The Narrow Path Ministries

The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church (http://www.cresourcei.org/creed25.html) contains in Article 8 a statement of the necessity of "preventing" or "prevenient" grace:

Article 8—Of Free Will

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

This article separates classical Arminianism/Wesleyanism from Pelagianism/semi-Pelagianism by recognizing the inability of man in his fallen state to turn to God without first receiving prevenient grace.

For the non-Calvinists here, I would ask the following questions:

1) Do you agree with Article 8 above? If not, why not? Is my follow-on comment about the necessity of prevenient grace correct?

2) Where is prevenient grace taught in the scripture?

3) Is prevenient grace given to all men equally?

4) Is prevenient grace irresistable?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Cheers,
Bob

No, I do not agree with Article 8.

Here is an example. If a person sacrifices his personal safety, risks his very life, or in some cases gives up his life, in order to save another, God is pleased. He doesn't first look into their hearts and see whether they are regenerate or ungenerate. He doesn't care who performs that self-sacrificial act. He simply loves the person who so sacrifices himself.

Paidion wrote:No, I do not agree with Article 8.

Here is an example. If a person sacrifices his personal safety, risks his very life, or in some cases gives up his life, in order to save another, God is pleased. He doesn't first look into their hearts and see whether they are regenerate or ungenerate. He doesn't care who performs that self-sacrificial act. He simply loves the person who so sacrifices himself.

Hi Paidion,

Do you then hold that man retains, even after the fall, the ability to exercise faith and turn to God apart from grace?

Cheers,
Bob

I agree with the article, and I agree with Paidion's examples wicked men's unselfish acts of good, which I emphatically affirm that God is pleased with them insofar as these acts go. However, I see these acts as evidence of God's grace, instead of an inner ability rendering God's gracious activity unnecessary. I do not believe that prevenient grace is given to all men equally. Some get more grace due several possible reasons (prayer, fasting, giving, loving, carring of the saints). I believe that all of God's grace is resistable, because we are not inanimate objects but relational creatures, made in the image of God, who is a relational God. Yet after responding positively to God's prevenient grace to a certain point, His grace seems to be effectual or irresistable, but only because of the previous responses to God's grace and Spirit at work in the many aspects of our life, which softens and opens our hearts. I may attempt to make a biblical and existential case for this sometime in the future, but, in the meantime, I thought you would at least enjoy my thoughts on the subject. So, there they are.

Grace and Peace,
Troy

Troy C wrote:I agree with the article, and I agree with Paidion's examples wicked men's unselfish acts of good, which I emphatically affirm that God is pleased with them insofar as these acts go. However, I see these acts as evidence of God's grace, instead of an inner ability rendering God's gracious activity unnecessary.

Hi Troy,

Thanks. Just to clarify, since you said that you agree with the article, do you then hold that the fall has left all men with an inability to turn to God and exercise faith, and that this inability can only be remedied by the administration of prevenient grace, which restores to man the ability to turn to God and exercise faith if he wills to do so?

Troy C wrote: I do not believe that prevenient grace is given to all men equally.

Do you believe it is given to all men at least sufficiently to overcome the inability resulting from the fall?

Troy C wrote: Some get more grace due several possible reasons (prayer, fasting, giving, loving, carring of the saints). I believe that all of God's grace is resistable, because we are not inanimate objects but relational creatures, made in the image of God, who is a relational God. Yet after responding positively to God's prevenient grace to a certain point, His grace seems to be effectual or irresistable, but only because of the previous responses to God's grace and Spirit at work in the many aspects of our life, which softens and opens our hearts. I may attempt to make a biblical and existential case for this sometime in the future, but, in the meantime, I thought you would at least enjoy my thoughts on the subject. So, there they are.

I would like to see the biblical case when you have time. I've been studying some articles on this trying to understand it better. One thing that seems clear is that if the case for prevenient grace fails, then Arminianism collapses. It's a crucial element of the system.

I'm also trying to understand who the classical Arminians are here. Pelagianism/semi-Pelagianism seems to be the majority report around here.

Cheers,
Bob

Do you then hold that man retains, even after the fall, the ability to exercise faith and turn to God apart from grace?

All I have stated, Bob, is that God is pleased with self-sacrificing acts of love. He is pleased with such acts, no matter who performs them.

Most non-Christians as well as non-Christians, though they may be kind and gentle, will not sacrifice themselves for the sake of others. But a few will, even among those who have never tasted of the heavenly gift.

All people exercise faith. We cannot live a moment of our life without doing so. When you are about to sit in a chair, you exercise faith that the chair will support you, probably basing your faith on past experience with chairs. When you enter your car and turn on the key, your action show that you believe the car will start.

The faith we exercise in God is not of a different order from the above. It differs only in the object of our faith.

And Jesus, responding, says to them, "Have faith in God." Mark 11:22

Jesus seemed to think that his disciples simply through the exercise of their wills could have faith in God. They did not yet receive the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit which they later received on that special day of Pentecost.

Because of free will which God has given man, a person is also capable of turning to God whenever the Father draws him, that is, creates circumstances which invite him to do so. Perhaps the Father sends one of his servants to him with a word. Perhaps the Father uses some circumstance in the person's life to influence him.

I think the Calvinistic thinking about the grace of God is in error. Titus chapter 2 show what grace really is:

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and pious lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of ourSavior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with total command. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:11-15

Grace is God's enablement to work righteousness and to overcome sin. But he will not so enable us if we do not coöperate with his grace. It is the free exercise of our faith in God and his grace that provides the basis of our coöperation. Call it synergism if you will. But that's the way God works. We cannot consistently work righteousness through self-effort. Nor will God sovereignly work righteousness through us. But rather:

Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. 2 Corinthians 6:1

bshow wrote: I'm also trying to understand who the classical Arminians are here. Pelagianism/semi-Pelagianism seems to be the majority report around here.

Though there is less than perfect agreement on what these terms mean, I know no Pelagians here. I would suggest that an Arminian "IS" a semi-pelagian, so I accept that as much as I would accept semi-calvinist, I suppose. I'm not sure where that bright line would be.

darin-houston wrote:

bshow wrote: I'm also trying to understand who the classical Arminians are here. Pelagianism/semi-Pelagianism seems to be the majority report around here.

Though there is less than perfect agreement on what these terms mean, I know no Pelagians here. I would suggest that an Arminian "IS" a semi-pelagian, so I accept that as much as I would accept semi-calvinist, I suppose. I'm not sure where that bright line would be.

Hi Darin,

I would characterize the views roughly as follows:

Pelagianism: Man is able to exercise saving faith and perform works of righteousness unaided by God's grace.

Semi-Pelagianism: Man is able to make the first move toward God, but grace is necessary to complete the salvation process.

Arminianism: Man, due to original sin, is wholly unable to make the first move toward God. God's (prevenient) grace is necessary to overcome this inability, but once the inability is overcome, man is able to choose to exercise saving faith or not.

Some Arminians might balk at being characterized as semi-Pelagian.

There aren't too many defenders of original sin and man's inability around here, hence the charge of some degree of Pelagianism. Both Calvinists and classical Arminians would agree at least on original sin and its effects.

Articles 4 and 5 of the original Articles of Remonstrance (http://arminians.org/node/26) give the classical Arminian position.

Cheers,
Bob

bshow1 wrote:The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church (http://www.cresourcei.org/creed25.html) contains in Article 8 a statement of the necessity of "preventing" or "prevenient" grace:

Article 8—Of Free Will

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

This article separates classical Arminianism/Wesleyanism from Pelagianism/semi-Pelagianism by recognizing the inability of man in his fallen state to turn to God without first receiving prevenient grace.

For the non-Calvinists here, I would ask the following questions:

1) Do you agree with Article 8 above? If not, why not? Is my follow-on comment about the necessity of prevenient grace correct?

2) Where is prevenient grace taught in the scripture?

3) Is prevenient grace given to all men equally?

4) Is prevenient grace irresistable?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Cheers,
Bob

Hi Bob,

1. I don't really see why this would matter, as God gives grace to every man.

2.
John 12:32 ( KJV ) 32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

John 1:9 ( KJV ) 9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

3. I believe it is.


Romans 2:11 ( KJV ) 11For there is no respect of persons with God.

4. No.


Acts 13:46 ( KJV ) 46Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.


Acts 7:51 ( KJV ) 51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.


1 Thessalonians 4:3 ( KJV ) 3For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

bshow wrote:There aren't too many defenders of original sin and man's inability around here, hence the charge of some degree of Pelagianism. Both Calvinists and classical Arminians would agree at least on original sin and its effects.

Careful! There's a difference in degree but not so much in substance. It's a far cry from saying we're tainted by original sin to the position that all men from Adam were totally incapable of doing anything to please God.