Discussing Prevenient Grace | With Derrik Behler & Luke Gowdy.

[@nickl.3137]

Excellent video. As someone who leans towards Provisionism, I agree that Christ from the beginning has always been there, that the Word was the Light of men (seen in both Genesis 1 and John 1) with the Word drawing all men to Himself, in both the Old and New Testaments, and that all are saved by “calling upon the name of the Lord”. Even if they didn’t know the name of Jesus, the one and the same Lord is Christ (along with the Father and Spirit). The Lord reaches out to all men through external graces He provides; all perceive them (exceptions being infants, mentally impaired etc., that’s another issue); and men are responsible as to whether they inwardly receive or deny what they perceive (Romans 1). When these external graces are received they become the internal graces that save, causing the recipient to cry out to the Lord for salvation. The conviction of the Holy Spirit, Natural Revelation of the created order, the spoken / written Word of God throughout the ages/preaching of the Gospel, the incarnation of Christ, the historical reality of His birth, death, and resurrection and many other graces are all means to give opportunity for all to call upon the Name of the Lord and be saved. Prevenient? I have no problem accepting that word in the sense that these graces are always there for all mankind, supernatural gifts of God’s grace.
However, I do have a bit of an issue with Original Sin imputing guilt and total “deadness” as taught in Total Depravity / Inability (to my earlier point of imputing guilt to infants, etc.), but as it was pointed out, this almost becomes relegated to the theoretical, and not as much of a problem, if God reaches out to all men and all by His grace can say yes to Him, or use their own will to reject Him, especially if there was no ontological change in Man (traditional Total Depravity), and that both unfallen and fallen man had / have access to the Light that is Christ

[@methodministries]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@VeryBasicBible]

I learned of this discussion from Dan and Drew's discussion over at The Provisionist Perspective. Can't wait to watch.

[@adamduarte895]

Wokeness is wicked 💯, love that sidebar 🤣

[@methodministries]

It is! 😂

[@darthnocturnis3941]

The discussion at 39:00 is exactly why I find Provisionism lacking. I don't want to suggest that there are no answers or that the question "can't" be answered; but in order to be distinct from Wesleyan-Arminianism, it creates a dynamic where the spirituality of humanity is under-appreciated.

[@chriscalhoun380]

Perhaps a middle ground the provisionists could affirm that the Arminian would allow is something like: “Whenever the gospel is preached, the Spirit always works internally on the sinner through the external proclaimed message, and only in light of this can the sinner come to believe.” I think this is consistent with the Prov’s main point that anyone can respond to the gospel in faith, and upholds the Arminian’s insistence that an internal work is necessary for one to believe. I think this where I stand on this question, and even though most Arminians wouldn’t say this level of prevenient grace is happening at each hearing of the gospel, I think it falls within the Arminian umbrella. I enjoyed the conversation!

[@Dizerner]

That's not a "middle ground," that's literally Preceding Grace.

[@chriscalhoun380]

@@Dizerner provisionists believe that they hold to a form of prevenient grace. But this is different from the usual description you’d hear from provisionists, and a statement that wouldn’t be unanimously affirmed by Arminians.

[@methodministries]

I wouldn’t say it’s a form of Prevenient grace. Rather, it’s a denial of it.

[@chriscalhoun380]

@@methodministries the statement in my original reply, or what provisionists believe?
Provisionists definitely say they believe PG, but whether or not their definition is legitimately PG is definitely debatable.

[@Dizerner]

@@chriscalhoun380 We are speaking of preceding grace, as the internal working of the Spirit, often mocked by Provisionists with "mystical zapping" and "pink aardvarks." The fact they mock an internal working of the Spirit, means their definition of grace is only external, like creating ground for you to walk on or giving you consciousness. This is redefining the term-it's terminology hijacking to load the term the other side uses with your own presuppositions (grace becomes just non-internal, non-redemptive "stuff" that God gives things).
You described, in your post, very clearly and distinctly, that the Spirit was working *internally.*
That is the essential ingredient, and the part they deny.

[@petros810]

If the provisionist is saying that no internal work of grace is necessary, that one has the natural capacity to come to Christ, then that is the old heresy of semi-pelagianism. Don’t like to make that charge but it seems to me the implications.

[@methodministries]

You’re not wrong for following that logic.

[@NickQuient]

What about an online symposium between provisionists and Arminians?

[@methodministries]

That be awesome!

[@VeryBasicBible]

LETS DO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@apologeticsfromtheattic7131]

Good video guys- at around 32:00 when you say the light has been given to all men, does this mean that prevenient grace has been given to all in such a way that they are able to repent and believe at any time they choose, or is this enlightening tied to the means of grace? ie they don't need to hear preaching in order for prevenient grace to take effect?

[@methodministries]

They have God's grace but they must repent and trust in christ. Cornelius is a great example: He responded to the light and God brought preachers to him to believe the Gospel.
I'm glad you enjoyed the discussion! Please share!

[@Dizerner]

There are many Arminians who do not think Preceding Grace is completely universally equal to all men, and indeed, I don't think there's a very strong case for it Biblically.

[@NickQuient]

Great convo and video! I wonder if it is proper or helpful to talk about anthropology before talking about Christology.
*edit ah y’all are somewhat going there! Sweet. My own take is that prevenient grace must be Christological and Apocalyptic.

[@methodministries]

I appreciate it, Nick!