Irresistible Grace vs. Prevenient Grace

I came across an interesting podcast by John Piper in which he discusses and contrasts the Calvinist doctrine of “Irresistible Grace” with the Arminian doctrine of “Prevenient Grace”. It can be seen on their website here. He is responding to the following question:

“Hello, Pastor John! I’m a 26-year-old man in full-time ministry working primarily with collegiate golfers. In a recent Bible study, one of the older men in our group brought up the topic of ‘prevenient grace’—the idea that the Holy Spirit enables everyone to potentially believe, if they choose to cooperate. I was unprepared in the moment. I am Reformed and believe wholly in the sovereignty of God in salvation. I believe we are saved by grace, through faith, and this faith is not our ‘own doing’ but is rather a ‘gift of God,’ coming to the elect from outside of us (Ephesians 2:8). But I was really unprepared to respond in that moment. I’d love to hear your answer. How do you address ‘prevenient grace’?”

To this John Piper gives a clear and concise answer, the complete transcript of which can be seen on their website in the link provided (as well as listened to on the podcast), so it is not necessary to quote the complete transcript here. Predictably, he opts for the Calvinist doctrine of “Irresistible Grace” against the Arminian “Prevenient Grace”. I will only quote the bit towards the end where he gives his final answer, as follows (words in square brackets added):

“The question is, Which of those [Prevenient or Irresistible] is the biblical view of how God’s grace brings us to faith and salvation? Does it make us free to choose grace or reject it [as in ‘Prevenient Grace’]? Or does it overcome our rebellion and blindness so that we are drawn triumphantly by the beauty of Christ to embrace what is true and real [his dodgy way of expressing ‘Irresistible Grace!’]?

“Now, as you ponder which of these two views is biblical, and you search the Scriptures, I would just point to one passage. We could point to others, but just to save time, I’ll point to one passage of Scripture that I think shows the complete saving effectiveness of God’s grace and that God provides more than a partial regeneration in order to bring us to faith. That passage is Ephesians 2:4–7. So let me read it.

“‘God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses’—now come the two verbs of what God, being rich in mercy, does. Number one: he ‘made us alive together with Christ.’ That’s what he does for dead sinners. He made us alive with Christ. Not just alive to reject Christ, but alive with Christ. And then he adds this parenthetical phrase: ‘by grace you have been saved.’ You have been saved in order to show, I think, what grace actually does: it makes us alive with Christ.

“And then here’s the second verb: ‘and raised us up with him.’ So he made us alive together with Christ and he raised us up. So he brings us up alive out of the grave of our fallenness, and he raises us up with Christ. Paul continues, ‘and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus’ (Ephesians 2:4–7).

“I don’t think that text can be fairly interpreted to mean that there is a split in regeneration or a split in making alive. It is not as if he does part of it, and then he waits to see what we will do with the rest of it, if we will finish the making alive and bringing ourselves into union with Christ. I don’t think that will work.”

The problem with that answer is that it ignores other passages of the Bible which tell a different story. Lots of passages could be quoted, but like him I will mention just one to save time. It is from Hebrews.

Hebrews 3:

12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

This scripture makes a clear suggestion of man’s ability to either harden his heart against God, or not to. All men have the ability to either accept the gospel, or to harden their hearts against it. The instruction to not harden their hearts implies the ability to do so (or not do so). The choice is always theirs. Nobody is denied or deprived of that choice, which contradicts Piper’s theology. An interesting question for Latter-day Saints is, does the Book of Mormon have anything to say about that, and if so what? The answer is, Quite a bit:

Mosiah 3:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

It is not identical to Arminian “Prevenient Grace,” but it comes closer to it than to Calvinism’s “Irresistible Grace”. It is every man’s choice and ability to either yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, or to harden his heart against it. Another interesting question is, Where does that “enticings of the Holy Spirit” come from? The Book of Mormon again gives the answer:

2 Nephi 33:

… for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost, the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.

Which agrees with and amplifies these verses in the Bible:

Romans 10:

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

So to sum it all up, the correct doctrine goes something like this: When those who are sent from God (really sent from God, not just claiming or pretending to be), preach the word of God, they do so by the power of the Holy Ghost; and when that happens, the Holy Ghost also bears witness to the hearts of those who hear the truth of the words that are spoken. That happens to all. No one is discriminated against—or especially favored. Those who then hear have the choice to either yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and receive the message, or else to harden their hearts. There is no compulsion, no “predestination,” and no “irresistible grace”. The transforming effect, which the Evangelicals call being “born again,” comes after that initial reception of that divine message and expression of faith—and as a direct consequence of it.

The Evangelicals and Calvinists put the cart before the horse. They say that you have to “born again” first (against your own will) before you can “believe,” or have “faith”. The truth is the opposite. The transformation known as being “born again” comes after that initial expression of faith, and as a consequence of it. Now if you want to call that “Prevenient Grace” as the Arminians do, I suppose you could; but it is not necessary. It adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the doctrine. The Holy Ghost bears witness of the truth to all, without exception or discrimination. All are equally favored. The choice is then theirs to either receive it, accept it, obey it; or else to “harden their hearts”. That choice is entirely theirs; and none of the theological complexities of Calvinism (or Arminianism) need be added to it. But it would be right to say that it comes closer to Arminian theology than to Calvinism.