Prevenient grace

[Turgonian]

Note: this thread assumes Total Depravity. That issue can be discussed in other threads.

In his essay on Unconditional Election, JP Holding champions Prevenient Grace. 'Prevenient' means 'coming before'. This doctrine claims that men are dead in sins and therefore unable to come to God without God's grace, like Calvinism claims. The difference is that Prevenient Grace claims that man gets a 'shot of grace' which enables him to choose freely. In other words, he is released from his spiritual blindness (but not yet saved) so that he can make a choice whether he will follow Christ or not.

I am not sure whether this is true. What I like about this doctrine is that those who are unable to make a choice -- like infants and the mentally ill -- will not be held accountable, and will therefore be allowed into Heaven. Given the rates of infant mortality throughout history, this would imply that God has the majority of souls in the end, something which even the famous Calvinist preacher Spurgeon believed:

I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to “have the pre-eminence,” and I cannot conceive how He could have the pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise. Moreover, I have never read that there is to be in hell a great multitude, which no man could number. I rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as soon as they die, speed their way to Paradise. Think what a multitude there is of them! Then there are already in Heaven unnumbered myriads of the spirits of just men made perfect-the redeemed of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues up till now; and there are better times coming, when the religion of Christ shall be universal; when —

“He shall reign from pole to pole,
With illimitable sway,”

when whole kingdoms shall bow down before Him, and nations shall be born in a day, and in the thousand years of the great millennial state there will be enough saved to make up all the deficiencies of the thousands of years that have gone before. Christ shall be Master everywhere, and His praise shall be sounded in every land. Christ shall have the pre-eminence at last; His train shall be far larger than that which shall attend the chariot of the grim monarch of hell.

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

On the other hand, this is from 'Defense of Calvinism', so maybe there is room in Calvinism to claim that those who could never understand what 'sin' or who 'Christ' is will be saved.

Any thoughts?

[puritan lad]

I strongly disagree, as this doctrine slants toward modern Arminianism, subjecting God's decrees to what John Owen refers to as "the goddess Contingency". The beautiful thing about Biblical Calvinism is that it consists of more than just "5-points". Calvinism is a worldview, where all things happen as a direct result of Providence. If God's decrees were changeable, then we are faced with a God who is able to make better decisions as time goes forward, apparently correcting the mistakes of His previous decisions.

I do believe in a general "pervenient grace", but it is a grace without any eternal value. (For example, a person who is born healthy has experienced a form of grace, however wicked they may turn out. Hitler, by God's "grace" had the opportunity to rule over a country). But the pervenient grace spoken of in the article is foreign to the Bible. It would have to be considered "partially born again".

For example, he writes, "Palmer [Palm.5P, 85] "defends" his Calvinist view by saying that the Calvinist "realizes that what he advocates is ridiculous" when he says, for example, that God foreordained Judas' sin, yet Judas is still to blame. "...[T]he Calvinist freely admits that his position is illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, and foolish." I'll never admit such a thing. While the doctrine of predestination (unavoidable in Scripture) is offensive to the rebellious human mind, in the end, God is God. "But our God is in heaven: he does whatsoever he will." (Psalm 115:3). This is His job description. So if God predestined Judas for destruction, so what? Before any objections are considered, see how Paul deals with them in Romans 9:20-23). The Bible clearly supports God's work in the actions of the wicked men to whom Jesus was delivered.

As far as the "Age of Accountability" goes, I'll say that it is a nice thought. It cannot, however, be supported from Scripture. (As much respect as I have for Spurgeon, he is just wrong here.) I don't see how the unclean children of pagans (1 Cor. 7:14) can make it into heaven, unless they are born of the Spirit.

[Turgonian]

Not contingency as such, but man's free choice, which he is able to make when he is not yet born again, but freed from his blindness (according to the doctrine of prevenient grace, not me). Holding does not say that God's will is changeable, as such; in fact, he attacks Open View Theism, which claims God is learning as we are. Holding disagrees: God foreknows everything.

So what would you say about Judas?

What about the unborn? They can't be born again... (They have a soul, don't they?)
What about the mentally ill? Suppose such a person is born in a pagan environment and is later looked after by Christians?
What about those unreached by the Gospel? Don't they have a chance of being saved?
I realize God owes us nothing...but still.

By the way, the 'Age of Accountability' is, according to Holding, not fixed. It depends on a person's maturity. People who die at 40 with the mental capabilities of a 6-year-old are not accountable.

[FFC]

Not contingency as such, but man's free choice, which he is able to make when he is not yet born again, but freed from his blindness (according to the doctrine of prevenient grace, not me). Holding does not say that God's will is changeable, as such; in fact, he attacks Open View Theism, which claims God is learning as we are. Holding disagrees: God foreknows everything.

So what would you say about Judas?

What about the unborn? They can't be born again... (They have a soul, don't they?)
What about the mentally ill? Suppose such a person is born in a pagan environment and is later looked after by Christians?
What about those unreached by the Gospel? Don't they have a chance of being saved?
I realize God owes us nothing...but still.

By the way, the 'Age of Accountability' is, according to Holding, not fixed. It depends on a person's maturity. People who die at 40 with the mental capabilities of a 6-year-old are not accountable.

I would say that God can reach anybody, no matter what their age or mental capability, if He wants to save them.

[puritan lad]

Not contingency as such, but man's free choice, which he is able to make when he is not yet born again, but freed from his blindness (according to the doctrine of prevenient grace, not me). Holding does not say that God's will is changeable, as such; in fact, he attacks Open View Theism, which claims God is learning as we are. Holding disagrees: God foreknows everything.

Contingency and "free-will" go hand in hand. If God's decrees are unchangeable, then libertarian free will is a myth.

So what would you say about Judas?

I hold that he did nothing but "what the hand and counsel of God had decreed" (Acts 4:28), that Christ was delivered to death by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23);Judas and the Pharisees were all "disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. (1 Peter 2:8).

What about the unborn? They can't be born again... :) (They have a soul, don't they?)
What about the mentally ill? Suppose such a person is born in a pagan environment and is later looked after by Christians?
What about those unreached by the Gospel? Don't they have a chance of being saved?
I realize God owes us nothing...but still.

By the way, the 'Age of Accountability' is, according to Holding, not fixed. It depends on a person's maturity. People who die at 40 with the mental capabilities of a 6-year-old are not accountable.

These are nice thoughts, but again cannot be supported with Scripture. I know of some mentally ill people who are Christians. One who holds to the "age of accountability" teaching must deny either Original Sin or the need to the new birth. Remember that the law was given so that " that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God" (Romans 3:19). I cannot find any exceptions in this clause, nor do I find such in John 3:3.

[FFC]

Not contingency as such, but man's free choice, which he is able to make when he is not yet born again, but freed from his blindness (according to the doctrine of prevenient grace, not me). Holding does not say that God's will is changeable, as such; in fact, he attacks Open View Theism, which claims God is learning as we are. Holding disagrees: God foreknows everything.

Contingency and "free-will" go hand in hand. If God's decrees are unchangeable, then libertarian free will is a myth.

So what would you say about Judas?

I hold that he did nothing but "what the hand and counsel of God had decreed" (Acts 4:28), that Christ was delivered to death by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23);Judas and the Pharisees were all "disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. (1 Peter 2:8).

What about the unborn? They can't be born again... (They have a soul, don't they?)
What about the mentally ill? Suppose such a person is born in a pagan environment and is later looked after by Christians?
What about those unreached by the Gospel? Don't they have a chance of being saved?
I realize God owes us nothing...but still.

By the way, the 'Age of Accountability' is, according to Holding, not fixed. It depends on a person's maturity. People who die at 40 with the mental capabilities of a 6-year-old are not accountable.

These are nice thoughts, but again cannot be supported with Scripture. I know of some mentally ill people who are Christians. One who holds to the "age of accountability" teaching must deny either Original Sin or the need to the new birth. Remember that the law was given so that " that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God" (Romans 3:19). I cannot find any exceptions in this clause, nor do I find such in John 3:3.

PL, in light of this where does infant baptism come in and what is it's purpose?

[B. W.]

Note: this thread assumes Total Depravity. That issue can be discussed in other threads.

In his essay on Unconditional Election, JP Holding champions Prevenient Grace. 'Prevenient' means 'coming before'. This doctrine claims that men are dead in sins and therefore unable to come to God without God's grace, like Calvinism claims. The difference is that Prevenient Grace claims that man gets a 'shot of grace' which enables him to choose freely. In other words, he is released from his spiritual blindness (but not yet saved) so that he can make a choice whether he will follow Christ or not.

I am not sure whether this is true. What I like about this doctrine is that those who are unable to make a choice -- like infants and the mentally ill -- will not be held accountable, and will therefore be allowed into Heaven. Given the rates of infant mortality throughout history, this would imply that God has the majority of souls in the end, something which even the famous Calvinist preacher Spurgeon believed:

I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to “have the pre-eminence,” and I cannot conceive how He could have the pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise. Moreover, I have never read that there is to be in hell a great multitude, which no man could number. I rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as soon as they die, speed their way to Paradise. Think what a multitude there is of them! Then there are already in Heaven unnumbered myriads of the spirits of just men made perfect-the redeemed of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues up till now; and there are better times coming, when the religion of Christ shall be universal; when —

“He shall reign from pole to pole,
With illimitable sway,”

when whole kingdoms shall bow down before Him, and nations shall be born in a day, and in the thousand years of the great millennial state there will be enough saved to make up all the deficiencies of the thousands of years that have gone before. Christ shall be Master everywhere, and His praise shall be sounded in every land. Christ shall have the pre-eminence at last; His train shall be far larger than that which shall attend the chariot of the grim monarch of hell.

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

On the other hand, this is from 'Defense of Calvinism', so maybe there is room in Calvinism to claim that those who could never understand what 'sin' or who 'Christ' is will be saved.

Any thoughts?

It is amazing that in Isaiah 55:11-12 it declares that God will do what he says, his words will not return void. God keeps his words! My faith grows in that — God keeps his word.

However, when it comes to children entering heaven, Many Christian Traditions boldly declare that God does not keep his word unless approved by them first. Such nonsensical doctrines, such as God damning Children to hell, disprove the verity of the bible.

Jesus speaks in Matthew 19:13-15 and Matthew 18:3-6 to let the “little children” come onto him and do not forbid them to come. Therefore salvation comes from Jesus and not age. Little defines age when a person is most easily taught and learns.

The little ones are bidden to come to him. God's word does not return void. If a little child dies they return to who bids them to come! Salvation is extended to them by God's declaration of this. Jesus cannot lie; the words he speaks are spirit and life.

The 'age of accountability' is really not based on if a child is born innocent or not but rather from God bidding them to come, as Jesus spoke long ago. If God damns such little ones, then this says what about God? That He must tie a millstone around his neck and jump into the sea for forbidding the little ones to come — he has to keep his word. right? Our give his word that they are not forbidden to come based on God knowing something about little children we do not know?

Giving his word proves God is merciful and his love real. He knows kids are more pliable than adults. Train-up a child in the way they should go and they will not depart from it the book of Proverbs declares: Proverbs 22:6.

Adults need to become pliable as a little child to enter the kingdom and thus have the hardest time returning to the Lord. There is a definite difference between adults and little children. That is the mystery of what Jesus spoke in Matthew 18:3-6.

“Train up a child in the way he shall go and when he gets old he will not depart from it,” Proverbs 22:6 NKJV, has a lot of meaning to it more than we know, realize, or like to admit.

How is God training you?

Rebuke a wise man and he will love you, rebuke a fool and he will attack you.
-
-
-

[Turgonian]

B.W., you're quoting out of context. 'Let the little children come to me' was said to the disciples and could be paraphrased 'Do not hinder the little children to come to me'. Even if Jesus meant this to be extended to all little children, rather than the specific ones present there, this would be a warning to those who tried to keep little children from coming to Jesus.

If Jesus would choose not to save other little children, they would simply not come to Him in the first place. No one would be hindering them...they just would not come.
Also note these children are brought by the mothers. Would, say, today's atheist mothers bring their little children to Jesus?
What I have heard preached is that an infant of godly parents will enter Heaven. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that parents are personally convinced that their child is in Heaven, and that someone or several persons around them (e.g. the pastor) independently of those parents receive the assurance that this child is indeed in Heaven.
I wouldn't automatically extend it to the children of non-believers.

But far be it from me to say anything definite on what happens to infants after death... Puritan lad is right that Scripture doesn't say anything about it, so maybe we shouldn't worry about it too much either. God's ways are mysterious. Maybe they will be allowed, maybe not. Maybe it's none of our concern.

[B. W.]

But far be it from me to say anything definite on what happens to infants after death... Puritan lad is right that Scripture doesn't say anything about it, so maybe we shouldn't worry about it too much either. God's ways are mysterious. Maybe they will be allowed, maybe not. Maybe it's none of our concern.

That would be the wisest course...

God knows.

Again, when Jesus speaks can our doctrine and interpretations stop his words? It does not matter how we argue on this matter, God's own words will stand. Not ours.

Jesus after speaking to let the little ones to come, he blessed them, then got up from there and went on - interesting, I guess his blessings cease?
-
-
-

[Turgonian]

No, he blessed those particular little ones.

If you are going to defend that Jesus blesses every single little child, are you going to deny child abuse?
Or do you hold that all children receive spiritual blessings, which evaporate when they reach maturity?

[B. W.]

No, he blessed those particular little ones.

If you are going to defend that Jesus blesses every single little child, are you going to deny child abuse?
Or do you hold that all children receive spiritual blessings, which evaporate when they reach maturity?

Interesting point but how does child abuse fit in here?

Why cannot people believe just believe what Jesus said about the subject and move on?

This does not justify abortion, child abuse/murder, or any such rot. To use this as a base for argument that Jesus cannot possibly mean what he means because of crimes against little children can be justified misses a point I brought out elsewhere on forum - that people misuse the bible to justify their acts and thus assert their personal dominion over God's Kingdom.

If the passages cited are out of context, so is salvation as that is how we are to come to Christ in the deepest meanings of the text.

Jesus saying this conveys a truth to us. It does test what kingdom we adhere too: God's Kingdom where he rules us or Man's Kingdom — how man rules and reasons without God's influence.

Jesus spoke this, not I. It answers the question and turns man's kingdom and rules upside down. He said do not forbid the little ones to come to him for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven [or God depending on accounts reading]

There is a difference between adults and little children. Yes, little children do grow up into cranky adults. God knows more about human beings than we do and has his own reasons for calling little children to come at whatever age it is he defined as little children.

We are to become like little children to enter the kingdom of heaven — there is no contradiction you seek by implying that spiritual blessing cease and evaporate. Yes there are those that are doing so, forbidding coming to Christ, when it comes to entering the Kingdom as a little Child. God calls us his children — wonder why?

It is a sad day when the word of God is silenced by the mouth of men. What Jesus says, stands true today as on the day he said this about the little ones coming unto him and it will ring true. A person has a right to say what they want too, but God brings his own words to pass.

I'll stand on what God said about it and not man's ideas. From this a person can bring comfort to those who have lost their little ones instead of tears brought about by ideological opinions. God's word is truth.
-
-
-

[Turgonian]

Interesting point but how does child abuse fit in here?

Why cannot people believe just believe what Jesus said about the subject and move on?

This does not justify abortion, child abuse/murder, or any such rot. To use this as a base for argument that Jesus cannot possibly mean what he means because of crimes against little children can be justified misses a point I brought out elsewhere on forum - that people misuse the bible to justify their acts and thus assert their personal dominion over God's Kingdom.

Hey, hey! I wasn't justifying crimes! I was merely asserting that if all little children are 'blessed', it's a strange blessing that allows for such horrible things to happen to children.
What I was saying is: don't automatically extend Jesus's blessing to all little children when He blessed only a few. When He cured the lepers, it didn't mean He was going to cure everyone with leprosy.

[B. W.]

Hey, hey! I wasn't justifying crimes! I was merely asserting that if all little children are 'blessed', it's a strange blessing that allows for such horrible things to happen to children. What I was saying is: don't automatically extend Jesus's blessing to all little children when He blessed only a few. When He cured the lepers, it didn't mean He was going to cure everyone with leprosy.

I really owe you an apology my friend. I misunderstood your answer completely. Forgive me of my brash answers.

Please understand that I work as a case manager in the Criminal Justice system and work with convicted felons whose crimes are classed as violent. When they argue back, I have a learned to be assertive in thwarting their protest. It carried over here and I am deeply sorry.

Now, Regarding your comment below—

“What I was saying is: don't automatically extend Jesus' blessing to all little children when He blessed only a few. When He cured the lepers, it didn't mean He was going to cure everyone with leprosy.”

My response:

Jesus stated something that answers this in Mathew 18:1-6. I suggest you read it and explore it further. There is much here that is best discovered on your own with prayer. I am certain the Lord will reveal its truth to you in due time.

The statement about Lepers could be applied to salvation too. Here is a bit of brotherly advice: Whatever you do, try avoiding using non-matching analogies to build on. We are all, at times, guilty of doing this.

Regarding your comment further: I like Joni's response in a TV interview years ago, when asked if she lacked faith to be healed and to get up out of her wheelchair and walk as well as why God does not heal everybody. She stated that she has reached more people in her wheelchair for Christ than ever she could by walking. She sees God's hand working things out for good that were meant for harm.

The last thing she said in that interview hit me hard. She stated that God heals in different ways. One day, in heaven, she will run and play with the Lord and go swimming again but for now, the wheelchair is temporary. That's Faith my friend!

God will heal and restore as he so wills to whomever he wills whenever and however he so decides. The question is, do we trust what Jesus says and believe in Him?

Remember this, we live what we believe. A Child has that simple faith to believe and learn. That is the faith that saves and truly heals no-matter the infirmity.

When one grows up and becomes adult — what they believed in shapes how they learn from believing. This shapes them. For example, some have learned that love betrayed them when parents split up and live life shaped by this.

Others are abused and thus their belief is shattered causing all types of havoc they live out. Some believe in atheisms, fascism, and communism and thus shape their world by what they believe. The list is endless.

We need to become like little children and believe in Jesus and thus learn to live a new and different life course. Jesus restores our faith in God that will see us through no matter what is tried to shatter this faithful relationship. Jesus heals in many diverse ways.

Does this mean that because one is a non-Christian leper, God will grant him heaven's entrance? No I do not mean that at all. God provided the means and the message to reach these — even a fine lady in a wheelchair anointed by a similar suffering whereby the non-Christian can learn from her about that true lasting faith in Christ and have shattered faith in God restored — that's healing.
-
-
-

[Turgonian]

Apology accepted.
I wasn't upset about it, I just felt the misunderstanding had to be put right.

I agree that we have to become spiritual little children, trying to stand and walk on our own (when our Father gives us the strength), but always dependent on our Father and never far from Him. We should be humble like a child -- of course I agree.

God heals in different ways, certainly, and He uses evil / disease / infirmity for His own good purposes, as is powerfully illustrated in the history of Joseph.

However, it still doesn't mean he blesses all little children.
We can assume God will save all those who die without having reached maturity, but I don't think we can make a hard case for it from Scripture. But we can have subjective assurance of that, as Spurgeon had.

What we believe in shapes us -- but it can also horribly deform us. E.g. those who believed in Christ's message as a child and became 'fundamentalist atheists' afterwards, with a bitter personal hate toward the Christian faith. Has he lost his salvation, or was he never saved in the first place?

[puritan lad]

PL, in light of this where does infant baptism come in and what is it's purpose?

The debate over infant baptism surrounds two issues.

1.) What baptism represents.
2.) The state of infants and children.

With regard to Infant Baptism, those who reject it do so on the belief that "salvation" is a requirement of baptism. (Of course, they really don't believe this, or else they would have to determine actual salvation before they could baptize anyone). Simon Magus was baptized yet was unregenerate. (Acts 8:16-22). Therefore, Baptists are in agreement with us Covenant Theologians that the requirements for an adult baptism is a confession of faith. Whether or not that confession is genuine will be judged at the last day.

So what does baptism represent? We hold that baptism is the NT replacement for circumcision (Col. 2:11-12), the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace. However, just as circumcision in the OT guaranteed nothing in the eternal sense, neither does baptism in the NT. Baptism cannot save (Simon Magus), nor is it a requirement to be saved (the thief on the cross). It is merely a sign of the Covenant of Grace, albeit an important sign.

The next question deals with infants and children in the eyes of God. A common but unbiblical teaching is that there exists some "age of accountability", ie. children are either sinless until they reach a certain age (see Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3), or aren't guilty of this sin until they reach a certain age (see Romans 3:19). As you can see, both beliefs are unscriptural. Infants, even unborn, are wicked sinners just like anyone else.

So how does God view infants? Are the infants of believers viewed any differently from the infants of unbelievers? Yes. The Bible says that the infants and children of believers (or even one believer) are "holy", where otherwise they would be unclean (1 Cor. 7:14). Does that mean that they are automatically saved? No, just like the unbelieving spouse, while sanctified (set apart as holy in covenant) may eventually be saved, although there are no guarantees (1 Cor. 7:16). Christian parents have the obligation to train up a child in the way of the Lord, so we don't presume that our children will automatically be Christians, but we do expect it. For the promise of the Holy Ghost is given to believers and their children (Acts 2:39).

Therefore, since the children of believers are holy, and are promised the Holy Ghost, we conclude that they are heirs to the Covenant of Grace. Therefore, they should receive the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace just like Abraham's children, for they are Abraham's children (Gal. 3:29). That would be water baptism.

Note: There is a common objection that says that there are no examples of infant baptism in the NT. This is both presumptuous and irrelevant. It is presumptous because it presumes, for example, that all 3,000 baptisms in Acts 2:41 were professing adults, and ignores the the fact that believers in the NT were baptized along with their households (Acts 16:14-15). It is irrelevant because it is, at best, an argument from silence. These same people have no problem allowing women to take communion, despite the fact that there are no specific examples in the NT.

Anyway, this is my case in favor of infant baptism. (By the way, baptism may be done by sprinkling, dipping, or immersion. It is foolishness to think that a spiritual washing depends on the amount of water used.)

Hope this helps,

PL