Prevenient grace

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

I wonder what an Orthodox understanding of the Methodist concept of 'prevenient grace' would be? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_Grace

In Christ
Byron

[Herman Blaydoe]

This seems like a counter to the Augustinian idea of created grace. In that Orthodoxy has never bought into the idea of created grace, the idea of "prevenient grace" seems rather redundant. Like "infallibility" and "validity", it is simply unnecessary. It has no meaning in an Orthodox context.

[Mourad Mankarios]

"Prevenient grace" is much older than Methodism and is actually rooted within the theology of St Augustine which he developed against the mistaken interpretation of St John Cassian as Semi-Nestorian. As such the doctrine is a clear component of Catholic theology and I can't at all see how it would be contrary to Orthodox theology which emphasises the synergy between God's grace and man's free will. Perhaps those who would deny such a concept would be limited to the Calvinists who also deny the universality of Christ's provision of salvation.

Here is a link that might also be of some help:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_reformed.aspx

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Herman and Mourad,

Thanks for responding, and thank you Mourad for the link. If I understand it correctly, the Orthodox teaching is that, rather than prevenient grace, there is a synergy or co-operation between Divine Grace and human free will. On the website you linked to, Mourad, it says
the Orthodox doctrine of synergy does not at all deny "prevenient grace," but only teaches its cooperation with free will I am wondering also to what extent such verses as "The Spirit of Truth Who is everywhere and fillest all things", and also "Christ, the true light Who enlightens and sanctifies all men who come into the world", are referring to a grace that is -as it were - stored up and lying dormant in all people, even in material things; this, for want of a different term, 'prevenient' grace might then be activated when man in synergy makes himself cooperate with God. Would this be a right, Orthodox way of thinking about ourselves and the world?

Bishop Kallistos says in his text "How are we saved?" that although without Christ we can do nothing (Jn 15:5), without our free will God will do nothing, i.e. our voluntary consent and action is a necessary component of synergy. But Bishop Kallistos also points out that
"to those nurtured in the Augustinian tradition, such an approach to the problematic of grace and free will cannot but appear at best superficial and at worst perilously misleading...the inter-relationship between divine grace and human freedom remains always a mystery beyond our comprehension"(p.36)

Indeed, I am puzzled: when a person acts freely and in accordance with the will of God, is it his own initiative, or did God give him the power to act? If I understand what Bp Kallistos is saying, he is saying "we don't know and it doesn't matter". Is this right?

In Christ
Byron

[Mourad Mankarios]

Dear Herman and Mourad,

Thanks for responding, and thank you Mourad for the link. If I understand it correctly, the Orthodox teaching is that, rather than prevenient grace, there is a synergy or co-operation between Divine Grace and human free will. On the website you linked to, Mourad, it says I am wondering also to what extent such verses as "The Spirit of Truth Who is everywhere and fillest all things", and also "Christ, the true light Who enlightens and sanctifies all men who come into the world", are referring to a grace that is -as it were - stored up and lying dormant in all people, even in material things; this, for want of a different term, 'prevenient' grace might then be activated when man in synergy makes himself cooperate with God. Would this be a right, Orthodox way of thinking about ourselves and the world?

Bishop Kallistos says in his text "How are we saved?" that although without Christ we can do nothing (Jn 15:5), without our free will God will do nothing, i.e. our voluntary consent and action is a necessary component of synergy. But Bishop Kallistos also points out that

Indeed, I am puzzled: when a person acts freely and in accordance with the will of God, is it his own initiative, or did God give him the power to act? If I understand what Bp Kallistos is saying, he is saying "we don't know and it doesn't matter". Is this right?

In Christ
Byron

Byron, here is another quote from the same text, "How are we saved?" by Bishop Kallistos Ware p. 42 specifically on the subject of prevenient grace. Hope this helps to clarify things a little:



When we speak of 'co-operation', it is not to be imagined that our initial impulse towards good precedes the gift of divine grace and comes from ourselves alone.

We must not think that God waits to see how we shall use our free will, and then decides whether He will bestow or withhold His grace.

Still less would it be true to suggest that our initial act of free choice somehow causes God's grace.

All such notions of temporal priority or of cause and effect are inappropriate.

On the contrary, any right exercise of our free will presupposes from the start the presence of divine grace, and without the 'prevenient' grace we could not begin to exercise our will aright.

In every good desire and action on our part, God's grace is present from the outset.

Our cooperation with God is genuinely free, but there is nothing in our good actions that is exclusively our own.

At every point our human cooperation is itself the work of the Holy Spirit.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Mourad,

Thank you for pointing to this. It clarifies the issue further, but of course along similar lines: when it comes to human beings, our intention and action in doing good is partly our own, and partly the result of a prevenient grace, without being able to isolate one from the other (this is beginning to sound a bit like the Chalcedonian definition). I still have the question about grace in the rest of creation though:
I am wondering also to what extent such verses as "The Spirit of Truth Who is everywhere and fillest all things", and also "Christ, the true light Who enlightens and sanctifies all men who come into the world", are referring to a grace that is -as it were - stored up and lying dormant in all people, even in material things Can you tell me anything about this?

In Christ
Byron

[Mourad Mankarios]

Dear Mourad,

Thank you for pointing to this. It clarifies the issue further, but of course along similar lines: when it comes to human beings, our intention and action in doing good is partly our own, and partly the result of a prevenient grace, without being able to isolate one from the other (this is beginning to sound a bit like the Chalcedonian definition). I still have the question about grace in the rest of creation though: Can you tell me anything about this?

In Christ
Byron


I think what you're referring to here is the immanence or even omnipresence of God, in that He is everywhere, fills all things and gives life and existence to all things. However, while God in Orthodoxy is immanent He is also transcendent, transcending and being above His creation. Bishop Kallistos Ware refers to this Orthodox understanding of God, in his book the Orthodox Way, as panentheism.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Mourad (and others)


I think what you're referring to here is the immanence or even omnipresence of God, in that He is everywhere, fills all things and gives life and existence to all things. This is an 'obvious' enough theological fact, though when - as it is sadly for me - theology is more a conceptual rather than an experiential discipline, it is easy to forget even basic facts, "Theology 101" as it were!

God is present everywhere; He fills all things and gives them their life and existence. Everything subsists in Him, yet He cannot be grasped because He is totally Other, transcendent as well as imminent. Does this mean that everything - this computer, this screen - is filled with Holy Spirit, but it is up to me / you / whomever to experience this Spirit, become in some way transparent or receptive to it, see it (Him)?

Also, if there is indeed the Holy Spirit in all things, is He in a state of 'prevenient grace' until made visible e.g. in a sacrament?

In Christ
Byron

[Owen Jones]

My sense is that the issue of prevenient grace as it is developed by Augustine and Aquinas stem from two problems: one is the reaction by Augustine to Pelagius, and second is the Latin problem of the distinction between natural and supernatural. Orthodoxy makes no distinction between the natural and the supernatural. The only relevant distinction in Orthodoxy is between created and uncreated. So there is no natural nature that is superceded by or prevented by a supernatural nature. There is an absolute distinction between the Creator and the created. Grace is not created. This, of course, leads to the distinction, found only in Orthodoxy, between the Essence of God and His energies. Understanding the proper "relationship" as it were between God and creation is the key to developing a healthy Orthodox Christian life. Rather than an action on God's part or our part, i.e., an act of the will, salvation is God's Beauty applied to us (and to the physical universe). Grace as glorification is the key to understanding and right practice.

[Mourad Mankarios]

Dear Mourad (and others)

This is an 'obvious' enough theological fact, though when - as it is sadly for me - theology is more a conceptual rather than an experiential discipline, it is easy to forget even basic facts, "Theology 101" as it were!

God is present everywhere; He fills all things and gives them their life and existence. Everything subsists in Him, yet He cannot be grasped because He is totally Other, transcendent as well as imminent. Does this mean that everything - this computer, this screen - is filled with Holy Spirit, but it is up to me / you / whomever to experience this Spirit, become in some way transparent or receptive to it, see it (Him)?

Also, if there is indeed the Holy Spirit in all things, is He in a state of 'prevenient grace' until made visible e.g. in a sacrament?

In Christ
Byron

As far as I understand though God is immanent and fills all things, this omnipresence or immanence can be markedly different depending on many factors. Hence we can often even speak of God's absence or abandonment, of course not in an absolute sense but in terms of the degree or manner even of His succour or providence. God is in all and fills all yet there are those things which are sacred and those which are base and hence clearly distinct, ie there are those things which are clearly sanctified by God and a source of grace and those which are not. The sacramental life of the church is a clear indication of this where the believer is endowed with a special grace. I don't think that this should be understood as distinct stores of grace that can be accessed or even exhausted but rather this is a sign of the mystical life of the believer with the Divine through so many diverse means. In addition, as a person achieves purification in their life their ability to be able to perceive or contemplate God in all of creation becomes greater. The concept of prevenient grace is not so much an indication of some store of grace that remains dormant until activated but rather is an indication that God's grace precedes every good work and was established to counter those who might suggest that a person is able to do good without the aide of God. Perhaps it is like a person who is blind or has weak vision the sacramental life is like a balm or ointment which when applied provides healing and the spiritual life when practiced is a source of greater strength for the vision. Thus with such a regime a person is able to see with greater and and greater clarity and the beauty which they are encircled by becomes more evident.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Owen, Mourad, all

Thank you for shedding some light on the issue by introducing the distinctions between created / uncreated and essence / energies. May one say that the material universe is pervaded by God's divine energies? And that, although matter is created, the divine energies are uncreated and therefore of a different order of being, another ontological status which cannot be physically apprehended or scientifically investigated, but which nevertheless is accessible to the mystical perception of saints? You write
Understanding the proper "relationship" as it were between God and creation is the key to developing a healthy Orthodox Christian life. Rather than an action on God's part or our part, i.e., an act of the will, salvation is God's Beauty applied to us (and to the physical universe). Grace as glorification is the key to understanding and right practice. I'm interested in the phrase you use, "God's Beauty applied to us". How is this Beauty applied to us and to the material universe? Are you saying that God somehow glorifies humans and nature? Is this glory perceptible to the saints? I know I'm talking 'around' something I have no experience of, but if, as Owen says, understanding the relationship between God and creation is key to a healthy Orthodox life, how can I acquire this understanding - indeed, how can I have a 'healthy' Orthodox life without having this understanding in the first place, and how can this understanding be achieved without leading a 'healthy' Orthodox life? It seems a bit of a paradox, but an important one.

Mourad also mentions beauty:
Perhaps it is like a person who is blind or has weak vision the sacramental life is like a balm or ointment which when applied provides healing and the spiritual life when practiced is a source of greater strength for the vision. Thus with such a regime a person is able to see with greater and and greater clarity and the beauty which they are encircled by becomes more evident. Clearly you are both, rightly so, advocating the sacramental and the spiritual life; yet is it possible for a person who is as yet only at the stage of purification to catch glimpses, as it were, of the divine energies pervading creation? Are you saying Mourad, that beautiful things are filled with grace, but ugly things are empty of it?

In Christ
Byron

[Mourad Mankarios]

Dear Owen, Mourad, all
Mourad also mentions beauty: Clearly you are both, rightly so, advocating the sacramental and the spiritual life; yet is it possible for a person who is as yet only at the stage of purification to catch glimpses, as it were, of the divine energies pervading creation? Are you saying Mourad, that beautiful things are filled with grace, but ugly things are empty of it?


Dear bygaist,

I'm sure that every now and again God's love, mercy and providence provides us with glimpses of this beauty on our journey towards purification, especially at times where we are on guard of our hearts and minds and making exceptional efforts to exert ourselves. These I believe especially I believe the Lord looks upon with love, like He did with the ruler who came running to our Lord Jesus eagerly seeking perfection.

Important also is that to the pure all things are pure, thus they see the beauty of the immanent God in all things. They raise their eyes to the heavens and ask Him who opened the eyes of the blind to open theirs as well so that they may really see, ie to see those things which ordinary people do not see, which escape the sight of many. There are many things which may appear beautiful to some but are ugly to others and there are others which may appear ugly to some but beautiful to others. Those with spiritual eyes perceive with such and those with material likewise. "For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." (1 Sam 16:7)

[Owen Jones]

I think a deficiency in protestant theology is a reduction of Grace to His Mercy and forgiveness. In other words, God acts, according to His will, to save or not to save, based on whom He chooses or wills to forgive. And because this must be seen as an unmerited gift, there is a kind of arbitrariness to God's action.

Nature, indeed the entire astro-physical universe, does not need forgiveness, ergo irrelevant. God's grace is entirely a personal matter between God and individuals whom He chooses to forgive of their sins. Part and parcel of this is the demand placed on the believer to "know God." By knowing God, somehow we are given the keys to that personal relationship that is promised. And protestants (and RC's) therefore have a problem that they set up for themselves because there must be a divine act which prevenes the human act of knowledge, and the human act of faith. Otherwise, they recognize the flaw inherent in claiming that salvation is the result of some act on our part.

In Orthodoxy, we find any number of references to the unknowability of God in His essence. St. John of Damascus in fact begins his Exposition by first establishing the unknowability of God.

To the extent that we can know God, we only can by meditating on His creation, on created things. In other words, we don't know God, we see God in the things He has made, including but not limited to other human beings. So there is a primary emphasis on the image of God manifest in things. The Glorification of the created universe therefore is key. We see God in His Glory, in the transfiguration of created things. We undergo this glorification bodily, as Christ's body was glorified on Tabor. The body seems to be an abstraction in protestantism. But the glorification of the physical body, and the resurrection of the body in its glorified state, is the key to understanding Orthodox soteriology. Forgiveness and mercy are preconditions to salvation, but not salvation as such. Salvation is glorification.

This is why in protestantism you don't have a doctrine of the progress of the soul/body complex. You don't have a doctrine of change in protestantism. You are either saved or not, based on whether or not God has taken the necessary action. This places great stress on the psychology of the believer, because he has to have a knowledge of his salvation (hence the common question -- do you know you are saved?)

You do have a doctrine of sanctification, but it's a kind of afterthought.

[Owen Jones]

In terms of the seeing part, I think there are indeed levels. If I have experienced true repentance, it affects how I look at other people, and if affects what I see when I look at other people. I see God in other people, rather than immediately sensing their sinfulness, or, perhaps more precisely, I see others as the image of God. This is what the teaching against judging others means. If I am judging others, I cannot see their divinity, so to speak. I cannot see the divine presence within them, because it is constricted within me, and therefore my sense perception is impaired. And I think this is an experience open to all believers who have undergone conversion and illumination, but still a matter of degree, and yes, not some kind of static condition, because it requires constant watchfulness on my part.

Then we might add the level of awareness accorded the saints, wherein there are many statements regarding the light of God both emanating from the saints, and perceived by the saints in others, and this seems to be far more than just a metaphor for some interior feeling, but an actual physical perception. For a contemporary reference, the book about Fr. Arseny would be an excellent case study of this.

This is why the theological controversy regarding the uncreated light is a necessary clarification of something intrinsic to Orthodoxy, and not just some kind of esoteric sideshow in the history of theology.

For most of us, it is sufficient that we obey the commandments and not judge others, realizing that sanctity is a matter of degree, and we ought not to be filled with anxiety that somehow we are lost souls because we have not personally witnessed the uncreated light. That salvation is not just a personal thing, but each personal experience has a cumulative effect on all of creation. In any case, seeking God just for the sake of having the vision of the uncreated light implies the sin of pride in one of its grosser forms.

[Rick H.]

Dear Owen,

To be sure, there are different doctrines of sanctification and different definitions of grace--many different schools of thought on this to be found within what is considered 'Protestantism.' But, there's the rub . . . you and others make so many dogmatic statements about the 'Protestants;' however, there are so many different views held by the different groups/people who are lumped into this category it really is misleading and unfair to all. Any who form their own thoughts of what a Protestant is based on this kind of method/thinking will be severely confused, and ultimately perpetuators/parrots of ignorant statements.

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

Mr. Henry makes a fair point. However, it lacks concreteness. It implies that any general criticism of protestant theology is out of bounds in principle, because it is going to be too general. But it is literally impossible to explicate every different peroration of protestant soteriology, since there are hundreds of thousands of specific versions, and so one is forced to generalize to be able to say anything about it at all.

[Rick H.]

Dear Owen,

This is a hard thing, because there can be no concreteness when attempting to lay down dogmatic statements about protestant theology because there is no such thing as protestant theology. For that matter there is no such thing as evangelical theology or what was once called the evangelical movement. And, I guess that is my point, when we generalize about something that does not exist, no matter what we say, we are not saying anything at all. I think a lot of what you present can be applied to generalizations about revivalism and fundamentalism; but even here, for example look at where this thread started . . . if we were to generalize even within this reduction that I have suggested, are we talking about the Methodists of the 1700's or today, or are we talking about the Weslyans, or the Nazarenes? And, to even move to the fringe of what is known as renewal theology would require very extensive clarification to allow our generalizations to really have any credibility at all. So I don't know what the answer is here Owen, but I have spent most of my adult life living in and studying what is called protestant theology and evangelical theology or American Fundamentalism and it just drives me completely nutts at times reading some of the statements that are made/repeated here about the protestants/evangelicals etc,. So I tell you what, I will just say thanks for your even handed response above and get my old trusty Savage-Stevens and go make some coffee and smoke my pipe on the back porch and wait for that mole that is trashing my backyard to show himself, and I'll take out my frustrations about things that don't exist on him or her. :) I wonder if I have made a confession or two here? ;)

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

To get rid of the moles you have to use an insecticide pellet that kills grub worms.

[Owen Jones]

Regarding the problem inherent in making generalized statements about protestant theology, let's not make the solipsistic error by insisting that we can't say anything about it at all. The problems I have cited are inherent pretty much throughout protestant theology today in America. That is not to say that there might not be some decent protestant thinkers out there in the tradition, say, of a Neibuhr, but I wouldn't know who it would be.

[Celinda Grace]

Owen,

You misconstrue what the majority of PC's mean when they say 'know God'. The fact is that most of them are actually saying something very Orthodox. There is a distinction made in most contemporary PC circles between knowing about God -ie rational knowledge, and knowing God -ie relational, experiential knowledge. In this they are not primarily interested in knowing God in and through created things but within a relationship of being guided by the Holy Spirit through scripture, circumstances and the church.

Although you can make dogmatic statements about PC theology there are so many Protestants living a Christian experience so far divorced from what they believe that the theology is almost meaningless. The heart and will have far outpaced the mind and because doctrine is separated from experience most people never realize the problem. Generally what happens is that they have one set of answers in a formal theological sense that they will give in debates and another set of answers in the small group Bible studies and discussions that go on in church and never notice that these are at odds.

For instance although salvation is seen at a point and sanctification rarely talked about in any sermon rare will is the the Protestant Christian who will not talk about how God has helped them clean up their life and free them from old habits of sin due to the power of the Spirit.

One of the funny things to me is that many of my friends will talk about how God directed them in this thing or met them in that circumstance and still be absolutely dead set against anything they percieve as too mystical.

[Rick H.]

You know Owen, I was just laying here staring at the screen after an unsuccessful hunt in the back yard today (thanks for the tip BTW, although #5 high brass works too when you can see them digging), when I saw the value in your post. As well as being reminded and convicted somewhat as I considered the self absorption involved in any attempt to hinder free dialogue, especially when it pertains to Truth, it occurred to me what another has said about dogmatics in general (as it relates to contributions to and discussions of theology)--which is:

"In the political language of the Emperor Augustus, dogma meant 'decree.' A decree is not supposed to be critically questioned; above all we are not supposed to reject it. The decree is imposed by force. Of course the theological concept of dogma is far removed from all this. But even here there is the odour--and often enough the attitude--of a judgment which is final and no longer open to appeal. Even if it is not 'dogmatic' in our everyday sense of the word, dogmatic thinking in theology likes to express itself in theses; not in theses for discussion, but in theses that are simply promulgated, which evoke agreement or rejection, but not independent thinking and responsible decision."

And, as you speak of solipsism, I think this is a good word to use at this point, and I am reminded of how the 'good doctor' has used it in the past year; but, most of all I wonder how much this concept really provides an undercurrent for many of the discussions here on this site as the "sides" each suspect this to be the case with the other.

So no, since I am not the Emperor of the world [yet], I would not insist that "we cannot say anything at all." Because to do this would ultimately be to teach theology by coercion and to promote a withering and a dying of Christian theology! However, with my last few posts in mind, I will let what I have said stand as it relates to any methods which amount to teaching theology by a coercive dialogue which yields at best parrots and at worst zombies.

Regarding our methods of procedure here (if we can keep our feet on the ground here for just ten seconds), as the same man that I quoted above says, 'When we see our whole of theology as a part belonging to a wider community, then we can know and accept the limits of our own existence and our own context.'

As for my existence today at this point in time in history, it is: moles--1 Rick--0; but, tomorrow is another day. Maybe if I rent Caddyshack tonight I can get some tips too?

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

Yes, of course, but much the same could be said about most of us Orthodox. On the level of theological ideas, there are certain intrinsic problems that are worth trying to elucidate. So to return to the theme, the issue of prevenient grace I suspect, though not certain from a scholarly perspective, that the issue is developed in the Augustinian reaction to Pelagius. And Augustine and those who follow have to refute Pelagius on the one hand, while not lapsing into a kind of determinism on the other -- and the result is the doctrine of prevenient grace. But implicit is I think a kind of reductionism of Grace to an act of God's will, which in the history of philosophy is termed voluntarism. I am sure the history of prevenient grace as a theological doctrine is more complicated than that, and of course most Christians in America do not have any real theological sense at all, since the whole idea of theology would strike at the heart of their freedom of conscience to interpret Scripture. Therefore, most people simply do not realize that they believe what they believe due to certain historical influences.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Owen,

Your response has shed some light for me on the question I initially posted.
Understanding the proper "relationship" as it were between God and creation is the key to developing a healthy Orthodox Christian life. Rather than an action on God's part or our part, i.e., an act of the will, salvation is God's Beauty applied to us (and to the physical universe). Grace as glorification is the key to understanding and right practice.
To the extent that we can know God, we only can by meditating on His creation, on created things. In other words, we don't know God, we see God in the things He has made, including but not limited to other human beings. So there is a primary emphasis on the image of God manifest in things. The Glorification of the created universe therefore is key. We see God in His Glory, in the transfiguration of created things. We undergo this glorification bodily, as Christ's body was glorified on Tabor. The body seems to be an abstraction in protestantism. But the glorification of the physical body, and the resurrection of the body in its glorified state, is the key to understanding Orthodox soteriology. Forgiveness and mercy are preconditions to salvation, but not salvation as such. Salvation is glorification.
Well, I don't know about protestantism (although I did do a postgraduate degree in theology at an Anglican institution, but I was pretty much left to focus on my own Orthodox Christian background). I may be treading on some people's toes without realising it here, but I can honestly say I don't feel the need to correct, supplement, change or modify Orthodoxy in any way. I suppose that just says I have enough to be going on with in my own faith, thank you very much! Roman Catholics appear to me to be basically as ancient and deeply-rooted as the Orthodox, but have gone over-the-top with the Papacy (and filioque, liturgical 'reforms' etc) because they basically cut themselves off from the other patriarchates in 1054 and only had Rome to fall back on after that so to speak. As for protestantism, well, it seems fair enough to say it is a reaction to the aforementioned, and it doesn't inspire confidence in me when I hear from their own members that their name is legion, if you'll pardon the heavy words. It just makes sense to me that there is one Son of God who taught His Apostles one faith. As for RC and Protestant christians, to me they are my brothers in Christ, but for teachings I go to the Orthodox. I sincerely apologise for sounding harsher than I mean to here, because as my own educational history shows I do my best not to be a person with a closed attitude to others, or triumphalistic about "my faith" of which I am anything but an exemplar. Maybe Gandhi was right and everyone should just do their best from within their own 'camp'; anyway, I'm happy my Church is the one it is, and there are websites like monachos to help us out on difficult issues!

In Christ
Byron