Prevenient grace is one of the doctrines that most fully express the freedom given to human beings, and is thereby well in accordance with the chosen topic for AAR at large. Further, prevenient grace is one of the important theological impacts Arminianism had on Wesleyan theology, and this theme therefor belongs to a session on the Arminian sense of freedom.
Wesleyan tradition is a tradition where human freedom is emphasized and valued and an important premise for the rest of the theological system. In the Wesleyan understanding, to accept God’s gifts and offer of relation, to enact ethical living in the world, to live a life in response to God’s grace, all of this is connected to prevenient grace, or it can be. This paper explores prevenient grace and more specifically how it is expressed and developed in Arminius and in contemporary Methodist theology.
W. Brian Shelton’s book Prevenient Grace from 2014 compares Jakob Arminius’ and John Wesley’s theology on the matter. That task can of course be made several times, but my choice is to continue the work of Shelton and many others who have worked on prevenient grace and explore how it is understood in contemporary theology. The focus will be on the connections, similarities and differences between Arminius’ understanding of prevenient grace, and the understanding of theologians in the Wesleyan tradition today.
In Arminius’ understanding, God’s grace is enabling – and not just for the elect but for all people – which is in deep contrast to a Calvinist understanding, at least at the time. Further, salvation is then available for all, “conditional only upon accepting it”. (Shelton, 119) Arminius questioned the sovereign image of God of his environment, and lifted human freedom, the one enabled by the grace of God, and he paid a high price for it. He was condemned at the synod of Dordt in 1618/19, and the tulip of Calvinism was born and marked the defense against Arminius and his peers.
John Wesley surprisingly did not read anything of Arminius’ own writings – as far as we know (and well, we do know a lot). Wesley’s knowledge of Arminius’ theology was through English Arminians, which had an impact on Wesley and his construction of the theology of prevenient grace, free will and scriptural holiness. “Wesley advanced Arminius’ theology, while remaining fully in agreement with him on the mechanism of belief and the necessity of God’s grace to enable human free will, either to repent or continue in rebellion.” (Shelton, 124) Shelton thereby states that the two are connected, and that a Wesleyan understanding of grace relies on an Arminian one.
Diving into the relationship between Arminius and Wesley could be interesting and probably need further research. However, this paper will go straight to the contemporary expressions of prevenient grace. I will use my own definition of prevenient grace: Prevenient grace is the pardoning and empowering presence of the triune God, embracing all human beings and all of creation universally, creating and renewing the image of God in humans and by all means inviting to salvation and continued relationship, providing their ability to respond to grace and agency to participate in God’s mission in the world. Arminius would probably not fully accept my definition, which has come in place during my own research on the matter, studying the present articulation of prevenient grace.
In our time we have different challenges than Arminius had. Arminius’ neighbors were Christians in one way or another, ours have all kinds of religions and many have none. If God by prevenient grace enables all human beings – well, they are all included. What impact does that have on our theology. If God is present everywhere, and grace is understood as the empowering presence of God, what impact does that have on a global church and a global world. In this understanding, humans on all sides of the conflicts of our time is enabled by God’s prevenient grace. Their free will is enabled by God, their ability to do good is given by God, and their ability to participate in God’s mission in the world is given by God’s prevenient grace. With freedom comes responsibility, with prevenient grace comes responsible grace, to use Randy L. Maddox’ term from 1994. Can we expect human beings to be responsible? Does it make sense in our time to hold together grace, freedom and the expectation that other people enact responsibility?
Is Arminius’ sense of freedom and enabling by prevenient grace still helpful? Are there keys and resources in the Arminian tradition that can be refined and developed and be important theological tools in our own time? This is to be explored in this paper.
A session on Arminianism on a conference of freedom should have a paper on prevenient grace. An understanding of prevenient grace where grace and responsibility is connected and related to the challenges of our time will be a fruitful and relevant way of exploring traditions, theology and the hope that humans will use their freedom responsively.
One of the doctrines Methodism adopted from Arminianism, and further developed, is prevenient grace – the grace that comes before, that invites, encourages, and even urges humans to accept the divine invitation, the grace where freedom, the ability to choose, ability to respond, is given. This paper will explore the connections, similarities and differences between the Arminian version of prevenient grace and prevenient grace in contemporary Methodist theology.
Prevenient grace is a theological rationale for human freedom – why freedom is there, and what freedom is for. What human freedom is for might have changed over the centuries. A contemporary version of prevenient grace can include God’s presence in a multireligious world, in a globalized world and in a world marked by conflict. By prevenient grace, humans are enabled to freedom, to responsibility, to do good. Is that still a doctrine to believe in?