Question #3

[Guest ICTHUS-guest]

[b]3. Sola Gratia[/b]

Protestantism, and specifically Reformed (i.e. Calvinistic) Protestantism, with which I have dealt in the past and encounter the most resistance to my faith from, expresses salvation as being sola gratia (grace alone) as one of their five distinctive solas. Reformed Protestantism, therefore, contends that Man, after the fall, has had his free will totally destroyed by Original Sin, making him “dead in his transgressions” (Ephesians 2), and apart from Gods grace effectually calling him, and in so doing breathing life into his dead soul, he would perish forever in Hell.

I understand that the Catholic Church teaches a similar doctrine about the total inability of man to come to God by his own volition. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica - Prima Secundae Partis, s. 109, 2-10), following St. Augustine, especially taught this, and I believe it wholeheartedly. This is why we baptize infants, who, from the first moment of their conception, are ‘dead in their sins’ (even though they have no personal sin, they are still subject to original sin)

However, there come the troublesome statements of the Council of Trent regarding this matter.

[b]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. [/b]

The reason why this is troublesome lies in what I said above. Unregenerate man (however you want to say regeneration occurs) is stone cold dead. He can’t move himself to be penitent as he ought.

If you want to use an analogy – a man is unconscious in the middle of a storm, in twelve foot waves. In the words of Caedmons Call “Not waving, but drowning all this time” He is drowning, and there’s nothing he can do to keep his head above water, because he is unconscious. A man comes along in a helicopter, which is, miraculously, able to withstand the hurricane force winds. The helicopter lowers a rescue sling down to the man, but the man is unconscious, so he can’t move himself to get into the sling. The man must get his copilot to fly the chopper while he rappels down into the water, grabs the man, puts him into the sling, brings him back into the chopper, and flies him to the hospital, where he is resuscitated and treated for pneumonia.

Now, Trent would have us believe that an unconscious man could get himself into the sling (so to speak!) This is simply unbiblical, and I have no idea how any Biblical Christian could affirm such a preposterous idea.

[ICTHUS]

Any takers here?

[Laudate_Dominum]

my advice would be to read. I know thats not the most original advice in the world. I'd post a complete response, but others have written much on this and I'm about to go to bed.
If this is really a big hang up for you I would recommend Jimmy Akin's book "The Salvation Controversy".
If you don't feel like buying a book here are some of his online articles.

[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/grace_al.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/grace_al.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/christ_a.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/christ_a.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/justcath.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/justcath.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/pastpres.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/pastpres.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/cooperat.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/cooperat.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/work-law.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/work-law.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm[/url]

Also some good stuff here:
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS7.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS7.HTM[/url]

I could give you dozens of other online things to read too.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='ICTHUS-guest' date='Mar 28 2004, 02:01 PM'] [b]3. Sola Gratia[/b]

Protestantism, and specifically Reformed (i.e. Calvinistic) Protestantism, with which I have dealt in the past and encounter the most resistance to my faith from, expresses salvation as being sola gratia (grace alone) as one of their five distinctive solas. Reformed Protestantism, therefore, contends that Man, after the fall, has had his free will totally destroyed by Original Sin, making him “dead in his transgressions” (Ephesians 2), and apart from Gods grace effectually calling him, and in so doing breathing life into his dead soul, he would perish forever in Hell.

I understand that the Catholic Church teaches a similar doctrine about the total inability of man to come to God by his own volition. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica - Prima Secundae Partis, s. 109, 2-10), following St. Augustine, especially taught this, and I believe it wholeheartedly. This is why we baptize infants, who, from the first moment of their conception, are ‘dead in their sins’ (even though they have no personal sin, they are still subject to original sin)

However, there come the troublesome statements of the Council of Trent regarding this matter.

[b]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. [/b]

The reason why this is troublesome lies in what I said above. Unregenerate man (however you want to say regeneration occurs) is stone cold dead. He can’t move himself to be penitent as he ought.

If you want to use an analogy – a man is unconscious in the middle of a storm, in twelve foot waves. In the words of Caedmons Call “Not waving, but drowning all this time” He is drowning, and there’s nothing he can do to keep his head above water, because he is unconscious. A man comes along in a helicopter, which is, miraculously, able to withstand the hurricane force winds. The helicopter lowers a rescue sling down to the man, but the man is unconscious, so he can’t move himself to get into the sling. The man must get his copilot to fly the chopper while he rappels down into the water, grabs the man, puts him into the sling, brings him back into the chopper, and flies him to the hospital, where he is resuscitated and treated for pneumonia.

Now, Trent would have us believe that an unconscious man could get himself into the sling (so to speak!) This is simply unbiblical, and I have no idea how any Biblical Christian could affirm such a preposterous idea. [/quote]
the key to understanding the catholic position on sola gratia is the role of free will. God's saving grace is something that we MUST choose to accept. your analogy fails b/c the man in the ocean is being saved against his will. this is not how Jesus chooses to save people. salvation is a choice. if we make it to heaven one day, it is for two reasons:

1. God supplied the grace for us to be saved
2. We CHOSE to accept it.

anything less is a denial of the free will that is an inherent right of every human being. also, note that the fact that we must accept God's grace DOES NOT take away the fact that we need His grace in order to be saved. w/o God's grace, we CANNOT be saved. in this, we are in agreement w/ the calvinists. but, the calvinist denies free will b/c he assumes that, to admit to the role of free will is to somehow take away from the power of God's grace. this is an illogical conclusion. God's grace has the power to save every single person on the face of this earth. but, He does not force this upon us. we must accept it. God's grace is just as powerful when we accept it as it is if we refuse it. THE POWER OF GOD'S GRACE DOES NOT DEPEND UPON WHETHER WE ACCEPT IT OR NOT. this fact seems to allude most calvinists.

to apply this understanding to your analogy, i say the man in the ocean is not dead. yes, he is struggling for dear life, and at times only has a pinky above the water, but he is not dead. this is b/c the second he "dies" he loses his free will. he is a man w/o the ability to choose. this is just blatantly contradictory to what we know about human beings. therefore, he is not dead, but struggling furiously, and when the rescuer climbs down the ladder, the man in the ocean merely reaches out his hand, and his is saved.

NOTE: the fact that the man is not dead, and that he reaches out his hand DOES NOT mean that the man is somehow saved by his own merit or ability. the fact is that the man CANNOT be saved if not for the rescuer. likewise, the rescuer's ability or potential to save the man does not depend on rather he sticks out his hand or not. put another way, "God's grace is potentially efficacious for all of mankind, but it is only ultimately efficacious for the elect......the elect being those who respond to God's graces."

i know that i have been somewhat repetitive w/ this post, but i feel that repitition is essential w/ a topic that is so easily misunderstood. you may find these two articles particularly helpful:

[b]--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ500.HTM"]1 Cor 3:9 and Man's Cooperation with God[/url]
--[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/cooperat.htm"]Resisting and Cooperating with God[/url][/b]

i hope this helps...........pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Hananiah]

Yes, ICTHUS, the Catholic Church does teach justification by grace alone. It is not a distinctive Protestant belief by any means. Reformed Protestants, however, believe that regeneration is the first step in the process of salvation, whereas Catholics do not. According to reformed theology, God picks out His elect, regenerates them (a sovereign, irresistible action which brings the person to spiritual life), then instills them with faith and credits them with Christ's righteousness. The Catholic salvation scheme has regeneration taking place later. God first works in the will, without the person's knowledge, and draws him to Christ and makes him will to do good. Then the person may respond by seeking out baptism, the laver of regeneration, or he may stubbornly refuse. When the person is baptized God regererates him i.e. declares him His beloved son in whom He is well pleased, infuses him with the theological virtue of charity, and forgives him his entire debt of sin. Then he must endure to the end as a devout follower of Christ. It is solely God's grace which allows him to do so, however he has the power to resist.

[ICTHUS]

Phatcatholic - I don't see how man's being anything other than dead in the water - (cf. Ephesians 2, "dead in your transgressions") could be arrived at from Scripture.

Hananiah - you repeat twice that a man may resist grace. If this is so, then mans part of not resisting is added to God's grace in order to make it efficacious. Thus, salvation is not by grace alone, but by God's grace plus mans will. This is nothing other than semi-pelagianism.

[Hananiah]

[quote]Hananiah - you repeat twice that a man may resist grace. If this is so, then mans part of not resisting is added to God's grace in order to make it efficacious. Thus, salvation is not by grace alone, but by God's grace plus mans will. This is nothing other than semi-pelagianism.[/quote]
No, semi-Pelagianism posits that we make an acive contribution to grace, and thus salvation is partly by grace and partly by our own power. Not resisting is a passive contribution.

[Hananiah]

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that God gave different kinds of grace to the elect and the reprobate: to the elect He gave grace which was always effficacious, and to the reprobate He gave grace which was sufficient but never efficacious. While I do lean towards Thomism when it comes to predestination, I'm not prepared to accept this idea. However, it is an acceptable position within the Catholic Church so you may adopt it if you wish.

I believe rather that the spiritually dead cannot resist being brought back to life, but that the spiritually alive can resist being nourished and can kill themselves.

Edited March 31, 2004 by Hananiah

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Mar 31 2004, 01:22 AM'] I believe rather that the spiritually dead cannot resist being brought back to life, but that the spiritually alive can resist being nourished and can kill themselves. [/quote]
hmm, that's interesting. i've never thought of it like that before

[nick goes somewhere by himself so he can think]

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Mar 31 2004, 01:11 AM'] No, semi-Pelagianism posits that we make an acive contribution to grace, and thus salvation is partly by grace and partly by our own power.  Not resisting is a passive contribution. [/quote]
[quote]Not resisting is a passive contribution.[/quote] But the fact remains that God's grace is still conditional on our non-resistance. Thus, salvation is not by grace alone, but Gods grace plus the assent of mans will.

The question here, as I see it, is not whether grace is necessary. The Roman Catholic Church makes that unequivocally clear. The question is, whether or not it is [i]sufficent. [/i]

Is it [i]sola gratia[/i], or [i]gratia cum ergo homine[/i]?

Edited March 31, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Laudate_Dominum]

The links I gave are quite informative, I assure you.

[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/cooperat.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/cooperat.htm[/url]

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Mar 31 2004, 03:06 PM'] But the fact remains that God's grace is still conditional on our non-resistance. Thus, salvation is not by grace alone, but Gods grace plus the assent of mans will.

The question here, as I see it, is not whether grace is necessary. The Roman Catholic Church makes that unequivocally clear. The question is, whether or not it is [i]sufficent. [/i]

Is it [i]sola gratia[/i], or [i]gratia cum ergo homine[/i]? [/quote]
Well, Scripture indicates that God conditions His grace on man's non-resistance.

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not?" (Matt. 23:37)

"You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost. As your fathers did, so do you also." (Acts 7:51)

I think the solution to this problem is that God is the one who produces man's response, by first working in man's will without his knowledge. This was St. Augustine's theory.

[Brother Adam]

Just something to add: Any co-operation by man in any part of his relationship with God is by the grace of God alone.

[the lumberjack]

hellos to all my fellow phatmassers! it is I, your friendly neighborhood LUMBERJACK! spilling my beans...and my guts!!!

Despite the Bible's teaching that God justifies sinners "as a gift by His grace" (Romans 3:24), the Roman Catholic Church says that candidates seeking justification must perform good works (CCC 1248-1249). At the same time, the Church maintains that Roman Catholic justification is a fre gift, offering two reasons:

[b]first,[/b]explains the church, good works performed in preapration for justificatino are done so under the influence of actual grace (CCC 1989, 1998) The works themselves, therefore, are works of grace (2001).

The second reason, according to the Church, is that justification cannnot be earned (1308, 1992, 1996,1999,2003,2010,2027):

We are said to receive justification as a free gift because nothing that precedes justification, [b]neither[/b] faith nor works, would merit the grace of justification...

--Council of Trent

in the words of the new Cathecism:

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no on can merit the initial grace of fogiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion.

---CCC 2010

This means that though a person must have both faith AND works to be justified, NIETHER his faith NOR his works directly earn the blessing of justification.[i]*1[/i] Consequently, the Church's theologians argue, Catholic justification is a gift of God.

YET the person seeking justification must work hard and long "several years if necessary"(Rites of the Catholic Church...vol1 p71). The R.C.I.A requires candidates to demonstrate their conversion by acts of:

* loving and worshipping God
*praying
*fasting
*loving one's neighbor
*practicing self-renunciation
*obeying the commandments
*bearing witness to the Catholic faith
*following supernatural inspiration in deeds
*confessing the major doctrines of the Church

Telling a person who actually has met all these requirements that justification is a free, unmerited gift would be meaningless. Such a person would haev every right to be declared righteous by his own merit. But the Bible says, "to the one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due." (Romans 4:4). Requiring even one good work for justification makes justification, at least in part, an earned blessing.

According to the Bible, justification is NOT earned: it IS a gift. God justifies believers "as a gift by His grace" (Romans 3:24). If God does something by grace, then "it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Romans 11:6). That is why God does not ask sinners to work for justification, but to believe. He justifies "the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26).

The Catholic Church on the other hand, maintains that justification by faith without works, is heresy:

If anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but trust in the divine mercy, which pardons sins because of Christ; or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema
-- Council of Trent

Faith alone says the church is insufficient grounds for justification (CCC1815-1816):

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning thereby that no other cooperation is required for him to obtain the grace of justification, and that in no sense is it necessary for him to make preparation and be disposed by a movement of his own will: let him be anathema.

--Council of Trent

Aware that PAUL REPEATEDLY lists faith as the only required response for justification (Romans 3:26, 3:28, 4:3, 5:1), the church realizes that its condemnation of justification by faith as a gift demands some further explanation:

When the Apostle says that a person is justified by faith as a gift, those words are to be understood in the sense which the perennial consent of the catholic church has maintained and expressed, namelhy, that we are said to be justified by faith because faith is the first stage of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justificatino, without which it is impossible to please God and come to the fellowship of His children.

-- Council of Trent

however, there is NOTHING in Paul's writings (or anywhere else in the NEW TESTAMENT, for that matter) which teaches that faith is merely the "first stage" leading to justification. When the church calls faith the "first stage" of salvatino, and good works the second satge, it ignores the fact that the BIBLE emphatically states that good works have NO PART in justification.

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

--Romans 4:5

According to the Bible, the only requirement for justification if FAITH.

and anyone who wants to bring up James 2:24...MAKE sure you know that James WASN'T speaking to a group of CATACHUMENS...but a group of people already professing to be Christians...and keep it in context with the 13 verse group its in (James 2:14-26)....

[i]*1[/i] Catholic theologians divide merit into two Categories. Merit de condigno is a true merit in which the reward is the just and deserving value of the work performed. Merit de congruo is an improper kind of merit in which the reward received exceed the value of the work, because of the generosity of God. This latter merit contributes to the reception of a benefit, but does not fully earn it.

SOME Catholic theologians, including Thomas Aquinas, teach that the first actual grace can be merited by an already justified person on behalf of a sinner. They say for example, that Stephen, the first martyr of the church, congrously merited the conversion of Paul, who observed the stoning of Stephen. Also, Monica congrously merited first grace for her son Augustine. Addtionally, some Catholic theologians hold that the unjuistifed sinner acting under the influence of first actual grace can congruously merit for himself an increase of actual grace, which further helps prepare him for justification. Since in both these cases the merit is de congruo, Catholic justification can still be said to be completely dependent on pure grace. At least, this is how Catholic theologians see it. (for further explanation read: Manual of Dogmatic Theology...by A. Tanquerery...vol2 pp181-182

love.

and BIG UPS to James G. McCarthy!!!

[Archangel]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 31 2004, 07:49 PM']and BIG UPS to James G. McCarthy!!![/quote]
Who is James G. McCarthy?