Since prevenient grace is generally defined as the work that God does for everybody and that it is sufficient for allowing sinners to choose Christ, then why does it not always produce the desired effect God intends? Why does the gift of prevenient grace work effectually in the lives of some and not all in light of the teaching that this grace is a divine act? These perennial questions offered against the Arminian view of grace remain unanswered and will continue to be without adequate explanation for good reason—it is a sub-biblical doctrine that cannot be supported by Scripture or consistent reasoning when followed through to its ultimate consequences. The reality of these simple inquiries exposes this Achilles heel of the synergistic view of prevenient grace in that it ultimately displays the weakness inherent in the Arminian position.
Consider for a moment just what this position is really advocating. If every single person receives the same amount of divine influencing why do some sinners choose to cooperate with this grace over against others whom willfully remain obstinate? What is so special about the ones that ultimately choose Christ?
Perhaps it would be better to think of prevenient grace in personal terms that might help to reinforce what is being asked. If you are a Christian you are surely aware of other people who are not. So why, then, is it that you have chosen Christ and they have not? Why did you say yes with the support of prevenient grace while others rejected it? Were you more spiritual, wiser, more intelligent, or more discerning in understanding your desperate plight than was your neighbor? If so, then you have something to boast about. Was that heightened sense of needing righteousness something you achieved on your own or was it the gift of God? If it was something you achieved then at the bottom line your salvation depends on your own righteousness. However, if the righteousness was a gift, then why didn’t God give the same gift to everybody?
No one in his right mind would ever boast of a spiritual, intellectual, or whatever else superiority ultimately served as the reason the sinner was saved. Christians are no better than anyone else. They are not saved because they possessed some superior quality over against their neighbors. So they can never point to some trait or characteristic as the foundation of their salvation. This is exactly the point with the questions for the Arminian who believes in prevenient grace. Granted, no Christian would ever respond in the affirmative to any one of the questions, but it should give the Arminian pause. If the logical conclusion to one’s system of belief stands at open variance to Paul’s words in Ephesians—"so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:9)—then he, at the very least, should reevaluate his position.
Someone might respond this way: "I chose God. That’s why I am saved." After all, that sounds more humble, does it not? But I would submit to you that even this answer is an insufficient response to the question because the heart of the matter has never really been addressed. That is: "What was the ultimate and deciding factor in your chosing the God of Chrisitanity over against any number of the myriad of other gods imaginable? How was it that you recognized your desperate plight and need for the God of the Old and New Testaments while your neighbor did not?" The only consistent answer is unavoidable. Remaining in harmony with his own line of reasoning, the one who responds honestly will be compelled to say out of necessity: "I am saved, because I did something"—an answer that is sadly far removed from the biblical portrayal of salvation that is granted solely by free grace alone.
Prevenient grace is a philosophically derived concept more than it is a solid conclusion from sound scriptural exegesis. It is a concept that is born out of an emotional appeal to protect the character of God and the volition of free will creatures, but in reality, it impugns the sovereign nature of God and belittles His own autonomous free will. Echoing these sentiments, Millard Erickson rightly concluded in his Christian theology: "The problem is that there is no clear and adequate basis in Scripture for this concept of universal enablement. The theory, appealing though it is in many ways, simply is not taught explicitly in the Bible."
As appealing as prevenient grace might appear on the surface level, it cannot rightly be vindicated from sound exegesis. This extra-biblical concept of grace leaves too many questions unanswered and fails to respond adequately to the numerous objections raised against it. One theologian pointed out that if prevenient grace is rejected, then all people everywhere remain in bondage to sin. They will never be able to turn to God because they do not possess the innate desire to do so. How, then, will they ever be saved? The answer to that thorny problem is that it is God who foreknows His people, and predestines them, and calls them, and glorifies them. It is God’s libertarian free will that is behind our salvation—so that we have no room for boasting. In the final analysis, we love God because He first loved us. The Protestant Reformers were consistent with their soteriology and faithfully carried each step to its logical conclusion to ensure they allowed God to remain sovereign in every aspect of salvation. In like manner, we must return to the simplicity of allowing God to sit upon His throne and reign supreme in the lives of His creation and rightly conclude with the prophet Jonah that "salvation belongs to the Lord" (Jonah 2:9).
With all that said, however, the greatest practical problem that I see with prevenient grace is that the gift of salvation can ultimately be lost after having received it from Christ. That is, one must continue doing works of righteousness in order to ensure that this gift of salvation is not destroyed or lost before one exits this world. One then can never have the surety of salvation that John spoke of in his epistle. This leaves the Christian in the same position as the Roman Catholic—never knowing whether he will commit an egregious sin and lose the divine gift of eternal life. How is this different principally than the Roman Catholic who trusts in his own works of righteousness to merit his way to heaven? In the final analysis, the Arminian will lay on his deathbed and hope that he has performed enough righteous deeds—or at least not have committed a grace-destroying sin—to ensure his entrance into paradise.
Does prevenient grace, therefore, consistently allow the Christian to trust only in the righteousness of Christ Jesus? Does this view of grace bring the peace of which Paul talked about in Romans 5:1? Is the gospel message of free grace upheld through belief in a universal enablement prior to salvation? I would submit to you that prevenient grace, as well intentioned as it might be, destroys the very fabric of the gospel message of grace and denies the heart of Christianity’s most distinctive doctrine. The stakes are too high and the consequences are too great to take this issue lightly. We must clearly see how our doctrines impact the teaching of grace and must always be ready to test our beliefs in light of Scripture and reform as necessary. We cannot ignore the harmful ramifications of believing something contrary to God’s Word. When doctrine and truth separate, the issue becomes that much more important in seeking to recover the purity of the apostolic message—just as the sixteenth century Evangelical Christians attempted to do while a part of the Roman Church.
