(Part 1)

JBTM Book Reviews
175
Wesley” (i). 1 Shelton’s research fills a gaping hole in theological literature.
The author’s aim is careful and measured. He attempts to make the case that prevenient
grace is implicit in the Scripture and that it does not contradict but in fact coheres with other
biblical teachings on salvation. Shelton “seeks to demonstrate that prevenient grace is the
best overall theological explanation for the universal opportunity and free will passages we
find in the New Testament” (vii). In chapter 1, Shelton defines prevenient grace, noting the
concept is consistent with Calvin’s view of total depravity as total inability. Also, prevenient
grace is similar to Calvin’s view of common grace, since both prevenient and common grace
extend to all people but are not by themselves salvific. In chapter 2, Shelton presents an
exegetical case for prevenient grace. After briefly making a case for sinful depravity, he
proposes a selection of New Testament texts in support of the doctrine of prevenient grace.
In John 1:9, Jesus “enlightens everyone.” In John 12:32, Jesus promises to “draw all people” to
himself. Romans 1–2 states that all people can know God exists due to his creation and their
conscience; this universal ability among people can be explained by the universal nature
of prevenient grace. In Rom 2:4, God’s kindness—rather than monergistic regeneration—
leads to repentance. Titus 2:11 states that “God’s salvation has appeared to all,” which can be
interpreted as universal opportunity for salvation. Shelton comments on other verses which
provide less significant support for the doctrine.
Chapters 3 and 4 consider the concept of prevenient grace in light of key theological
developments throughout church history. Chapter 3 examines whether and how the concept
is consistent with the writings of the early church era (Irenaeus, Origen, Macarius, Augustine,
and Pelagius), the semi-Pelagian debate, the medieval church (Bernard of Clariveaux and
Thomas Aquinas), the eastern church, the Reformation (Luther and Calvin), the Counter
Reformation, Remonstrance and Anglican theologies, and twentieth-century theologians
(Richard Niebuhr and Emil Brunner). This brief chapter identifies views in the most unlikely
places that are consistent with prevenient grace. For example, the position of the Synod of
Orange (AD 529) “strikingly resembles prevenient grace” (73). The aim of the chapter was
to demonstrate that many thinkers in the Christian tradition have simultaneously affirmed
total human inability for doing spiritual good—including repenting of sin and believing in
Jesus—as well as God’s grace which enables every person to repent of sin and believe in
Jesus. In chapter 4, Shelton focuses on the doctrines of depravity and prevenient grace in the
writings of two prominent theologians, James Arminius and John Wesley.
Shelton attempts in chapter 5 to use methods of systematic theology to reconcile passages
on prevenient grace with the rest of Scripture (179). At the end, he concludes: “The Arminian
¹Although Shelton draws from articles as well as unpublished academic works and published
monographs on prevenient grace in the writings of certain theologians, his claim seems to be correct.
I was unable to find a major work on the doctrine of prevenient grace published in English in the last
two hundred years.