Does God "Always" Privide Sufficient Grace?

[psimmond]

I do not believe that prevenient grace is now always present nullifying the effect of the fall. Instead, I believe God provides sufficient grace to all at some point/s in every person’s life so that no man is without excuse. When God's grace is not present, people have neither the desire nor the ability to believe. The elect are those who will respond in belief when this enabling grace is present and the damned are those who choose not to believe at that time/those times when God’s grace is present making it possible for them to believe. I find no difficulty reconciling this view with 1 Cor. 2:14, John 3, or John 6.

Do Arminians typically side with the view that prevenient grace is always present in every sinner's life (every second of the day), or do most believe that God provides sufficient prevenient grace at various times throughout people's lives, perhaps for example when they hear the gospel?

[steve7150]

When God's grace is not present, people have neither the desire nor the ability to believe. The elect are those who will respond in belief when this enabling grace is present and the damned are those who choose not to believe at that time/those times when God’s grace is present making it possible for them to believe. I find no difficulty reconciling this view with 1 Cor. 2:14, John 3, or John 6.



In John 1.17 it says "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" , so where do we find grace coming and going? Also scripture says "no man can believe Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" , so it seems to be the Spirit enabling men to accept Christ. Perhaps the Spirit is the manifestation of grace? It does seem like the Spirit comes and goes (John 3.8) so perhaps you can read something into this. The question is regarding which comes first, "the Spirit" to a persons heart or "repentence" which draws the Spirit to enable belief.

[psimmond]

Steve7150, thanks for your response. With regard to your last point, I think the Spirit must come first.

http://thearminian.net/2011/09/19/where ... scripture/
I just discovered the above link which says "Since the Gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16 ESV), and since people cannot “believe in him of whom they have never heard” (Rom. 10:14 ESV), and since the Holy Spirit is Christ’s minister to “convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8 ESV), then God’s Prevenient Grace is not active in all people all around the world at all times, so claim Classical Arminians. While God’s Common Grace is indeed active among all people through creation and conscience, Prevenient Grace, which relates particularly to the Gospel of Christ Jesus to the nations, can only be operative when that Gospel is proclaimed (cf. Rom. 10:14-15)."

So I guess I line up with Classical Arminians when it comes to prevenient grace, and with Wesleyan-Arminians when it comes to eternal security.

[steve7150]

So I guess I line up with Classical Arminians when it comes to prevenient grace, and with Wesleyan-Arminians when it comes to eternal security.




This is the first time i've ever heard these terms "prevenient grace" and "common grace" but it's interesting stuff. If the gospel being heard is a manifestation of prevenient grace, it troubles me because throughout human history so few people have heard the gospel at all, or if they have heard it, then have had it explained clearly to them other then traditionally via a Jonathen Edwards method of terrorizing them to their knees, which i just don't believe is lasting repentence or a way God wants to be known.

[psimmond]

I've wondered the same things.

Have you ever read any of William Lane Criag's stuff? He's a Molinist who believes in transworld damnation. This is the idea that God in his great mercy ordered this world in such a way that those who He knows would reject him in any feasible world are placed in locations where they would never hear the gospel, for example in second century Tibet. So those who go to hell because they never heard the gospel are those who would reject the gospel in any feasible world.

Craig says, "But my suggestion is that God, being so merciful and not wanting anyone to be damned, so providentially orders the world that anyone who would embrace the Gospel if he were to hear it will not be placed in circumstances in which he fails to hear it and is lost. Only in the case of someone who would be saved through his response to general revelation would a person who would freely respond to special revelation, if he heard it, find himself in circumstances where he doesn’t hear it."

You can read more here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=9193

If I understand his last sentence correctly (I've read it about 10 times ) he believes that God could have placed someone in second century Tibet who would have believed and been saved as a result of general revelation. This same person would also have freely responded in belief to special revelation in other feasible worlds.

As far as I can tell, Molinists believe that God gives sufficient grace to all people, whether through general or special revelation, so all people have the possibility of salvation and can therefore be fairly judged for freely accepting or rejecting God's grace. God knew before He created this world exactly who would believe (the elect), and these individual will believe even if they are terrorized from the pulpit at some point in their life.

[Ian]

This is the idea that God in his great mercy ordered this world in such a way that those who He knows would reject him in any feasible world are placed in locations where they would never hear the gospel, for example in second century Tibet.

I have heard this before from a co-preacher of Ravi Zacharias.
But is this not a double whammy for the poor 2nd Century Tibetan? It`s one thing to tolerate cold on a skiing holiday, but quite another to endure it for half the days of your life on the Tibetan Plateau with not many trees to chop down for firewood and no health care. A very comfortable Californian (I`m not singling Californians out here) could tune into Steve`s programme and, at last hearing a fair presentation of the Gospel, respond favourably. No matter how successfully he goes on to negate his self-centredness and put others and God above himself, he is never going to endure the privations of the second century Tibetan. This doesn`t make moral sense to me at all. I`m not saying that the Tibetan`s privations save him, but even so.

[psimmond]

Maybe as an example I should have used the Mayans on the beaches in the Yucatán Peninsula in the 4th century.

[psimmond]

No matter how successfully he goes on to negate his self-centredness and put others and God above himself, he is never going to endure the privations of the second century Tibetan. This doesn`t make moral sense to me at all. I`m not saying that the Tibetan`s privations save him, but even so.

I guess the point has less to do with geography and climate than it has to do with placing those who would freely reject God's grace at times and in places where the fact that they never heard the gospel would be of no consequence. Although they never hear the gospel, they do reject God's grace which draws them through general revelation and are judged accordingly.

BTW, I'm not sure I agree with this but it is growing on me.

[steve7150]

BTW, I'm not sure I agree with this but it is growing on me.









Sounds like an intellectually acceptable form of Calvinism since there is really no so called "free will" on the part of the person who never hears the gospel.

[Ian]

The apparent sentiment that I can agree with is this:
a man rejecting general revelation in 2nd Century Tibet, (obscured by a lot else that that would have been) is, all things being equal, less culpable than the comfort-enjoying European who has rejected both that and special revelation in 2011. If that`s what he means by merciful then count me in.