Answering Calvinist Proof-Texts, Part 1 - John 6

When I was a Calvinist, the lens through which I interpreted the whole of the Bible was Romans 9.  When I talked to my Calvinist friends, however, they all agreed that John 6 was the text they felt was the conclusive proof for Calvinism.

The verses in question are especially 37 and 44.  Here are the relevant paragraphs for context (John 6:35-51, NIVUK):

35 Then Jesus declared, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.’

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’ 42 They said, ‘Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, “I came down from heaven”?’

43 ‘Stop grumbling among yourselves,’ Jesus answered. 44 ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: “They will all be taught by God.” Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live for ever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

On verse 44, I’ve mentioned before that my view of the drawing/enabling is that it is best understood as prevenient grace (Link).   Notice especially that the "drawing" in this verse parallels the "giving" in verse verse 37 (as Dr Allen shows below), and compare verses 37 & 44-45 with the situation Jesus describes in the chapter before (at 5:37-47).

In understanding verse 37, for me the two keys were:
(1) Looking at the larger context in John to see who it is that the Father gives to the Son -- is the Lord Jesus intending to convey an abstract choice by the Father of some individuals and not others? Especially considering John 1:11-13, 3:14-18, 4:23, 34-38, and 5:16-47 I think the answer is “no”-- and
(2) Getting a better understanding the language/grammar used, which is not as clear in our English translations as in the Greek. On this point, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (available on BibleHub.com) says (Link):

It is not easy to improve the English rendering of this verse, and there is a sacredness in the sound of the old, old words; but still, they convey to few readers the full meaning of the original. The word “come” is made to serve, within two or three lines, for three different Greek words. Literally, we should read, All that the Father giveth Me shall arrive at Me, and him that is on the way I will in no wise cast out: for I am come down. . . .

Similarly, the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (also on BibleHub.com, Link) says, “... it would be more literal to translate all that the Father giveth Me, to Me shall come, and him that approacheth Me I will in no wise cast out; for I have descended...”

Two outlines of the passage:

Below are two outlines of the passage which helped me to understand and answer the questions/keys I posed above. One is from Dr David Allen's blog, and the other from Craig Adams of Commonplace Holiness.

    Dr David Allen

First, an exegesis was included in Dr David Allen’s review of Matthew Harmon’s chapter of From Heaven He Came and Sought Her.  Dr Allen writes (PDF: Link):

John 6

From John 6:37-40, 44, Harmon correctly points out that Jesus came to do the will of the Father. From verse 37, he notes the Father gives a specific group of people to the Son, and from verse 44 he notes no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him. Harmon concludes:

“Thus it is the Father’s election of a specific group of people that defines who comes to the Son…” (270).

Several points call for explication.

First, Harmon is interpreting “all the Father gives me” as referencing election. This assumes two things: 1) the Reformed interpretation of election is correct, and 2) that this passage is referencing it. For the sake of argument, let’s grant the first assumption for the moment.

Even so, nothing in the passage speaks to “election.” John 6 must be read in the light of the preceding context of chapters 1-5 as well as in its immediate context.

In John 1:6-9, John makes clear that God’s intention in sending John the Baptist was that all might believe in Christ. Jesus, not John, is the “Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.” Again in John 1:29, Christ comes that he might be the savior of the world. In John 3:16, God’s love for the world is the motivation for his sending Jesus so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life. John is establishing a universal desire on God’s part for the salvation of the world and a universal remedy for such through Christ’s death on the cross.

Second, when did this “giving” take place? Not in eternity past, for the use of the present tense verb indicates contemporary action: the Father was in the very process of giving to the Son those who were believing on Him.

Third, in what sense did God “give” people to his Son? Frequently in Scripture one finds the terms “gift” and “given” are idiomatically employed to denote God’s favor expressing His redemptive work for mankind. See Psalm 2:8 and Acts 4:25-26 as examples. Here the Gentile nations are said to be “given” to Christ as an inheritance. Yet this language clearly does not indicate that all the nations or all people in those nations are somehow “elected” to salvation in eternity.  

John makes a connection between the “giving” and the “coming” in v. 37.  Notice how verses 44-45 use different imagery but express the same meaning. “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.”

Notice God’s “drawing” is parallel to His “giving” in v. 37. How is the drawing accomplished according to vv. 44-45?  By means of hearing, learning, and coming to the Lord. This is John’s notion of what it means for some to be “given” to Christ. The refusal of unbelievers to come to Christ was due to their refusal to listen to the Father, as the context of John 5:37-38 and John 6 makes clear.  

The reason many of the Jews did not come to Christ is not that they were not “given” to him by the Father, but is found in their own stubborn hearts. John 5:40 says they were not willing to come to Christ, not that they could not come to Christ because they had not been “given” to him by the Father. Notice how John 5:43-47 speaks often of “belief.”

Election is simply not in the picture in this passage.

The “coming” of John 6:37 is synonymous with “believing” as v. 35 indicates.

What does “all that the Father gives Me” refer to in vv. 37 and 39? In v. 39 the phrase is equivalent to “everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him” in v. 40. The phrase in v. 39 is equivalent to the phrase in v. 37. John is oscillating between believers viewed as a group and believers viewed as individuals, as the Greek text demonstrates.

Thus, the limited group of those given by the Father to the Son are those who have believed. It is incorrect to interpret the passage as teaching that certain persons are eternally elected to become believers.

What did Jesus mean when he said “will come to me” in v. 37a? Some Calvinist interpreters link the word “come” in verses 35, 37b, and 44 with “will come” in verse 37a. But this fails to recognize the two different Greek words used. Hēkō is the Greek word translated “will come” in v. 37a, while erchomai is the word used in vv. 35 and 37b. Jesus appears to be thinking about all believers considered as a group in v. 37a.

What is intended by the phrase “will come to me”? Verse 39 answers the question. All believers are given by the Father to Christ and they will reach final salvation in the eschaton via the resurrection in the last days. Thus, it is final salvation that is in view, not pre-temporal election.  

There is a difference in saying John 6:44 indicates specific efficacious grace given only to the elect and in viewing it as meaning no one can come to believe in Christ unless the Father draws  him via enabling grace.

It is significant to note that Jesus has declared numerous times, before he speaks of the “drawing” of the Father, that only believers possess eternal life (6:27-29, 40). What John affirms in chapter 6 is that God initiates and consummates the salvation process. Grace precedes human response.

There is nothing in this passage that affirms definite atonement.

The full post in PDF format, which also discusses John 10, John 17 and Revelation 4-5 can be found here.

    Craig Adams 

Another very helpful explanation is from Craig Adams in his answer to a question which came to his website (Link, emphasis in original):

An email and my response:

Hello Mr. Adams,
I read with interest your comments on Calvin's comments on John 3:16 on your web site. I was wondering what your thoughts are on Jesus' words as recorded in John 6:44:

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (NKJV)

(It is unfortunate that English editions tend to translate the Greek as "draws" rather than the more accurate "compels" — especially since it is also translated more accurately as "dragged" elsewhere.)

Have you considered that perhaps Calvin's "on the other hand" was intended to recognize what the whole of scripture says about this issue?

He just may have been appealing to theology that is rooted in scripture itself.

In the first place, I would like to point out that my correspondent is attempting to play one Scripture off another. So, we are playing dueling Scripture passages here. Since the meaning of John 6:44 seems closely tied to its context, using it to fend off the idea of God’s universal love in John 3:16 (which seems to me to have a more general meaning) is a bad idea.

The context here has to do with the relationship of the Father and the Son. Jesus is claiming that the Jews are rejecting him because (in actuality) they have rejected the Father. So, the context of this passage is not a discussion of whether God has chosen to send the mass of humanity to an eternal Hell, while choosing to arbitrarily save (by compulsion: “dragged”) a few. The context concerns why these particular Jews have not been drawn to Jesus as Messiah and Son, while others have.

And, Jesus asserts here that it is because they have first rejected the Father and the testimony of the Scriptures. Jesus denounces their claim to knowledge of the Father. He asserts that their resistance to the Father & the message of the Scriptures is the reason they have not subsequently been drawn to the Son. The point is made repeatedly. “And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his form…” (John 5:37). “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf.” (John 5:39). “How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?” (John 5:44). “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?” (John 5:46, 47). And, earlier in chapter 5 it is stated the other way around: “Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” (John 5:23).

Thus the point is that the Jews who are rejecting him are doing so because they have first rejected the Father. But, Jesus asserts that those who acknowledged the Father were “drawn along” into acknowledging the Son.

My correspondent is right in saying that ἑλκύω can mean “dragged.” It is a stronger word than is evident in our translations. In John 21:6 & 11 it is used of the drawing of fish in a net, in John 18:10 of the drawing of a sword, in Acts 16:19 & 21:30 of forcibly dragging the apostles through the streets, and in James 2:6 of being dragged into court. But, the context tells us what Jesus means. Those who acknowledge the Father and the testimony of the Scriptures are compelled to also acknowledge the Son.

However, the same word (ἑλκύω) is also used in John 12:34 where Jesus says : “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (NRSV) If ἑλκύω always means “forcibly dragged” then this passage would have to mean that all people (πάντας) are saved! Yet, in Matthew 23:37 (parallel in Luke 13:34) Jesus says: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” Thus, it appears, that Christ desires to draw to Himself people who are nonetheless unwilling to come! And, they do not.

It is not that God chooses to arbitrarily save a few by divine compulsion. Though the Cross of Christ, He draws all. But, all do not come.

And, here, I think is where we get to the crux of the matter. The Bible continually assumes human moral responsibility. These Jews were responsible for their rejection of the Father and their rejection of the testimony of the Scriptures. It is everywhere assumed that a choice can be made, and that people can be held responsible for their choices. The early Methodists objected to Calvinism on practical grounds, and not simply on theoretical grounds. Fletcher opposed what he called “Solafideism” because it was antinomian (“against the Law of God”): it undermined human moral responsibility through an appeal to God’s unconditional election to salvation. Clearly, if you are saved, and you can’t be un-saved, and it is solely God’s choice — then it doesn’t matter what you do. Nothing is riding on it. While classical Calvinists never drew this conclusion, some people were willing to follow the logic of Calvinism to this inevitable conclusion. And, this is one of the things Arminians and Wesleyans and Methodists have always found objectionable: allowing an appeal to grace to undermine our responsibility to respond to God.

A call to repentance, for example assumes the ability to respond. And, so forth. In many, many ways the Bible continually assumes both the capacity to respond and the responsibility to respond.

And, to my correspondent’s question “Have you considered that perhaps Calvin’s ‘on the other hand’ was intended to recognize what the whole of scripture says about this issue?” I have to give a terse: “No.”

And, a too-quick harmonization of one Scripture with principles I think I have derived from another is always dangerous.

What do we mean by a “theology that is rooted in scripture itself”?

I think Calvin came to his theological views, to a large extent, by way of Augustine. Certainly Augustine also appealed to Scripture for support of his views (though he was no Bible scholar), but his views were also shaped by the controversies of his day and the personal issues they raised for him.

None of us comes to the Scriptures in a vacuum. The notion that one simply shakes out all of the Bible’s teachings on the floor and arranges them systematically like a jigsaw puzzle is a mistake. All of us have been influenced by preachers and Bible teachers. And, I wouldn’t say that is a bad thing — far from it. It’s a good thing.

Not everything Augustine or Calvin said is wrong. I agree with much of what they said. They both can be read (critically) to great benefit. But, I also believe some legitimate objections can and should be raised against much of what they said.

Look folks: not everything Wesley or Fletcher or Clarke or their followers said is right, either.

Nevertheless, if we read critically we can benefit from the insights of all.

The original post is here.

Related Posts:

• An Introduction to Prevenient Grace
• The Complete List of Dr David Allen's Chapter-by-Chapter Review of "From Heaven He Came and Sought Her"

An Introduction to Prevenient Grace

Understanding the doctrine of prevenient grace was one of the most valuable studies for me after leaving Calvinism.  It provided an answer to one of the simplest arguments I used to make for Calvinism: I would point to Romans 3 and ask “If ‘no one understands, no one seeks for God?’ then how is anyone saved?”  My Calvinistic answer, of course, was irresistible grace given to the elect only.  Otherwise, I reasoned, either no one would believe, or everyone would believe.

The doctrine of prevenient grace allows us to escape these conclusions [1].  It fully affirms that man is dead in sin and unable to respond to the Gospel apart from the Holy Spirit’s conviction (John 16:8) and the Father’s drawing and enabling (John 6:44, 65, 12:32, cf Romans 10:20).  However it also makes better sense of passages like Luke 7:30 (“the Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves”), Luke 18:24-25 (“How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God”) and Acts 7:51 (“You are always resisting the Holy Spirit”).

So what is prevenient grace?  

Robert E. Picirilli suggests that it is better called “enabling grace” or “pre-regenerating grace”, and explains:

Pre-regenerating grace simply means that the Spirit of God overcomes that inability by a direct work on the heart, a work that is adequate to enable the unregenerate person to understand the truth of the gospel, to desire God, and to exercise saving faith.

[...]

Scripturally, this concept is intended to express the truth found in passages like John 6:44: “No man can come to me, except the father which hath sent me draw him.”  In this light, pre-regenerating grace may be called drawing. Or Acts 16:14: “Lydia...whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul”: pre-regenerating grace may therefore be called opening the heart.  Or John 16:8: “When [the Spirit] is come, he will reprove [or, convict] the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” In this sense, pre-regenerating grace may be called conviction--which is simply another form of the word “convincement.”[2]

Robert L Hamilton explains (Link):

Arminians argue that not all who are drawn/enabled by the Father to exercise faith and repentance do in fact ultimately choose to do so (i.e., prevenient grace is resistible), though it is equally true that without such drawing/enabling no person would of himself have the desire or ability to come to Christ in faith. Arminians are able to adopt this position precisely because the drawing and enabling of the Father are presented in the Gospel of John as necessary, not sufficient, conditions for coming to faith in Christ.

(This distinction between necessary and sufficient is an important one which I missed as a Calvinist.)

And in his excellent book The Pursuit of God, A W Tozer describes prevenient grace this way (Free ebook: Link):

Christian theology teaches the doctrine of prevenient grace, which briefly stated means this, that before a man can seek God, God must first have sought the man.

Before a sinful man can think a right thought of God, there must have been a work of enlightenment done within him; imperfect it may be, but a true work nonetheless, and the secret cause of all desiring and seeking and praying which may follow.

We pursue God because, and only because, He has first put an urge within us that spurs us to the pursuit. “No man can come to me,” said our Lord, “except the Father which hath sent me draw him,” and it is by this very prevenient drawing that God takes from us every vestige of credit for the act of coming. The impulse to pursue God originates with God, but the outworking of that impulse is our following hard after Him; and all the time we are pursuing Him we are already in His hand: “Thy right hand upholdeth me.”

In this divine “upholding” and human “following” there is no contradiction. All is of God, for as von Hegel teaches, God is always previous. In practice, however, (that is, where God’s previous working meets man’s present response) man must pursue God. On our part there must be positive reciprocation if this secret drawing of God is to eventuate in identifiable experience of the Divine. In the warm language of personal feeling this is stated in the Forty-second Psalm: “As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?” This is deep calling unto deep, and the longing heart will understand it.[3]

When does prevenient grace happen?

On this question there is a spectrum of belief among Arminians.  The Classical/Reformed Arminian view, common especially among baptists[4], holds that it is "tied to the gospel message and its proclamation" (Roger Olson, Link).  Robert E Picirilli represents this view when he writes:

It requires the hearing of the gospel. [...T]he Word is the instrument, the means used by the Spirit as a basis for the conviction, the persuasion, the enabling.  This observation accords with the concept of the power of the Word of God spoken of everywhere in the Scriptures, as in Hebrews 4:12 for example.  Arminius’ view on this is clear when, speaking of the persuasion involved in this pre-regenerating grace, he says, "This is effected by the word of God. But persuasion is effected, externally by the preaching of the word, internally by the operation, or rather the co-operation, of the Holy Spirit, tending to this result, that the word may be understood and apprehended by true faith".[5]

On the other side are Wesleyan Arminians who often see prevenient grace more broadly than the Classical position.  Robert E Coleman, for example, explains:

Differing from Calvinism, those of the Arminian persuasion hold that grace extends to everyone the ability to believe. Just as no support is found to limit the atonement of Christ, so there is no reason to limit saving grace. As Wesley put it, “There is no man, unless he has quenched the Spirit, that is devoid of the grace of God.... it is more properly called preventing grace.”

The term prevenient comes from two Latin words that mean “to come before.” Used theologically, it refers to the operation of God’s grace in the heart before one comes to Christ. This preparatory grace is comprehensive, including any movement of man toward God, and involves illuminating divide truth, conviction of sin, call to repentance, and the exercise of saving faith. Yielded to, these gracious impulses increase; when stifled, they tend to diminish. All these promptings of the Spirit imply some awakening of spiritual life, some beginning of deliverance from a heart of stone. [6]

This spectrum is important to note because many in New Calvinist circles have the impression that the view furthest from their own, that of “universal enablement”, is the only understanding of prevenient grace and conclude that the Arminian view amounts to “hypothetical depravity”[7].  As you can see, this is not the view of all Arminians, nor even of Arminius himself.  This misunderstanding makes it much easier for Calvinists to dismiss prevenient grace without serious consideration, rather than realizing it is "within a hair's breadth" of Calvinism (but with very important implications, particularly to the way we treat warnings like Hebrews 3:5 when we share the Gospel with unbelievers).

Why doesn’t everyone who hears the gospel respond with faith?

While this is a difficult question and does involve mystery, here are some of the texts that I have come across which seem to provide some answers:

Jesus makes it clear in Luke 14:26-33 that some will find the terms of discipleship too costly, and therefore reject the invitation (notice that this account follows the parable of the wedding banquet, which in turn follows Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem at the end of chapter 13).

Similarly in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13) we see that sometimes those who hear/receive the word do not ultimately believe or persevere because “when tribulation or persecution arises... he falls away” or “the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful” (yet, how can anyone receive the word with joy [v20] unless the Lord has done a work in his or her heart?).  Contrast these with the parable of the hidden treasure a few verses later where “in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field” (v 44), or the parable of the pearl where he “went and sold all that he had and bought it” (v 45).

Even John 6:44 comes after the Lord’s statement, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” (John 5:44).

We also have Jesus’ statement after His interaction with the rich young ruler,  “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:24-25, cf Matt 19, Mark 10).  Steve Lemke writes:

Of course, if Jesus were a Calvinist, He never would have suggested that it was harder for rich persons to be saved by God’s irresistible grace than poor persons. Their wills would be changed immediately and invincibly upon hearing God’s effectual call.  It would be no harder for a rich person to be saved by God’s monergistic and irresistible calling than it would be for any other sinner.  But the real Jesus was suggesting that their salvation was tied in some measure to their response and commitment to His calling. (Link, p 121).

And finally:

The book of Hebrews repeatedly warns people who have heard the gospel not to harden their hearts. "Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts" (Hebrews 3:7, 15; 4:7). When a person who has been convicted by the Spirit of God hears the gospel, he may choose to resist (Acts 7:51). He thereby insults the Spirit of grace in rejecting Christ (Hebrews 10:29).

(Richard Trader, Link)

More resources on prevenient grace:

     YouTube:

• Seven Minute Seminary: Chuck Gutenson, What Is Prevenient Grace?

 

Introductions/Blog posts:

• Brian Abasciano, Freed to Believe by God’s Grace in The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical Doctrines of Grace
• Roger Olson, Prevenient Grace: Why it Matters
• Kevin Jackson, Prevenient Grace Explained  -- this one includes a good list of supporting verses.
• Arminian Today, How Prevenient Grace Helps Me Sleep
• Jesse Owens, Arminius and the Doctrine of Prevenient Grace

• Ben Witherington, The Reformed View of Regeneration vs. the Wesleyan Theology of Prevenient Grace
  
  

   Books:

• W Brian Shelton, Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity -- a review by Roger Olson is available here.  You can also read the author’s “journey into exploring the biblical foundation for prevenient grace” here.

Endnotes:

I have generally not added an endnote where there are in-text links.

[1] See Seven Minute Seminary (YouTube), What Is Prevenient Grace? above.  In his article Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense? even Tom Schreiner acknowledges, “Prevenient grace is attractive because it solves so many problems...”, but concludes with Millard Erickson that "there is no clear and adequate basis in Scripture for this concept of universal enablement” (underline mine). Note that he is dealing only with "Wesley’s later theology of prevenient grace" (see note 7).

[2] Robert Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, page 154-55 [Picirilli].

[3] A W Tozer, The Pursuit of God, Chapter 1.

[4] Picirilli is himself a Free Will Baptist.  Although not uncontroversial, this also seems to be the view of those in the Southern Baptist Convention who subscribe to the Traditional Statement.  For example, in his article, Is the Traditional Statement Semi-Pelagian? (JBTM, Link), Adam Harwood writes:

It is true that the TS does not use this Arminian phrase “prevenience of supernatural grace.” But any concern that Article 2 neglects an emphasis on God’s grace should be assuaged by the following declarations in the Statement:

“...no sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.” - Article 2, sentence 4 [...]

[5] Picirilli supra note 2, page 158.

[6] Robert E Coleman, The Heart of the Gospel, p 145.  Dr Coleman continues (pages 145-46):

Paul reminds us: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” But he added, “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his great pleasure” (Phil. 2:12-13). Too easily we miss the point that it is God who enables us to work out our salvation.

Our responsibility is to respond to the workings of grace in our heart. Some speak of it as cooperation between man and the Spirit. Though God always works for the welfare of the world, and “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim, 2:4), he respects the freedom given to every person to choose his or her own destiny.

Prevenient grace prepares one to believe the Gospel, but it cannot make the decision for us.  Contrary to Reformed teaching, grace sufficient to believe on the Lord for salvation is not irresistible. Though salvation has been procured for mankind through the blood of Christ, that does not assure human concurrence with God’s will.

The ministry of the Spirit lifting up the claims of Christ can be ignored.  Grace can be resisted.  Paul appealed to the Corinthians “not to receive the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1).  He did not want, he said, to “nullify the grace of God” (Gal. 2:21).

[...]

Persons who do not come to Christ are those who do not utilize their privilege of grace. They have prevenient grace sufficient to believe the Gospel but do not take advantage of that opportunity  Those who do respond to the Gospel call, of course, recognize that God has done it all.  The fact that they receive the invitation is no indication of special merit, for even the acceptance by faith in the finished work of Christ is of grace (Eph. 2:8).

Earlier he also states (page 32):

The words of scripture must be correctly interpreted, of course. So God gives illumination to understand his revelation.  The Spirit who inspired the writings continues to “guide... into all the truth” (John 16:13; cf. Neh. 9:20; Isa. 30:21; Luke 12:12; John 16:14, 26; 1 Cor. 2:13; 1 John 2:27). He so quickens the spiritual and mental powers of man that we can comprehend sacred truth. As such, this is an expression of God’s prevenient grace.

[7] For my friends and I (when I was a Calvinist), this understanding of prevenient grace came from Tom Schreiner’s article Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?  Dr Schreiner states in footnote 21(!) that, “For the purposes of this chapter only Wesley's later theology of prevenient grace is in view” and points to resources which show “three different understandings of prevenient grace in the Wesleyan tradition” and “two strands of prevenient grace among Wesleyans”, but this is practically hidden from the text of his article where he states only, “In Wesleyan theology there are various conceptions of prevenient grace that we do not need to specify here since, as we shall see, there is common ground within the various positions on the issue that concerns us.”  I wish he was clearer to distinguish between the spectrum of Arminian views, as this would have helped to prevent much of the misunderstanding which is so common. (Thomas R Schreiner, Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense? in Still Sovereign, edited by Thomas R Schreiner and Bruce A Ware)

Related Posts:

• A Concise Description of Prevenient Grace from a Surprising Source (spoiler: it’s John MacArthur);
• Prevenient Grace in the Hebrews Warning Passages;
• Does a Wesleyan view of grace lead to a more missional worldview?;
• Great Quotes: Does a Classical Arminian view of Grace (also) lead to a more missional worldview?.