Talk:Prevenient grace

Christianity: Theology / Arminianism / Methodism / Evangelical Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Arminianism (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by Methodism work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	Evangelical Christianity portal This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity (assessed as High-importance).

Theology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Prevenient grace received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Opening Paragraph has Problems[edit]

The opening paragraph seems to have received too much cut & paste, and not enough proofreading. Too much is implied, and it's very sloppy with history: Augustin never said anything about Prevenient grace. At most Prevenient grace has very distant roots in some of what Augustin wrote about, in Augustin's early days, which he later recanted. Next, Arminian Christians were not influenced by the theology of John Wesley, it's the other way around--Arminius was 200 years before Wesley...and Wesley didn't teach Arminianism, Wesley modified Arminianism.--LanceHaverkamp 11:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance W. Haverkamp (talk • contribs)

bump! "too much cut & paste, and not enough proofreading. Too much is implied" still accurate. it looks like apologetics/proselytizing shoehorned into what should be a nutshell. TheNuszAbides (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition[edit]

The section on Opposition is at least a bit misleading. It seems to suggest that the Calvinists disagree with total depravity, when in fact their doctrine of total depravity is stronger than that of Wesley. Rholton

It was not my intention to imply that Calvinism is weak when it comes to the idea of total depravity. I meant only to record that Wesley tied his doctrine of prevenient grace tightly to total depravity, in an effort to alleviate the concerns of Calvinists. Feel free to edit the article if you feel it needs clarification! KHM03 19:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KHM03, I input some new objection material. I also put back the first paragraph which you just eliminated. It is a necessary part of the overall explanation. I tried to reword it a little to make that evident. Concise is good assuming the point is clear. :-) Regards, Jim Ellis 12:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jim - I edited your first paragraph under "Opposition" to make it a bit more NPOV; hopefully, we can agree on that compromise. I ask that you look at the next two paragraphs and try and make them a bit more NPOV

For example, one sentence reads, "Calvinists object to this doctrine maintaining that when the Bible speaks of humanity's condition of spiritual death, it speaks realistically and matter-of-factly, not hypothetically." Well, gosh, Wesleyans, also maintain that the Bible speaks realistically regarding these issues...and are committed to prevenient grace doctrine. The current wording just sort of suggests that (1) Calvinist doctrine is "the norm" (which, obviously, most of Christendom would deny...right or wrong), and (2) that Calvinism is "more Biblical" than prevenient grace doctrine, which, obviously, many Christians, Wesleyans included, would strongly disagree with.

It could use some NPOV polish, and I figured I'd let you give it a start. Thanks...KHM03 12:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And, BTW, do you really want to include the sentence, "Calvinists understand the Bible to teach that no one seeks God...", in the light of Isaiah 55:6 and verses such as these? That line is way too easy to refute; maybe you could clarify your meaning a bit! KHM03 12:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, I don't want to get into a tiff over this. The section on opposition is to be just that. I have made a few more efforts at clarification and NPOV. See what you think. It's not like it's hard to see the inherent weakness in the prevenient grace doctrine. :-) Jim Ellis 12:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

KHM, could you explain how Calvinists misunderstand the Methodist doctrine?

Regarding your "BTW": we do understand the Bible to teach that no one seeks God, as per Romans 3:9ff; 8:7f; etc. The verses you cite are (1) Largely directed to the covenant community, not the heathen, and (2) in any case, ultimately unrequited without grace drawing. His invitation in Is. 55 will always "achieve the purpose for which he sent it" (Is. 55:11), but that purpose may be to demonstrate his justice and wrath when his gracious invitation is spurned (cf. Rom. 9:22f; Prov. 16:4; 1 Pet. 2:8).

Jim, I think it's important to note in the opposition section that Reformed people (e.g. Hodge) use the term "prevenient" or "preventing" grace, too. The term simply means "grace that comes before [faith]." Methodists and Calvinists agree that this grace is necessary, but the details of its application (extent and efficacy) differ greatly. --Flex 14:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Flex. I agree. Please feel free to add appropriate wording (perhaps as intro to the Opposition section). It may be a while before I can get to it. Jim Ellis 15:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Jim & Flex (& any other Calvinists who may be listening in...Mkmcconn can't be too far away!):

I am all for a strong opposition section. Though I confess that it is difficult for me to imagine why anyone would oppose this doctrine, I understand that opposition exists...primarily from the Calvinist camp, and that's fine; heck, we oppose four of the five TULIP points...you're entitled to oppose this!

My issues , with all due respect (seriously, now), have been more with the way you've been writing rather than the actual content. For example, the sentence I cited..."Calvinists understand the Bible to teach that no one seeks God..." ... I understand completely what you meant and the position of Calvinists regarding this. But, the way you worded it was, as I said, way too easy to refute; the argument just wasn't very "tight". So, I suggested a re-wording.

I will be glad to explain my own POV re:how Calvinists misunderstand prevenient grace, but that will have to wait. I am on vacation and am trying to spend more time with my lovely wife and our four wee Methodists, so maybe I can get to it over the weekend.

Just look over the article when you have time - esp. the opposition section - and try to get it as NPOV as possible. Read it as if you were a Methodist...then read it as an agnostic...then as a Calvinist...a Buddhist, etc. I just want it to be accurate and NPOV. Grace & peace! KHM03 00:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review?[edit]

IMHO, the Peer Review should involve more than beefing up the Opposition section. The whole article seems a little POV to me rather than encyclopedic. I mean, what does an obscure quote from a C. S. Lewis novel have to do with a factual presentation? I have also seen recommendations on other articles to limit "lengthy quotes". Is that something that should be looked at here too?

And regarding Flex's comment (above) about the use of the term "prevenient" in different senses by Reformed and Wesleyan, that should be part of the NPOV presentation of the subject, not relegated to the Opposition section as I recently suggested. Jim Ellis 15:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

You make good points. I think, however, that it is safe to keep the Reformed use of prevenient grace in the opposition section since it's uncommon (but not unheard of) among us, but very common among Methodists. Perhaps that's because the Reformed want to avoid confusing their doctrine with that of the Wesleyans by using the same term for a different concept. --Flex 16:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The peer review has (to date) resulted in several suggestions, which I hope to get to at some point in the coming weeks (I'm on vacation right now, and will be going camping in a few days, so my "wiki-time" will be infrequent until Aug. 8 or so). Among the suggestions were to add more to "The Doctrine in other sources" (one isn't a lot) and to add to the opposing views quotes from notable theologians, "firming it up" a bit. KHM03 23:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Common grace[edit]

(moved from Opposition discussion)

Question: How does Calvinistic common grace differ from Wesleyan prevenient grace? Does common grace enable a sinner to repent and believe? Or is it simply Calvinism's way of talking about natural theology? Curious. KHM03 20:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Common grace enables a regenerate person to repent and believe. All grace to those who are being saved, is saving grace. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, then, according to (traditional) Calvinist doctrine, regeneration precedes penitence and belief...is that right? That would certainly match well with Calvinist predestination. Though I graduated from a Presbyterian seminary, I never really studied the "proper salvific order" in the Calvinist system. I guess I could never get past the TULIP stuff!

At any rate, is this accurate?

Election -> Birth as a sinner -> Regeneration -> Justification -> Common grace -> Penitence & Belief -> Sanctification

I think in the Wesleyan system, it's more like...

Birth as a sinner -> Prevenient grace -> Penitence & Belief -> Justification & Election -> Regeneration -> Sanctification -> Perfection

KHM03 22:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this evades your comparison, but I don't like the ordo salutis, much; and would be more comfortable putting any Christian's story of redemption in terms of redemptive history, if I can get away with it:

Election: Common grace (Creation -> Fall/Promise of the seed -> Noahic covenant -> Abrahamic covenant -> Mosaic covenant -> Davidic covenant -> New covenant) -> Saving grace - the salvation of God's enemies (Regeneration, Repentance and Justifying faith -> Sanctification -> Glorification)

Compared to this, which describes his natural course:

Reprobation: Common grace (Creation -> Fall/Promise of the seed -> Noahic covenant -> witness of Israel -> witness of the Church) -> Wrath - the destruction of God's enemies( Hardening of heart -> Judgment -> Eternal damnation)

Quirky? or helpful? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get it...but it does evade my comparison (which is OK!)! KHM03 23:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right place to put the comment, but I have to put it somewhere: it is _bizarre_ to claim the idea of "prevenient grace" is based on Augustinian theology, and then give no references to Augustine's works or to Augustinians! And it is just as bizarre to pretend that the Wesleyans are the primary proponents of "prevenient grace" when it is still so prominent in Roman Catholic theology. Even Aquinas, who was no Augustinian, discusses it, but not under that term.

Later comments[edit]

Close, but not quite. Natural theology is theology found in nature and reason. Calvinistic common grace is the grace that God gives to the earth in general. The rain, the sun, civil government, etc. Wesley extended this grace into the ability to chose the gospel. Calvinists disagree here that there is such a common grace. Common grace is just the blessings common to everyone (like life itself). Prevenient grace is not Augustinian it is Thomasian. It is from Aquinas. 99% sure. I can check and change if needed ==Newchasm

Nope, it is. No common grace and switch Justification. Newchasm

Election-> Birth as a sinner -> Regeneration-> Penitence & Belief -> Justification -> Sanctification

More on the "Opposition" section[edit]

(moved from Opposition discussion)

Jim & Flex:

I made some additional edits under objections. Most of what I did were for NPOV reasons (beginning statements with things like "Calvinists believe..." or "Wesleyans maintain...", so as to not favor one side or the other), inclusivity reasons (changing "man" to "humanity" or something similar, unless it was part of a quote), or clarifying both an objection and/or a response.

I suppose my primary concern with the misunderstanding of prevenient grace by Calvinists (not all, probably, but likely most) is summed up in an earlier version of this section (edited by you, Flex?), which said...

Some Christians, particularly those who adhere to some form of Calvinism, have been critical of the Wesleyan idea of prevenient grace, which they believe to be a modified form of Semi-Pelagianism. Wesleyans and Calvinists agree that man is totally depraved and that grace must come before any person will choose to follow God's call. The disagreement over prevenient grace is centered around its recipients (Calvinists claim it is given only to the elect, whereas Wesleyans believe it is given to all) and its efficacy (Calvinists believe this grace is irresistible, meaning its recipients necessarily "repent and believe," whereas Wesleyans argue that this grace enables but does not compel a person to believe).

Now, that statement can still use some tweaking & perfecting, but that's a summary. Wesleyans still believe (as Wesley strongly maintained) that salvation is from God through Christ alone...it's just that God, in his wisdom and self-limiting love, has given human beings a certain measure of free will to play a role in the divine plan by allowing an individual response to God's initiating move(s). In short, God makes the first move and the final move, but allows us to make a few moves in between.

Calvinism, conversely, denies any measure of human freedom, thus being somewhat more fatalistic. Incidentally, I think this is more true of Calvinism than it is of Calvin himself (as an aside, I'm reading James Michener's book The Covenant right now, while on vacation, a fictional account of South African history, and Michener in one chapter about the Hugenots had a wonderfully clear and concise summary of Calvin vs. Calvinism, particularly the Dutch varieties...I commend the book to you).

I was particularly intrigued by your sentence, Jim: "On this logic, it would appear useless to pray to God for the salvation of others, for God is now waiting on individuals to make their choice." The funny thing is that Wesleyans often question the point of Calvinist prayer, since, if it has already been determined how a person will spend eternity, why bother praying? Personally, I think the most important response we should have as Calvinists and Wesleyans is to pray together, and let God worry about the specifics.

Obviously, Wesleyans do not feel that prevenient grace voids the absolute sinfulness of humankind. Humanity's fallen nature is a reality Wesley proclaimed one of the greatest, most important doctrines of the Church, inherently Biblical; he just disagreed with some Calvinists take on it (Wesley viewed himself here as more faithful to Calvin than most Calvinists).

At any rate, hope this helps. I'll be going on a wiki-holiday from 8/1 - 8/5, so don't expect any responses during that time. Just keep going on to perfection in love in and for Christ Jesus! KHM03 16:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying my hand at working on the opposition section. I don't know if I've been helpful or not. I'm spending most of my effort trying to clear away the idea that Calvinists don't see God seeking, persuading, and convincing people to turn away from disobedience in order to live. Also, speaking for most but not all Calvinists, I'll try to compare prevenient grace to Calvinists notions of God's mercy toward all people. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mkmcconn: Not a bad edit...but read it through once or twice without the first two paragraphs, which may not be necessary to the section (I say this more as a writer than as a Wesleyan). There may be a sentence or two in the first two paragraphs which can be inserted elsewhere to keep context, but I'm not sure that in their entirety, they are necessary. Just a suggestion. KHM03 19:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and make the changes that you are thinking of; it's a lot more fun, interesting and informative working that way, in my opinion (until one or the other of us loses trust). I trust you; I trust everyone; even though unlike you I am still an appalling sinner. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that I am still, appallingly, an appalling sinner...I am only going on to perfection...I have not been blessed with perfection yet (to which my wife says a strong "Amen!")! KHM03 20:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed first paragraph of Mkmcconn's edit; moved second paragraph to the end. Also made a few "touch up" type edits. The deleted paragraph was more about Calvinism than prevenient grace, it seemed to me, and the section can work just as well (if not better) without it. Want to try and keep all sections focused on this (all important) doctrine in as NPOV a manner as possible without going too far afield. Incidentally, isn't the basic gripe of Calvinists re:this doctrine that it seems too Pelagian to them, and not Augsutinian enough? Just wondering. That's why I liked Flex's initial edits, which pointed to Semi-Pelagianism and left it more concise. KHM03 20:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to let the world call me "mark". The gripe about everyone is that they are either, semi-pelagian, or semi-augustinian. We would that you would be either hot or cold. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier take on this section attempted to bring total depravity to the forefront since that is the supposed common ground. Then I wanted to show that what the Wesleyans give with one hand they take away with the other -- for universal prevenient grace has removed the pertinent effects of total depravity. This is not a Calvinitic "belief," it is what the Wesleyans say with their own words.

And how about these statements: "[Calvinists] characterize the Wesleyan view as teaching that, God has restored to every individual the ability to seek after God and choose salvation. Because this grace is supposedly given to everyone,. . ." KHM03, why do you add words like characterize and supposedly when these are facts?? I know its hard to face the weakness of your own doctrine, but if they are not facts then tell me where they are not true and I will change it. Let me ask you about this one: "It is a person's willingness to cooperate that saves according to the Calvinist understanding of Wesleyan prevenient grace." That's not true. What is true is that the determining factor is "man's choice" or "man's response". That's a fact of Wesleyan prevenient grace, why do you not admit it or at least let me say it.

And I'm curious what you mean, KHM03, when you say "Prayer is also effective as one prays for another person's response to grace"? The response is precisely what Wesleyans say God has left to man's free will. So who are you praying to and for what?? Calvinists pray to God for the salvation of others because it is God who brings his elect to faith, now that is a Calvinist belief.

Finally, it looks like the whole section has become sufficiently garbled and emasculated that it should be acceptable to you, so I may just leave it to you other guys for a while. Jim Ellis 21:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Not a good review, from Jim. Don't give up. I don't want to leave out mention of semi-pelagianism, or of total depravity, if you think it can be done in an effective contrast. But apparently, Wesleyans do not think the contrast is real - and so it ends up being confusing. Like you, I was aiming at getting to the heart of the Calvinist objection - which is that Wesleyans say that Man is totally corrupted and disabled; and yet also say that prevenient grace renews everyone's ablility. I don't understand the role that "total depravity" plays in their view - whereas in Calvinism it is the explanation for why "no one seeks God", Wesleyanism seems to replace this with "why not?" Furthermore, as you say, I would like to see every relativising qualifier removed, wherever Calvinists have correctly described the Wesleyan position (albeit, in critical terms). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me back up...

My only purpose in adding qualifiers like "characterize" or "supposedly" was to keep the article NPOV, to keep it from a POV which implied that Calvinism is any kind of norm or standard for Christian doctrine, which it cearly is not (for good or ill). I also don't want to imply that Wesleyanism or Arminianism is the norm. In drafting the first parts of the article, where the doctrine is defined and supported (by hymnody, etc.), I tried to use the same kind of tone...maybe not the exact words, but the same tone. That's been my only intent, despite the fact that I am someone who believes absolutely in the glory of God's prevenient grace.
The "common ground" you seek probably isn't total depravity, which, though both Calvinists and Wesleyans (and others) affirm this, they have a slightly different take on how it works. Wesleyans, for example, see no problem with God's grace "undo-ing" some of the effects of humanity's fallen nature in order to enable free will, since it is ultimately God's grace which will "undo" all of sin's effects in order to get a sinner justified, sanctified, and perfected. I would suggest we look for other common ground...like Jesus Christ or justification itself...if any common ground is really needed in order to provide a concise & accurate "opposition" section. Wesleyans & Calvinists agree on the end of all this...it's the order that we argue about, I think.
Yes, Jim, a person's choice is vital in the salvation process...no question. It's very important. Crucial. But to say it's the "determining factor" is not true. God's grace, in Wesley's system, is always the determining factor. Now, a Calvinist (or whomever) can read Wesley differently, of course, and maintain that their read of Wesleyan thought makes human decision the "determining factor", but that's just an opinion, and we need to note it as such. A Wesleyan would obviously disagree.
Wesleyans pray to God because they love God and, in God's bountiful grace, he permits and encourages prayer. That's foremost (my guess is that Calvinists would agree). We pray that a person will respond to God's prevenient grace, turn, repent, and know salvation. A criticism of Calvinists (not just from Wesleyans) has been that things like prayer for someone's salvation (or even evangelism of any kind) is a pointless exercise, since God has apparently pre-determined a person's fate. My own view is that this criticism stems from a misunderstanding of Calvinist predestination...at least the traditional Calvinist view. Does that help clarify?
Mark (good to have a name...I'm Keith) - - the beauty of prevenient grace, and the key to the doctrine, isn't that it enables us to respond to God (which it does!), but that it is God seeking us! That's the most important point...I think you guys have been going after the results of prevenient grace (enabling our response) rather than the "meat" of the doctrine, which is God's initiative. Just an observation.
Mark, you also wrote: "I would like to see every relativising qualifier removed, wherever Calvinists have correctly described the Wesleyan position (albeit, in critical terms)." But perhaps you haven't done so yet. The qualifiers - regarding both positions - keep it NPOV. At least that's my POV.
Finally, and most importantly, ~~Calvinism is Satanic~~ Jim, you sound so upset and angry and frustrated. That was certainly never my intent. I would rather hand the article over to the Calvinists 100% than cause a brother anguish. If I've done so, it was unintentional, and I'm sorry. My Wesleyan views are obviously quite important to me, but not at the expense of upsetting a brother with whom I've developed a solid "wiki" relationship. Please accept my apologies.

On to perfection, gentlemen! KHM03 23:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition - needs shortening[edit]

Visiting the article a couple of times to review it, I'm bothered by how lengthy the opposition section turns out to be, especially in comparison to the positive description. The key to shortening it would be to get a pin-point accurate description, to which both parties agree, about what exactly the issue is in the doctrine of prevenient grace, that divides them. Pardon my clumsy attempts to summarize

I've suggested that they are exactly the same issues that divide us over the issues of the atonement:

	Prevenient grace	Irresistible grace
Extent	God has taken initiative to save every person	The grace that draws to Christ is given to some, not to all
Efficacy	God's grace is sufficient for any man to choose, if he will	Those to whom it is given are irresistibly drawn . Others God has given over to the hardness of their hearts,

With regard to extent and efficacy, a moral influence is in view, not an irresistible will. The idea is so similar that, in some of its forms, the Calvinist idea of common grace would be difficult to tell apart without a pretty thorough understanding of both. The issue for us, Keith, is that we believe particular and irresistible grace is necessary; and we don't see where Wesleyans believe this.

And this is where Jim Ellis has suggested that the difference is just what Calvinists have always said that it is: the extent of depravity. Universal atonement, a governmental theory, resistible prevenient grace, all make sense in a Wesleyan system, Calvinists have always held, because they have a semi-pelagian view of the Fall. I don't know if that's the most helpful way of saying it, only because I think that a Wesleyan will certainly deny it.

And finally, KHM03 argues that Calvinists want to find differences where there are commonalities; they just have the order of things out of whack. "Wesleyans & Calvinists agree on the end of all this...it's the order that we argue about, I think."

Somewhere in here, or elsewhere in the discussion above, is the point upon which we can gather the issues of difference. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis re: extent & efficacy. You are also 100% correct in that Wesleyans (including myself) do not believe in irresistible grace; that is a big point of difference.

I also don't mind the criticism that Wesleyans are semi-Pelagian. I disagree with it, of course, but the criticism is as old as Methodism, really. Flex had it in an earlier edit and I didn't delete it or anything...it's a criticism that has been made by many Calvinists through the years.

As far as the extent of sin's corrupting influence, Wesleyans have always held that humans are entirely corrupt because of sin, and without the intervention of God, can do no good, make no good decisions. That's a pretty complete doctrine of depravity. But, prevenient grace - which is God making the first move toward us - makes it possible for humans to seek God, penitence, etc. So, God enables us, and without that enabling, any good decisions or acts are impossible. God also seeks all people, so prevenient grace is present even where it is not recognized.

Now, I would suggest that the opposition section mentions the semi-Pelagian criticism, with a link to Semi-Pelagianism, which means you can mention it and why, but a reader can go to that article to read more. You'll also want to include how Wesleyans respond to that criticism...maybe in just a sentence or two.

You can also probably mention that Calvinists disagree because prevenient grace is resistible, and they don't believe that grace can be resistible. I wouldn't belabor that too much, though...just a paragraph maybe...since the subjectb of the article is prevenient grace and not irresistible grace; just make sure there'a a link to Irresistible grace, so the reader can look for more.

I think the section grew larger because you guys were trying not onlt to refute prevenient grace but also trying to explain Calvinist belief; it would be much better to be brief and include links to other pages, like semi-Pelagianism and irresistible grace.

FINALLY, who else criticizes prevenient grace other than Calvinists? I can't think of anyone else, but they may exist. Actually, prevenient grace has a lot more allies in Christendom than several Calvinist doctrines, like the "ULIP" in "TULIP"; but if you can find any non-Calvinists who refute this doctrine, give them a paragraph, too.

By my count, that's three or four paragraphs....which I think is very reasonable. At any rate, those are my suggestions. Peace...KHM03 12:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, as you detected, my previous post was a result of some frustration. I took your advice, took a deep breath, and slept on it. I feel better now. :-) I too was/am willing to bow out of the editing process in the Opposition section for the sake of peace. I agree with your latest overall reasons for trying to get it shortened and concise. I also appreciate Mark's involvement, especially as a kind of mediator. :-) Three heads are better than two. My goal is to have a concise fair objection section that makes a reader say "Hmmmm," and gives him appropriate wiki-links, not a refutation of prevenient grace. I would expect the same in Calvinist article (like in irresistible grace, or others). Grace and Peace, Jim Ellis 13:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the section grew because it is easier to present things positively than negatively. That's also my concern about using terms that have ambiguous meanings - like "semi-pelagianism". False comparison adds to length (in order to undo initial confusion). This is also a problem in comparing prevenient grace to irresistible grace: many (most) Calvinists believe that the Father has shown love to all the peoples of the world through his Son, from the foundation of the world. We believe that his goodness, gentleness, and patience are on display for all to see. He is vindicated by his acts, from the accusation that he has not been just, or has left himself without a witness in the earth. But men love darkness rather than light; and they draw darkness out of themselves to choose darkness, freely and without compulsion (quite the contrary - because they resist God's urgings, evident all around them). But there is more than a universal aspect to God's love. There is also a particularity. It is confusing to compare grace in the universal sense (which men resist), to grace in the particular sense (which destroys resistance). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is, I guess, the section cannot be complete. I don't like seeing Calvinism's criticisms misrepresented by oversimplification, or by arbitrary choice of representative arguments; but if we select a single central comparison carefully, we can be focused and still imply the broader issues that radiate from it. We should try to find a source that can be quoted as doing precisely that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might try looking at the relatively recent book Encountering God by Andrew Purves & Charles Partee, which is a concise summary of Calvinism written in a "friendly" tone, and does debunk some Wesleyan thought (though I don't agree with them!). Just a suggestion. KHM03 21:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resistible grace[edit]

This is just a note that resistible grace redirects here. I don't know if it's the same thing as prevenient grace, but someone who knows the subject might want to include the term in the article. Wmahan . 05:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that the two terms are not truly synonymous (at least outside of Wesleyan circles), but I would defer to anyone more knowledgable. --Flex 12:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist and Protestant ideas?[edit]

The whole article is written from an incredibly narrow Methodist perspective. The idea of prevenient grace is also classically Catholic! I've no idea if Wesley coined the phrase, but the concept predates him by centuries. (See Methodists and papists : John Wesley and the Catholic Church in the eighteenth century by David Butler)

I also have problems with "Wesley insisted on prevenient grace as a solution to two great problems in Christianity: the reality of original sin and the Protestant doctrine of salvation by grace alone." Grace alone is a Scriptural formation, which is affirmed by the Council of Trent, the classical Protestant formula is Justification by Faith alone. It is worth noting that Wesley was accused of preaching Catholicism, again see the above volume by David Butler.

out of place CS Lewis quote[edit]

I disagree with the section "The Doctrine in Other Sources", that the C.S. Lewis quote teaches prevenient grace. It could just as easily be interpreted as teaching irresistible grace. I suggest the section be deleted. -KE

I agree with KE and would also like to point out that this quote is taken out of context and also from a work of fiction; even if the quote is viewed allegorically it can still be viewed either way. — James.S ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 04:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

The intro section was too long and detailed. Much of this section was about defining the term. I've therefore created a new first section called "Definition" and moved the defining statements here, keeping in the intro the first paragraph, and another paragraph from the intro which describes basically what the term means.

I haven't changed any of the actual text, so the flow may benefit from minor changes...? Bernard S. Jansen 04:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous controversial moves without consensus[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grace (Prevenient) → Prevenient grace — User:Gregbard 03:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Huge side by side boxes[edit]

Could we get some more boxes on this page? There's still too much room for the actual article. hahaha --Victoria h (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine[edit]

I think there should be a section about Augustine's theology on prevenient grace. JSilvanus (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least a reference for the notion that Augustine taught that prevenint grace is irresistable. That sounds fishy to me. 43hellokitty21 (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scripture Quotations[edit]

I'm not quite sure on the Scripture quotes used in the "In Scriptures" section. Some of these are actually commonly-used Scriptures used to support Calvinistic theology, as opposed to Arminianism. I am an Arminian who was going to use some Scriptures to back up my belief of prevenient grace to a Calvinist friend... but I can't really see the direction of some of these passages.

It would be great if there were some Scriptures that Jacobus Arminius and John Wesley used in their writings. Both of these produced a great deal of work, and I am sure that they used Scriptural backing for this doctrine. As of right now, I am not sure why some of these passages were chosen and others were not. ... ... and I almost wonder if some insidious Calvinist joke has been played on us all... :) Sir Ian (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the article is simply asserting that these passages support the doctrine. This is a improper synthesis, a form of original research, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. This section MUST cite sources that claim these passages as supporting the doctrine. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Prevenient grace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]