Prevenient grace?

Dizerner

Well-known member
I would agree prevenient grace is a poor name for a doctrine that actually centers around the idea of an autonomous response and not merely grace being prevenient.

I think such an inaccurate term should no longer be used, and am committed to ditch it.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I would agree prevenient grace is a poor name for a doctrine that actually centers around the idea of an autonomous response and not merely grace being prevenient.

I think such an inaccurate term should no longer be used, and am committed to ditch it.
It should always be called Prevenient Grace ;) Because Grace IS Prevenient...
 

Carbon

Well-known member
I argue points relative to Scripture. I do not argue for what others say. If you expect that from me, then I'll stop here. The battle is always in the Scriptural details. I'm simply making the point that Grace is innate to the Gospel message.
Okay
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Correct. We miss. I do not blame God for our own failures.

Read these words and make an application here...

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind
I said God does not miss. God over rides us.

you do realize God gives those who don’t want Him over to a reprobate mind. They can do as they like with no conviction.

but you know that already
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
The teaching in classic Arminianism is true in some ways and false in others. The fundamental of the teaching is that God imparts Grace in ways that Calvinism does not recognize.

Let me fix that for you.

The fundamental of the teaching is that God imparts Grace in ways that Calvinism does not want to recognize.

There, that's better.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Well, I desire and intend to agree with what God’s word teaches. Show me where the word teaches man has a choice, it’s in mans hands to decide. If you can show me this, I will humbly change my views.

It seems to me you might be committed to reject anything that doesn't fit your paradigm even if it fits Scripture...

Let's see if you will a priori reject a deduction or impose your presuppositions no matter what the text says.

I believe free will can also be conclusively deduced from Scripture.

Let's take a fairly mundane seeming passage and extrapolate some ideas from it.

3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife."
4 But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also?
5 "Did he not say to me,`She is my sister '? And she, even she herself said,`He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this."
6 And God said to him in a dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.
7 "Now therefore, restore the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours." (Gen 20:3-7 NKJ)


I believe just as the Trinity can be deduced from whatever passages you want to cite, so true autonomous decision can be from this passage (as well as hundreds of others, but this passage is sufficient and a good example).

This is a long setup but bear with me. At first God says to Abimelech that he is a dead man because he has sinned. Abimelech answers and implies that this is too harsh a judgment in the light of his current limitations of understanding the situation. Abimelech then declares he is innocent. In verse 6, God does not say Abimelech is wrong, but rather affirms that Abimelech is actually correct on this issue. He has done this "in the integrity" of his heart. Then God says he has somehow kept Abimelech from sinning so far as an act of mercy because of ignorance. But now Abimelech is no longer considered ignorant, as he has been warned, so we end with verse 7 in which God lays out two different outcomes that are both indicated to be a real possibility and determined by the choice Abimelech makes.

Honesty is an attribute of God, and honesty in communication is necessary if you want to be understood in the way you intend to say something. That is, in general, if you wish to convey information and not mislead someone, you actually have to mean what you say. We cannot claim Abimelech would understand this passage in any deterministic way, and if determinism were true it would not be beyond the capacity of God to phrase this in a deterministic way or even to explain that Abimelech actually has no choice in the matter and there are not two real, viable outcomes as God indicated, where Abimelech either "surely dies" or he will in fact "live" although he was declared dead already, which in this case would indicate he had a pending "death sentence," or ban, on him.

Now the truth about determinism is a sneaky one, because no matter how you phrase something to sound like autonomy you can always just claim it only sounds that way as some kind of illusion. But the default position of any text should not to be take it as an illusion, but to take it as meaning what it says, unless we have strong overriding context. With proponents of determinism, a small percentage of Bible verses that could be interpreted as deterministic are used as an overriding lens to reinterpret a much, much larger percentage of passages that are made to sound deliberately as if choice were two actual outcomes decided by the individual, instead of pre-decided by God. And this becomes so second nature, that, in my interaction with determinists anyway, they almost seem to think it's the natural way to interpret choices in Scripture as necessarily deterministic when that's actually not the default way to understand them.

So by using the exact same "hermeneutics" we would use to come to a deduction of the Trinity, we come to a consistent and predominantly used method in the Bible as describing choices as multiple potential outcomes determined by the agent.

If God wanted to convey a deterministic meaning of any kind to Abimelech it would have been easy, simple and clear to simply phrase what God says to Abimelech in a deterministic way, "I have chosen you to sin," or "You will go on and do what I have decided for you to do," or "you must fulfill your destiny and this is what it will be." God does not choose any of those easy options which would be honest and clear, to phrase something deliberately in a way that sounds non-deterministic, and this is not by any definition the honest way of communicating.

So although we have verses where Jesus says "the only true God" in reference to his Father, we take the higher percentage verses and reinterpret the lower percentage verses, to justify our interpretation that Jesus himself is the only true God as well. In the same way Scripture actually ends up directly supporting the idea of libertarian freedom, instead of directly opposing the idea of libertarian freedom.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

Isa 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
Isa 1:19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land;
Isa 1:20 but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”

Wait let me "RE" interpret that so I can say the Bible doesn't say it.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
It seems to me you might be committed to reject anything that doesn't fit your paradigm even if it fits Scripture...

Let's see if you will a priori reject a deduction or impose your presuppositions no matter what the text says.

I believe free will can also be conclusively deduced from Scripture.

Let's take a fairly mundane seeming passage and extrapolate some ideas from it.

3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife."
4 But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also?
5 "Did he not say to me,`She is my sister '? And she, even she herself said,`He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this."
6 And God said to him in a dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.
7 "Now therefore, restore the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours." (Gen 20:3-7 NKJ)


I believe just as the Trinity can be deduced from whatever passages you want to cite, so true autonomous decision can be from this passage (as well as hundreds of others, but this passage is sufficient and a good example).

This is a long setup but bear with me. At first God says to Abimelech that he is a dead man because he has sinned. Abimelech answers and implies that this is too harsh a judgment in the light of his current limitations of understanding the situation. Abimelech then declares he is innocent. In verse 6, God does not say Abimelech is wrong, but rather affirms that Abimelech is actually correct on this issue. He has done this "in the integrity" of his heart. Then God says he has somehow kept Abimelech from sinning so far as an act of mercy because of ignorance. But now Abimelech is no longer considered ignorant, as he has been warned, so we end with verse 7 in which God lays out two different outcomes that are both indicated to be a real possibility and determined by the choice Abimelech makes.

Honesty is an attribute of God, and honesty in communication is necessary if you want to be understood in the way you intend to say something. That is, in general, if you wish to convey information and not mislead someone, you actually have to mean what you say. We cannot claim Abimelech would understand this passage in any deterministic way, and if determinism were true it would not be beyond the capacity of God to phrase this in a deterministic way or even to explain that Abimelech actually has no choice in the matter and there are not two real, viable outcomes as God indicated, where Abimelech either "surely dies" or he will in fact "live" although he was declared dead already, which in this case would indicate he had a pending "death sentence," or ban, on him.

Now the truth about determinism is a sneaky one, because no matter how you phrase something to sound like autonomy you can always just claim it only sounds that way as some kind of illusion. But the default position of any text should not to be take it as an illusion, but to take it as meaning what it says, unless we have strong overriding context. With proponents of determinism, a small percentage of Bible verses that could be interpreted as deterministic are used as an overriding lens to reinterpret a much, much larger percentage of passages that are made to sound deliberately as if choice were two actual outcomes decided by the individual, instead of pre-decided by God. And this becomes so second nature, that, in my interaction with determinists anyway, they almost seem to think it's the natural way to interpret choices in Scripture as necessarily deterministic when that's actually not the default way to understand them.

So by using the exact same "hermeneutics" we would use to come to a deduction of the Trinity, we come to a consistent and predominantly used method in the Bible as describing choices as multiple potential outcomes determined by the agent.

If God wanted to convey a deterministic meaning of any kind to Abimelech it would have been easy, simple and clear to simply phrase what God says to Abimelech in a deterministic way, "I have chosen you to sin," or "You will go on and do what I have decided for you to do," or "you must fulfill your destiny and this is what it will be." God does not choose any of those easy options which would be honest and clear, to phrase something deliberately in a way that sounds non-deterministic, and this is not by any definition the honest way of communicating.

So although we have verses where Jesus says "the only true God" in reference to his Father, we take the higher percentage verses and reinterpret the lower percentage verses, to justify our interpretation that Jesus himself is the only true God as well. In the same way Scripture actually ends up directly supporting the idea of libertarian freedom, instead of directly opposing the idea of libertarian freedom.
God cautions, warns and protects those who are His. God’s grace restrains evil, His grace provides for all. However, I think you are trying to make this passage fit in, or support Prevenient grace.
If so, I believe you failed. Did I miss something? Not catch your drift?

And what does this have to do with Prevenient grace leading one to a choice for salvation?
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

Isa 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
Isa 1:19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land;
Isa 1:20 but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”
Those verses have been explains numerous times. I’ll try to get to them tomorrow.

In the meantime, come up with something a little more challenging. 😎
 
Top