Can a spiritually dead person choose God? It’s one of the oldest questions in Christian theology. And how we answer it shapes everything—our view of salvation, of human nature, and of God’s sovereignty.

Enter prevenient grace: Prevenient (or “preceding”) grace is the doctrine, developed by Jacobus Arminius and popularised by John Wesley, that God gives all human beings a measure of grace that restores their ability to freely accept or reject Christ without actually regenerating them. The grace is universal and resistible. It sounds reasonable, even compassionate. God levels the playing field so no one can say they never had a chance. Our salvation depends on whether we cooperate with this grace or resist it.

But here’s the problem: this doctrine, however well-intentioned, can’t be found in Scripture. And when we examine what the Bible actually says about human depravity, divine grace, and how salvation works, prevenient grace doesn’t just lack support—it contradicts the gospel itself.

 

WHY DOES PREVENIENT GRACE APPEAL TO MANY?

Let’s be fair. Prevenient grace has genuine pastoral appeal. It seems to solve a real dilemma: if sinners are truly dead in sin, how can they believe? Prevenient grace offers an answer: God gives everyone enough grace to respond. It also appears to protect God’s character—He genuinely desires all to be saved and gives all a legitimate opportunity. And it honours human dignity by preserving meaningful choice.

Historically, this doctrine emerged from Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius in the early 1600s. Later refined by John Wesley, the doctrine has become standard teaching in many evangelical and Methodist churches. Some mistakenly attribute it to Augustine, but Augustine actually taught grace is effectual and irresistible—the very position prevenient grace was invented to avoid. Millions of Christians hold it sincerely, believing it makes God more just and salvation more fair.

But sincerity doesn’t determine truth. Scripture does.

 

WHY DO REFORMED CHRISTIANS REJECT THE DOCTRINE

So let’s examine five reasons why Reformed Christians believe prevenient grace, despite its appeal, simply isn’t biblical.

• Total Depravity Is Total, Not Partial

The Bible’s diagnosis of fallen humanity is devastating. Paul writes in Romans 3:10–12, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside.” That’s categorical. In Ephesians 2:1–3, he says we were “dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked.” Not sick. Not injured. Dead.

Jeremiah 13:23 asks, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” The implied answer is no—moral transformation is as impossible as biological transformation. Jesus Himself declares in John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

Here’s the problem for prevenient grace: if God universally restores spiritual ability to all people, why does Scripture never describe this restored state? Where’s the category of people who have been “enabled but remain unresponsive”? The biblical picture knows only two conditions: dead in sin, or alive in Christ. Death doesn’t need assistance—it needs resurrection.

• No Text Actually Teaches Universal Enabling Grace

Arminian theologians typically appeal to several passages, but none withstand scrutiny.

John 1:9 says Christ is “the true light, which gives light to everyone.” But context shows this refers to Christ’s incarnational presence or general revelation available to all humanity—not inner spiritual ability. Matthew 23:37—“I would have gathered you… but you were not willing”—describes Jesus’s earthly ministry to Israel, not a frustrated divine decree to save all individuals. Titus 2:11 says “the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,” but this speaks of the gospel going to all ethnic groups (Jew and Gentile), not an inner work given to every person.

What about the texts Arminians consider strongest? 1 Timothy 2:4 says God “desires all people to be saved,” and 2 Peter 3:9 says He is “not wishing that any should perish.” But “all” and “any” must be read in context: 1 Timothy 2:1–2 speaks of all classes of people (including kings and authorities), not every individual without exception. 2 Peter 3:9 addresses “you, beloved”—the elect to whom Peter writes—affirming God’s patience toward His chosen people. If these texts taught God’s intent was universal salvation, we’d have to conclude God’s will is perpetually frustrated, since not all are saved.

John 12:32—”I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself”—is cited to prove universal drawing, but context reveals Jesus is contrasting His ministry to Israel with His post-crucifixion mission to Gentiles (see 12:20–23). “All people” means all kinds—Jew and Greek—not every individual. Otherwise, universalism would follow.

Acts 7:51 mentions resisting the Holy Spirit, but this describes resistance to external testimony and prophetic witness—not the irresistible, regenerating work described elsewhere in Scripture.

The silence is deafening. If prevenient grace is such a crucial part of how salvation works, why is it never explicitly taught? Why must it be inferred from passages that have better explanations?

• Regeneration Precedes Faith, Not Vice Versa

This is where the biblical order becomes clear. In John 3:3, Jesus tells Nicodemus, “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” You must be born before you can see—birth precedes sight. In 1 John 5:1, the Greek grammar is decisive: “Everyone who believes Jesus is the Christ has been born of God”—the perfect tense indicates the person was born before they believed.

Look at Acts 16:14: “The Lord opened [Lydia’s] heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” God opened first; Lydia responded second. And in Ezekiel 36:26–27, God promises, “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you… And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.” Notice: God doesn’t enable; He causes. He doesn’t make salvation possible; He makes it actual.

Prevenient grace gets the order backwards. The Bible presents regeneration as the cause of faith, not its result.

• Effectual Calling Is Irresistible

Jesus says in John 6:37, “All that the Father gives me will come to me.” Not may come. Will come. Verse 44 continues: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” Those drawn are raised—all of them. There’s no category for “drawn but lost.”

Romans 8:29–30 presents an unbroken chain: “Those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” No one falls off between calling and glorification. Acts 13:48 is equally clear: “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”

This doesn’t mean God drags unwilling people kicking and screaming into heaven. It means He changes the heart so radically that the sinner, once hostile, becomes willing—even eager—to come. He liberates the will; He doesn’t violate it.

As the Westminster Confession puts it, the elect “are effectually called… being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit… whereby they are enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered” (X.1). God works in us to will and to do according to His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). That’s not coercion—that’s salvation.

• The Gospel Itself Is the Power of God

Paul declares in Romans 1:16 that the gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” Romans 10:17 adds, “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” James 1:18 says God “brought us forth by the word of truth,” and 1 Peter 1:23 speaks of being “born again… through the living and abiding word of God.”

Here’s what Reformed theology affirms: We don’t need a universal, pre-regenerating grace because the Holy Spirit works powerfully through the preached Word to raise the dead. The external call (the gospel proclaimed) meets the internal call (the Spirit’s regenerating work), and the result is new life. No intermediate grace necessary.

The gospel doesn’t just make salvation possible. It accomplishes it. The Canons of Dort express it beautifully: the elect are “efficaciously called” through the preaching of the gospel, and “this is not because they properly understand and believe this preaching,” but because God “powerfully illumines their minds” and “opens their hearts” (III/IV.10–11).

 

THE BETTER WAY

Prevenient grace tries to solve a problem Scripture has already solved—just not the way we might expect. The Bible doesn’t compromise on human depravity or add a preliminary grace. Instead, it magnifies sovereign grace: God doesn’t merely enable the unwilling; He makes the unwilling willing. He doesn’t just offer life to the dead; He speaks, and the dead rise.

This isn’t fatalism. It’s the only hope we have. If salvation depended on a freed will cooperating with grace, we’d all perish—because even “freed” wills remain sinful. But if salvation depends entirely on God’s effectual, irresistible grace, then every blood-bought sinner will come home. Not one will be lost.

 

---

RELATED FAQs

Did the early Church Fathers teach prevenient grace? Not in the Arminian sense. The earliest church fathers held varied views on grace and free will, but none articulated a doctrine of universal, resistible, enabling grace given to all people equally. Augustine (354–430), whose anti-Pelagian writings shaped Western theology, explicitly taught grace is effectual and irresistible for the elect—that God’s grace doesn’t merely make salvation possible but actually accomplishes it.

• How do we explain God’s “desire” that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)? Reformed scholars offer several complementary explanations. John Calvin argued “all” refers to all classes of people—kings, commoners, Jews, Gentiles—not every individual, since the context (vv. 1–2) discusses praying for “all people” including rulers. John Piper distinguishes between God’s “revealed will” (His moral pleasure in seeing sinners repent) and His “decretive will” (His sovereign purpose to save the elect). God can genuinely take no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23) while still ordaining whatsoever comes to pass for His wise purposes. RC Sproul emphasised that if 1 Timothy 2:4 means God wills the salvation of every individual with equal intensity, either universalism is true or God’s will is perpetually thwarted. And both conclusions are unacceptable.
• What’s the difference between “sufficient” and “efficient” grace? This distinction comes from medieval theology and helps clarify Reformed thinking. Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all—meaning it has infinite value and could save every person who ever lived if applied to them. But it is efficient only for the elect—meaning God actually intended it for, and applies it to, His chosen people. The gospel offer is genuinely extended to all who hear it; anyone who comes to Christ will be saved (John 6:37). But the Spirit’s regenerating work is given only to those whom the Father has chosen.

Doesn’t irresistible grace make evangelism pointless? Quite the opposite. Election is the guarantee that evangelism will succeed. Paul writes in 2 Timothy 2:10, “I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus.” If salvation depended ultimately on human choice, we’d have no assurance anyone would respond. But because God has an elect people scattered throughout the world, we preach with confidence that His Word will not return void (Isaiah 55:11). Charles Spurgeon put it memorably: “I would not give a penny for a gospel that could save no one, and I would not give a penny for a man who did not want to save everyone.”

• If grace is irresistible, why does Scripture command us to respond? Commands prove responsibility, not ability. God commands what is right, not merely what fallen humans can naturally do. Sinclair Ferguson explains that when God commands “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” He’s not offering advice dependent on our capacity—He’s declaring what we owe Him and what He will accomplish in the elect through His Spirit. The imperatives of Scripture reveal human obligation and God’s moral standard. When God commands dry bones to live (Ezekiel 37), He’s not waiting for the bones to cooperate—He’s speaking life into death.
• What about passages where believers are warned they could fall away (Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-31)? These are among the most debated texts in Scripture, but they don’t support prevenient grace—they concern the perseverance of saints, not the origin of faith. Reformed theologians offer two main interpretations. Some, like John Owen, argue Hebrews 6 describes people who experienced external blessings of the covenant community (enlightenment, participation in Spirit-empowered ministry) but were never regenerated—like Judas. Others, like John Piper, see these as hypothetical warnings meant to stir genuine believers to persevere; true believers will heed the warnings and thus never actually fall away. Both views affirm what John 10:28-29 teaches: “No one will snatch them out of my hand… no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”

Are there legitimate Reformed disagreements about how grace works? Yes, though all Reformed theologians reject prevenient grace. There are nuanced debates about the order of salvation (ordo salutis). Most follow the pattern: election → effectual calling → regeneration → faith → justification. But some, like Richard Gaffin, argue union with Christ is logically prior to all other benefits, making discussions of “order” somewhat artificial since all blessings come simultaneously in Christ. There’s also discussion about whether regeneration is always instantaneous or can involve a process (particularly regarding infant baptism and covenant children). Louis Berkhof and Herman Bavinck debated the relationship between the external call and internal regeneration. But these are in-house discussions—all parties agree that fallen sinners cannot and will not come to Christ unless God’s grace effectually and irresistibly raises them from spiritual death. The

 

---

OUR RELATED POSTS

• Why Do People Hate the Doctrine of Election?
• The Purpose of Election: Why Does God Choose?
• Does God Choose Who Goes to Hell? How Is It Even Fair?
• Why Does God Choose Some and Not Others for Salvation?