Some Disagreements with Wesleyan Theology 1: The Doctrine of Prevenient Grace

A Critical Look at the Doctrine of Prevenient Grace

The Arminian doctrine or concept of prevenient grace has much to be desired. It was originally formulated to dispute the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace. I would be proposing here that both concepts are a priori deductions instead of the more objective result of a posteriori inductive thinking.

1. We previously had contended that irresistible grace may be a great Hellenistic or scholastic theological concept but it is in no way Biblical. It is pure theory based on the framework of the hyper-grace or hyper-sovereignty Calvinist foundations. Nowhere in Scripture can this be supported. The passages Calvinists point out to support this doctrine have better alternative (and more logical common sense) interpretations from or in a different theological framework. 
2. Prevenient grace on the other hand, sometimes called resistible grace, even if the motives for its formulation are noble, is regardless highly flawed.
1. The concept is flawed in its stated timing.  Most proponents for prevenient grace claim that such grace is endowed or bestowed on a person just prior to their conversion. This grants it very little significant difference from its contented irresistible grace. Basically, the Calvinist believes that if that happens prior to salvation, it is because the converted is unable to resist it (Basically God can arbitrarily manipulate someone's salvation). The Arminian, on the other hand, believes that the grace is given but with the prospective believer given a choice to accept or reject such grace.  Whereas the point that grace can be rejected has biblical basis, the timing of it being given just before conversion also makes it arbitrary. Even worse, the concept is misleading as it portrays a God who habitually makes mistakes in choosing who to grant His grace to!!! In this sense, it is as irrational as irresistible grace.
2. The concept of prevenient grace is a useless concept and unnecessary given the biblical record. Based on our CrossCulture theological framework: the chief end of God is to create a people of faith who will love him willingly and sacrificially the way God loves them, AND the chief end of man is to love God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength (Both quite biblical and a posteriori inductions from Scripture) and matching in objective (God creates man to love him and man is commanded to love him...ridiculously simple and logical!), we should be convinced by now that free-will is one of God's "sacred cows", so to speak. God will not and will never violate free will and there is no biblical record that he did. (As for Judas Iscariot and the hardening of Pharoah's heart, there are better more logical and more defensible alternative interpretations which we have previously discussed in earlier blogs)

So what does the CrossCulture theological framework have to counter the irresistible grace contention? Obvious but often bypassed, the creation of man in the image of God!!!  That is the answer.  When God created man in his image, he made man completely autonomous with the capability to reject or even curse God.  Along with the image of God, however, God gave AT CREATION, the ability of man to make logical decisions, to make conclusions based on evidence, and most importantly to freely exercise faith, hope and love as he will without any divine interference.  This concept is completely biblical, even if we use John Wesley's quadrilateral to squeeze the juice out of the implications of man being created in the image of God.  

R.E.S.T.

1. Reason confirms that the concept is highly logical
2. Experience confirms that man can freely reject God and the fact that NO ONE will ever know before hand (perhaps even God himself!) whether a man will accept God's grace or reject it.
3. Scripture has declared man being created in the image of God MORE THAN three times in Scripture. This is God SHOUTING, not whispering. Hermeneutically, we should pay more attention to God's SHOUTS than his whispers. This makes the shouts interpret the whispers properly and logically.
4. Tradition. We have so many sacraments that confirm our choices like baptism, even communion. I see Christians in church many times rejecting to take communion based on whatever issues they may have. Arminian-based traditions show that prevenient grace may be initially accepted but finally rejected.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." John 6:44 is the passage most hyper-grace people use to support irresistible grace and, unfortunately, which the Arminians fail to address with alternative interpretations, hence prevenient grace perhaps. This is surprising because John 12:32, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." uses the exact same Greek word for "draw". Notice, however, the words "all people". Is it a fact that ALL PEOPLE are saved? That falls flat on the faces of the hyper-grace people which is why they claim that "all people" only refers to the "elect", another ridiculous interpretation to support an already ridiculous doctrine (and they are supposed to be highly educated and logical?)

Anyway, so God draws all people! But are all people saved? Let's make it smaller, do all people respond positively?

This also falls flat in the face of prevenient grace. What is the use of prevenient grace if it can be rejected? Did God make so many mistakes in giving rejected grace? Did he chose the wrong people intentionally? Then he is a hypocrite. Did he chose the wrong people unintentionally? Then he habitually fails to read people's minds!

The simple and proper interpretation of the Greek "draw" is simply "get a person's attention so as to make him curious or interested, or even hungry enough to seek after God".  I mean, this is a great logical alternative interpretation based on context and based on the whole interpreting the parts! This makes the doctrines of irresistible grace and prevenient grace unnecessary. However, the ability to exercise man's God-created autonomous and willful free will (which has almost absolutely nothing to do with either kind of grace!) to respond becomes BOTH logical and necessary. 

Just my 2 cents to bring back logic into our most cherished theologies. 

We concur with the protestant ethic of continuously questioning what you believe until what is left is what stands any test and that develops into an unshakeable personal theology and faith.