God’s prevenient grace analogous to the Serpent’s temptation?

[brett]

My view of prevenient grace might be slightly shifting. I’ve been kicking this analogy around for a while and would like some input, particularly from arminians.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam was under the dominion of God. Then the Serpent tempted him, influencing him to disobey God and fall. Could this serve as sort of a negative analogy for prevenient grace—God’s drawing of fallen men?

Here are some parallels I see:

1) Fallen men are under the dominion of Satan (or sin).
Pre-fallen Adam was under the dominion of God (or righteousness).

2) Fallen men are unable to trust God for salvation apart from God’s enabling grace.
Pre-fallen Adam was unable to disobey God apart from Satan’s temptation.

3) God’s prevenient grace enables fallen men to have faith.
Satan’s temptation enabled Adam to disobey.

4) Apart from God’s grace, fallen men will never believe.
Apart from Satan’s temptation, Adam would never have disobeyed.

5) God’s prevenient grace is influential but not efficacious.
Satan’s temptation was influential, but not efficacious.

6) Fallen men have the power to resist God’s grace.
Pre-fallen Adam had the power to resist Satan’s temptation.


Conclusion: If parallels 1 through 6 are true, Satan’s temptation was to pre-fallen Adam as God’s prevenient grace is to fallen men.

I’m sensing there may be problems with the above , but don’t see them yet.

1) Is the above compatible with the traditional arminian view of prevenient grace?
2) Are there any problems with parallels 1 through 6?
3) Are there any problems with my conclusion?

[GoBahnsen]

My view of prevenient grace might be slightly shifting. I’ve been kicking this analogy around for a while and would like some input, particularly from arminians.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam was under the dominion of God. Then the Serpent tempted him, influencing him to disobey God and fall. Could this serve as sort of a negative analogy for prevenient grace—God’s drawing of fallen men?

Here are some parallels I see:

1) Fallen men are under the dominion of Satan (or sin).
Pre-fallen Adam was under the dominion of God (or righteousness).

2) Fallen men are unable to trust God for salvation apart from God’s enabling grace.
Pre-fallen Adam was unable to disobey God apart from Satan’s temptation.

3) God’s prevenient grace enables fallen men to have faith.
Satan’s temptation enabled Adam to disobey.

4) Apart from God’s grace, fallen men will never believe.
Apart from Satan’s temptation, Adam would never have disobeyed.

5) God’s prevenient grace is influential but not efficacious.
Satan’s temptation was influential, but not efficacious.

6) Fallen men have the power to resist God’s grace.
Pre-fallen Adam had the power to resist Satan’s temptation.


Conclusion: If parallels 1 through 6 are true, Satan’s temptation was to pre-fallen Adam as God’s prevenient grace is to fallen men.

I’m sensing there may be problems with the above , but don’t see them yet.

1) Is the above compatible with the traditional arminian view of prevenient grace?
2) Are there any problems with parallels 1 through 6?
3) Are there any problems with my conclusion?

I'm a Calvinist, so I'll stay out of it.

[brett]

I'm a Calvinist, so I'll stay out of it.

You need not stay out if you have something to say. Obviously you won't afirm any of the PG/fallen men statments, but different calvinists will disagree on the Adam/temptation statements.

[rhutchin]

My view of prevenient grace might be slightly shifting. I’ve been kicking this analogy around for a while and would like some input, particularly from arminians.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam was under the dominion of God. Then the Serpent tempted him, influencing him to disobey God and fall. Could this serve as sort of a negative analogy for prevenient grace—God’s drawing of fallen men?

Here are some parallels I see:

1) Fallen men are under the dominion of Satan (or sin).
Pre-fallen Adam was under the dominion of God (or righteousness).

2) Fallen men are unable to trust God for salvation apart from God’s enabling grace.
Pre-fallen Adam was unable to disobey God apart from Satan’s temptation.

3) God’s prevenient grace enables fallen men to have faith.
Satan’s temptation enabled Adam to disobey.

4) Apart from God’s grace, fallen men will never believe.
Apart from Satan’s temptation, Adam would never have disobeyed.

5) God’s prevenient grace is influential but not efficacious.
Satan’s temptation was influential, but not efficacious.

6) Fallen men have the power to resist God’s grace.
Pre-fallen Adam had the power to resist Satan’s temptation.


Conclusion: If parallels 1 through 6 are true, Satan’s temptation was to pre-fallen Adam as God’s prevenient grace is to fallen men.

I’m sensing there may be problems with the above , but don’t see them yet.

1) Is the above compatible with the traditional arminian view of prevenient grace?
2) Are there any problems with parallels 1 through 6?
3) Are there any problems with my conclusion?

I think your parallels are accurate as far as the Arminian view goes. However, Prevenient Grace was constructed by Wesley (who, I understand, was a preacher and not a theologian by any means) in the form of sermons that he gave. He developed the concept as a result of what he wanted to achieve.

The problem for the Arminian in defending prevenient grace is that the Arminian subscribes to Total Depravity and to God's foreknowledge that is exhaustive relative to future events.

Let's take God's foreknowledge. The Arminian, in the light of Romans 8, says that God was able to look into the future, see those who would choose to accept accept Christ, and then determined to save these (the elect) and none others. This requires that God extend prevenient grace to the elect or else they will not be saved. However, there is no need for God to extend prevenient grace to the non-elect since it will not change the outcome that God has foreseen. Since there is no need for God to extend prevenient grace to the non-elect, there is no reason to think that He does.

When we look at the elect, we notice that there is no unique and substantive influence on their decision to accept Christ other than pevenient grace. Consequently, we can conclude that it was prevenient grace that enabled the elect to accept Christ and that it was efficient for this purpose. So far, the Arminian conclusion is a Calvinist conclusion. (I think that is a reason why the OVT crowd wants to remove God's foreknowledge of future events or at least of people's salvation decisions).

But, let's assume that god extends prevenient grace to both elect and non-elect. Since both groups started out as Totally Depraved and both rejected God in that condition, then prevenient grace must either--

1. Give all people the same and equal opportunity to accept Christ so that all should accept Christ or all reject Christ, or

2. Preserve some unique diference between the elect and non-elect such that prevenient grace leads to salvation in the elect but not in the non-elect. This reduces to Calvinism.

The Arminian has a problem as I see it. Technically, the Arminian is trying to devise a system that excludes the determinism of Calvinism, but it seems to be as deterministic as Calvinism (except for the part that God foresees who will accept Christ rather than choosing those people directly).