Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Historic Christianity vs Calvinism  /  Lecture 6: Grace and Predestination  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 7
Finny says people can hold both total depravity and prevenient grace (even Arminius did), because humans are unable until grace enables them; what do you gain—and what do you lose—by describing unbelievers as “totally dead” while also saying God gives enabling grace broadly?
Another way to ask: If people are “totally dead” in sin but God gives enabling grace to many, what is gained by using that “totally dead” language? What is lost or confused by saying both at the same time?

Direct Answer You gain a strong emphasis that salvation begins with God’s initiative because humans are “unable to respond” without enabling grace; you may lose nuance if “total depravity” is taken in a way that flattens human experience or becomes a disputed label Finny himself says has “flaws.”

Support from Transcript:

  • Finny asks if both can be held and answers yes: “Is it possible to hold both total depravity and prevenient grace?…you’re right.”
  • David’s explanation (affirmed by Finny): humans are “unable to respond, but…[prevenient grace] enables people.”
  • He notes Arminius held both: “We are totally dead in our sins…no ability to respond…And then God sends…prevenient grace. The lights come on. Now we can respond.”
  • Finny clarifies his own stance: he’d pick total depravity as “least egregious,” yet he says, “I actually don’t agree with total depravity…there’s some flaws with that as well.”
  • He also says Arminius taught this enabling grace came “to everyone…as we just read in Titus 2.”
Discussion Follow-ups What pastoral impact does “you are unable” have on evangelism and personal guilt? How do you keep “no hope without grace” from turning into fatalism or passivity?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10
Back Questions Next