"Christian theology teaches the doctrine of prevenient grace, which briefly stated means this, that before a man can seek God, God must first have sought the man. Before a sinful man can think a right thought of God, there must have been a work of enlightenment done within him; imperfect it may be, but a true work nonetheless, and the secret cause of all desiring and seeking and praying which may follow.
We pursue God because, and only because, He has first put an urge within us that spurs us to the pursuit." ~ A.W. Tozer
You know one thing I've come to learn is that not everyone believes this. Some people have a real problem with this statement. I think the problem comes because of the ramifications of adhering to it in the first place. If you say you believe it then you are pretty much saying "No" to several other possibilities. Many have a hard time understanding how God can give man free will and yet at the same time predestine that very man to follow Him. They wonder how God can 'orchestrate' man's will and yet still call it freedom.
Personally, I think anyone with children understands how it is entirely possible to do both at the same time.
6 comments:
You need to change this to an earlier day of the week. By Thursday there just aren't enough brain cells left.
I'm bound by alliteration. Then again I could go to Tuesdays but usually Tuesday are my witty and sarcastic days.
I don't think I have thought much about this before, until we talked about this for the first time a few years ago. Thank's for teaching me and helping me to understand God's word a little better.
Hey Rob, at first glance it seems that this notion with fall in direct oppostion to reformed theology. i.e. Total Depravity (Inablity)
What do you think most reformed theologians think of prevenient grace?
just curious.
Great question Jason, I wish I were the best person to answer it. However, I'll give it a shot and then probably wish I wouldn't have.
In my understanding the idea of prevenient grace is the idea that God allows grace within a man in order for that man to accept God (this is more of an Arminian view). Total Depravity, on the other hand (a reformed view) says that man is totally not able to respond to grace based on his original sin, depravity, etc.
I think preveienient grace sort of bridges (or tries to bridge) the gap between 1) All men have within themselves the ability to accept God and 2) No man is capable of accepting God b/c of his nature. I believe this is the definition that Wesley was shooting for.
Personally I tend to fall on the reformed side of the equation (I think Scripture speaks very clear on the issue). However depending on terminology and reasoning a strong (or at least confusing) argument could be made for the alternative view.
In short, I think theologians are varied on their definitions of prevenient grace. I really don't think they all have the same definition. For example John Piper uses the terms "prevenient grace" "irresistible grace" and "effectual calling" synonymously, whereas others may view them as having different nuances.
NERDS!
Post a Comment