Prevenient Grace

[Guest]

As far as the reformation goes, it still stands that it was based on predestination and election. I would like evidence of the differences solely on the Augustinian view of predestination and election and that of Luther (who was an Augustinian monk).

Since the topic is prevenient grace, it was implied that that is what I was talking about as far as what was "given" to all men, NOT effective, salvific grace. I'm sorry, I should have not assumed that.

I hope that whatever person you were talking to pertaining to grace and it being "infused" was NOT a Calvinist or for that matter not a protestant.

This is a Catholic view.

[Guest]

As far as the reformation goes, it still stands that it was based on predestination and election. I would like evidence of the differences solely on the Augustinian view of predestination and election and that of Luther (who was an Augustinian monk).

Would you agree that the Reformation was primarily based on Sola Fide at its "root" or primary cause? That is, with Luther's insights on the book of Romans. Not saying the other Solas don't fit-in-there in the Reformed tradition. Didn't Luther get saved first? (is what I'm getting at).

The Radical Reformation, aka "the other reformation", and the [orthodox] Anabaptists were around back then too. Some say earlier than Luther (though proximal).

Sorry, but I rarely talk about Calvinism [these days] and there are plenty of Catholic and Arminian sites you might debate about Augustine. (I don't have the time nor the interest at the mo). Or, others here might want to go into that stuff with you....

I like the topic of Prevenient Grace, is why I joined in (was all).

Since the topic is prevenient grace, it was implied that that is what I was talking about as far as what was "given" to all men, NOT effective, salvific grace. I'm sorry, I should have not assumed that.

I see what you're saying, thanks.
I'm seeing Grace more in the sense of God's Characteristic of Omnipresence: He's "there" before and after [initial] salvation.

I hope that whatever person you were talking to pertaining to grace and it being "infused" was NOT a Calvinist or for that matter not a protestant.

I was talking about me, a Protestant.
I get "the creeps" when I talk with Calvinists.
Before I discussed Calvinism (in my whole life), I really don't recall ever thinking about "me, me, me" as opposed to "God out there, God out there, God out there." In other words, how I see Prevenient Grace was...God was there---right with me---before I believed.

No offense intended.
(I just get creeped-out when I think about some kind of "severance" between myself and God in terms of His Being There All Along). The "severance" caused by sin I readily understand and understood!---before I got saved!

Put another way, God is with everyone, generally. And my trying to conceive of His ever not being there...creeps me out (no offense; it just doesn't seem real to me)!

I see and understood God as a Person...(like other persons)....someone I relate to through interaction.
It's give and take, communicating with each other, a relationship...(like "with people").

And also, "unlike with people."
That is, He is GOD ALMIGHTY!
I may possibly sort of regard Him as a (capital f) Friend...(like, in an Abrahamic sense)...or look to Him as 'Abba' (which doesn't mean "daddy"!)...but not as "homey" or other such chummy-chummy type nonsense.

Anyways, I'd be interested on what you thought of Wesley's quote (in bold). To me, it illustrated Prevenient Grace in its (His) universal sense; how God was already "there" before we heard the Good News.

I realize this "angle" doesn't really fit into the usual (standard) Calvs/Nons Debates topics and sub-topics. If you don't want to go into this take-on-things, that's cool...Thanks, gtg,

[Guest]

Would you agree that the Reformation was primarily based on Sola Fide at its "root" or primary cause? That is, with Luther's insights on the book of Romans. Not saying the other Solas don't fit-in-there in the Reformed tradition. Didn't Luther get saved first? (is what I'm getting at).

It might be more complicated than that. I've run across this quote from Luther's exchanges with Erasmus, taken from Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, by E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson.

My dear Erasmus... I praise and commend you highly for this also, that unlike all the rest you alone have attacked the real issue, the essence of the matter in dispute, and have not wearied me with irrelevancies about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, and such like trifles (for trifles they are rather than basic issues), with which almost everyone hitherto has gone hunting for me without success. You and you alone have seen the question on which everything hinges, and have aimed at the vital spot...

It's from their exchanges on the freedom & bondage of the will. I haven't read enough of the context of that quote to let me be precise about what Luther has in mind, but it seems that he saw human depravity and the idea of faith as a monergistic gift as being central to the Reformation.

I'm not sure how distinct that is from Sola Fida. What Luther meant by "by faith alone" is wrapped up in "by grace alone"--our faith coming by the gift of God's grace. If you want to separate Sola Fide entirely from Sola Gratia, you might be redefining the terms from what the Reformers meant.

I'm not sure--that's my first glance perception. I wanted to offer this quote for your consideration. Jugulum out.

[Guest]

Hello Jugulum,

I had a PM sittin' in here for a few months but deleted it. It said:
"Hi Jugulum.
I saw you on the P&P (Parchment & Pen) blog. Michael and the RMM bunch are old friends of mine from Paltalk."

Anyways, gtsy,

Not saying the other Solas don't fit-in-there in the Reformed tradition. Didn't Luther get saved first? (is what I'm getting at).

Yes, there was more to the Reformation than Sola Fide: indulgences, etc., etc. (I read Luther's biography ("Here I Stand") a long time ago). After his realization of "salvation by grace (alone) through faith (alone)", I can't recall how he initially reflected on it or to what extent, and in what ways, his theology already existed at that time.

I don't think he had all the details worked out before he got saved (was what I was getting at). It could be that Luther saw his salvation "monergistically" from the very beginning; we know he did upon later reflection, anyway. He may have had all the Solas "lined up" from the start also (I don't know, can't recall specifics offhand).

I'm sure his theology developed as he reflected back. But to trace it all out here would be a separate, long, and detailed, topic.

I'm more interested in Prevenient Grace (on this thread anyways), Thanks

[Guest]

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!

Hi Rick,

Yes, I understand that they would never say that. But what it conveys is accurate: that salvation turns on man's choice, not God's choice. Perhaps it would be more acceptable if phrased as "...to make people able to allow God to save them if they so choose."

(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.

I used the term "non-Calvinist" because that's the term most of you use here. "ABC" might be better: "Anything But Calvinism" . My interest was in finding whether there were classical Arminians/Wesleyans here who held to their doctrine of inability, since man's inability is not widely defended here by anyone but the crazy Calvinists.

I lump those who deny man's inability into the "some degree of Pelagianism" camp. That seems to be the majority report around here...

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Hello Bob,

Yes, I understand that they [Arminians] would never say that [they "save themselves"]. But what it conveys is accurate: that salvation turns on man's choice, not God's choice. Perhaps it would be more acceptable if phrased as "...to make people able to allow God to save them if they so choose."

This is absolutely NOT how Arminians see it--it's how Calvinists do.
Calvinists [try to] "tell" Arminians "you believe this" (and we've seen it maybe hundreds of times on this forum...the same thing is all over the web...you've probably seen it too)....

Again, imo, Prevenient Grace isn't a "thing" that's "forced" onto or into anyone. It's inside God's Character; God: Who is everywhere, everywhen.

In my relationships with people, they don't "stick something in me" that "allows me to have a relationship with them." God doesn't do that either! He's there and available to all who call on Him. Just like how I called a friend of mine on the phone just now. I didn't have to "secretly plant something in her" in order for "make her able her to respond" to me: that idea's really Wierd! (which goes back to how Calvinism creeps me out...it really does)....

A relationship with God is personal, just personal. It's not freaky or creeped out!

I used the term "non-Calvinist" because that's the term most of you use here. "ABC" might be better: "Anything But Calvinism" Smile. My interest was in finding whether there were classical Arminians/Wesleyans here who held to their doctrine of inability, since man's inability is not widely defended here by anyone but the crazy Calvinists.

Afaik, I believe in "inability" in a Wesleyan context but I didn't get in on the conversation in time to explain. These discussions tend to quickly 'go out on a limb', especially since Calvinists tend dominate and direct the discussions in their own direction,
I prefer a more careful, slow, analysis and personal interaction: (see, "God").

I lump those who deny man's inability into the "some degree of Pelagianism" camp. That seems to be the majority report around here...

I see. The majority of Calvinists I've seen who post/debate on the web seem unable to get beyond Augustine V. Pelagius. They hang on to it very firmly. This is very unfortunate, imo.

Many of us, or at least some who post here, go past the 4th and 16th centuries and all the way back to the first. [Hermeneutical Key: Neither Pelagius nor Augustine was alive then]. In so doing, and in keeping with sound hermeneutics; there's no need to see these things through a "4th or 16th century lens". In fact, doing it is poor hermeneutics and exegesis: It's "interpreting an interpretation."

I (definitely) know well that many Calvinists and Arminians think that these [post-apostolic] men were, somehow, "inspired" almost to the level of Scripture (Bible authors).

Sure, it's important to know where our theology came from---through whom it evolved [the post-apostolic guys]. However, to insist that things MUST be seen like how guys did about 400 years ago misses the mark...by about 1600 years. (or if with Pelagius & Augustine: about 400)....

Happily a Non-Calvinist and Non-Arminian...who not only "says" he does historical-grammitical exegeses, but actually DOES it;
Neither Arminius, Wesley, Augustine, nor Calvin, were "inspired" to the level of the first century and original Christians!!!

But I know people are "stuck" in the 1500-1600s and/or the 400s.
That kind of thing's not for me.
I don't dig "religion": I want the Real Deal! Thanks

[Guest]

Rick, you said:

I want the Real Deal.

If you want the real deal then I infer you know Greek very well. Is that a correct inference?

Gathering that you want to go off of what the apostles said and not what "man" said.

[Guest]

If you want the real deal then I infer you know Greek very well. Is that a correct inference?

I know some Greek.
What does that have to do with my desire for genuine religion?
(The real kind that started 2000 years ago).
If you mean studying & scholarship are important (like knowing Greek, etc.), I can't agree more!

Gathering that you want to go off of what the apostles said and not what "man" said.

Yes, indeed!
First century context, original authorial intention and meaning: alone.
Minus: What other guys thought later,
(droping the presuppositions to the best of our ability!)....
I have a job interview to get to.

Is this thread about Prevenient Grace or am I about to get some Greek "quoted" at me? on some other side-issue? (I hope not)! Hahaha, God bless you, , gtg, I need a job bad! Thanks.

[Guest]

I know some Greek.
What does that have to do with my desire for genuine religion?

I thought that maybe you where a "purest" in the sense that you don't rely on "seeing through" any from any century and you just "go back to the apostles". Since the apostles wrote in Greek and you don't want to use a "lens" from man to interpret the meaning of the language for you (since it is the language from which derives meaning) and to be "genuine" you must go there, I believe.

Providential blessings on your interview !

[Guest]

I thought that maybe you where a "purest" in the sense that you don't rely on "seeing through" any from any century and you just "go back to the apostles".

Yepperz. That's the ideal I shoot for!

Related to this discussion.
A few years ago I heard a new term: "Solo Scriptura" (not Sola).
In some, if not most, Calvinistic circles, Sola Scriptura means "Scripture and Tradition." That is, theology begins with the Scriptures yet embodies Tradition (Creeds, Councils, Confessions, etc.).

Solo Scriptura, as defined by some of these folks, goes something like, "The Scriptures alone without regard to Church Tradition(s)." Btw, this term is usually used in a derogatory way (a (negative) "labeling" phenomena).

I don't think any Christian can be purely "Solo Scriptura." Even the KJV-Only bunch believes in the Trinity (which comes from Church Tradition whether they realize it or not)! We're all "contained" within the particular tradition that has come down to us (or what we have 'converted' to). Put another way, I was raised in a Pentecostal/Arminian church. It's my background. But that doesn't automatically nor necessarily mean I must see things as Pentecostals or Arminians do: My background was simply what I started out with (my presuppositions, what I had been taught, and so on).

Since the apostles wrote in Greek and you don't want to use a "lens" from man to interpret the meaning of the language for you (since it is the language from which derives meaning) and to be "genuine" you must go there, I believe.

It's more than just the words or their specific meanings, imo. What has to be done is to see and understand them as they would have been originally understood. When this is done to the best of our ability, we then know how it applies for today (and can implement the text in our beliefs and/or doctrines).

I interpret Calvin, Arminius (and all those guys) in the same way I do the Bible: historically and grammatically: Original authorial intention and meaning. I ask, "What did Calvin and Arminius mean in their context?" (and do the same thing with any Bible author).

I've tried to find "Calvinist/Arminian Controversies" in the Bible itself. E.g., did Paul and the other NT authors have an "Ordo Salutis Issue?" Were they concerned if regeneration happens before--or after--faith? I can't find this problem in the Bible...it's a later theological issue!

Some may say I'm a "Solo Scriptura." If so, so be it, imo,
I just don't want to cloud things up by seeing the Bible in ways other than what it originally meant. Many texts that Calvinists and Arminians "quote at each other" have nothing to do with the stuff they debate (in terms of the texts' original meaning)....

Providential blessings on your interview !

Thank you! (The interview went well),
It was for a decent paying part-time janitor job in a Methodist church.
In terms of Prevenient Grace; God was "there" when I arrived.
But I had to drive there.
By His Grace, I was alive to drive there.
The interviewers (a Methodist committee!) "worked together" with me to find out if I may be qualified. If they hire me, it will have been a joint effort in getting me 'in there' on the job.

However, it is they who had the job to offer (I didn't have to "give them permission" to offer it). Nor was I "zapped" with some kind of strange force that "made me" apply for the job!

It was personal interaction...just like we have with God.
So, in like kind, I don't see [initial] salvation as "synergism" (as defined by Calvinists, as if I need to give God "permission" or anything like that). Just like this job, salvation is offered.

When something's offered, personal presentations and inquiries occur.
Inter-personal interactions and exchanges happen.
I need some cawfee, long day, thanks again!