Is “Prevenient Grace” a Biblical Idea?

Man is Fallen

The Bible is clear that, since the fall of Adam and Eve, there is a profound problem with humanity. We exist in a “fallen” state, and this state is the supreme problem for every person. Paul teaches that all human beings are born with a corrupted nature inherited from Adam (Rom 5:12-19). King David laments that he was sinful from the time his mother conceived him (Ps 51:5, NIV). It is through Adam’s sin that we died (Rom 5:15, 17), are condemned (Rom 5:16, 18), and are constituted as sinners (Rom 5:19). All believers were formerly children of wrath, just like the rest of mankind (Eph 2:3). As such, we were dead in our transgressions and sins (Eph 2:1, see also Eph 2:5 & Col 2:13). As unbelievers, we exercised our freedom in pursuing “the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and mind” (Eph 2:3) (it’s worth noting that Ephesians 2:3 explicitly teaches compatibilist free will. ie, nonbelievers freely choose according to their desires, and only according to their desires). Titus 3:3 says, “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.” In mind, body and soul, we were all dead and without hope in the world (Eph 2:12).

The Problem

This thoroughly biblical reality of the state of man (otherwise known as total depravity) creates a problem for those who wish to ascribe to libertarian freedom. For, if the unbeliever is truly dead in their sin, then they do not have the power of contrary choice within themselves to “choose” God in the libertarian sense (they also do not have the power to choose God in the biblical sense). However, since the ultimate choice to choose God lies in the power of the individual in the libertarian scheme, how does one become able to move from death to life? How can one choose of their own power to be “dead in sin” to “alive in Christ”?

To assist in this answer, many libertarians (notably, the Wesleyans, among others) adopt an idea that is known as “prevenient grace.” While different definition of prevenient grace have been offered by theologians in the past, they all have one element in common: prevenient grace move the “dead" in sin to being somehow non-dead. It moves people from being unable to choose Christ to being able to choose Christ. Somehow, in some way, when Christ died on the cross, he died in such a way that every single person, who would have been totally dead in their sin and unable to choose Christ, is now able to choose (in a libertarian way) whether they will follow Christ or not. Thereby, one is able to ascribe to the aforementioned biblical teachings on man’s fallen nature, and still hold to a libertarian notion of salvation. Wesley himself wrote, “I only assert, that there is a measure of free-will supernaturally restored to every man, together with that supernatural light which ‘enlightens every man that cometh into the world.’” (Wesley’s Works, 10:229-30).

But is it Biblical?

Such a theological innovation is certainly creative, but is it biblical? Is there anywhere in Scripture where such a notion of prevenient grace is taught or supported? Typically, Wesleyans and other libertarians who support the doctrine of prevenient grace turn to four biblical evidences. First, John 1:9 is given in support: “The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.” Some of these people received him (Jn 1:12) and some did not (Jn 1:11), thereby supporting the notion that everyone had the ability to choose for themselves. Second, in John 12:32, Jesus says, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” This could be taken to mean that Christ died for every individual, and as such, enables (or “draws”) every individual person to himself. Third, Wesleyans argue that the warnings, commands, and invitations throughout scripture must mean that we have the libertarian ability to either obey or disobey. God would not command people to do something and hold them accountable for disobedience if they truly did not have the ability to obey. Fourth, since God desires all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), he would not have created a world in which that would have been impossible for some. This clearly assumes that 1 Timothy 2:4 and other passages like it mean “all individuals” when it say “all men” are desired to be saved.

Let us now consider each of these four arguments in turn. Concerning John 1:9, it is not at all evident that the “true light which gives light to everyone” is evidence of so-called prevenient grace. It could mean general revelation that is given to everyone. It could also mean that an inward illumination leading to salvation is given to “all people” in that it is given to Jews and Gentiles alike. John stresses this truth in other places in his gospel (John 3:16, 10:16, 11:51-52for example). More likely, John 1:9 could mean that such light illumines something that has otherwise been in the dark, and it does so in such a way that all are rendered without excuse. Such light reveals evil people for who they are (v 10-11), but reveals those who have been born of God (v 12-13). Moreover, the closing verse of the passage seems to close the door on any notion of “man’s will” being in view: “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (emphasis added).

Regarding the second popular Wesleyan argument, one must ask if Christ, in his atoning work, secured some sort of universal prevenient grace for every individual. Is that something the Bible teaches? It is indeed true that the grace of God that brings salvation appeared to all men (Titus 2:11). But this, at most, could potentially be interpreted that Christ’s atonement made salvation possible for all men. It doesn’t teach a notion of prevenient-grace-giving work done on the cross. It is likewise problematic to read John 12:32 (mentioned above) as Jesus drawing every individual to himself. This is because John explicitly writes against this in the very same gospel. In John 6:37, Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” And again, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). The Father does not draw every individual, but he does draw individuals from every nation on earth. IE, he draws “all people” to himself. Moreover, such “drawing” in the writings of John is never ineffectual. Every single person that the Father draws to Jesus will come to Jesus, without fail. This is not the notion of prevenient grace that libertarians support.

On the third argument, a necessary distinction must be made between physical ability and moral ability. God never commands anything that is physically beyond our ability. He does not command us life 2000 pound boulders or run a sub-2-minute-mile. This is the point being made in Deuteronomy 30: “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.” Nothing God tells us to do or requires of us is “too difficult” in this natural sense. This should be held in tension with moral inability. You may be naturally able to murder your parents using the steak knife you hold in your hand at the kitchen table, but you are (hopefully) morally unable to carry out the task. It just isn’t in you. Furthermore, it is NOT the case that God doesn’t command things that are too morally difficult to do. Indeed, sometimes he makes sure that’s the case. This is why Pharaoh having a “hardened heart” is so important (it doesn’t really even matter who did the “hardening” for this conversation). God commanded Pharaoh through Moses to let the Hebrews go, something that was absolultely within Pharaoh’s natural ability. However, it was ensured that Pharaoh would not have the moral ability to do so (via his heart-state). God knew this going in, and he commanded it anyway, to accomplish his purposes. Similarly, Jesus commands all who hear him to believe on him (John 5:40, Matt 11:20-30), but he also says that only those the Father draws can believe on him (John 6:37, 44, Matt 11:25-27). Therefore, the argument that libertarians make that God would not make commands we are morally unable to comply with falls biblically flat.

Lastly, to say that a loving God must offer everyone a chance to be saved neglects in full the equally true attributes of God’s justice, righteousness and wrath. The only universal “fair” thing to do is to allow all sinners to be condemned. God is obligated to save no one, but does save some out of grace (Eph 2:4-7). The argument from God’s love also comes precariously close to the position that, if God is loving, then he must show equal-opportunity grace to all people. But grace that is obligatory is not grace at all! It is necessary.

Conclusion

The biblical warrant for prevenient grace is precarious at best, especially in light of the ample and explicit biblical passages to the contrary position. The best and simplest way to understand the less-clear passages of scripture are to look for the clear and explicit passages that address the same topic. In this case, prevenient grace can only become “clear” if one is looking for it in the pages of Scripture, and even then, the evidence is sparse.

What is Biblical Free Will

One of the most important ideas a person can hold, and one that I have researched more than any other, is the way one understands the reality of human free will. It seems intuitive. We make choices, and if we are not coerced in some way, those choices are free. But, surprisingly, this is not as cut-and-dried as it appears to be. For most of human history, philosophers have adopted one prominent view of human freedom, and the church has largely followed suit. The problem is, this widely held definition of freedom is philosophical self-defeating and, what’s worse, unbiblical.

Before we address this false view, I will posit a biblically constructed understanding of free will. Scripture is clear that we make our choices from our hearts. Evil actions come from an evil heart and good actions come from a good heart (Luke 6:45, see also Matt 7:17-20; 12:34-35). Those who chose to give freewill offerings in Israel we moved by their heart to do so (Ex 35:22-23, 29). God judges our hearts, and we are to repent for our evil heart postures before God (Acts 8:20-22). Moral culpability before God lies in the intentions of the heart (Prov 16:2, 1 Sam 16:7, Jer 17:10, Num 35:22-23, Ex 21:12-14). It was also the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart that caused his free choice to not let the Hebrews go (and it was the softening of the Egyptians’ hearts that caused their free choice to relinquish their treasures to the departing Hebrews).

It is also in the story of Pharaoh that we see an important point that is often missed when discussing the Bible’s understanding of free will. This is the realization that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is seen to be important. In other words, if Pharaoh’s heart didn’t directly and sufficiently cause his free choices (for which he was held morally responsible) to keep the Israelites as slaves, then it wouldn’t be a big deal that his heart was hardened. If he had the internal ability (what Jonathan Edwards would later call the “moral ability”) to choose against his heart, then his heart being hardened would hardly be relevant. However, the Scriptures are clear and very much emphasize the fact that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened. It doesn’t even much matter for this conversation who did the hardening. That his heart was hardened, and that this (inevitably) caused his choices is all that matters.

In the end, the biblical understanding of free will must be one that places the heart at the center. My best stab at a definition at the current time is this: One is (biblically) free in their choices if they are able to choose according to their heart. One would only choose against their heart if they were externally coerced to do so. Moreover, in the Bible, it is assumed that one will (one might say must) choose according to their heart. To say otherwise would negate everything the Bible says about our motives, spirits, desires, and character.

Coincidentally, this is also the understanding the Bible gives of God’s free will. God always does as he pleases. Can God sin? The Bible is clear that he cannot. But why? Because it would contradict his character, his heart. He would never want to sin. Such determinative character is consistent with God’s having free will. And so it is with us.

The Popular and False View of Freedom

So what is this popular and false view of freedom? It’s academic name is “libertarian freedom". It’s claim is simple: One is free if and only if one has the power and (internal) ability to choose to do otherwise. In a given circumstance, if one makes a choice to do “A”, then in the exact same circumstances, they could just as easily have chosen to do “not A.”

To see how this is different than the biblical definition above, image a child desperately does not want to kill their mother. Suppose this is a deep desire of their heart (one that hopefully we can all identify with). During a sweet, intimate moment with their mother, they decide to hug their mother. If libertarian free will is true, then, given the exact same sweet, intimate moment, the child instead chooses to murder their mother. This is what libertarian free will says must be possible.

I use such a hyperbolic example to show the main philosophical problem with this understanding of freedom. Libertarian freedom cannot explain how motives or heart posture cause free choices. Indeed, one must function as a totally indifferent internal agent at all times for this type of freedom to be true. While desires or one’s heart may influence a libertarian choice, they cannot necessitate it. But then, what actually causes our choices? That question must have a vacuous non-answer for libertarian freedom to be true. Indeed, as soon as one posits an answer to that question, that is, as soon as one starts to give a sufficient reason for a choice, it ceases to be a free choice in the libertarian sense. The only answer is “no reason.” And this simply philosophically unacceptable.

Jonathan Edwards writes a masterful work entitled “The Freedom of the Will” in which he methodically and exhaustively shows the philosophical impossibility to libertarian freedom. I cannot due justice to all of his arguments here. However, to my knowledge, no one has ever successfully refuted his arguements.

More damaging that the philosophcial impossibility of libertarian freedom is the fact that it is foreign to Scripture. In fact, in the one instance where libertarian freedom would have suited the biblical authors if it were true, it is no where to be seen. When Paul offers the problem of evil and why some people are lost when others aren’t, he certainly could have offered people’s ability to choose against God in a libertarian way (this is the libertarian answer to the problem of evil, one which I reject). Instead, Paul’s argument goes as follows:

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!  For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”  So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy.  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”  So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”  But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

At no point does Paul even hint that some are lost, or that evil exists, because God gave man some sort of libertarian free will. Rather, God is shown to be sovereign, and man is shown to be responsible for their own evil, which, as Luke 6 makes clear, is a direct product of our hearts.