Now I would like to state that it seems to me, LFW absolutely requires preveneint grace when coupled with total depravity. If prevenient grace prevents the sinful nature from being so overwhelming then it implies with force that if there is no prevenient grace then the person is subject (or a slave) to their nature and cannot submit to God.
This sets up the theory that God issues prevenient grace so that the person can break free from the bondage of their sinful nature in order that they can make a free choice decision to either follow or reject God.
Perhaps it’s my lack of education but it seems unclear to me exactly how prevenient grace works. It seems that it might be seen as being black and white. Or perhaps some see it in a yes or no way. However I tend to think it’s not so simple.
The question of what brings a mans pride down seems to be somewhat of a confusing question for proponents of preveneint grace.
If I ask such a question then a PGP (prevenient grace proponent) might wonder, if I am speaking of the pride which enslaves his nature (total depravity) or the pride which is destroyed by “grace” upon the moment of salvation.
But now suppose that the man should reject God upon the moment of choice. Is it because preveneint grace has not done it’s job in bringing the man to ground zero. By ground zero I mean - he is not enlsaved to neither good nor evil but holds equal desire that he might choose.
If he is brought to ground zero that a fair choice might be made then I would argue he simply will not choose either. For he has no cumpulsion to choose good over evil, nor to choose evil over good.
But should the man reject God then it seems he has some desire for evil which out-weighs his desire to do good. And likewise if the man should choose good then his desire to do good is greater than his desire to do evil.
But if the man is brought to ground zero then what gives the man the desire to do either good or bad. If the man should have a greater desire to do good (thus choosing God) then it seems prevenient grace has supressed the sinful nature a bit too much in order to call it a “free will decision”.
It seems also true as well that if a man is brought to ground zero and chooses sin then perhaps prevenient grace has not done it’s job in bringing the man to ground zero. Why should a man find he desires sin so much that he might reject God if his sin nature is supressed? For if he desires sin all that much than it seems he has not been freed from his sin nature. And isn’t that the point? That the man’s desires might be curtailed that he can choose God.
Now if it is argued the man **won’t want **sin all that much then the obvious question must be asked, why then do people reject the saving grace of God or even why do people choose the grace of God. What created in that person some desire to return to the bondage to sin or better said why did that person enjoy sin so much after being freed from it’s bondage?
For if ground zero is release from the bondage of sin so that a man can move toward God then I would wonder how much is the man released?
Thus it seems it’s not an issue if prevenient grace releases a man or not from his slavery but a matter of how much it releases the man from his slavery.