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.