Irresistible or Prevenient Grace?
Feb 16, 2012 by Craig Blomberg | 21 Comments
“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29-30 NIV)
Can God make the proverbial stone so big that he can’t move it? I remember puzzling over this conundrum as a college student and was delighted to read in a standard evangelical philosophy of religion textbook of that day that the solution was actually quite easy. No, God can’t, because his omnipotence does not extend to that which is logically contradictory. God can’t create a square circle, either or a married bachelor!
The analogous logical riddle with respect to the debate over the role of God’s grace in the universe would be to ask if God could resist his irresistible grace. The answer again would have to be no. And, of course, because God is more powerful than humans, humans could never resist such grace either.
A student asked me recently what I thought of prevenient grace. This, of course, is the concept that the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition uses to defend the concept that although all humans are dead in their trespasses and unable to choose Christ in their own strength, God, in Christ’s atonement, makes possible enough grace to all humans that they now can trust in Christ should they so choose. Then, the Spirit comes to actually indwell them and empower them for the process of sanctification as well.
My reply was that I had never found a passage in the Bible that clearly teaches the concept. God’s grace extends to all people for all manner of non-salvific things, but where is there a text that depicts prevenient grace as just defined? It seems more a corollary of other theological convictions about what God must do to be fair and gracious, and to explain the Scriptural tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
One of the reasons that the most controversial of the five points of the famous Calvinist TULIP acronym, Limited atonement, is often defended in conversations with people who are quite willing to accept Total depravity, Unconditional election, Irresistible grace and the Perseverance of the saints but skeptical about the “L” is that without it Christ’s death went for naught for those who do not repent. Might there be a better way to get at this concern without introducing the debate over limited vs. unlimited atonement?
What if the problem with prevenient grace is parallel? Would God extend sufficient (but resistible) grace to those he knew would forever resist and reject it? Wouldn’t that just be a waste?
I have blogged in the past about a kind of “Calminianism” that tries to draw on the strengths of both classic Calvinism and classic Arminianism. On those instances I started from some position of classic Calvinism and questioned it (much to the concern of those who aren’t open to any such questioning but know they have the final word on these perplexing topics already figured out!). This time I’m beginning with an element of classic Arminianism and doing the same thing—trying to move in a somewhat more Calvinistic direction. All courteous responses and input are most welcome!
Comments
21 Comments | Login to Post Comments
Kyle VanArsdol Feb 16, 2012 4:10pm
Stated like a true NT scholar. I'm preaching through 1 Peter and came across this quote recently in Scot McKnight's NIVAC. "Often it is the balanced interpreter who gets it right biblically but who also seems not to fit quite right in some systematic category... Biblical theology is always willing to suspend judgment so that the biblical witness receives its full share of influence." (Kindle 14%.) I think he nailed you, Professor! Thanks for keeping it real (although I wish mildly that you would just solve this tension ;) I think it was you who said, "If two parties with opposing views are both throwing stones at you, then you just might be exactly where you should be." Thanks for walking the evangelical path is so many ways. Blessings.
Matt Proctor Feb 17, 2012 8:00am
Dr. B.
I'm trying to put propositions to your questions.
Are you saying?:
1) God's grace is sufficient for all people to come to Christ for salvation, but some resist it. (if so, what difference does this have with prevenient grace?)
2) God's grace universally affects all people, but only affects salvation for a few. (if so, what difference is this to irresistible grace?)
Thanks!
-matt proctor
William Klein Feb 17, 2012 10:28am
I'm at a loss to explain how my esteemed colleague can't find a single NT verse to support the concept of "God's Universal Salvific Grace" (as the title of an essay written by our departed President Vernon Grounds explains). Alas that time prevents a detailed reply, but I counsel my good friend to look up Titus 2:11 (NIV; which he helped translate from the Greek).
William Klein Feb 17, 2012 10:35am
By the way, Calminianism, though seemingly, and to many attractively, a viable via media, is logically contradictory in so many ways. For a full explanation see Myth 2: "A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism Is Possible" in Roger Olson's Arminian Theology. Myths and Realities (pp. 61-77).
Bob Beversdorf Feb 17, 2012 12:15pm
Would you please post the link to your past blog on Calminianism? Enjoyed this one very much. Thnx.
Dan Chapa Feb 17, 2012 1:19pm
Dr. Blomberg,
"The analogous logical riddle with respect to the debate over the role of God’s grace in the universe would be to ask if God could resist his irresistible grace. The answer again would have to be no. And, of course, because God is more powerful than humans, humans could never resist such grace either."
This could go the other way. What if God cannot force us to do something freely, because a forced-free action is a contradiction. If someone objects to the "forced" lingo, what if God cannot causally determine us to do X while enabling us to do nonX, because that implies the contradiction that we can and cannot do nonX.
God be with you,
Dan
Myron Crockett Feb 17, 2012 5:48pm
Dr. Blomberg, with regard to prevenient grace, you say above that you have "never found a passage in the Bible that clearly teaches the concept." You go to say that,
"It [prevenient grace] seems more a corollary of other theological convictions about what God must do to be fair and gracious, and to explain the Scriptural tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility."
The Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace is hardly a "corollary of other theological convictions about
what God must do to be fair and gracious." Instead, it is a doctrine that accounts for and makes use
of copious amounts of biblical material demonstrating that God's grace working in such a way as to engender belief in sinners (albeit resistably). I actually can think of numerous passages that both illustrate prevenient grace and
provident adequate warrant for the Arminian belief in prevenient grace.
In Mt. 11:20-24, Jesus operates with the assumption that his miracles should impact people in such a way that persons repent of sin. Without question, said miracles are not alone; they are accompanied by preaching that exhorts folks to repent. But the miracles, at least in Jesus' view, have the power to drive home that preaching. Here, the miracles are a form of grace at work in the heart of sinners to break through recalcitrance and open their eyes to the grace of God. Jesus also thinks this way about his miracles in Jn. 10:38.
The same heart-softening work can be attributed to the Holy Spirit. In Jn. 16:8-11, Jesus says of the
Holy Spirit,
"And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the
Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
(ESV)
Though Jesus does not explicitly state this, I'm assuming that this work of the Spirit is intended to spur sinners on to repentance. As with the miracles, this work of the Spirit is accompanied by gospel-
preaching that exhorts sinners to repent. However, said work is intended to spur sinners on to
repentance.
Lastly, Paul appeals to God's witness in creation as a way in which God prepares peoples' hearts for
repentance in light of the Gospel. When he and Barnabas were evangelizing the Lystrans, Paul
appealed to creation in this way by saying,
"In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself
without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your
hearts with food and gladness.” (Acts 14:16-17)
Paul's appeal to the witness of creation is made in the context of evangelistic witness. If God's witness
through creation was not intended to facilitate a right response to the Gospel, then why is Paul
appealing to it?
These are all examples of how prevenient grace works. These are examples of God's mediated grace
at work in miracles, creation, providential acts, etc. to engender belief in God. Based upon the fact that
in Scripture God and his servants expect that people should respond to these instances of mediated
grace by turning to God, Arminians (Wesleyan and non-Welseyan) infer that these divine acts of grace
have an impact on sinners that awakens them to the grace of God. At issue is not whether or not
we're making inferences. Instead, the issue is whether or not we are making inferences warranted by Scripture. Admittedly, we don't have an exhaustive biblical account of how God's prevening grace impacts sinners anthropologically and spiritually. However, just because Scripture doesn't explain this exhaustively does not mean that we can't understand the impact of prevening grace sufficiently. As I've stated above, God and his servants expect these acts of prevening grace to have a positive impact upon sinners. These expectations go a long to way to demonstrating that, whatever the contours of the inner impact upon sinners, prevening grace can effect something positive (i.e., in accordance with God's commands and overtures) for sinners who respond rightly to it. Also, as the Scriptures I've cited demonstrate, said grace is resistable.
This said, your attempt to put the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace on the same level as the
Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement is wide of the mark. It is this Calvinist doctrine of limited
atonement that is a "corollary of other theological convictions". This is evidenced by the fact that
limited/particular/peculiar atonement runs counter to VERY explicit passages that teach the universal
provision of the atonement (not to mention running afowl of what the Church has believed about the
scope of the atonement for the vast majority of its history to this day). Prevenient grace is on far
better biblical footing.
In comparing prevenient grace with limited atonement you say,
"What if the problem with prevenient grace is parallel? Would God extend sufficient (but resistible) grace to those he knew would forever resist and reject it? Wouldn’t that just be a waste?"
The notion of the "wastefulness" of God's grace is quite odd to me. Just because folks spurn God's
grace (including we believers!), it doesn't mean that it's ever "wasted". In fact, in Scripture, God's ire
over the spurning of his grace is never concerned with us having wasted the time or resources through which His grace is mediated. Instead, God's anger in such instances is focused upon in our rebellion against His holy and righteous person. Also, the Calvinists turn the biblical notion of universal, provisional atonement into a question about God having "wasted" grace because Calvinists tend to be singularly pre-occupied with the way Christ's atoning work affects individual human beings. However, the Cristus Victor model of the atonement demonstrates that Christ's propitiation for sin has an over-arching cosmic impact (Jn. 12:31; 16:11; Gal. 4:3-5; Eph. 3:10; Col. 2:15, 20; Heb. 2:14-15; 1 Jn. 3:10), which makes sense because our sins have a cosmic impact. So there is never "waste" in Christ's atonement for our sins, even when unbelievers fail to avail themselves of God's grace in the atonement, because
Christ's atonement (along with Christ's resurrection and ascension) is still God's sovereign, effective power over the cosmic and universal taint of sin and evil.
Craig Blomberg Feb 17, 2012 6:49pm
Thanks, Kyle, for the encouragement! No, Matt, I'm not saying either of those things. Rather that, if predestination is based on foreknowledge in some way (Rom. 8:29; so also Arminianism) then what if God just didn't need to give prevenient grace to those he knew would forever reject it. Then that would leave only irresistible grace (with Calvinism) for him to give to everyone else. Dr. Klein, like many Calvinists and Arminianism alike, rejects Calminianism due to seemingly insurmountable logical hurdles. But if it should turn out to be the best Scriptural synthesis and if it fits our personal experience (we esperience God's sovereighty and human freedom with neither trumping the other) then perhaps as finite, fallen creatures we shouldn't expect to be able to explain every logical question that is raised. The CBT has not addressed Titus 2:11 since the TNIV's changes to the NIV 1984, when I wasn't around. But a quick look at the Greek and the other major translations shows why I wouldn't list it as a passage that "clearly" taught prevenient grace. Dan, I think I agree with you; maybe we're saying the same thing but coming at it from different directions? Thanks for all the excellent comments, everyone!
Timothy Knowlton Feb 20, 2012 4:49pm
Professor Blomberg, It is refreshing to see New Testament scholars joining in the Calvinist/Arminian debate, instead of Systematic Theologians and Church Historians. As for as I can tell, there is no text in the New Testament that teaches anyone is predestined to 'faith in Jesus.' Rather, Predestination specifically refers to 'being conformed to the image of Jesus,' 'adoption,' and 'good works.'
Perhaps there is no New Testament justification for 'Prevenient Grace,' but Romans 11:32 teaches 'Universal Mercy.'
Steve Duby Feb 21, 2012 9:00am
Craig, am I right in thinking that you're looking to have God initially will to dispense prevenient grace to everyone and then, inasmuch as some would never use it, choose to give grace just to those who will use it? If so, it sounds as if you're reintroducing a version of prevenient grace rather than having an irresistible grace that is, in accord with Calvinistic teaching, fundamentally proactive. In other words, this sounds more like a modified Arminianism in which the implications of God's foreknowledge are thought through so that God gives resistible grace just to those who will use it rather than an affirmation of one facet of Calvinism. This is not to automatically condemn any new thinking on the issue (though I do believe the old Calvinistic approach is the strongest one) but only to say that I don't think this post is properly a foray into Calvinism. My sympathies lie with Bill when it comes to the difficulties with 'Calminianism'. I think it's best not to use the term since it's not really a matter of synthesis but a matter of trying to chart some new territory.
Craig Blomberg Feb 23, 2012 6:29pm
I think Myron's and Steve's comments confirm that I am aiming at something in between classic Calvinism and classic Arminianism, since I am (gently) chastised by each by not acknowledging more of each side. Whatever it is labeled, I see no dichotomy between creating a synthesis and charting some new territory if the synthesis itself is new. The fact that passionate and biblical cases can be made for both sides convinces me that both sides have key elements of biblical truth, but that we have yet to figure out how to best synthesize all that material. That's why I keep exploring new options rather than settling for long-promoted, long-debated classic views that still leave half of the evangelical world unconvinced. Surely we can do better!
Aubrey Mallett Feb 24, 2012 12:16pm
I believe it is important to make the distinction between Wesleyan-Arminianism and what Picirilli, Forelines et. al. would refer to as Reformation or Classical Arminianism. Wesleyans generally hold to a universal prevenient grace while classical Arminian theology tends to view prevenient grace specifically related to the Holy Spirit’s work of salvation (John 12:32). If Christ is preached, it being an expression of the power of God (1 Cor 1:18), all men to whom it is preached have been drawn of God to that work and person of Jesus Christ. That in turn becomes wholly consistent with James Arminius’ comments regarding the free will of man being entirely subject to the grace of God and His providential hand. Wesleyans seem to go further and view prevenient grace as something of a restorative condition outside the actual deliverance of the Gospel.
… just this layman’s two cents.
Craig Blomberg Feb 24, 2012 9:44pm
Thanks for the distinction, Aubrey. I confess to being less familiar with Arminius himself than with Wesley.
Martin Feb 25, 2012 12:44am
Over the years I have seen three types of Calminians: A) Arminians who don't understand what Arminianism is B) Amraldyians, who I just see as a kind of Calvinist and C) a person who doesn't so much have a position, but simply refuses to choose between the two. I'm not claiming that any of these three are you, but I would be interested in how you define your own position. Do you have a link which explains it more thoroughly?
That said, as someone who already holds to a position of universal atonement and doesn't see God's grace being "wasted", I don't see how I would conclude any differently with prevenient grace. To be honest, I don't think God being gracious to those who are damned as being a waste, but an exercise of His fundamental nature of love. To be honest, I'm not even sure if "waste" as a concept truly makes sense with either the notion of grace or with an omnipotent being. Waste is a problem fundamentally because resources are limited. But if God's grace and power are infinite, then there can be no real waste. At least this is my opinion.
Robert Anderson Feb 26, 2012 4:30am
Dr. Bloomberg,
What is grace, if not the favor of God? It is not a disposition of God, and not of us? Your analogy of irresistible grace seems to be somehow equating “grace” with God’s power, and you seem to affirm irresistible grace without proving that such is the case. If this is the case, the question becomes, can I resist God favor towards me?
In Romans 10, Paul asserts the following concerning Israel:
But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people." (Romans 10:18-21 NRS).
If God’s hand is held out to a disobedient and contrary people, yet they do not believe, how can we say his grace is irresistible? Does God hold out his hand only to snatch it back? Is not his outstretched hand an act of grace?
Concerning your initial passage, we know that this passage is in a context of suffering (Romans 8:18f) and given the occasional nature of the letter, what do you think is the "present suffering" being referenced?
Thanks.
Craig Blomberg Feb 26, 2012 12:50pm
Thanks, Martin and Robert for your good and thoughtful comments. As to the three types of Calminians, I could accept Amyraldianism, sometimes called four-point Calvinism, as long as one defines the U and the I of the TULIP very carefully. Such definitions would hopefully address the appropriate questions that Robert raises. I certainly wouldn't want to deny all kinds of grace that God extends to a wide variety of people, saved and unsaved, in a wide variety of situations. I just don't know that I'm convinced by Wesley's understanding of prevenient grace. (The present suffering would be everything caused by evil in this fallen universe in this life.) No, there's no link to anything better thought out. My understanding of the purpose of this blog is to sometimes explore some ideas I'm not necessarily yet willing to commit to!
Robert Anderson Feb 26, 2012 2:17pm
Dr. Blomberg (sorry for the previous misspelling) -
Thank you for the comment. Based on your parenthetic comment, you appear to be universalizing the suffering, rather than seeing it as denoting a particular suffering that Paul is referencing.
I am not convinced of this, since this would not resonate with the original audience, and I can think of at least two potential historical situations to which this might refer. Since you have stated that this blog is to explore some ideas, might there be a historical event or even paradigm within Judaism that Paul might be referring to?
Martin Feb 26, 2012 9:17pm
Dr. Blomberg,
I still have a question: How is God "wasting" His power possible? And if so, why is it a problem? Why is it bad for an omnipotent being to "waste" that of which He has infinite supply?
Craig Blomberg Feb 28, 2012 9:19am
Did you have something in mind, Robert. I don't have a problem with "present suffering" have a more specific referent--but I'm not aware that commentators suggest any. Verse 22 speaks of all creation groaning right up to the present time after being subjected to frustration until the time they will be liberated from decay (vv. 20-21), so the context certainly seems to be talking about the entire existence of fallen humanity, and it universal effects, from creation to the end of time. Martin, it may not be a waste and it may not be a problem! I just know that classic Calvinistm thinks it is, so I was exploring possibilities that seemed to make exegetical and logical sense.
Robert Anderson Feb 29, 2012 5:00am
Dr. Blomberg - Again, I must ask, are you assuming the context is referring to the entire existence of humanity, or are you imposing that on the text?
I am not sure what commentators you are looking at, but I can think of two items off the top of my head that impact the local situation. The first is the edit of Claudius that was reversed under Nero, which may have caused a breach in the church between Jews and Gentiles. This is pretty well known to historians and most commentators, although few apply it to the text of Romans 8.
The second is the Diaspora itself coupled with the lack of independence of Judea. If you recall, Paul writes only about 10 years prior to the rebellion in Judea.
These are just some thoughts. If you like, we could take this offline, since it is a rather deep area of exploration.
Bob Anderson
Craig Blomberg Feb 29, 2012 1:24pm
Yes, I am understanding from the context, as I tried to explain in my last posting, that we are talking about all of humanity. I do not believe that is an imposition on a text that has just referred to the fall of mankind and its effect on the cosmos. If you go to the Denver Journal on our website you will see my top dozen or so recommendations for commentaries on Romans toward the end of the "New Testament Departmental Bibliography." But I have read probably twice that number in my lifetime and have yet to see the text taken any differently.