Defending a term such as prevenient grace poses the same problem as defending such terms as trinity, total depravity, supra-, infra-, or sublapsarianism, or even Bible, for such terms do not appear in the Bible.

What, then, does the Arminian mean by the term prevenient grace? The word prevenient means "preceding;" thus the term, in its most simple form, means "grace which goes before," or, "preceding grace" (or, as in ancient usage, "preventing grace"). So when the Bible claims that people are "saved by grace" (Eph. 2:8), Arminians understand that this grace must precede salvation if a person is to be saved (something which no Calvinist would deny).

Is God's grace irresistible? The answer to that question will be determined by your theological convictions. If God must first regenerate people (whom He has pre-selected for salvation) in order for them to believe, then the answer to the question is yes, God's grace is irresistible.

However, if you believe that the Bible teaches that faith precedes regeneration, then the answer to the question is no, God's grace is not irresistible.

Arminius stated, "[The Internal Work of salvation] is by the operation of the Holy Spirit illuminating the mind and affecting the heart, that serious attention may be given to those things which are spoken, and that faith or credence may be given to the word.

I found this mockery at a Calvinist's blog, who will remain nameless:

"Arminian 'grace!' How strange the sound, Salvation hinged on me. I once was lost, then turned around, Was blind, then chose to see.

"What 'grace' is it that calls for choice, Made from some good within? That part that wills to heed God's voice, Proved stronger than my sin.

"Thru many ardent gospel pleas, I sat with heart of stone. But then some hidden good in me, Propelled me toward my home.

"When we've been there ten thousand years, Because of what we've done. We've no less days to sing our praise, Than when we first begun."

I'd like to hear Chris Tomlin do something with that one! John Newton would have been proud of our Calvinist "friend." Actually, I think Newton would have been disgusted. I think every Christian should be disgusted with the heresy mentioned in that re-working of a classic hymn. And if that encapsulated Arminian theology, I would never adhere to such nonsense.

The content of this post was authored by J.C. Thibodaux and is posted on his behalf.

Many Calvinists point to such concepts as total depravity and bondage of the will to make the case that the will is not free, but don’t realize that they hit cleanly beside the point in that we agree that the human will is by nature enslaved to sin.

One cannot correctly understand the Arminian/Synergist view of libertarian free will without first understanding prevenient grace. Reformed theologians are correct in saying that the human will is in bondage to sin stemming from the sin of Adam,

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Romans 8:7)

Thus by nature, human beings are blind and hard-hearted towards the gospel and cannot believe in Christ of their own accord. To overcome the power of the sinful nature, something stronger than sin must enter into the equation, which can only come from God. Jesus said in John 6:44,

The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.

As I stated in my last post (Does Regeneration Precede Faith?), there is no more important question with regards to the controversy between Arminianism and Calvinism than the question of priority with regards to faith and regeneration. R.C. Sproul writes,

A cardinal point or Reformed theology [Calvinism] is the maxim: “Regeneration precedes faith.” Our nature is so corrupt, the power of sin is so great, that unless God does a supernatural work in our souls we will never choose Christ. We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe. (Chosen By God, pg. 72)

JOHN WESLEY'S VIEW OF MAN: VERSUS FREE WILL

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Irwin W. Reist, Th. M., S. T. D. (candidate)
Associate Professor, Bible and Theology, Houghton College

I. INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF MAN FOR THEOLOGY

Calvinists love to point out that we are dead in sin. That we are dead in sin prior to conversion cannot be denied (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13); the question has to do with what it means to be dead in sin.

Calvinist are fond of comparing spiritual death to physical death. This gives them the framework with which to press their theological conviction that regeneration precedes faith. If being dead in sin means that we are as helpless as physical corpses then we are told that we certainly can no more "hear" the gospel or "see" our need for Christ than a physical corpse can hear or see. But is there any justification for such a strict parallel between the spiritual and the physical?

How Does Grace Work in Arminian-Wesleyan Theology?

by Eric Landstrom

How grace is understood to work is the key to unlocking any Christian theology or theological tradition. As such, I thought it beneficial to unpack the Wesleyan or traditionally Methodist view of how grace is understood to work. The Wesleyan view should be of particular interest to Christians influenced by eastern theological thought since John Wesley, in his later years, backed away from the doctrine of original sin in favor of ancestral sin.* As a result, there are several "Wesleyanisms" that bear Wesley's name that stem from different points of Wesley's own theological development. Here I present Wesley's mature view via Tom Oden's works.**

Discussion: Grace and Sin

The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.

Before examining some of the other Calvinists “proof texts” for irresistible regeneration, we will take a moment to deal with a common Calvinist objection to the Arminian appeal to Jn. 12:32 as an example of universal “drawing”.

Calling Arminians Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian is somewhat of a tradition within Calvinism. The Synod of Dort repeatedly did so, clearing the path for generations to come. I recently completed a study on John Owen’s book Death of Death in the Death of Christ, where he relates Arminians with Pelagians. Additionally, J. I. Packer calls Arminians Semi-Pelagian in his introduction to Death of Death in the Death of Christ. The charge that Arminians are either Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians is false. I intend to demonstrate this though 1) comparing the Canons of Orange to Arminius and 2) critiquing Packer’s argument.

Please click on the attachment to view Robert Rakestraw. "John Wesley as a Theologian of Grace," published in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:2 (June 1984): 193-203.

A false division exists within theological discussions that centers on monergism and synergism. Within Reformed circles, on a lay-level, monergism is considered to be Reformed orthodoxy and synergism heterodox to Reformed theology. However this is not the case among the "informed Reformed" when monergism and synergism are properly framed.

How does your perception of what is and is not Arminian theology dovetail into the following true story that relates to mans' sin nature?

The great Wesley scholar, Albert Outler was once giving a lecture on original sin in which he was trying to explain the debate between Augustine and Pelagius. A very angry student (who Outler termed as a "West Texas Pelagian") stormed into his office and said, "Look, if what you’re saying is right and we don’t have the natural ability simply to choose between right and wrong, then God help us!"

Outler replied, "That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to help you to see! We can’t do it on our own, so we need God’s help. You’ve betrayed yourself into orthodoxy!"

I'll put the basics of Outler's argument into a syllogism:

1) If people were naturally good, then they would naturally be able to fellowship with God.

Depravity; Faith; Grace; Prevenient Grace; Regeneration

Picirilli, Robert. "Salvation by Faith, Applied"

Picirilli, Robert. "Salvation by Faith, Applied"