Are we justified by faith alone?

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

If you are not misconscuing the JD, please explain this paragraph:

“Where, however, Lutheran teaching construes … that the person’s willing acceptance of God’s grace - which is itself a gift of God - has no essential role in justification, then the Tridentine canons 4, 5, 6 and 9 still constitute a notable doctrinal difference on justification” (PCPCU 22).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholicism does not teach that purely natural action by man preceding justification merits justification. The lack of disposition can be a barrier, but disposition is a necessary pre-condition, not a cause in the strict sense of the word.

***“Grace cannot be merited by natural works either de condigno or de congruo (DE FIDE)” ***(Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 236)

As I understand it (putting aside Catholic Molinist views for now, and sticking with the Thomist view)…

1. God gives the never-before-justified sinner a gift that in Catholic terms is called “antecedent actual grace” (e.g., message of God) which enlightens the intellect and strengthens the will. This is described by Catholic theologians as “God working alone ‘in us, without us.’” (ibid., 226)

***“There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will (DE FIDE)” ***(ibid., 226, cf. D. 813)

“Holy Scripture indicates the working of antecedent grace in the metaphors of standing and knocking at the door (Apoc. 3, 20), of the drawing by the Father (John 6:44), of the invocation of God (Jer. 17:23, Ps. 94:8)” (ibid, 227)

Remember, antecedent grace precedes “the free act of the will” so it truly is God working alone ‘in us, without us’ to enlighten our intellect and strengthen our will. Our cooperation in this supernatural intervention is non-existent and irrelevant.

Cooperation of our will consequent to actual grace, is necessary.

1. Salutary acts are defined by Catholicism as “God and man working together.” In this way, God works “in us, with us.” (cf. ibid., 227). This too is possible only because of a gift that God gives, called by Catholics “consequent grace.” One does not receive consequent grace before initial justification.

The sinner (before initial justification), although enlightened and strengthen by God without the help of our free act of will, can freely decide what to do with such an illuminated soul. He can remain impenitently sinful, or can repent. What causes his repentence?

***Man of himself cannot acquire any positive disposition for grace (SENT. CERTA) ***(ibid., 237)

Natural positive disposition of grace is not possible. “The Second Council of Orange teaches that the desire for purification from sin does not come from the natural desire of man, but is prompted by an antecedent grace given by the Holy Ghost. D. 177; cf. 179. Holy Scripture ascribes the beginning of salvation and the whole work of salvation to the grace of God.” (ibid., 237). This comes from the Augustinian view of Scripture, which asserts that grace is absolutely gratuitous. Can man naturally acquire negative dispositon (ie., avoidance of sin)? Molinists think so, but it remains true that: “***God does not give grace, because man avoids sin, but because He earnestly desires the salvation of all mankind.” ***(ibid., 238). Thus, grace is still gratuitous.

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Man does not posses a congrous claim (meritum de congruo) to the bestowal of grace (which is a condemned Semi-Pelagian proposition).

1. Let us presume now the previously un-justified sinner has repented (speaking just of adults at this point), *which is a positivie disposition given by the Holy Spirit, *and does not come from the natural desire of man, but is prompted by antecedent grace. Such prompting, however, if it is not rejected by the sinner, it is said to be cooperated with freely, so the sinner acts in accordance with that prompting. That prompting may be, for example, the desire for baptism.

The Council of Trent states “If any one says that man’s free will, moved and awakened by God, does in no manner co-operate when it assents to God, who excites and calls it, thereby disposing and preparing itself to receive the grace of justification; and (if any one says) that it cannot dissent if it wishes, but that, like some inanimate thing, it does nothing whatever, and only remains passive, let him be anathema.” (ibid., 246)

Assent to God’s message, his antecedant grace, is how one co-operates. As I see it “passive” as connoting that one “It cannot dissent if it wishes*.” *The JD asserts, “Lutherans do not deny that a person can reject the working of grace.”

And just in case this is misconstrued, the JD asserts: "Where, however, Lutheran teaching construes… that the person’s willing acceptance of God’s grace - which is itself a gift of God - has no essential role in justification, then the Tridentine canons 4, 5, 6 and 9 still constitute a notable doctrinal difference on justification"

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

Do you have a reference for this:

God’s grace is the primary cause; the response of the will is the secondary cause.

Nowhere in Ott’s section titled “The Causes of Justification” (pg 251), does he describe the response of the will as a secondary cause.

It does state that “Faith is a necessary pre-condition for justification.” It is not a cause strictly so-called, but a pre-condition. If it is lacking, a barrier to justification exists.

 

[silverbullet]

The problem with this doctrine and the catholic/lutheran aruments is in defining faith. There is much confusion. Luther read Paul and James and John in his epistles talked about works.

If you go back to the greek, the word believe shades in greek as adhere to, trust in and rely on, not just a head belief, which is what james is saying. If you have just a head belief, there will be no works, so just as the demons believe and tremble, so the person with the head belief only did not really recieve saving faith, because if they had, they would have been changed on the inside resulting in works of love and service to others.

It is not then that the works saved them, but that if there are no works, the person is in all likelihood, not saved, and they do not have real faith.

Laura

 

[RSiscoe]

Dave:

Catholicism does not teach that purely natural action by man preceding justification merits justification. The lack of disposition can be a barrier, but disposition is a necessary pre-condition, not a cause in the strict sense of the word.

***“Grace cannot be merited by natural works either de condigno or de congruo (DE FIDE)” ***(Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 236)

Yes, that’s correct. Man does not first turn to God of himself; rather, God first sends an actual grace to man, which causes man to turn to God. But, after receiving the actual grace (which has inclined the will toward God), man must “choose” to either correspond to this movement of grace by cooperating with it, or reject if by not corresponding.

It is similar to temptation: Temptation inclines the will to choose sin – it is the cause of sin; yet man is guilty if he corresponds with the temptation, because, although the temptation was the cause of sin, his free will consented to the bad desire.

With grace it is the opposite: God send an actual grace which inclines man to turn towards God. Man then must correspond with this movement of grace by cooperating with it.

Dave:

God gives the never-before-justified sinner a gift that in Catholic terms is called “antecedent actual grace” (e.g., message of God) which enlightens the intellect and strengthens the will. This is described by Catholic theologians as “God working alone ‘in us, without us.’” (ibid., 226)

***“There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will (DE FIDE)” ***(ibid., 226, cf. D. 813)

Yes, that’s right. But notice the word that I underlined above. God does what to the will? He strengthens it. Why does God strengthen it? So that the will is more easily able to correspond to the movement of grace. If the free will did not need to correspond, it would be unnecessary for God to strengthen it.

But yes, all that you have written is correct: First God sends an actual grace which inclines man’s will towards God and even strengthens it so that it can correspond; then, the free will corresponds to the movement of actual grace. The soul is justified, only after the free will accepts and corresponds to the movement of grace.

**Whether for the justification of the ungodly is required a movement of the free-will? **

I answer that, The justification of the ungodly is brought about by God moving man to justice [by actual grace]. For He it is “that justifieth the ungodly” according to Rm. 4:5. Now God moves everything in its own manner…Hence He moves man to justice according to the condition of his human nature. But it is man’s proper nature to have free-will. Hence in him who has the use of reason*, God’s motion to justice does not take place without a movement of the free-will**;…"*

**Reply to Objection 3[of the same article]. In the infusion of justifying grace there is a certain transmutation of the human soul, and hence a proper movement of the human soul is required in order that the soul may be moved in its own manner…"

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

St. Thomas describes four things that take place when a sinner is justified:

St. Thomas: "Hence in their natural order the first in the justification of the ungodly is the infusion of grace; the second is the free-will’s movement towards God; the third is the free-will’s movement towards sin [in order to detest it], for he who is being justified detests sin because it is against God, and thus the free-will’s movement towards God naturally precedes the free-will’s movement towards sin, since it is its cause and reason; the fourth and last is the remission of sin, to which this transmutation is ordained as to an end, as stated above (Q. 113 A 8, answer)

Now remember, the Joint Declaration explicitly states that: "According to the Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation…", which is totally false. Now, let’s continue, because I think we are about to clear this up.

Dave:

Remember, antecedent grace precedes “the free act of the will” so it truly is God working alone ‘in us, without us’ to enlighten our intellect and strengthen our will. Our cooperation in this supernatural intervention is non-existent and irrelevant.

True, the first movement of grace is not due to free will. But, the first movement of grace does not justify. In order to become justified, the free will most correspond to the grace by cooperating with it, as has been shown.

Dave:

Cooperation of our will consequent to actual grace, is necessary.

True, but the initial actual grace received, which was independent of our will, does not justify. To be justified, the sinner must correspond with that actual grace.

Dave:

Salutary acts are defined by Catholicism as “God and man working together.” In this way, God works “in us, with us.” (cf. ibid., 227). This too is possible only because of a gift that God gives, called by Catholics “consequent grace.” One does not receive consequent grace before initial justification.

Between the initial actual grace received, and the consequent grace given. a movement of the free will is required. Consequent grace is a grace given as a “consequence” of the free will corresponding to actual grace.

Dave:

The sinner (before initial justification), although enlightened and strengthen by God without the help of our free act of will, can freely decide what to do with such an illuminated soul. He can remain impenitently sinful, or can repent. What causes his repentance?

The cause is grace; the effect of the cause (sanctification) is produce by the correspondence of free will. You cannot eliminate the necessity of free will in justification just because grace is the initial cause, any more than you can eliminate the guilt of sin because passion was the cause. The will stands between the flesh (passion) and the spirit(grace). Grace moves the will to choose good, and the flesh moves the will to choose evil. “The passions… are the cause of sin” (St. Thomas).

St. Thomas: “the internal cause of sin is both the will, as completing the sinful act, and the reason, as lacking the due rule [over the passions], and the appetite, as inclining to sin. Accordingly, something external might be the cause of sin in three ways, either by moving the will itself immediately, or by moving the reason, or by moving the sensitive appetite” (St. Thomas Q 75. A 3).

***Man of himself cannot acquire any positive disposition for grace (SENT. CERTA) ***(ibid., 237)

Natural positive disposition of grace is not possible. “The Second Council of Orange teaches that the desire for purification from sin does not come from the natural desire of man, but is prompted by an antecedent grace given by the Holy Ghost. D. 177; cf. 179. Holy Scripture ascribes the beginning of salvation and the whole work of salvation to the grace of God.” (ibid., 237)… ***God does not give grace, because man avoids sin, but because He earnestly desires the salvation of all mankind." ***(ibid., 238). Thus, grace is still gratuitous.

1. Let us presume now the previously un-justified sinner has repented (speaking just of adults at this point), *which is a positivie disposition given by the Holy Spirit, *and does not come from the natural desire of man, but is prompted by antecedent grace. Such prompting, however, if it is not rejected by the sinner, it is said to be cooperated with freely, so the sinner acts in accordance with that prompting. That prompting may be, for example, the desire for baptism.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

St. Thomas describes four things that take place when a sinner is justified:

St. Thomas: "Hence in their natural order the first in the justification of the ungodly is the infusion of grace; the second is the free-will’s movement towards God; the third is the free-will’s movement towards sin [in order to detest it], for he who is being justified detests sin because it is against God, and thus the free-will’s movement towards God naturally precedes the free-will’s movement towards sin, since it is its cause and reason; the fourth and last is the remission of sin, to which this transmutation is ordained as to an end, as stated above (Q. 113 A 8, answer)

Now remember, the Joint Declaration explicitly states that: “According to the Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation…”, which is totally false. Now, let’s continue, because I think we are about to clear this up.

Dave:

Remember, antecedent grace precedes “the free act of the will” so it truly is God working alone ‘in us, without us’ to enlighten our intellect and strengthen our will. Our cooperation in this supernatural intervention is non-existent and irrelevant.

True, the first movement of grace is not due to free will. But, the first movement of grace does not justify. In order to become justified, the free will most correspond to the grace by cooperating with it, as has been shown.

Dave:

Cooperation of our will consequent to actual grace, is necessary.

True, but the initial actual grace received, which was independent of our will, does not justify. To be justified, the sinner must correspond with that actual grace.

1. Salutary acts are defined by Catholicism as “God and man working together.” In this way, God works “in us, with us.” (cf. ibid., 227). This too is possible only because of a gift that God gives, called by Catholics “consequent grace.” One does not receive consequent grace before initial justification.

Between the initial actual grace received, and the consequent grace given. a movement of the free will is required. Consequent grace is a grace given as a “consequence” of the free will corresponding to actual grace.

Dave:

The sinner (before initial justification), although enlightened and strengthen by God without the help of our free act of will, can freely decide what to do with such an illuminated soul. He can remain impenitently sinful, or can repent. What causes his repentance?

The cause is grace; the effect of the cause (sanctification) is produce by the correspondence of free will. You cannot eliminate the necessity of free will in justification just because grace is the initial cause, any more than you can eliminate the guilt of sin because passion was the cause. The will stands between the flesh (passion) and the spirit(grace). Grace moves the will to choose good, and the flesh moves the will to choose evil. “The passions… are the cause of sin” (St. Thomas).

“the internal cause of sin is both the will, as completing the sinful act, and the reason, as lacking the due rule [over the passions], and the appetite, as inclining to sin. Accordingly, something external might be the cause of sin in three ways, either by moving the will itself immediately, or by moving the reason, or by moving the sensitive appetite” (St. Thomas Q 75. A 3).

***Man of himself cannot acquire any positive disposition for grace (SENT. CERTA) ***

(ibid., 237)

Natural positive disposition of grace is not possible. “The Second Council of Orange teaches that the desire for purification from sin does not come from the natural desire of man, but is prompted by an antecedent grace given by the Holy Ghost. D. 177; cf. 179. Holy Scripture ascribes the beginning of salvation and the whole work of salvation to the grace of God… ***God does not give grace, because man avoids sin, but because He earnestly desires the salvation of all mankind.” ***(ibid., 238). Thus, grace is still gratuitous.

1. Let us presume now the previously un-justified sinner has repented (speaking just of adults at this point), *which is a positivie disposition given by the Holy Spirit, *and does not come from the natural desire of man, but is prompted by antecedent grace. Such prompting, however, if it is not rejected by the sinner, it is said to be cooperated with freely, so the sinner acts in accordance with that prompting. That prompting may be, for example, the desire for baptism.
   continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

As I have stated many times, no one is claiming that man turns to God of himself, unaided by grace; neither is anyone saying that the initial actual grace is “merited” – it is not. What is being said is that man must correspond to this grace if he is to be justified. Now, I underlined a portion of what you wrote above, because I find it interesting. You said that the sinner “is said to be” cooperating with grace. Does this mean you do not think there is a true cooperation, but only an “as it were”? If so, you are falling into error at this point, which is what I think your argument is based on; that is, I think you are saying that the sinner does not truly “do” anything when they cooperate with grace, but merely remains “passive”. That is not correct. The “cooperation” of the free will with actual grace is not merely passive; it is a choice the will makes.

I think that what I suspected is now occurring: In trying to defend this indefensible document, you are gradually falling into error.

In the above quote, you said the “repentance” is “a positive disposition of the Holy Spirit, and does not come from the natural desire of man”. Actually, what you wrote is false. Why is it false? Because you defined repentance as the initial movement of actual grace, but left out the cooperation of free will. Repentance is an act of the will corresponding to grace; it is not merely an inclination towards the good as a result of actual grace. You are eliminating the use of free will from justification, just like the heretical Lutherans.

Next, you are going to quote Trent to try and justify this belief, by saying that the only purpose of the will is not “not dissent” from the movements of grace. But that is only half true, for the will must also correspond.

Dave:

The Council of Trent states “If any one says that man’s free will, moved and awakened by God, does in no manner co-operate when it assents to God, who excites and calls it, thereby disposing and preparing itself to receive the grace of justification; and (if any one says) that it cannot dissent if it wishes, but that, like some inanimate thing, it does nothing whatever, and only remains passive, let him be anathema.” (ibid., 246)

As I see it “passive” as connoting that one “It cannot dissent if it wishes.” The JD asserts, “Lutherans do not deny that a person can reject the working of grace.”
Assent to God’s message, his antecedant grace, is how one co-operates

The words cooperate and correspond are both verbs, because both denote an action; thus, to correspond with something, or to cooperate with something, is not merely to remain passive, but to be active. Thus free will most make a positive “choice” to respond to movement of actual grace. The effect (justification) is produced by the cause (actual grace) by the active cooperation of the free will. To deny this is to fall into error. Yet it seems as if this is exactly what you are doing. You seem to be saying that the only requirement of the will is to remain “passive” to the action of grace, and not dissent from it. But to believe that is to deny the active participation of the free will with the movements of grace.

Dave:

As I see it “passive” as connoting that one “It cannot dissent if it wishes.” The JD asserts, “Lutherans do not deny that a person can reject the working of grace.”

Not only does the will not dissent (a negative action), but it must consent (a positive action). The purpose of the will is to choose, and the word “choose” is also a verb; thus, to choose is a positive action. The will is certainly moved by God’s grace, but it must choose to consent to this movement of grace. Therefore, the operation of the will is not merely passive, but active:

Council of Trent: “…they [the unjustified], who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves [by cooperating] to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating [active participation] with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost**, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration…**”

So as you can see, the will is not passive at all, but active by its assent and cooperation. The will must actively cooperate with the movements of grace; as Trent taught “neither is man himself utterly without doing anything”. The part played by man is to willingly consent to the movements of grace; thus, man does play a part in his justification – “he who made you without your help, will not save you without your help” (St. Augustine).

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

You said that the Lutherans do not deny that a person can reject the working of grace, but what they do deny is that a person can cooperate with grace:

Joint Declaration #21.“According to the Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action.”

Joint Declaration #23: “When they [the Lutherans] stress that God’s grace is forgiving love (‘the favor of God’), they intend… to express that justification remains free from human cooperation and is not dependent upon the life-renewing effects of grace in human beings.”

They believe that since they are sinners, they are incapable of cooperating in their salvation because they "actively oppose God and his saving action (grace).

But notice, not only do they claim man is “incapable of cooperating” in his initial justification, but they even say man is “incapable in cooperating in his salvation” (JD 21), and that justification is "not dependent upon the life-renewing effects of grace in human beings (regeneration).

So as you can see, their heresy goes further than just denying the cooperation with the initial movements of actual grace, they go so far as to deny any cooperation at all*, even after the initial justification. *They also explicitly claim that “justification is not dependent upon the… effects of grace”. Why? Because they believe in a “declared justification”, rather than an actual justification.

So in those quotes we saw two things: they claimed that justification is not dependent on the effects of “life renewing grace”; and they claimed that justification is “free from human cooperation”. This, of course, stems from the denial of free will, which they learned from their founder, Martin Luther, who said the following:

Luther: “Ah, Lord God! why should we boast of our free-will, as if it were able to do anything ever so small, in divine and spiritual matters? This is my absolute opinion: he that will maintain that man’s free-will is able to do or work anything in spiritual cases be they never so small, denies Christ. This I have maintained in my writings, especially in those against Erasmus… “[T]he will of mankind works nothing at all in his conversion and justification” … where is then free-will? It is utterly lost,…” (Martin Luther, Table Talk)

The Council of Trent condemned Luther and anyone who holds such a belief: “**If any one says that man’s free will, moved and awakened by God, does in no manner co-operate when it assents to God, [or that] it does nothing whatever, and only remains passive, let him be anathema.” **(ibid., 246)

The Church teaches infallibly that if anyone says “man’s free will… does in no manner cooperated when it assents to God” they are anathema. The Lutherans say “man is incapable of cooperating”. If the will is incapable of cooperating, then obviously it does not cooperate.

Now remember, we are not speaking of the initial movements of antecedent actual grace. That is not what we are discussing. These graces are independent of any movement of man’s will. What we are discussing is man’s cooperation with that grace, which is required for a man to be justified. If you deny that, like the Lutherans do, you are anathema.

See what I told you. If you continue to defend that indefensible document, you will fall into heresy.

Now, let me answer your first question and show you how deceptive these documents can be.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Dave:

RSiscoe,

If you are not misconstruing the JD, please explain this paragraph:

Quote:

“Where, however, Lutheran teaching construes … that the person’s willing acceptance of God’s grace - which is itself a gift of God - has no essential role in justification, then the Tridentine canons 4, 5, 6 and 9 still constitute a notable doctrinal difference on justification” (PCPCU 22).

What did that say? It said where “Lutheran teaching construes(is understood to mean)… that a person’s willing acceptance of grace has no essential role in justification, it still constitutes a notable doctrinal difference of justification”. Notice carefully what it said and what it did not say. It did not say “if someone were to ‘misconstrue’ the Lutheran teaching”. No. What it says is, where “Lutheran teaching construes… that a person’s willing acceptance of grace has no essential role in justification” they are anathema.

Well, clearly, Lutheran teaching construes that “man’s willing acceptance of grace has no essential role in justification”, since they claim that “man is incapable of cooperating in salvation”.

Joint Declaration #21.“According to the Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action.”

Joint Declaration #23: “When they [the Lutherans] stress that God’s grace is forgiving love (‘the favor of God’), they intend… to express that justification remains free from human cooperation….”

So what are we to conclude from this? Simple. We are to conclude that, since the Lutherans still hold to Luther’s error , and have changed nothing “Tridentine canons 4, 5, 6, and 9 still constitute a notable doctrinal difference on justification”.

That is what we are to conclude!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

“Where, however, Lutherans teaching construes …”

This is a caveat (“a qualification or explanation”). It implies that in some instances, Lutheran teaching does not construe this, while in other instances it does construe this. So, to be clear, the JD reiterates Catholic teaching according to Trent for those times that Lutheran teaching does contrue this. That’s what the words “where” and “however” are supposed to signify.

I don’t see that you have made your case. I’m sure you disagree, but it seems you may have a bias that drives your interpretation. I too have a bias, its called “*religiosum voluntatis et intellectus **obsequium” (Lumen Gentium, 25). *Taking St. Catherine’s lead and the 2000+ year history of Catholicism, I think I’m safer leaning toward my bias.

In my view (and I think the pope will say the same thing if you take the time to write to him) the JD does not oppose then canons of Trent. The JD explicitly states that "Where, however, Lutheran teaching construes … that the person’s willing acceptance of God’s grace - which is itself a gift of God - has no essential role in justification, then the Tridentine canons 4, 5, 6 and 9 still constitute a notable doctrinal difference on justification."

You would have us believe that the JD takes an understanding of free will cooperation opposed to Trent, then later in a footnote to that section argues against itself. I find this unconvincing.

Such an interpretation is similar to some who interpret Dei Verbum 11 in oppostion to it’s footnote 5. We can be certain of what DV 11 meant, if we interpret it in the context of footnote 5, which affirms the previous enclyclicals on inerrantism of Scripture.

I suggest you write the pope with your concerns, asking him to clarify. All I can do is tell you how I interpret it, which is quite different from your interpretation.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The cause is grace; the effect of the cause (sanctification) is produce by the correspondence of free will.

I find this to be a dangerous way of wording it. Grace is not produced by human actions. Free will acts can only be a barrier to grace. This is where precision in wording makes the difference between Catholicism and Semi-Pelagianism.

Can you find me an authoritative source where free will acts are said to “produce” grace before justification?

Of course if you don’t “reject the working of the Holy Spirit”, then you necessarily cooperate with it. The working of the Holy Spirit is nothing that can simply remain within not doing anything yet not rejected. I’ve made no such assertion. As such, I’ve denied nothing, but only summarized what Dr. Ott has presented. If I’m “falling into error” then Dr. Ott had done the same, well before Vatican II.

I believe you are closer to the error of Pelagianism in asserted that free will actions are a secondary cause of justification, or that free will actions “produce” the effects of grace.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I believe you are closer to the error of Pelagianism in asserted that free will actions are a secondary cause of justification, or that free will actions “produce” the effects of grace.

Given that I’m sure you misunderstood me, I’m going to presume I misunderstood you, as I believe you’ve misunderstood the pope.

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

I find this to be a dangerous way of wording it. Grace is not produced by human actions. Free will acts can only be a barrier to grace. This is where precision in wording makes the difference between Catholicism and Semi-Pelagianism.

Can you find me an authoritative source where free will acts are said to “produce” grace before justification?

Let me reword that: The cause of sanctification is certainly grace; however, in order for this cause to come about (or be produced), the cooperation of free will is required. Grace is not produced by the free will, but in order to the cause to produce its efect, the cooperation of free will is required. Certainly you must agree with that.

Question: Do you deny that free will must cooperate with grace to be justification?

The Lutherans explicity deny that free will is even capable of cooperation.

Trent clearly says that free will must cooperated and condemned anyone who says the contrary.

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

You would have us believe that the JD takes an understanding of free will cooperation opposed to Trent… I find this unconvincing

Joint Declaration #21.“According to the Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action.”

Council of Trent: “…they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating [lutheran’s deny “cooperation”] with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost**, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration…**”

Joint Declaration #23: “When [the Lutherans] stress that God’s grace is forgiving love (‘the favor of God’), they intend… to express that justification remains free from human cooperation….”

Trent: “**If any one says that man’s free will, moved and awakened by God, does in no manner co-operate [the Lutheran’s deny any cooperation] when it assents to God… let him be anathema.” **

---

How can these be interpreted any other way than an explicit contradiction. They Lutherans say “we are incapable of cooperating”; Trent say we do cooperate. The Lutherans says justification "remains free from human ‘cooperation’; Trent says “if anyone says man’s free will… does in no manner cooperate… let him be anathema”.

How can this explicit contradition not be a contradition? Only in Novus Ordo World is such a thing possible.

 

[Kurt_G]

RSiscoe and Dave:

Regarding the JD, you are again arguing over extensive references to “Lutheran” paragraphs. I thought I had a pretty good question to you more learned folks, in my previous post #31. Is it such a common assumption among theologians and scholars, that all of such a document is equally accepted, even though a “logical” reading would lead to another conclusion?

God Bless Us All!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Kurt G.:

RSiscoe and Dave:

Regarding the JD, you are again arguing over extensive references to “Lutheran” paragraphs. I thought I had a pretty good question to you more learned folks, in my previous post #31. Is it such a common assumption among theologians and scholars, that all of such a document is equally accepted, even though a “logical” reading would lead to another conclusion?

God Bless Us All!

Kurt,

As I understand it, the construct of the JD is more like…

We confess together … Because Catholics and Lutherans confess this together, it is true to say:

When Catholics say …

According to Lutheran teaching …

Thus affirming that a Catholic can construe the Lutheran teaching as in accord with Catholic doctrine. If rightly understood, the document impling Catholic agreement with at least some versions of Lutheran teaching (not all Lutherans belong to the Lutheran World Council). If rightly understood, the document implies Lutheran agreement with the Catholic teaching.

However, I do believe it is important to take the entire document in context, and instead of comparing buzz words and terms, one should attempt to understand and compare concepts.

I believe all of the document is acceptable by Catholics, if understood in the sense it was intended by the one who approved it for the Catholic Church, the Roman Pontiff. Other variant interpretations notwithstanding.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Question: Do you deny that free will must cooperate with grace to be justification?

Certainly. But I find it more advantageous when evangelizing to modern Protestants to avoid terms that will make their heads spin and inevitably create barriers. They often have a bias against the complexities of Catholic theology. It’s hard to understand and so they often think it is nothing but a bunch of sophistry.

If I were to teach quantum physics to by teenager, I’d get the same reaction. A good teacher must teach the truth in ways in which the student can understand that truth. That’s why St. Paul quoted from Greeks in evangelizing the Greeks.

I think it’s important to discover the buzz words that produce barriers, then attempt to avoid them while teaching the same truth using different terminology.

Terms like gratia increata, gratia creata, gratia dei, gratia christi, gratia externa, gratia intera, gratia gratis data, gratia gratum faciens, gratia habitualis, gratia actualis, gratia illuminationis, gratia praeveniens, (antecedens, excitans, vocans, operans), gratia sufficiens, and gratia efficax, etc… while appropriate for post-graduate studies in Catholic theology of grace, such terms sound like “blah … blah… blah…” to most of my Protestant family and friends. Instead of these terms, they just have one: grace. Most Protestants I know (and Catholics) haven’t really studied the theology of grace and free will and never intend to. Even within Catholicism, there isn’t agreement, as the Molinists and Thomists make evident. Variant theologies can exists so long as they remain in the bounds of Catholic dogma.

So we ought to find some way of evangelizing in terms THEY understand, while remaining stedfast to the same dogmas.

Part of the problem with trying to understand the process of justification is that many try to understand it as a serious of events. However, this is how I understand the process of justification:

"***The justification of a sinner, which is the change from the state of sin to the state of grace, is not a gradual change but an instantaneous one. ***The effective factor in this change is the infusion of grace, and this is an instantaneous act. Sometimes, indeed, the soul is gradually disposed, by successive influences, to receive justification. But the actual justification does not consume time, or admit of successive degrees or steps. (MSgr. Paul J. Glenn, A Tour of the Summa pg. 182)

So the requisites of justification–infused grace, faith, hatred of sin, remission of sin–all occur at the same instant.

Yet, the “caveat” paragraph of the JD which I quoted earlier, but rephrased positively asserts correctly: “**the person’s willing acceptance of God’s grace - which is itself a gift of God - has [an] essential role in justification.” **

God gives the grace which justifies. He also gives to free will the grace to accept justification. God moves our will, but in so doing, he does not remove our freedom to reject his grace. As I implied earlier: you only have two choices: reject the working of the Holy Spirit, or accept it. There’s not a third option.

The Lutherans explicity deny that free will is even capable of cooperation.

I interpret the JD’s statement “incapable of cooperating in their salvation” as denying that man’s merit is causitive, even partially, to their justification. Yet, the JD still affirms “**the person’s willing acceptance of God’s grace - which is itself a gift of God - has [an] essential role in justification.” **

Any interpretation which makes section 4.1 to be refuted by the footnote to section 4.1 is unconvincing.

Luther described man as though he was a horse, ridden either by God or by Satan. Not many Lutherans that I’ve met agree with this. That’s the “passivity” rejected by Trent. Instead, Lutherans I know admit that God does indeed give to man’s will the grace to accept justification, and that grace can be either accepted or rejected.

 

[RSiscoe]

I just wanted to bring up one point. We have been speaking of actual grace, and justification. We have been discussing how God sends actual grace to man; how this grace inclines man’s will to God; and how this leads to justification. But I think what needs to be clarified (which I assume you know) is that actual grace, and man turning towards God as a responce to that grace, is not what justifies. It may eventually result in justification, but the actual grace does not justify.

What justifies is sanctifying grace which is received in baptism. A person may receive hundreds of actual graces, and even correspond to them, yet still not be justified.

Sanctifying grace justifies instantaneously, as you said, but actual grace does not justify at all. Actual grace is what the Protestants call “the inspiration of the Holy Ghost”, which turns man toward God - or to some good - but does not cause him to be born again, which is how man is justified.

I wonder if part of our disagreement is due to not understanding the difference between the workings of actual grace and sanctifying grace?

Let me know what your thoughts are on that point.