Grace, Irresistable Grace, Just God's Benevolence?

[thessalonian]

Okay I am reading James McCarthy's "The Gospel According to Rome" in preparation for my debate with him in about a month. It is quite clear in there that grace is simply the benevolence of God at the moment we are saved, a free gift, in forgetting our sins. It does not seem to be any kind of an ongoing thing in our lives. He never mentions sanctification and grace in the same breath and it seems that the Holy Spirit is separate from grace. Yet the doctrine of irresistable grace implies that grace is something in itself. Not just God's benevolence because his benevolence implies only something in him. Also it seems like Calvinist types who believe in Irresistable grace say that we WILL do what God gives us the grace to do. Now maybe I am missing some protestant theology on grace but it seems to be very vague with regard to grace. Your input would be appreciated.

[dairygirl4u2c]

justification
catholics: sustaining and adding to it
luther: sustain
calvin: neither

he acts then like we are zombies, as i'm sure you realize. isn't that the idea of irresistible grace, that we are zombies and our free will doesn't mean anything? it's not truly irresistible if it's done freely. maybe kinda like irresistable but not really.

you might be sure to see that he doesn't think sanctification and grace go hand in hand.... not in ths justification process catholic sense but in the sense that luther "faith alone,,, but faith is never alone". if he were at least like luther and not calvin on the matter... then it wouldn't be the same as saying he's saying we're zombies. ie, we wouldn't be zombies, sanctification would be the requirement to sustain.

it sounds like the only way to truly believe in one point justification and OSAS is to be more like calvin and less like luther. if he thinks we're zombies,,, that could explain how we wouldn't fall away.
it's important to remember that justification and OSAS are related but distinct points. some would say you can't fall awya if you're justified,,, most would say jesus meant what he said about the parabe of the seeds on bad soil etc. a reasonable prot would at least say you can lose your salvation,,, all you do by sanctifying is sustaining it.... not sustaining and adding to it. luther would have you fall away,,, if you don't have works,, i think? calvin probably wouldn't. this guys sounds like he's not into sustain or adding to it.


i didn't explain very clearly,,, but here some random food for thought.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well maybe that's not a fair characterization. calvin would probably say.... sanctifiation is an act of free will. and, if you're truly saved, you wouldn't fall away.

so the bottomline then... is that that guy is saying it's not an act of free will,,, or he's simply saying that if you're truly saved, you wouldn't fall away.

if that makes sense...

[dairygirl4u2c]

ie i thought irresistible grace meant you can't resist it like a zombie cant. but i thik it means you can't resist it, in a way that would preclude you from losing it. ie, you're marked and set. if you're sinnig etc,,, you were never really saved.

[Paddington]

McCarthy is coming across vague?

You can ask him what he believes about verses in 1 Corinthians chapter 1.
Sanctified in v2. Illuminated in v5. Gifted in v7. Maintained in v.8. And v.30 that shows Christ as wisdom, righteousness, holiness and redemption to the believer. Before v30, there is grace before even believing.
1Cor 3:6 later shows believers' growth as God's work.

If this is where it goes, you could easily bring up 1:10 on unity and that the Eucharist is treated towards the end of the letter.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1632561' date='Aug 20 2008, 08:41 AM']Okay I am reading James McCarthy's "The Gospel According to Rome" in preparation for my debate with him in about a month. It is quite clear in there that grace is simply the benevolence of God at the moment we are saved, a free gift, in forgetting our sins. It does not seem to be any kind of an ongoing thing in our lives. He never mentions sanctification and grace in the same breath and it seems that the Holy Spirit is separate from grace. Yet the doctrine of irresistable grace implies that grace is something in itself. Not just God's benevolence because his benevolence implies only something in him. Also it seems like Calvinist types who believe in Irresistable grace say that we WILL do what God gives us the grace to do. Now maybe I am missing some protestant theology on grace but it seems to be very vague with regard to grace. Your input would be appreciated.[/quote]

One qustion you might want to pose to him (I am pretty sure he is a Calvinist, I visited his Church down in LA once before my conversion), which I have never gotten a good answer to, is in the following line of questions:

Catholic: So you believe that the grace of God seizes the human being, and accomplishes the end for which it is given irrespective of the human being's free will?

Calvinist: Yes, I do. Unless we acknowledge that justification is entirely God's work in our lives, then we are mixing ourselves up in the economy of salvation and Scripture clearly teaches that we are saved by Christ. Not by Christ [i]and[/i] us.

Catholic: Okay, let us examine this premise (of irresistible grace), and see where it takes us. Is this fair?

Calvinist: Proceed.

Catholic: Grace produces the effect which God intends in the human being irrespective of the free will of the human being.

Calvinist: Yes, we have established that it cannot be otherwise.

Catholic: Is the sanctification of a human being the product of grace or a product of the efforts of the human being to be a "good person"?

Calvinist: It is certainly the product of grace. No efforts on our part have any power to make us righteous before God. As the Scripture says, our works are as filthy rags before God.

Catholic: I agree, but we have arrived at a contradiction.

Calvinist: What? Explain.

Catholic: If sanctification is the product of grace, and grace is irresistable, then why are you not shining with glory and righteousness? Why are you not transfigured before me as fully manifesting the New Creation which Scripture calls us?

Calvinist: I do not understand.

Catholic: You said that sanctification is the product of grace, and that grace is irresistable. God has given you grace (because you say that you are saved now and forever), so why are you not the perfect image of God? You see, God's grace cannot be irresistable given the fact that you (who call yourself saved) are not fully sanctified: something is standing in the way. Catholic doctrine states the obvious: our will can "get in the way" of God's grace. Our doctrine explains the data. Yours does not. I am forced to dismiss your theoogical novelty as self-contradictory.

Calvinist: .... [will change the subject]


Try that one on for size! As I said, I have never gotten a good answer. Some might try and say "sanctification is a separate issue," but then we can ask if they really believe that God is witholding grace from them for the purpose of sanctification. No Christian would say that. Grace abounds for sanctification and if it is irresistable, then it should produce the effect of sanctification. Period.

God bless and be with you!

Philip

[thessalonian]

My point is that he is vague about grace, sanctification, and how it ties to the Cross as I find most protestants to be. Not that he is vague about sanctification itself. He has justification as a one time event and justification happening by grace, which seems to only be God's benevolence. He does speak about God as the cause of sanctification, but does not seem to associate it with grace unless I missed something. Yet as I stated the implication of irresistable grace is that grace is not a one time event and is a part of sanctification, unless I am missing something. I plan to read the book or at least parts of it twice.

[thessalonian]

Thx dairy, I understand your point. It is helpful. One thing that he does that I find very irratating is that he mixes up the Catholic doctrine on Justification with his own. He says it is improper to include sanctification with justification (though the cause of the need for sanctificaition is related to the sin that needs to be justified) and then he goes ahead and accuses the Catholic Church of saying that justification in the protestant sense is accomplished by works. I can show many quotes that prove only that it is the sanctification part of justification that is accomplished by works. Certainly the idea of confession and baptism being for the forgiveness of sins implies that in the protestant sense of the word, justification is not by works. One must go to Christ for the forgiveness part (through baptism or the sacrament of reconciliation).

Edited August 20, 2008 by thessalonian

[Deb]

You could print out the New Advent info on Grace and read it to him.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm[/url]

I would have to read that page about fifty times before I could actually discuss it.

[MakeYouThink]

Here's the problem with men trying to think about God's works and God's words.

They try to use their. . . Brains to figure it out.

Jesus said his ways are higher than our ways as the heavens are higher than the Earth.

So people try to intellectualize why their arguments about God are correct.

But since Our ways are not God's ways, and our ways are so much more limited compared to God's ways, I don't think there should be any debate. You just have to get to know God on your own, pray to him, read his word, and get 'cozy' with him. That's what it is about. I want to get to know God, his voice, and his thoughts and his will, because it excites me to know him.

So, when you start intellectualizing your debates why your thoughts of God are right, remind yourself, your thoughts are not God's thoughts, and your ways are not God's ways, and your understandings are not his understandings!

Your mind is to make up how you are going to serve God, not to understand him, because he can't be understood by the human mind!

[MilesJesu]

Thess,

You are certainly capturing the implications of his doctrine. The biggest distinction in my opinion is that Protestants do not see Grace as a sharing in the life of God.

CCC 1997 [b]Grace is a participation in the life of God[/b]. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

I bolded the "participation in the life of God" as the Catholic understanding of Grace is not merely reduced to being justified. If we were merely justified but never sanctified, we would be incomplete since these should be insepearable. Although sn infant can recieve initial sanctifying grace and be adopted in the family of God, as the infant grows, they may not be ulitmately "saved." To Protestants, this is heresy. Some have problem with baptizing babies, others with someone who is "saved" falling away.

Nonetheless, as Catholics, we see Baptism as the initial adoption into the family of God and then we have the initial Grace to work out our salvation. Protestants such as McCarthy cling to the juridical model where once they are "saved" (by the sinners prayer), their sins are forgiven, past-present-FUTURE. The sins of tomorrow are of no consequence in such a belief system since "they have already been forgiven." Hence, it is seldom discussed. When confronted, most will deal with FUTURE, un-repentant sin as "they were never really saved."

This lack of understanding Grace - as a [b]participation[/b] in the Life of God - impoverishes their ability to deal with sin today and tomorrow, as well as sanctification. Ultimately, sanctification in most Protestant views is something that happens in an instant when a ""true believer" dies.

A big disconnect which you have highlighted, is that although justifiction and sanctification are achieved through the sacrfice of Christ on the Cross, how is it applied? Protestants believe this sacrifice is applied completely for justification in a juridical sense, but sketchy on the sanctification issue. Hence, most believe that sanctification will happen after we die. Almost all Protestant theologies avoid the messy middle or in between. This is where the Catholic position is the only consistent position.

Not sure if this makes sense, but I hope it helps.

Peace,

MilesJesu

[thessalonian]

Yes, very much. Thank you for your articulation of the matter as it helped alot!