Faith and Works

[Vico]

There is a sense in which one can say that man can not do anything good without God’s grace, like St. Thomas says here,

Now in both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good whatsoever.

And this is a good quote from St. Thomas in the S.Th. summarizing the whole deal:

And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.

newadvent.org/summa/2109.htm#article2

Garrigou-Lagrange talks a little bit about the distinction between what was condemned about Baius’s statements and the Catholic teachings in his commentary here.

ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace2.htm

There is a difference between actions that are natural and those that are aided by the supernatural (grace: both actual and habitual). Man **can **do morally good actions without supernatural help, per Catholic teaching, and that is why man is not totally depraved.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Sure, but it can also be said in another sense that all of man’s actions whatsoever cannot be done without grace in a valid manner of speaking. Thomas Aquinas even quotes a statement of Augustine: “without grace men do nothing good when they either think or wish or love or act.” Garrigou-Lagrange clarifies that that later Catholic writers use grace in a stricter sense than many earlier writers and acknowledges that grace can be used in a broader sense.

As a matter of fact, the natural concurrence required for the knowledge of any truth may be called grace in the broad sense, inasmuch as it is not due to any individual but to human nature in general…

And further,

In the same way various texts from Scripture, the councils, the Fathers, and St. Thomas, which seem to be contradictory, are reconciled. For example: “No one has anything of himself but sin and lying,” says the Council of Orange (can. 22). That is to say, no one tells the truth with honest intent without at least the natural assistance of God, which is a grace, broadly speaking, with respect to this man on whom it is bestowed rather than on another; otherwise it would have the meaning which Baius gives to it when he says: “Man’s free will, without the grace and help of God, is of no use except to commit sin.” Baius means not only natural assistance, or grace broadly speaking, but grace in the proper sense, which comes from Christ, hence sanctifying grace and charity.

Since most Protestants do not acknowledge these distinctions like natural/supernatural, it doesn’t seem very productive to analyze their doctrines as if they were written in Catholic terminology.

 

[Vico]

Sure, but it can also be said in another sense that all of man’s actions whatsoever cannot be done without grace in a valid manner of speaking. Thomas Aquinas even quotes a statement of Augustine: “without grace men do nothing good when they either think or wish or love or act.” Garrigou-Lagrange clarifies that that later Catholic writers use grace in a stricter sense than many earlier writers and acknowledges that grace can be used in a broader sense.

As a matter of fact, the natural concurrence required for the knowledge of any truth may be called grace in the broad sense, inasmuch as it is not due to any individual but to human nature in general…

And further,

In the same way various texts from Scripture, the councils, the Fathers, and St. Thomas, which seem to be contradictory, are reconciled. For example: “No one has anything of himself but sin and lying,” says the Council of Orange (can. 22). That is to say, no one tells the truth with honest intent without at least the natural assistance of God, which is a grace, broadly speaking, with respect to this man on whom it is bestowed rather than on another; otherwise it would have the meaning which Baius gives to it when he says: “Man’s free will, without the grace and help of God, is of no use except to commit sin.” Baius means not only natural assistance, or grace broadly speaking, but grace in the proper sense, which comes from Christ, hence sanctifying grace and charity.

Since most Protestants do not acknowledge these distinctions like natural/supernatural, it doesn’t seem very productive to analyze their doctrines as if they were written in Catholic terminology.

Grace would not be gratuitous if it was absolutely necessary as would be the case with absolute depravity. The concept of pure nature is employed to allow for the gift of grace. That gift is supernatural.

The following were condemned by St. Pius V in the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567, Errors of Michael Baius:

• 1. All works of infidels are sins, and the virtues of philosophers are vices.
• 1. The integrity of the first creation was not the undeserved exaltation of human nature, but its natural condition.
• 1. He agrees with Pelagius, who acknowledges anything as a natural good, that is, whatever he thinks has arisen from the forces of nature alone.

And on free-will

• 1. Free will, without the help of God’s grace, has only power for sin.
• 1. It is a Pelagian error to say that free will has the power to avoid any sin.

St. Thomas Aquinas makes the distinction between having form from God and being moved by God:

“… the act of the intellect or of any created being whatsoever depends upon God in two ways: first, inasmuch as it is from Him that it has the form whereby it acts; secondly, inasmuch as it is moved by Him to act.”

 

[JonNC]

There is a difference between actions that are natural and those that are aided by the supernatural (grace: both actual and habitual). Man **can **do morally good actions without supernatural help, per Catholic teaching, and that is why man is not totally depraved.

When Lutherans speak of total depravity, we are not talking about what the confessions call civil righteousness.

  Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2] things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the Word.

More detail follows in the text.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

When Lutherans speak of total depravity, we are not talking about what the confessions call civil righteousness.

More detail follows in the text.

Jon

Very good, and relevant post, Jon! This is tying together our similar belief, which seems gets clouded from different language.

What Catholics may call a “morally good action” Lutherans call “civil righteousness”?

Neither of us believe this can accomplish anything which compels God to share His interior life with us, or be judged worthy of heaven after our earthly life.

 

[JonNC]

Very good, and relevant post, Jon! This is tying together our similar belief, which seems gets clouded from different language.

What Catholics may call a “morally good action” Lutherans call “civil righteousness”?

Neither of us believe this can accomplish anything which compels God to share His interior life with us, or be judged worthy of heaven after our earthly life.

Exactly.
Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Grace would not be gratuitous if it was absolutely necessary as would be the case with absolute depravity. The concept of pure nature is employed to allow for the gift of grace. That gift is supernatural.

The following were condemned by St. Pius V in the Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567, Errors of Michael Baius:

• 1. All works of infidels are sins, and the virtues of philosophers are vices.
• 1. The integrity of the first creation was not the undeserved exaltation of human nature, but its natural condition.
• 1. He agrees with Pelagius, who acknowledges anything as a natural good, that is, whatever he thinks has arisen from the forces of nature alone.

And on free-will

• 1. Free will, without the help of God’s grace, has only power for sin.
• 1. It is a Pelagian error to say that free will has the power to avoid any sin.

St. Thomas Aquinas makes the distinction between having form from God and being moved by God:

“… the act of the intellect or of any created being whatsoever depends upon God in two ways: first, inasmuch as it is from Him that it has the form whereby it acts; secondly, inasmuch as it is moved by Him to act.”

Garrigou-Lagrange addresses that in his commentary. In the passage I quoted before, he explicitly addresses your objection.

 

[Vico]

Garrigou-Lagrange addresses that in his commentary. In the passage I quoted before, he explicitly addresses your objection.

Garrigou-Lagrange is in the camp of neo-scholastics holding that nature and supernature are independent. The following theologians that greatly influenced Vatican II, opposed that thinking: Henri de Lubac, Jean Danielou, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar, Louis Bouyer, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Wojtyla (St. Pope John Paul II), Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVII), and Christopher Butler. Saying rather than independent nature and supernature that pure nature cannot exist alone but has a natural need for grace, because God decreed our salvation before the creation of the world with grace in mind. That is: grace and Nature are gratuitous gifts of God and are made for one another.

 

[HelenRose]

Cannot God give grace to them before they die? And isn’t grace something that is given totally freely, without us earning it? It seems that if it is on the basis of works, then grace would no longer be grace.

Of course God can give and does give everyone of us sufficient grace. God gives grace freely and without our earning it. But, God has also given us the freewill to reject that grace. The Church has often declared knowledge of people who are in Heaven but She has never declared knowledge of any person who is in Hell. The reason is simple, only God and God alone knows what is in the heart of each human. We could never know what another person has gone through. We can never know what another person’s journey has been and most certainly we can not know if a person has truly rejected the grace God has given them.

Satan freely, with full knowledge of what it meant, rejected God. It is hard for me to imagine but I do believe that there are those who will stand before God and say, “I would rather go to Hell for an eternity that to love you.”

I believe that Hell is the choice of the gift of freewill.

The teaching of the Church concerning freewill is the dividing issue between Catholicism and many Protestant denominations. It is a fundamental article of faith that can not be argued successfully because it is matter of faith. It is a matter of accepting the authority of those who claim the right to interpret the teachings of the Bible. I accept the authority of the Church while others accept the authority of Luther, Calvin, Joseph Smith or their own pastor of the church they attend.

The scripture that supports the teaching of the Church is James 2:14-26
I believe that the acceptance of God’s grace is one of the most important works a Christian can do. But even then it is still a matter of accepting a certain interpretation of whose authority one trusts.

*14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”** and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

---

 

[Vico]

Cannot God give grace to them before they die? And isn’t grace something that is given totally freely, without us earning it? It seems that if it is on the basis of works, then grace would no longer be grace.

Everyone does receive actual grace, even before conversion or baptism. Actual grace is sufficient but not always efficacious. It is efficacious when free consent is given by the will to the actual grace, so that the grace produces its divinely intended effect.

 

[KjetilK]

Cannot God give grace to them before they die? And isn’t grace something that is given totally freely, without us earning it? It seems that if it is on the basis of works, then grace would no longer be grace.

Everyone does receive actual grace, even before conversion or baptism. Actual grace is sufficient but not always efficacious. It is efficacious when free consent is given by the will to the actual grace, so that the grace produces its divinely intended effect.

Yes, my post was in answer to this post and this post, which asked (in the second post): “If a baby is totally depraved, why would there be a hope of mercy and grace?” It seems to me that if a baby was totally depraved (which I do not believe), then that wouldn’t be in opposition to grace. God isn’t gracious to us because we are good.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Yes, my post was in answer to this post and this post, which asked (in the second post): “If a baby is totally depraved, why would there be a hope of mercy and grace?” It seems to me that if a baby was totally depraved (which I do not believe), then that wouldn’t be in opposition to grace. God isn’t gracious to us because we are good.

So no cooperation with Grace is needed? God just sets the illusion, even to Himself, that the saved are actually Christ even though still depraved?

 

[Vico]

Yes, my post was in answer to this post and this post, which asked (in the second post): “If a baby is totally depraved, why would there be a hope of mercy and grace?” It seems to me that if a baby was totally depraved (which I do not believe), then that wouldn’t be in opposition to grace. God isn’t gracious to us because we are good.

Yes, that is a good point to consider. I think the following form the ITC (The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized) demonstrates that the Church, although not formally, already has begun to believe that there is a kind of baptism of desire for infants, per the will of their guardians. Why not consider that the Church, in praying for all infants that die without baptism, is demonstrating the will as guardians?

“The Roman Missal of 1970 introduced a funeral Mass for unbaptized infants whose parents intended to present them for baptism. The church entrusts to God’s mercy those infants who die unbaptized.”

Of course, they would not have been able to gain merit, since there was no opportunity for them.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, and most were immediately water baptized .They were almost simultaneous events, but not always. Still think one has to believe first  before any water and that one can not believe without a new spirit.

Faith is a requirement for baptism. When we baptize infants, we do so on the faith of their parents and Godparents. Certainly adults are expected to make a profession of faith, but your conclusion is erroneous. One does not have to be born again to have enough faith to request baptism.

Totally agree. That is why I posted that fallen man (unregenerate, faithless) does not have the goodness seek after God.

The seeking cannot be equated to “goodness”. We seek God because we are created to do so. It is not a commentary on the moral "goodness’ of mankind.

Why would God have to change our desire, even will, if  "our desire is for Him",  as you say ? Yes we are made to need him , but our flesh does not desire Him.

Well, you answered your own question, and Paul answers it in Romans 7.

It has been awhile since looking at Armeneism /Calvinism.

You certainly seemed to be steeped in it. If you are not studying on your own, then perhaps someone is feeding you?

I like certain things from both. Certainly the unregenerate man can be drawn, convicted heart stricken, reasoned with, one step at a time. He can  kick all the way or maybe make baby step decisions. I would say that the finish line of saving faith is a pure gift. Did I choose it ?, I would think so. Did he predestine me, predispose me ? I would think so, for I now believe what I would not, and when I would, I could not save He gave it to me. How can you choose for something you do not believe ?

Again, the grace also is that we respond positively.

This is actually very Catholic.

  God said it was "very good", not as "deity''  but as partakers in His divine nature, as in a spiritual being.

Faith that saves, not like the devil. Cornelius had it before water baptism. He also had OT faith, and the falling HS gave him the NT infusion.

Blessings

I agree. I think God was trying to show Peter that He had also included the Gentiles. But Peter understood that water was not to be separated from the spiritual event.

The real question is, what was going on before the HS fell upon Cornelius? Why did he seek God? If he had saving faith and was regenerated before the Spirit fell upon him, why did he need a Pentecost experience?

If he was not regenerated, then how did his prayers and worship rise in a way acceptable to God?

 

[benhur]

Faith is a requirement for baptism. When we baptize infants, we do so on the faith of their parents and Godparents. Certainly adults are expected to make a profession of faith, but your conclusion is erroneous. One does not have to be born again to have enough faith to request baptism.

Fair enough. I am sure for some that may true. I would also say for most however, that no one can say , profess, believe , that Jesus is the Christ and Lord, save by the power, gifting of the Holy Ghost. Most would say the Holy Spirit regenerates and enables this. Again, I have a problem with a person still spiritually dead, not regenerated (born again, born of the spirit), confessing the jewel cornerstone of our faith: that Jesus is the Christ and Lord.

 

[benhur]

I agree. I think God was trying to show Peter that He had also included the Gentiles. But Peter understood that water was not to be separated from the spiritual event.

Yes, and that opens the door to the type of effectualness, or reason for water baptism.

The real question is, what was going on before the HS fell upon Cornelius? Why did he seek God? If he had saving faith and was regenerated before the Spirit fell upon him, why did he need a Pentecost experience?

Why did the apostles need the baptism of the Holy Ghost? They certainly were born again before Pentecost. Regeneration is not just a NT phenomenon. I am sure there were many ‘transitional’ believers (OT to NT) who benefited from the new dispensation and gifting.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Well, you answered your own question, and Paul answers it in Romans 7.

Paul was speaking of a man of faith, not unbelievers. So again not sure why you would state man (unbeliever) desires God yet He must change our desire.(your post: “and despite being separated, our desire is for Him. Yes, God has to change our desires”.)

blessings

I

 

[KjetilK]

So no cooperation with Grace is needed? God just sets the illusion, even to Himself, that the saved are actually Christ even though still depraved?

I didn’t say that. Do people make it a sport to misread every thing people write?

What I did say that IF - that is, IF - babies were totally depraved, then God could still be gracious towards them, as his grace is, well, grace. As St. Paul writes, in Rom. 11:6: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”

 

[guanophore]

Fair enough. I am sure for some that may true. I would also say for most however, that no one can say , profess, believe , that Jesus is the Christ and Lord, save by the power, gifting of the Holy Ghost.

Yes, we are in agreement on this point.

We call baptism a sacrament of initiation because it is just the beginning of the faith walk of a disciple.

Most would say the Holy Spirit regenerates and enables this.

I dont think so , benhur. Most Christians still adhere to the Apostolic teaching that baptism is regenerative. The Calvanist view that the soul is regenerated prior to the person choosing or intitiating the walk of discipleship.

Most Christians believe that God draws all men unto Himself, and those who respond to this drawing grace then enter into unity with Him and the Church through baptism. This is what we seen at Peter’s preaching on Pentecost. They were cut to the heart by his words, and asked how they could be saved. He instructed them to be baptized (which includes a profession of faith).

Just as Paul was told, “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’” Acts 22:16

The Apostles taught that Baptism washes away our sins, and brings us into unity with Christ by joining us to Him in burial and resurrection.

But yes, I agree it is the HS who enables this.

Again, I have a problem with a person still spiritually dead, not regenerated (born again, born of the spirit), confessing the jewel cornerstone of our faith: that Jesus is the Christ and Lord.

You should have a problem with this. The Calvanistic understanding of “dead in your sins” does not square with the apostolic teaching on 1) The nature of man 2) the consequences of original sin 3) the meaning of baptism.

Yes, and that opens the door to the type of effectualness, or reason for water baptism.

Absolutely it does. Separating the experience of being born again from water baptism is the only way to support certain heretical positions emanating from the Reformation.

Why did the apostles need the baptism of the Holy Ghost? They certainly were born again before Pentecost.

Jesus said they were washed by His Word.

There are those who preach that they were not born again before Pentecost because speaking in tongues is the evidence.

It is a good testimony that God can regenerate anyone He likes, however He wants.

Regeneration is not just a NT phenomenon. I am sure there were many ‘transitional’ believers (OT to NT) who benefited from the new dispensation and gifting.

Blessings

Yes, I agree. I don’t think they conceptualized it that way, but it is clear that God has not changed his methods. People have always been saved by grace, through faith.

 

[guanophore]

Paul was speaking of a man of faith, not unbelievers.

Yes, but his description of man in the fallen state applies to unbelievers as well. They can will what is right, and still not do it. Man cannot return to a right relationship with God apart from grace. God has created us to seek, search, feel after and desire Him. Human beings are born with this desire, though we cannot fulfill it without His grace.

So again not sure why you would state man (unbeliever) desires God yet He must change our desire.(your post: “and despite being separated, our desire is for Him. Yes, God has to change our desires”.)

blessings

God has given every human being sufficient grace to perceive Him, as it is written in Romans, no one has an excuse not to recognize Him. All are invited to serve Him as God. Those who refuse will remain dead in their sins.

We are created in the image and likeness of God. Our hearts yearn for HIm.

We are born into original sin, and we have a fleshly nature that is contrary to the will of God.

When we respond to His drawing grace, He gives us more grace. he draws us into relationship with Him through baptism. When the HS has sealed us, we become able to grow in discipleship.