The Sufficiency Of Grace.

[Katholikos]

Icthus, I'd like to suggest that a copy of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, would help a great deal with your questions.

Ott says of his book: "My aim was to present the essentials of Church teaching and the foundation of such teaching in clear and concise form." It is a basic course in Dogmatic Theology.

Available in the U.S. from TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS,

P.O. Box 424, Rockford, Illinois 61105

They're on the Net.

Edited October 29, 2003 by Katholikos

[Donna]

Jay, you're my man.

Icthus, I've been looking at OTT's book today. It's pages 246-249 you're after.

Both the following are De Fide:

1. "The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible."

2. "There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious."

In 1., the canon you cited of Trent opens the paragraph. Innocent X condemned as heretical a tenet of the Jansenists "In the condition of fallen nature interior grace is never resisted."... examples of the freedom of the will:

* "How often would I have gathered together thy children, and thou wouldst not?" (Mt. 23: 27)

* "You always resist the Holy Ghost." (Acts 7: 51)

* Also 1 Cor. 15:10; Dt. 30: 19; etc;

In 2. "Tradition clearly teaches the reality of a sufficient grace, which through man's fault remains inefficacious." (p. 247, 1st line, last paragraph).

Of most interest to you, maybe is the "Theological Speculation on the Relation between Grace and Freedom" (pages 248-9).

Thre are basically 5 schools of thought on problems such as, "Does this efficacy [efficacious grace] lie in the grace itself or in the free assent of the human will forseen by God?"

There seems to be no final answer to the preceeding paragraph. The five schools of thought:

*Thomistic teaching

*Augustinianism

*Molinism ( from a Jesuit named Molina))

*Congruism (Suarez, Bellarmine, etc;)

*Syncretism (Sorbonne theologians and Alphonsus Liguori)

Edited October 29, 2003 by Donna

[Cure of Ars]

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is helpful. I posted Theological Speculation on the relation between Grace and Freedom a while back. If you want to read it go here.

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...+speculation+on

Edited October 29, 2003 by Cure of Ars

[ICTHUS]

This is why Calvinist soteriology makes so much more sense. We Catholics can't even get our act together and define which is THE orthodox soteriological position!!

[cmotherofpirl]

THe book is usually cheaper at Amazon.com

[Katholikos]

This is why Calvinist soteriology makes so much more sense. We Catholics can't even get our act together and define which is THE orthodox soteriological position!!

The Apostles taught the Church so that the Church could teach others. The Church is the "household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

If the Apostles didn't get it right, forget Christianity.

If the Church didn't get it right, forget Christianity.

It is absolutely certain that Calvin didn't get it right! He was coming at these questions when the Church was 16 centuries old, and his teaching is not based upon what Jesus taught the Apostles, but upon his own unique interpretation of the Bible -- one of many such interpretations. Calvin was a heretic. Forget Calvin!

What does Scott Hahn, Ph.D., biblical scholar and theologian -- who rejected Calvinism for Catholicism -- know that you don't?

Nearly 300 clergymen last year left Protestantism and embraced Catholicism, aided by the Coming Home Network. Many of them were Calvinists. What do they know that you don't?

The founder of the Coming Home Network, Marcus Grodi, is a former Calvinist -- an ex- Presbyterian minister. His assistant was Kenneth Howell, who holds two Ph.D.'s, one in the biblical languages and one in history, also a former Calvinist, a teacher of biblical studies in a Presbyterian seminary before his conversion.

http://www.chnetwork.org

You are mistaken if you think Calvinism has clear answers. Grodi calls it the "reinvent the wheel as often as you need to" mentality.

Would you abandon the Church which Christ founded for the salvation of the world based on your superficial understanding of its teachings, and embrace the teachings of a mere man -- John Calvin? Learn what the Church teaches!

Read Triumph, The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church -- A 2,000 Year History by H.W. Crocker, III. Read John Henry Newman's "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine." Both were former Episcopalians/Anglicans.

Believe the Catholic Church -- God-made by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and guided by the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Blessed Trinity -- the pillar and foundation of the truth -- or believe John Calvin, or Henry VIII, or whomever. The choice is yours. And may God be merciful if you choose wrongly. To reject the Church is to reject Christ.

Luke 10:16 RSV: (Jesus speaks to the Apostles, the leaders of His Church) "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Ave Cor Mariae. Katholikos

Edited October 30, 2003 by Katholikos

[Uncle Gus]

Hmmm, well, that kind of makes this post irrelevant, doesn't it? :ph34r:

Edited October 30, 2003 by Uncle Gus

[Katholikos]

*cough* Ummm.... not to steal your thunder or anything? But the Holy Spirit is actually the third person of the Trinity.

Oops. Corrected. I do that sort of thing -- think one thing and write another -- since my stroke. Thanks.

[cmotherofpirl]

Oops.  Corrected.  I do that sort of thing -- think one thing and write another -- since my stroke.  Thanks.

Your STROKE? :(

[Anna]

Jay,

Your advice is so sound.

I just don't know what I'd do, if I was in ICTHUS' position, attending an Anglican school. He must get bombarded by errors and outright heresies being touted as Truths of Faith on a regular basis.

Keep the Faith, ICTHUS! (The One, True Faith! )

Take Katholikos' advice and delve into good Catholic reading. The Church has been the pillar of Truth for 2000 years. No mere man is going to find error in the Church which Christ founded. The error is in man's understanding, not in Christ's doctrines!!!

I'm sorry, I haven't delved into the Calvinist, nor Lutheran, nor any other heretical thought. I don't swim in polluted waters! I do admire your quest for Truth, and I hope when you find that you cannot reconcile some things with your own intellect, that you will consider that our minds are finite and faulty...and Christ's isn't. He promised His Church would prevail, and She shall.

May God Bless -- AND KEEP-- you!

Pax Christi. <><

Edited October 30, 2003 by Anna

[p0lar_bear]

This is why Calvinist soteriology makes so much more sense. We Catholics can't even get our act together and define which is THE orthodox soteriological position!!

Although we may have different ways of trying to express the truths we know about soteriology, that doesn't mean we are not united in those truths.

Any orthodox soteriology would have to affirm all those things we know to be true about God, man, and the relationship between the two. It must affirm that God is...well, God and man is not. It must affirm that man is a composite of body and spirit, that he has intellect, free will, emotions, etc., that God is omniscient and omnipotent, that God loves man and desires an intimate relationship with him, that He sent His only Son to restore the relationship broken by the Fall, etc., etc..

Truth cannot contradict truth. If a theory of salvation denies what we know to be true, that theory must be false.

Calvinist soteriology doesn't make sense because it denies a number of the basic truths, such as the free will of man and that God wills that all be saved.

[Donna]

Icthus, Calvin was a madman. Just ask Frances de Sales in prayer what it was like to live around the likes of his ilk.

Remember: we can judge a tree by its fruits.

[Katholikos]

deleted and reposted in a private message to cmom.

Edited October 30, 2003 by Katholikos

[kdewolf2]

This is why Calvinist soteriology makes so much more sense. We Catholics can't even get our act together and define which is THE orthodox soteriological position!!

Yes, but since we have never defined "the" orthodox soteriological position (whatever that means) we have so many more options. If you were a Calvinist, you'd have two choices, supralapsarian or infralapsarian. But as a Catholic, you have at least five choices, including Thomism, Molinism, Augustinism, Congruism, and Syncretism.

There's so much more variety and complexity and so many subtle nuances and fine scholastic distinctions and room for endless argumentation within the boundaries of orthodox Catholicism. It is truly beautiful. :wub:

But then you have orthodox Calvinism, with its measly five points and its two forms, supralapsarian and infralapsarian. Predestination "before the fall" or "after the fall."

I'll just suggest you check out this link:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/MNGGRACE.HTM

[cmotherofpirl]

I suppose it would be too easy to say its a mystery....

yep, I figured that wouldn't work.