The Sufficiency Of Grace.

[ICTHUS]

This thread is in response to the allegation that the Council of Trents canons on justification are in fact semi-pelagian.

This issue confuses me greatly, and I would like some clarification on the subject.

The main issue of the Protestant argument seems to be that since our free will must give its assent to the Grace of God, that something of man must co-operate with the Grace of God.

This, according to Protestants, is a textbook case of semi-pelagianism. Would anyone care to respond to this argument, from Scripture and the Church Fathers?

God bless,

Ryan

[Freaky Chik]

I don't understand the arguments you are saying?

actually I understand none that you just spoke :lol:

[ironmonk]

I remember muste-nothing bringing this up..

Forked tongue and mental midget comes to mind.

Look it up on www.NewAdvent.org

Always know this, I have always found this to be true... if ever you think the Church could be wrong, that means we don't understand it. Keep studying, and ask a few priests about it.... always keep studying until the Church teaching is understood and agreed with.

Semipelagianism

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13703a.htm

Pelagianism

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ

ironmonk

[Cure of Ars]

This whole thing is a mystery. There are two truths that we must adhere two. The first is that humans have free will and that God will never override our free will. The second is that we are saved by God’s grace alone. This is a paradox and it is a both/and doctrine. If you take one side over the other you fall into error. Here is Thomas Aquinas on merit and salvation.

Whether man can merit everlasting life without grace?

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 6:23): "The grace of God is life everlasting." And as a gloss says, this is said "that we may understand that God, of His own mercy, leads us to everlasting life."

I answer that, Acts conducing to an end must be proportioned to the end. But no act exceeds the proportion of its active principle; and hence we see in natural things, that nothing can by its operation bring about an effect which exceeds its active force, but only such as is proportionate to its power. Now everlasting life is an end exceeding the proportion of human nature, as is clear from what we have said above (5, 5). Hence man, by his natural endowments, cannot produce meritorious works proportionate to everlasting life; and for this a higher force is needed, viz. the force of grace. And thus without grace man cannot merit everlasting life; yet he can perform works conducing to a good which is natural to man, as "to toil in the fields, to drink, to eat, or to have friends," and the like, as Augustine says in his third Reply to the Pelagians [Hypognosticon iii, among the spurious works of St. Augustine].

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/210905.htm

So you may say that yes you have shown that it is necessary but not that is it sufficient. But the Catholic position that our free act of assenting is an act of God’s Grace. You may say that this is then God’s act but not man’s. This is where the mystery comes in. But if you go to the extreme and say that we do not have free will when we say yes to God’s grace then it is not an act of love but much like a computer doing what it is programmed to do. Without free will we can not love and without God’s grace we can not love. So for the Catholic Grace is both Necessary and sufficient and our free will is a part of this.

Let us define semi- Pelagianism;

[semi-Pelagianism], while not denying the necessity of Grace for salvation, maintained that the first steps towards the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later.

(Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F.L. Cross, Oxford Univ. Press, rev. 1983, 1258)

Now lets look at the Council of Trent

Canons on Justification

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

CHAPTER V - . . . the beginning of the said justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God through Jesus Christ . . . without any merits existing on their parts . . . yet is he not able, by his own free-will, without the grace of God, to move himself into justice in His sight . . .

CHAPTER VIII - . . . none of those things which precede justification -- whether faith or works -- merit the grace itself of justification. For if it be a grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

It is clear by the above definition and quotes of Trent that the Catholic Church is not Semi-Pelagianism.

Edited October 22, 2003 by Cure of Ars

[Joolye]

I don't understand the arguments you are saying?

actually I understand none that you just spoke 

I second that.

[ICTHUS]

What about the following two canons (emphasis mine)

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called inDouche, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

Canon IV seems as though its saying that mans free will can somehow add something to Gods grace, which is a textbook case of semi-pelagianism, since it is saying that the first steps towards Grace are taken by the human will.

And Canon XVII seems as though its saying that....er...nevermind, I get it! (I think!!??)

Canon XVII (if I understand correctly) is condemning OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved). It's condemning the idea that ONLY the Elect recieve the grace of Justification, not that there in fact ARE a certain number of souls who are foreknown and predestined (Rom 8:28-29) to persevere to Eternal Life.

Right?

[ICTHUS]

Bump...

I need help on this one, guys..

[Cure of Ars]

I just want to say the following before I address the quotes from Trent. The Catholic understanding between grace and free will is a lot like the relationship between Christ’s Divinity and Humanity. Jesus was totally human and totally Divine. You would think that his infinite all powerful and sufficient Divinity would have taken over his humanity but it did not. Jesus’ acts were truly human and truly divine. How God did this is a mystery.

Now when we were justified the act was totally a supernatural grace filled act through the Holy Spirit but this Divine act did not take over our human free will. How God does this is a mystery. But through this act we share in “the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1:4) But without God's grace we could not say yes and believe just like Christ's divinity preceded his humanity.

The Bible talks about our relationship with God is kind of like the relationship between man and woman who are in love. (Read Song of Songs if you want an example of this.) Now God is a perfect gentleman he never forces himself on us and he respects our choice to Love him back or to reject him. Because God is a gentleman he will never override our free will. This understanding is presupposed throughout the Bible. A prime example of this is love itself. Love is an act of the will. If we cannot choose freely, we cannot love. And if we cannot love we are not made in God’s image. Without Love we are no longer sons and daughters of God but only computers doing what we were programmed to do.

Free will is an important truth and it is never permissible to reject one truth to emphasize another truth. Our free will does not take away anything from God’s power, Christ Merit on the Cross, and Christ's Grace. In fact, it give more glory to God. “For we are God’s co-workers…” (1 Corinthians 3:9)

Edited October 23, 2003 by Cure of Ars

[ICTHUS]

A Question: where does Scripture say that we have free will to reject Gods enabling grace...

[Cure of Ars]

"When God, in the beginning, created man he made him subject to his own free choice." Sirach 15:14

It is also presupposed in the concept of merit in the Bible. If God is the only one responsible for our actions because we do not have free will then there can be no merit. But the Bible says otherwise;

"Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven." (Mt 5:12)

"Come, ye blessed of my father, posses you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat (Mt. 25: 34)

"He will render his own regard according to his works." (Rom 2:6)

"the crown of justice which the Lord, the just judge, will render" (2 Tim 4:8)

"Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows. (Gal 6:7)

The one that is most clear to me is the concept of love. If we can not choose we can not love. This is the bottom line.

I got to go to work. God bless

Edited October 23, 2003 by Cure of Ars

[ICTHUS]

I think the key to understanding canon IV is "mans free will, moved and excited by God(presumably through His grace)

Free will can't choose God unless free will itself is moved by Grace...correct?

[Katholikos]

I second that.

It's a historic thing, Freaky and Joolye. Pelagianism came long before Protestantism.

Pelagius was a monk, a theologian, and a heretic who lived AD 360? to 420? He and his followers denied orginal sin (the first sin, that of Adam and Eve, that we, their offspring, inherit) and believed in freedom of the will. He was opposed by St. Augustine.

Semi- means "half." Semi-Pelagianism means half Pelagianism.

Ave Cor Mariae,

Katholikos

[Katholikos]

A Question: where does Scripture say that we have free will to reject Gods enabling grace...

Question: Do you expect Scripture to have all the answers? We Catholics are not a 'sola scriptura' people. 'Sola Scriptura' wasn't invented until the 16th century by Martin Luther. Many, but not all, questions are answered in the Scriptures, but it is sufficient that the Church founded by Christ teaches this (or any) doctrine.

God's revelation is not contained in "Sola Scriptura" (Scripture Only).

It's in the Church and/or Scripture.

This question happens to be answered by both.

(This post is mostly for our Protestant friends.)

Katholikos

[Cure of Ars]

I think the key to understanding canon IV is "mans free will, moved and excited by God(presumably through His grace)

Free will can't choose God unless free will itself is moved by Grace...correct?

Exactly

Another problem is that without free will it is not man’s fault if he goes to hell but God’s.

[Aloysius]

QUOTE (ICTHUS @ Oct 23 2003, 12:52 PM)

I think the key to understanding canon IV is "mans free will, moved and excited by God(presumably through His grace)

Free will can't choose God unless free will itself is moved by Grace...correct? 

Exactly

Another problem is that without free will it is not man’s fault if he goes to hell but God’s.

sweet! it all makes so much sense now...

i never doubted our need for choice to accept God's grace, but now it makes so much more sense. by ourselves, we cannot bring our free will to accept God's grace, but excited by grace we can receive the grace needed to persevere to the end.

"When God, in the beginning, created man he made him subject to his own free choice." Sirach 15:14

i love deuterocannonical doctrine, 'tis a thing of beauty!