jhpb@lancia.att.com (09/15/89)
This is a little exposition on some of the Roman Catholic doctrine on grace, prompted by a couple recent postings. There are several possible positions on grace and free will, and how a person saves their soul: 1. free will without grace 2. grace without free will 3. grace and free will The first is the position of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. Pelagianism asserted that man could save himself without grace from God. Semi-Pelagianism was a mitigated form, that did not extend the force of man's free will so far, but still exceeded the orthodox bounds. (Both these systems were condemned around 1500 years ago.) Calvinism and Jansenism teach the second position, grace without free will. When God gives grace, free will ends. Grace is irresistible. People end up in Heaven or Hell because God decides whether or not to give the necessary grace. The Catholic Church teaches a middle position, the third one. The following dogmas summarize it at a basic level: 1. The human will remains free under the influence of grace. 2. There is a grace that is truly sufficient, yet remains inefficacious. 3. All men are given sufficient grace to save their souls. Grace can be resisted. God sends many graces that are rendered ineffective by the operation of man's will. If too many graces are abused, one ends up losing one's soul. There are a half-dozen or so major Catholic systems that attempt to explain the relationship between grace and free will in depth. This is one of the most difficult problems of speculative theology, and appears to be a mystery beyond man's comprehension. There were once huge controversies in the Catholic Church over the exact solution. A special commission was called together by the Pope to attempt to resolve the issues. After interminable arguments with no definitive solution in sight, theologians were left free to pursue their investigations, as long as they are compatible with the Catholic dogmas on the subject (3 of them were enumerated above). The Catholic position on the relationship between grace and free will has several consequences. One is that it is impossible to know whether one will be saved or not, except by special revelation. Once the original sin is removed from a person's soul, by the grace of justification, their will still remains free. They can fall at any time. God will give the grace to not fall, but they will not necessarily accept it. Another consequence is the meritoriousness of good works. God sends the grace to do supernaturally good works. (By supernaturally I mean things that man cannot do without the help of the grace of God.) But man's free will remains operative, thus the merit for a good work -- God rewards those who do not resist His grace. Contrary to what some might think, the Catholic position does not deny the gratuitousness of a person's salvation. There is no salvation without the grace of God. There cannot be, because the final destiny of man is not a natural one, but a supernatural one. It cannot be reached except by supernatural means -- by definition beyond man's unaided power. There is a lot more to be said on this subject, if anyone wants to discuss it. For example, what sanctifying grace is, maybe a little more on good works, and what the Catholic Church understands St. Paul to mean when he says "by faith are you saved". Joe Buehler [I've read enough on this subject to be less quick with canned Calvinist answers than I used to be. This comment is not intended as a critique, but as a way to see whether I understand what you are saying. This seems a reasonable thing for a moderator to do... Let me first start by giving the classic Reformed analysis of this position. The obvious interpretation of what you are saying is that salvation has two components: grace and a contribution from us. God gives everyone sufficient grace. So if it is not efficacious, it is because of a problem with our contribution. Since it is efficacious for some, that means that ultimately those who were saved really weren't so bad off to begin with. They were not totally corrupted by sin. They had enough good left in them to be willing to accept God's grace. This is what the Reformers understood Catholics to be saying. They found it unsatisfactory, because it seemed to deny the full seriousness of sin, and because ultimately it made salvation dependent upon our own resources. However I have a feeling that at least some Catholics are saying something that is slightly different than this. In fact it is very tempting to read Trent as saying exactly what I have summarized in the previous paragraph. But Orange certainly does not. It emphasizes that sin has completely corrupted us. God's grace must be bestowed before any "cooperation" can occur. Whereas the model that the Reformers thought they saw was essentially additive (God's grace must be added to something in us) I think Orange had in mind something that might better be thought of as multiplicative. In their unfallen state, human beings really did have the ability to choose both good or to choose evil. But sin corrrupted all of us, so that without God's grace, all of us would choose evil. What God's grace does is essentially to remove the results of the fall, and to restore our wills to the point where they can really choose. And then of course they do choose. So ultimately the difference between saved and not is a difference in the people. But that doesn't mean that anything is left untouched by sin. Before God's grace acts, even those who are to be saved are completely corrupted. But once God's grace has reversed the effects of original sin, there are still individual differences, and those differences determine who ends up being saved. [This position would still be unsatisfactory to the Reformers, but it doesn't have as many problems as the previous one.] --clh]