman Catholic church by the way) because of what it had already believed to be scriptural voted him a heretic.

John Cassian (Cassianus, died circa 448) tried to bridge the gap between Pelagian, and Augustinian, soteriology. (More on Prevenient Grace, below).

The reformation came and reclaimed the Biblical view of predestination and election (from which you get the 5 solas from).

The Reformation went beyond Augustine's soteriology (with further developments)....

Arminius denounced the reformation and claimed the EXACT same claim that Casianus did. That man is born in sin;that man NEEDS grace, but it is given to all men. Which ALL the churches at Dordt agreed to be heretical and a move back to the faith of the Catholic church.

[The] Prevenient Grace which leads to salvation is not "given" to all men; if such were so, all would be saved (universalism). Rather, Salvific Prevenient Grace is available to all: All who hear and believe receive it, which is synonymous with receiving Him.

Prevenient Grace, in the larger picture, isn't as much a thing or object that gets fused into anyone: "It's" an Attribute of God. That is, Grace is in His Character. This Grace includes the universal and panoramic blessings God bestows on the righteous and unrighteous alike...as well as expanding into salvation-proper for those who receive the Lord Jesus Christ. God in His Omnipresence is Grace everywhere.

A quote from an article (its URL is now invalid, I can't find it).
[quote=""Evangelism and the Renewal of the Image of God""]"The process of salvation begins with prevenient grace, in the 18th century sometimes called "preventing grace." It was called preventing grace not because it prevents something but because it "comes before," from the Latin pre-venio. It is the grace that is active in our lives even before we are aware of it. Indeed, it is often after we have come to faith and trust in God that we can look back in our lives and see how the Spirit of God was there prompting us, nudging us, urging us on, even before we were fully conscious of God's gracious reality and presence. Now, why is the doctrine of prevenient grace important to evangelism? Because this grace, claimed Wesley, is at work in the life of every human being, not just in Christians but everywhere. The work of Christ through the Spirit guarantees that this "grace of God is found, at least in some small degree, in every child of man,...not only in all Christians, but in all Mahometans [Muslims], all pagans, yea the vilest of savages" (Works, Bicentennial edition, 4:163). On this basis of this conviction Wesley opposed the 18th-century interpretation of Calvin's doctrine of predestination which limited salvation to a predetermined number of elect (underline, bold, mine).[/quote]

Earlier I said I disagreed with most posters about Prevenient Grace. Wesley's quote (above, bold) is why. Paul wrote about Prevenient Grace in Acts 17, "For we are His offspring." This illustrates the Omnipresence and General Fatherhood Of God over all humanity. Grace is Omnipresent to all: God is Everywhere, Everywhen.

With the preaching of the Gospel, as Paul later proclaimed in Acts 17, the specific offer of salvation is presented: God is already "there" wherever and whenever the Gospel has been, or will be, preached. His Salvific Graciousness is offered through the Gospel appeal. But the Gospel isn't an "it" that can be rejected. To reject "it" is to reject God Himself, who is Grace, inside His Character.

Earlier Troy commented on how God is "relational." To that I can't agree more. Before we hear the Gospel and believe, we aren't "objects" in need of a an "injection" as if God's Grace gets "stuck (or crammed)" into us! [I get a creepy feeling of "stuff being jammed into me" like I'm an "object"---and not a "person"---when I talk with Calvinists. It's the only time I ever think to think "me, me, me" with regard to my salvation. These things are somewhat beside the point, I suppose. But I do find it irritating, ]....

God, in Omnipresence, was "with us", as He is with all people, before we had faith. Yet our sin(s) kept us from a right relation to, and with, Him. God''s a People Person Person!

He was there all along.... Thanks
P.S. imos