Return, o wanderer, return

195 Woodworth. L. M.

1 Return, O wanderer, return,
   And seek an injur'd Father’s face;
   Those warm desires that in thee burn,
   Were kindled by reclaiming grace.

2 Return, O wanderer, return,
   And seek a Father’s melting heart;
   His pitying eyes thy grief discern,
   His hand can heal thy inward smart.

3 Return, O wanderer, return,
   Thy Savior bids thy spirit live;
   Go to his bleeding feet, and learn
   How freely Jesus can forgive.

4 Return, O wanderer, return,
   And wipe away the falling tear:
   ’Tis God who says, "No longer mourn,"
   ’Tis mercy’s voice invites thee near.
                         Wiliam B. Collyer
                         The Methodist Hymnal 1939 edition

<idle musing>
I wasn't too sure where this hymn was going at the beginning of the first verse; far too often when they start with "injur'd Father's face" they go on to rail about an angry god just waiting to smash you. But, the direction he went was refreshing, emphasizing prevenient grace and the love of God. Would that more invitational hymns went that direction! In fact, #197, two hymns later goes the direction of shame.
</idle musing>

Nice, but what does it do?

It [prevenient grace] restores 1) a basic knowledge of God, 2) the moral law in the hearts of believers, 3) conscience, 4) a degree of free will, and 5) restraint against wickedness. Humanity is therefore made able once again to enter communion with God, but only as a response to God’s gracious invitation.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 55

<idle musing>
Nice summary of what prevenient grace (the grace that "comes before") does. Salvation is the result of God's grace, but humanity has a part in it as a response to God's initiative. Our freedom is only possible because it is a restored freedom. But, and this is where Wesleyanism differs from Calvinism/Augustinianism, all humanity is given that grace. In other words, unlimited grace rather than apportioned grace.
</idle musing>

All grace, all the time

[H]eaven surely does not compartmentalize its grace, but we speak about types of grace because of the way that they have come to us. The same gracious act of God that enables people to believe is the same grace that saves, which is the same grace that brings necessary, cooling rains to a rebellious world with each new providential morning.— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, pages 221–222

But it contradicts my favorite presuppositions

Prevenient grace is an attractive doctrine in many ways, most of all because it makes overall sense of Scripture’s powerful collection of human opportunity verses, command and exhortation passages, and the rational thinking capacity that the Lord expects us to employ in the process of biblical understanding. Many opponents of prevenient grace oppose it not because it is an injustice to the biblical data, but simply because it offers a solution to the human depraved condition through the gracious enabling of the Holy Spirit that undermines the exaggerated larger sovereignty of God. Additionally, the doctrine supports the genuinely universal opportunity of the gospel and confronts the unconditional election and perseverance that construct Calvin’s theology. We have shown how prevenient grace is strongly implicit in Scripture, not contrary to any other biblical passage, and the best overall theological explanation for the universal opportunity and free will passages in the New Testament.— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 217

<idle musing>
Indeed! As usual, presuppositions block the ability to see the forest...
</idle musing>

The hound of heaven

The Spirit convicts the sinner and invites him or her to salvation, but the Spirit also permits hard-heartedness to be a legitimate human response. In fact, generally the Holy Spirit gives stronger and weaker evidence of the presence and blessing of God according to our response to him. In doing all of these acts, the Holy Spirit gives evidence of God’s presence and calls for all glory of a saved sinner to be credited to God.— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 206

Spirit-assisted

[Wesley] believes that natural man is free only to do evil, while Spirit-assisted man is able to repent of sin, and this has been true since the Fall. God’s enabling us to believe is not meritorious in itself, nor is it inevitably saving. Wesley affirms our absolute dependence on God’s grace for repentance, even though it comes through the divine empowering to have faith: “We must be cut off from dependence upon ourselves, before we can truly depend upon Christ...till we are delivered from trusting in anything that we do, we cannot thoroughly trust in what he had done and suffered.” [Wesley, “The Lord Our Righteousness”]— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 153

Not universalism

By the death of Christ, which Christ passionately advocated as universal in its efficacy, all men were potentially saved. This is not universalism, teaching that all men, ultimately, will be saved, but it is an interpretation of the work of Christ that makes salvation possible for all.—Herbert McDonigle as quoted in Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 144

It's all grace

James Arminius insists that every person must have the grace of God to be able to repent. The Holy Spirit provides this grace; it does not naturally survive the Fall. “This sufficiency [of grace] must be ascribed to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, by which he assists the preaching of the gospel as the organ, or instrument, by which He, the Holy Spirit, is accustomed to be efficacious in the hearts of the hearers.” [Arminius, Public Disputations] It is grace bestowed on all people, not just the elect (as in Calvin’s system): “This aid is afforded to all men, by innumerable methods both secret and manifest.” [Arminius, “The Apology or Defense”] Thus, God’s gracious blessing pours out through Christ to all humankind, and so makes salvation contingent only on a person’s willingness to accept it.— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 118

<idle musing>
I wish some Calvinists would understand that for Arminians, it is all grace, all the way. The difference is apportioned grace versus free grace. Arminians believe in Free Grace—free for all, unmeasurable, overflowing, supernatural grace.
</idle musing>

New doctrine

“This doctrine [predestination] was never admitted, decreed, or approved in any Council, either general or particular, for the first six hundred years after Christ.” [Arminius, “Declarations of Sentiments”] He believed the hermeneutics of the early church fathers did not support this claim [of monergism]. The early fathers did not embrace strict monergism as shown by the fact that they allowed for man’s responsibility.— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 110

Take that, you Augustinians!

Take away free choice and there is nothing to be saved. Take away grace and there is no means of saving. Without the two combined, this work cannot be done: the one as operative principle, the other as object toword which, or in which, it is accomplished. God is the author of salvation, the free willing faculty merely capable of receiving it. None but God can give it, nothing but free choice receive it.—Bernard of Clairvaux as cited in Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, pages 76–77

Prevenient grace endorsed

In fact, Arminian theology can find consensus with [the Synod of] Orange [529 AD] as its decisions affirmed both human inability and divine enabling. Moreover, Orange rejected a strict Augustinian interpretation that simply affirms prevenient grace: “The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him.” [Conclusion of The Canons of the Synod of Orange (529 AD)] The council did not insist on divine predestination as the solution to human inability; instead it endorsed a Semi-Augustinian version of grace that can be understood as a doctrine of prevenient grace, in which the Spirit initiates an individual’s faith potential, and that person must then seek out God, who prompted the process of salvation.mdash; Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, pages 73–74

<idle musing>
Truth be known, strict Augustinianism was actually named anathema at one of these synods—Take that Synod of Dort!
</idle musing>

All does mean ALL

The biblical evidence that Christ’s work is for all people, that the Lord wants all to repent, and that every person can be saved intertwine with the divine enabling passages to show the traditional Arminian position of Jesus’ salvation: Jesus died for all and all can be saved.— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 57

Not universalism...not particularism

The principle of universal opportunity is far from universalism, as God still allows His gracious work to be rejected by nonbelievers, His call described in these passages does not ensure a positive response. Grace does not necessitate repentance, either in a universalist direction (excessively broad) or in an irresistible grace direction (excessively narrow). Instead, God grants an unregenerate individual the spiritual capacity to respond, as 2 Corinthians 3:5 states, “Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but out adequacy is from God.”— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 54

God started it

Arminians affirm that it was necessary for God to initiate salvation because man was spiritually depraved by his Adamic inheritance.— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 40

It is assumed, prevenient grace, that is

The active force of the verb “suppress” (katechontōn) captures the intentional, counterworking effort of rebellios humankind to the effort of God or his revelation to show them his attributes. If the truth is actively suppressed, does that not suggest that the normal function of this truth is to persuade men—almost naturally? If they naturally and sinfully reject the truth, then is it not something like prevenient grace against which they fight? Human potential to accept the truth is presumed, as if that potential had been primevally established because God allowed humankind to see him through their ponderings about creation.— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 36

<idle musing>
Sort of like the people who claim there is not an overarching metanarrative to life, and yet that there is no metanarrative is a metanarrative. Or the people who claim the law of noncontradiction isn't true, but have a bird when you point out that their stand depends on only one or the other being true—which means that the law of noncontradiction is true...
</idle musing>

Romans 1—noch einmal

Yet in Romans 1, Paul condemns those who fail to honor God and says they are without excuse for it. This does not seem congruent; it requires us to believe that these people are too depraved to repent before God, but not too depraved to be able to recognize his goodness. Some gracious revelation is at work here that elicits human response. Without going so far as to assume that they could be saved through natural revelation..., it is clear that they had some ability to recognize God.— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 34

<idle musing>
Brand new book—well new to me anyway—that I recently read. I tell you, trying to get this book via interlibrary loan wasn't easy, either. It isn't in any libraries in Minnesota; my copy ended up coming from my alma mater, Asbury College—oops, University. I wish Francis Asbury Press would have a better distribution network...

Anyway, this is an excellent book that everyone interested in the concept of Prevenient Grace should read. Of course, you can just enjoy the excerpts that I supply you. Hopefully that will entice you to read the whole thing—and recommend it to your local librarian!
</idle musing>