Faithless people doing good works equivalent to those “God works through Christians”?

[Bishopite]

Verbum Caro,

I’m going to answer your questions asap, but I really need to give you and hurst this information so that you, I PRAY, will understand that I’m not throwing this information out just to debate. And that everything man does, even if it is done without faith or without gratitude for God, is still because of God first giving them grace [sufficient grace] to allow them to do it.
That is to say, every act a human does, every good deed whether by faith or not comes from Gods grace; whether it is from sufficient grace or efficacious grace doesn’t matter, it is still because God first gave them the grace to do it. That’s the gist of sola gratia, grace alone.

Someone, I can’t remember who, quoted Fr. John A. Hardon, a Catholic theologian and the author of the Catholic dictionary. I have the Catholic dictionary by Fr. A. Hardon and I’d like to quote from it in order to prove to y’all that what I’m saying is true. These are definitions of sufficient grace and efficacious grace both of which I’ve been alluding to in my past posts.

The Catholic dictionary defines sufficient grace as:

“Actual grace considered apart from the supernatural effect for which it was bestowed. It may therefore mean the grace that does not meet with adequate co-operation on the part of the human recipient, and then it is merely sufficient grace. **It is enough to enable a person to perform a salutary act, but who freely declines to co-operate. **Or it may simply mean the grace that gives one the power to accomplish a salutary action, as distinct from an efficacious grace, which secures that the salutary act is accomplished.”

***This highlighted black bold portion would give proof apart from what someone said [paraphrasing], which is that grace has to be something that can be accepted or denied. Yet the phrase “the grace that does not meet with adequate co-operation on the part of the human recipient and then it is merely sufficient grace” means this type of grace isn’t the type to lead us into salvation and it DOESN’T need adequate co-operation on the part of the human recipient, thus proving that God DOES give people a type of grace that allows them to do good deeds i.e. feed the poor which was the original question, yet doesn’t give them the type of grace needed to attain eternal life.

**The red highlight says sufficient grace GIVES everyone enough grace to do a salutary act [a beneficial act or good deed] even though that person doesn’t co-operate with God, thus that person can do good deeds apart from faith,althoug it was Gods grace that first gave them the ability to do it and those deeds done without faith in Christ are useless for eternal life. That’s the gist of 1 Cor 1:26-30. Sola gratia.

***The blue says sufficient grace is the grace that gives people the ability to perform a salutary act [which is a beneficial act or good act or good deed] And Fr. A. Hardon says this type of grace is “distinct from an efficacious grace” which means that it is a type of grace differing from efficacious grace, one that **doesn’t **produce salvation or salvific action or eternal life.

So I hope I have adequately explained what I’ve been trying to convey to others and if not then perhaps I’ll try again.

 

[hurst]

Bishopite:

… that everything man does, even if it is done without faith or without gratitude for God, is still because of God first giving them grace [sufficient grace] to allow them to do it.
That is to say, every act a human does, every good deed whether by faith or not comes from Gods grace; whether it is from sufficient grace or efficacious grace doesn’t matter, it is still because God first gave them the grace to do it. That’s the gist of sola gratia, grace alone.

I think I understand your point.

I came across some definitions for “prevenient grace” and “common grace”, which apparently are Wesleyan and Calvinistic terms.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_Grace
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace

Bishopite:

…
The Catholic dictionary defines sufficient grace as:

“Actual grace considered apart from the supernatural effect for which it was bestowed. It may therefore mean the grace that does not meet with adequate co-operation on the part of the human recipient, and then it is merely sufficient grace. **It is enough to enable a person to perform a salutary act, but who freely declines to co-operate. **Or it may simply mean the grace that gives one the power to accomplish a salutary action, as distinct from an efficacious grace, which secures that the salutary act is accomplished.”

…Yet the phrase “the grace that does not meet with adequate co-operation on the part of the human recipient and then it is merely sufficient grace” means this type of grace isn’t the type to lead us into salvation and it DOESN’T need adequate co-operation on the part of the human recipient, thus proving that God DOES give people a type of grace that allows them to do good deeds i.e. feed the poor which was the original question, yet doesn’t give them the type of grace needed to attain eternal life.

But the actual grace was meant to perform a salutary work. By not cooperating with it, it becomes, or remains, sufficient. Sort of like leftovers are part of a meal not eaten when formerly served. Or energy in a stone on a hill remains potential because it was never converted into kinetic.

I don’t think it follows that God must give everything sufficient grace in order for it to perform its natural function properly, though I believe God gives all people sufficient grace for their salvation. But I believe it is in addition to the nature He already gave us.

Bishopite:

**The red highlight says sufficient grace GIVES everyone enough grace to do a salutary act [a beneficial act or good deed]

I don’t think that is what a salutary act is. Not every beneficial act or good deed within itself is good towards God. Good can be anything non-destructive. A termite is doing good when it eats wood, because that is what its nature is. We call it evil when it eats the foundation of our house. But it is evil to us, not to the termite.

hurst

 

[Bishopite]

hurst–I think I understand your point.

I came across some definitions for “prevenient grace” and “common grace”, which apparently are Wesleyan and Calvinistic terms.

Yes they are. I recognize them but as I said before I use the classical Catholic theological terms even though I"m a novice want-to-be apologist.

But the actual grace was meant to perform a salutary work. By not cooperating with it, it becomes, or remains, sufficient. Sort of like leftovers are part of a meal not eaten when formerly served. Or energy in a stone on a hill remains potential because it was never converted into kinetic.

Exactly. All receive sufficient grace but only those who cooperate with Gods truth receive efficacious grace or sanctifying grace. Even those who haven’t hear the message of Christ who haven’t been able to choose Christ or deny him still can get to heaven since God gives them sufficient grace in order to follow the natural law which would in its enternal effect give them salvation since they followed what they knew thus giving them efficacious grace in a mysterious way (please don’t ask me how only God knows that one). Others can’t boast that they have done any good since all good and all grace comes from God first. This is the gist of 1 Cor 1:26-30…that if anyones can boast of good then they ultimately have to boast in the Lord who is the first cause of good and grace is a good.

I

don’t think it follows that God must give everything sufficient grace in order for it to perform its natural function properly, though I believe God gives all people sufficient grace for their salvation. But I believe it is in addition to the nature He already gave us.

Exactly again!! I NEVER said, well NEVER meant God gives “everything sufficient grace” as in all creatures sufficient grace; only humans since only they have an eternal soul. Aminals can be castrated and sterilized and they can according to Catholic theology because they don’t have an eternal soul, thus it is proper and NOT against the natural law to do so.

I don’t think that is what a salutary act is. Not every beneficial act or good deed within itself is good towards God. Good can be anything non-destructive. A termite is doing good when it eats wood, because that is what its nature is. We call it evil when it eats the foundation of our house. But it is evil to us, not to the termite.

Let me be more specific. Any *good humans do animals, insects, one cell protozoas don’t count as what I meant by doing good. Only humans apply since they only have enternal souls.

It seems we are in agreement, I hope. This is what the Church teaches and it has nothing to do with the nature or efficacious grace or sanctifying grace and how it operates in the will with free will that is the controversy on grace that Verbum Caro is speaking of. I replied to him but inadvertantly lost it by hitting the wrong button trying to go to fast. I’ll reply to him asap.

 

[Bishopite]

Verbum Caro:

Can you explain how someone a)without sanctifying grace and b)without actual grace and c)without faith performs a naturally morally good act?

All due deference you are asserting a straw man argument against me. I NEVER said a person can do good outside of sanctifying nor actual grace that would answer both a and b.

Question c) A person without faith can perform a naturally immoral act by their free will God is NOT the cause of their immorality.

By free will? Certainly. But isn’t the power given by God to enable this person to peform the morally good act the same power given by God to enable him to perform the immoral act?

All due deference, the problem I see with your assertion is that God gives people the power to perfom immoral acts which is false. God gives free will to those to do immoral acts but He doesn’t do it in the positive sense.

Does God give “grace” (in your broad general sense) to every pagan while they are acting in a just way, and then when they decide to act in an unjust way God removes and withdraws that “grace” (general and broadly defined) so as not to be held as a co-conspirator?

When anyone, pagan or not is doing good it is because God first gave them the grace to do it at that occasion. If a pagan does good it is only through sufficient grace, not sanctifying or efficacious grace.

The point of this is to show that you MUST distinguish between a natural moral act and salutory act.

No I’m sorry I don’t have to do that. The onus isn’t on me to prove what a natural moral act is as opposed to a salutary act. By the way Websters dictionary defines salutary as beneficial. If it is moral then it is beneficial. And either way either one of those acts still requires some type of Gods grace, indeed since grace is a good and all good comes from God alone as I’v shown in my prior posts.

that a natural man without grace can perform one, at least one, solitary morally good action by the light of his natural reason and by the power of his natural will. The action is morally good

. But it is not salutory.

What “natural reason” or “by the power of his natural will” is, is something that God first gave him that was good in order for him to do it. Did the man give himself “natural reason”? Mans “power of his natural will” was created by whom?? God.

This is a very important doctrine. It perserves the true nature of grace. It perserves the correct understanding of our NEED for grace.

Yes that’s what I’ve been saying

Fr. Hardon also quotes the Church’s condemnation of the errors of Quesnel:

I read those and NONE of those applies to me. Remember Verbum Caro that the controversies about grace between the Molinists and Thomists were about efficacious or sanctifying grace and how it works in the soul NOT about sufficient grace. They were debates on how efficacious grace operates in the human soul and affects free will and how free will responds to efficacious or sanctifying grace.

Bishopite, the point is that we must be very careful and controlled and precise and even handed in our discussion of grace. The Church has had to constantly reign in, on both sides of the discussion, those who overstate the necesssity of grace and those who understate it. We can’t afford to do that in our undercatechized world.

If we are talking about the Molinistic or Thomistic or congruistic or sycronystic views then I AGREE and I WON’T dialgue about those and I suppose they would be banned from this forum as they should.

You might feel like you are the only one on the “other side” of this discussion and that you are being misuderstood or “ganged up on”. I deplore when these discussios get off the rails like this, because what inevitably ends up happening is that each person is trying to overcorrect the other side. Thus, it seems like myself, or Hurst, or Dave are obstinately refusing to acknowledge that God is source of all good and we run the risk of UNDERSTATING the need for grace.

I don’t feel I’m being ganged up on. I am perplexed that some of those in this forum don’t understand that all good comes from God and that any good we do is from His grace.

The controversies about grace were about the nature of efficacious/sanctifying grace operating with the soul along with free will. They were arguments on the relation between efficacious grace and free will and HOW efficacious grace operated within a persons soul not about sufficient grace.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Remember Verbum Caro that the controversies about grace between the Molinists and Thomists were about efficacious or sanctifying grace and how it works in the soul NOT about sufficient grace.

Incorrect. The Molinists and Thomists had a radically different understanding of both sufficient grace and efficacious grace.

For a Molinist, sufficient grace becomes efficacious grace by the positive co-operation of the will. It is one grace given by God, not two for the Molinist. For the Thomists, it was two completely different kinds of grace. Only the elect were given efficacious grace.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, for Molinists:

the will itself which by its consent… renders the…the completely sufficient grace (gratia vere sufficiens) efficacious …

[Molinista and Thomists had] radically different conception of the nature of merely sufficient grace (gratia sufficiens) and of efficacious grace (gratia efficax). "

(Catholic Encyclopedia - Molnists)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to Fr. John Hardon, for Thomists…

… their “sufficient” grace cannot be (and is not for them) immediately sufficient for any salutary act, but only mediately sufficient. For of itself it gives a peculiar “power to act” which by itself cannot produce any salutary act, but which “must be complemented” by another grace, i.e. efficacious grace.

Molinists assert instead that sufficient grace is truly sufficient “for placing the salutary act for which it is given” (Fr. Hardon, ibid.). Thomists deny this about sufficient grace.

You can read more about these differing schools from Fr. Hardon, here:
therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_004.htm#15

 

[hurst]

Something just occurred to me that makes the answer to this question obvious.

Consider two people giving out water to thirsty survivors of hurricane Katrina. One person is lovingly doing so as if to their own children, while the other is complaining the whole time. Are these two works “equivalent”? Obviously not. One is done gracefully, the other is devoid of grace.

Gratitude implies acknowledgement of something received. Ingratitude implies something was not received or accepted. Thus, the ungrateful worker did not do his work with grace because he refused it, yet it did not stop him from being able to perform the work that benefitted others.

There are two levels here - the physical action and the spiritual action. Accepting grace in our spiritual action renders our physical action graceful.

Just a thought.

hurst

 

[Bishopite]

hurst:

Something just occurred to me that makes the answer to this question obvious.

Consider two people giving out water to thirsty survivors of hurricane Katrina. One person is lovingly doing so as if to their own children, while the other is complaining the whole time. Are these two works “equivalent”? Obviously not. One is done gracefully, the other is devoid of grace.

Gratitude implies acknowledgement of something received. Ingratitude implies something was not received or accepted. Thus, the ungrateful worker did not do his work with grace because he refused it, yet it did not stop him from being able to perform the work that benefitted others.

There are two levels here - the physical action and the spiritual action. Accepting grace in our spiritual action renders our physical action graceful.

Just a thought.

hurst

That’s a good anology. The ungrateful worker by virtue of his/her existence as an eternal soul, still has received sufficient grace; which means God has given that person the ability from that grace to chose His love, yet that person doesn’t willfully seek to follow Gods truth. And if that person has been presented the message of Christ and rejects it that person, rejects efficacious grace that would be given them and would lead him/her to salvation in Christ.

The other worker is doing a good work also but you haven’t revealed whether he/she is doing it for the glory of Christ Jesus. If they are then they are receiving saving grace [efficacious/sanctifying grace] and fulfilling Matthew 25:31-49.

Person 1–receives sufficient grace but apparently doesn’t will to follow God and receive efficacious grace.

Person 2–receives sufficient grace but also aparently receives efficaciou/sanctifying grace; the type that is needed to get to heaven.

 

[Bishopite]

itsjustdave1988]Verbum Caro already addressed “common grace” above. By this kind of grace, we cannot even do *evil *works. However, that’s not the context of the question, which is: "Can faithless people do good works outside the faith?"

The context implies supernatural grace, not that kind of grace common to all living things, to include even plants and animals.

The answer from Catholic doctrine is that infidels can do naturally good works without the gift of faith. In other words, humans can do morally good acts without supernatural grace, but such naturally good works are not efficacious toward eternal life.

Well said and I did get off of the context of the question. I must say that I have been trying to show others that all good comes from God alone. And without grace of some type, man with or without faith ,can do no good which was the original question And I did say that the controversy between Molinists and Thomists wasn’t about sufficient grace and that was incorrect.

It has been years since I have studied this issue and I forgot and didn’t brush up on my knowledge of that controversy and I was wrong. Dave, you were correct that it did involve sufficient grace also since Molinists essentially see sufficient and efficacious grace as one grace. And even though I wasn’t trying to argue for the Thomistic view of grace (because I accept the Molinist, Augustinian et al) I ended up doing so which I am truly sorry for and I again apologize for anyone I inadvertently lead toward that position without being fair toward the others. Molinists are valid views of grace too. And at those times I did inadvertently argue for that strict position, well, I shouldn’t have.

However, I do maintain that Catholics must understand that every good they do is from Gods grace with or without faith even in natural man and that those works done without faith are useless toward eternal life and those done under grace with faith in Christ or as Gal 5:6 says faith working through love are meritorious toward eternal salvation.

Yes, every breath we take is a gift from God, and we could not do good or evil without this gift from God.

This I’d have to say is incorrect. God is NOT the author of evil so how can evil be a “gift” from God?

God allows man to be free which by mans will becomes evil not by Gods will. God is all holy and never creates nor sanctions evil, nor tempts us into evil. Certainly He can’t give us a gift that allows us to do evil.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bishopite,

bishopite:

Quote:

Yes, every breath we take is a gift from God, and we could not do good or evil without this gift from God.

This I’d have to say is incorrect. God is NOT the author of evil so how can evil be a “gift” from God?

Regarding the sense in which God can be called the cause of evil, St. Augustine asserts:

“There is no possible source of evil except good.” (St. Augustine, Contra Julian. i, 9). “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist” (St. Augustine, Enchirid., xxvii).

Thus, God created angels, for example, and continues to sustain their existence. Without God’s sustaining power, nothing, not even angels would exist.

Yet, there are angels which, although created good, are now evil and can never repent of their evil, aka, demons. Their evil was caused by a defect in their action. Yet, God sustains the existence of demons. He could instead, cause them to no longer exist. He doesn’t, for reasons congruent with His providence.

In St. Augustine’s words, “Evil contributes to the perfection of the universe, as shadows to the perfection of a picture, or harmony to that of music.” (De Civ. Dei,xi). There’s an educative purpose served by evil, according to St. Basil (Hexaem., Hom. ii). St. Augustine held that evil is permitted for the punishment of the wicked and the trial of the good, and is pleasing to God in this sense, not because of what it is, but because it is the penal and just consequence of sin (De Civ. Dei, XI, xii, De Vera Relig. xliv).

Likewise, St. Thomas Aquinas asserts the following:

… evil which consists in the defect of action is always caused by the defect of the agent. But in God there is no defect, but the highest perfection, as was shown above (4, 1). Hence, the evil which consists in defect of action, or which is caused by defect of the agent, is not reduced to God as to its cause.

But the evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reduced to God as the cause. And this appears as regards both natural things and voluntary things. For it was said (1) that some agent inasmuch as it produces by its power a form to which follows corruption and defect, causes by its power that corruption and defect. But it is manifest that the form which God chiefly intends in things created is the good of the order of the universe. Now, the order of the universe requires, as was said above (22, 2, ad 2; 48, 2), that there should be some things that can, and do sometimes, fail. And thus God, by causing in things the good of the order of the universe, consequently and as it were by accident, causes the corruptions of things, according to 1 Kgs. 2:6: “The Lord killeth and maketh alive.” But when we read that “God hath not made death” (Wisdom 1:13), the sense is that God does not will death for its own sake. Nevertheless the order of justice belongs to the order of the universe; and this requires that penalty should be dealt out to sinners. And so God is the author of the evil which is penalty, but not of the evil which is fault, by reason of what is said above. (*Summa Theologica, *I, 49, 2)

 

[Bishopite]

itsjustdave1988]Bishopite,

Regarding the sense in which God can be called the cause of evil, St. Augustine asserts:

“There is no possible source of evil except good.” (St. Augustine, Contra Julian. i, 9). “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist” (St. Augustine, Enchirid., xxvii).

Perhaps I should refine my question. Is God the source of evil in His active will?

St. Augustines statement merely states that “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist” but doesn’t affirm God actively in His active will is making or creating evil. That’s way to close to Calvinism.

The other quotes affirm Gods power as I said prior in other posts, that if He isn’t sustaining us or wills us to exist then we cease to exist.

Now this statement by St. Thomas Aquinas is interesting but I never take a position on just one quote since it isn’t fitting to do so. Yet Aquinas’ quote there “God is the author of the evil which is penalty, but not of the evil which is fault” actually supports what I’ve said, even though I may have NOT been specific enough. Sure I can see how God is the author of evil which is penalty since in His permissive will He allows evil * however, God doesn’t actively in His active will promote evil and thus “but not of the evil which is fault.”*

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bishopite,

Bishopite:

Perhaps I should refine my question. Is God the source of evil in His active will?

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,

God wills physical evil, natural evil as well as punitive evil, per accidens, that is, as a means to a higher end of the physical order (for example, for the acquisition of a higher life), or of the moral order (for example, for punishment or for moral enlightenment). Ecclus. 11, 14: “Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches are from God.” …

Moral evil, that is, sin, which according to its nature is a revolt against God, is willed by God neither per se nor per accidens, that is, neither as and end nor as a means to an end." (pg. 46)

Nonetheless, God co-operates in every action of every creature, because “God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature– conserving it in being and enabling it to act” (Catholic Encyclopedia - Nature and Attributes of God).

Which means, “***God co-operates immediately in ***every act of his creatures” (Ott, 88). This is called by Catholic theology, according to Fr. John Hardon, “Divine concurrence or concursus” (Fr. John Hardon, *God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, Part one, Thesis II). *It is based upon the teaching of the Roman Catechism which states that God “by an internal power impels to motion and action whatever moves and acts” (Roman Catechism, Article I).

So if man or demon moves are acts contrary to God’s will, by Divine concurrence, that is, by an internal power, God impels to action even the sinful acts of His creation.

That is why it is important to distinguish between the Natural Order and the Supernatural Order when speaking of God’s co-operation with creation, as is taught by the Church.

According to Dr. Ott:

This co-operation of the Causa Prima (God) with the Causae Secundae (creation) is known as “Concursus Divinus.” The Divine co-operation in the Natural Order is called “Concursus Generalis or Naturalis,” to distinguish it from the special supernatural intervention of God through grace in rational creatures… The intrinsic reason for the necessity of the Divine co-operation lies in the entire dependence of all created being on God. As the activity of the creature has a real being which is distinct from the power from which it flows, so this “being of activity” must be caused by God.…

God co-operates in the physical act of sin also (actio peccati, entitas peccati); since the activation of the sensual and spiritual powers of the creature, is a being, and therefore something good. The moral deficiency (i.e. the sin as such), which is associated with the physical act, derives from the free will of the creature who, therefore, alone is guilty. God, in consequence of His infinite perfection, cannot be the cause of moral defect" (Ott, 88).

Thus, while God activates the sensual and spiritual powers of every creature, the moral defect is not a result of that activation, but is the result of a defect of free will.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Yet, when humans act naturally (without special supernatural intervention of God through grace), whether good or bad, God’s co-operation is in the Natural Order.

In the Natural Order, without special supernatural intervention of God through grace, man can perform a morally good action. Which means that even infidels can do morally good works.

Holy Scripture recognizes this in Rom 2:14 “For when [pagan] Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature the prescriptions of the moral law.”

Thus Dr. Ott states, “Fallen man can perform good works without help of Divine grace, by his natural powers alone. Therefore, not all works which are achieved without actual grace are sins” (Ott, 235). Yet, it is equally asserted that within the Supernatural Order, “***Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and of salvation” ***(Ott, 229).

 

[Bishopite]

itsjustdave1988:

continued…

Yet, when humans act naturally (without special supernatural intervention of God through grace), whether good or bad, God’s co-operation is in the Natural Order.

In the Natural Order, without special supernatural intervention of God through grace, man can perform a morally good action. Which means that even infidels can do morally good works.

Holy Scripture recognizes this in Rom 2:14 “For when [pagan] Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature the prescriptions of the moral law.”

Thus Dr. Ott states, “Fallen man can perform good works without help of Divine grace, by his natural powers alone. Therefore, not all works which are achieved without actual grace are sins” (Ott, 235). Yet, it is equally asserted that within the Supernatural Order, “***Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and of salvation” ***(Ott, 229).

I’m wondering what Otts definition is of “Divine grace”? Is it equivilant to a Thomists view of efficacious grace? If so then that wouldn’t be a problem since everyone receives sufficient grace, hence man can’t do any good without some type of Gods grace.

So…then tell me who gave the pagan man his “natural powers?” Man? or God?

 

[Bishopite]

Bishopite,

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,

Nonetheless, God co-operates in every action of every creature, because “God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature– conserving it in being and enabling it to act” (Catholic Encyclopedia - Nature and Attributes of God).

Which means, “***God co-operates immediately in ***every act of his creatures” (Ott, 88). This is called by Catholic theology, according to Fr. John Hardon, “Divine concurrence or concursus” (Fr. John Hardon, *God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, Part one, Thesis II). *It is based upon the teaching of the Roman Catechism which states that God “by an internal power impels to motion and action whatever moves and acts” (Roman Catechism, Article I).

So if man or demon moves are acts contrary to God’s will, by Divine concurrence, that is, by an internal power, God impels to action even the sinful acts of His creation.

That is why it is important to distinguish between the Natural Order and the Supernatural Order when speaking of God’s co-operation with creation, as is taught by the Church.

According to Dr. Ott:

Thus, while God activates the sensual and spiritual powers of every creature, the moral defect is not a result of that activation, but is the result of a defect of free will.

continued…

Catholic Encyclopedia 1967 edition page 669, God and Evil.

**"God is not and cannot be in any way the cause of evil, because He is infinite goodness, desiring only to do good. ** Though the physical order as such involves pains and difficulties, these are nevertheless naturally ordained to the good and to the happiness of man (St. Augustine, Lib. arb. 3.22.64)

Could it be that the reality of suffering exceeds what would appear to be the natural condition of the good?
Evil properly so-called cannot proceed from God, for in the words of St. Augustine (Vera relig. 12.23) it is “either sin or the consequence of sin.” This being the case, one would have to say
that all the ills afflicting humanity are the result of a voluntary moral disorder within the rational and free creature."

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bishopite:

I’m wondering what Otts definition is of “Divine grace”? Is it equivilant to a Thomists view of efficacious grace? If so then that wouldn’t be a problem since everyone receives sufficient grace, hence man can’t do any good without some type of Gods grace.

So…then tell me who gave the pagan man his “natural powers?” Man? or God?

Can you show me where the Magisterium has ever taught that everyone receives sufficient grace?

 

[Bishopite]

itsjustdave1988:

Can you show me where the Magisterium has ever taught that everyone receives sufficient grace?

You didn’t answer my question, so how do you expect me to answer yours?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Aw, come on Bishopite! :crying:

Please don’t make us wait until Dave answers your question. My guess is that he took it as a rhetorical question (that is how I took it as well). I’m pretty sure that Dave doesn’t think that man gave himself his own natural powers. . .

Let the discussion continue! I’m enjoying the exploration of this important topic.

God Bless,
VC

 

[Bishopite]

Verbum Caro:

Aw, come on Bishopite! :crying:

Please don’t make us wait until Dave answers your question. My guess is that he took it as a rhetorical question (that is how I took it as well). I’m pretty sure that Dave doesn’t think that man gave himself his own natural powers. . .

Let the discussion continue! I’m enjoying the exploration of this important topic.

God Bless,
VC

Naw, he’s using an old type of dialectic which is asking a question with a question, instead of answering the question.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Shucks.


I’ll wait, I guess.

VC