Free Will & Grace

[timber501]

When an infant is baptized it receives grace from god but cannot choose whether or not to receive that grace, it automatically happens. Does this take away our free will?

This concept can be applied to anyone that receives gods grace. We can only control our actions after we receive the gift of grace but not the act of receiving the grace.

What is the catholic teaching on this?

 

[KevinK]

What does it mean to “receive grace”?

 

[timber501]

What does it mean to “receive grace”?

When we receive grace from god. Let’s say when we receive absolution or a infant is baptized. God works through the sacrament and provides grace to put us in a state of grace.

 

[Gabbi]

No, I don’t think it takes away their free will. Every human has free will, however that doesn’t imply capacity to act on it.

In my opinion the soul of an infant would readily accept God’s grace because the child has not capacity to accept or reject it.

I don’t know what the Church teaches on it though…

 

[Dan_Defender]

Grace can be lost by sin. So baptism does not take away free will it is only an initiation in grace. CCC 1213:
‘Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission’

 

[timber501]

But an infant can’t choose to reject the initiation of grace. Also, infants can’t sin so they couldn’t reject the grace.

 

[Latin]

At this stage I’m studying The Mystery of Predestination written by John Salza who is a Catholic apologist, author, and speaker. He is the creator of Scripture Catholic.com. etc.

The following excerpt might be a helpful addition for a deeper understanding of our free wills and God’s graces.
.

Excerpt from; THE MYSTERY OF PREDESTINATION John Salza, pages 77 and 119.

Quote: St. Thomas defines operating graces as the grace that presents man’s will with a good and moves his will toward the good.

If this grace is not efficacious, then man freely resist it.
If the grace is efficacious, then man freely cooperates with it.

This is why St. Paul in Philippians 2:13 says that God works in man both to will (operating grace) and to accomplish (cooperating grace).
.
God wills the grace to be either sufficient or efficacious from the very beginning of the operation.
.

Hence, a sufficient grace has an operating effect only (empowering the will to act),
whereas an efficacious grace has both an operating and cooperating effect (applying the will to act).
.
Sufficient grace remains an interior impulse, whereas an efficacious grace produces an exterior act.
.
Again, the mystery is that with sufficient grace, man is truly able to cooperate with the grace to perform the salutary act, but freely chooses not to, and God permits him to resist.
.
With efficacious grace, man is able to resist the grace but does not, because the grace causes him to freely choose the good.
.
In both cases, man is completely free, but in the former, the resistance (which is an evil) comes from man, while in the latter, the cooperation (which is good) comes from God.
.

This means that when God wills a person to perform a salutary act (e.g., prayer, good works), He grants him the means (an efficacious grace) that infallibly produces the end (the act willed by God).

If God wills to permit a person to resist His grace, He grants him a sufficient, and not an efficacious, grace. End quote.
.

I perfectly agree with the Council of Sens (1140):
The Council of Sens (1140) condemned the idea that free will is sufficient in itself for any good [143].

[143] Donez., 373. The council condemned the views of Peter Abelard (d. 1142) who believed that man’s free will acted independently of grace. End quote.
.

The efficacious grace is absolutely clear for me, when God wills a person to perform a salutary act (prayer, repentance, good works, etc.) He grants him efficacious grace that infallibly produces the end (the act willed by God).

When God wills to permit us to resist His grace, He grants us sufficient grace, this is still a bit of a mystery for me.

 

[po18guy]

I didn’t know that Will and Grace were incarcerated?!?! That’s terrible!

Oh! Never mind. Misread it.

An infant is cleansed of original sin. That infant had no part in original sin, but benefits from the indelible mark which the grace of baptism leaves on the soul. Grace flows through the Sacraments, but we must cooperate with that grace, or it is useless and we will answer for that.

Grace is a free gift and can absolutely be resisted. The man-made concept of irresistible grace is not not not biblical. Read Luke 7:30 for but one example. Yet, there are degrees of grace.

GRACE. In biblical language the condescension or benevolence (Greek
charis) shown by God toward the human race; it is also the unmerited gift proceeding from this benevolent disposition. Grace, therefore, is a totally gratuitous gift on which man has absolutely no claim. Where on occasion the Scriptures speak of grace as pleasing charm or thanks for favors received, this is a derived and not primary use of the term.
As the Church has come to explain the meaning of grace, it refers to something more than the gifts of nature, such as creation or the blessings of bodily health. Grace is the supernatural gift that God, of his free benevolence, bestows on rational creatures for their eternal salvation. The gifts of grace are essentially supernatural. They surpass the being, powers, and claims of created nature, namely sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and actual grace. They are the indispensable means necessary to reach the beatific vision. In a secondary sense, grace also includes such blessings as the miraculous gifts of prophecy or healing, or the preternatural gifts of freedom from concupiscence.
The essence of grace, properly so called, is its gratuity, since no creature
has a right to the beatific vision, and its finality or purpose is to lead one
to eternal life. (Etym. Latin gratia, favor; a gift freely given.) See also ACTUAL GRACE, EFFICACIOUS GRACE, HABITUAL GRACE, JUSTIFYING GRACE, SACRAMENTAL GRACE, SANCTIFYING GRACE, SUFFICIENT GRACE.

You can look up the definition of the various types of grace here: Dictionary of Terms - A

 

[Vico]

When an infant is baptized it receives grace from god but cannot choose whether or not to receive that grace, it automatically happens. Does this take away our free will?

This concept can be applied to anyone that receives gods grace. We can only control our actions after we receive the gift of grace but not the act of receiving the grace.

What is the catholic teaching on this?

The mark is given to the soul along with faith, hope, and charity. At the age of reason this must be consciously assented to to avoid sin. We must cooperate with grace to remain in a state of sanctifying (habitual) grace.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. the catechism has its proper place here.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3J.HTM

 

[Gorgias]

When an infant is baptized it receives grace from god but cannot choose whether or not to receive that grace, it automatically happens. Does this take away our free will?

No. One may later reject God.

This concept can be applied to anyone that receives gods grace.

Hmm… no, it doesn’t.

We can only control our actions after we receive the gift of grace but not the act of receiving the grace.

We believe that we either accept or reject the gift of grace, so no, it’s not foisted upon us.

 

[Latin]

There are graces we are sometimes all reject, but there are also graces which graces every receiver accepts because God causes/aids the recipients to FREELY accept these efficacious graces.

This is why St. Paul in Philippians 2:13 says that God works in man both to will (operating grace) and to act/accomplish (cooperating grace).

Just one example: God’s gift of great and special efficacious grace, The Gift of Final Perseverance, there are many more.

 

[Richca]

When an infant is baptized it receives grace from god but cannot choose whether or not to receive that grace, it automatically happens. Does this take away our free will?

No. In the case of infants, the bestowal of sanctifying grace such as at baptism is due to God’s generosity and benevolence for he created human beings to be with him forever in heaven. The free will in infants is not developed to the point where they are culpable of their actions or non actions.

This concept can be applied to anyone that receives gods grace. We can only control our actions after we receive the gift of grace but not the act of receiving the grace.

The Church teaches that it is around the age of seven more or less that the child’s spiritual faculties of intellect and will are developed enough so that they become responsible in some measure for their actions whether good or evil. Naturally, as children continue to develop and mature to adulthood, they become more and more responsible for their actions. The Church teaches that human beings need to freely cooperate with God’s grace, they can either resist or not resist God’s gift of grace. God’s grace always comes first, this is called prevenient grace, and then human beings with their free will either accept and cooperate with the grace (cooperating grace) or resist it and do not cooperate with it. God’s grace does not force or nullify the free will of human beings. God moves the human free will by prevenient grace naturally to good according to the very nature of the will whose object is the good but it is within the power of the free will to drop out of this prevenient motion from God which is to resist his grace because it is within the power of human free will to will or not to will. On the other hand, since it is within the power of the free will to will or to not will something, a person can accept the movement of the will to good by God’s prevenient grace and thus at one and the same time, the will is a moved mover, i.e., the will is moved by God and moves itself by accepting God’s grace and motion and thus this grace is called cooperating grace, i.e., the free will freely cooperates with God’s grace.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

‘We can only control our actions after we receive the gift of grace but not the act of receiving the grace.’

This is true in some sense in so far as God’s grace (prevenient grace) always precedes any good and meritorious action we do conducive to eternal life. But, as the CCC#2002 says, ‘God’s free initiative demands man’s free response.’ So, we need to freely cooperate with God’s grace and initiative. The Catechism also divides grace into sanctifying or habitual grace and actual grace. Sanctifying grace is a permanent gift or quality which makes us partakers of the divine nature that God infuses into the soul such as at baptism or in confession if we have had the misfortune of losing sanctifying grace through mortal sin. Actual graces are transient graces which God is always pouring into our souls either before being justified by sanctifying grace or afterwards by continual growth in holiness, righteousness, justification, and sanctity. As St Paul said, ‘He that is just, let him be justified still.’

‘Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom’ (CCC#1993).

 

[Latin]

Our free will supernatural decisions and our salutary acts ALWAYS caused/ aided by God’s different efficacious graces, because without God’s efficacious graces, we cannot make any supernatural decision or to perform any salutary act.
.

St. Tomas divides efficacious grace into operating grace and cooperating grace, which are two effects of the same efficacious grace.

With operating grace, God moves man’s mind to will the good.

Thus, St. Thomas says, “Hence in the effect in which our mind is moved God is the sole mover, the operation is attributed to God, and it is with reference to this that we speak of operating grace.” ST, Pt I-II, Q111, Art 2.

The Catechism also says that God “touches and directly moves the heart of man” (CCC 2002).

.
Excerpt from The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza. Page 82

With cooperating grace, God’s operating movement causes man to freely choose the good that God wills for him.

Because man is freely choosing the good, the operation can, in a sense, be attributable to man. [34]

[34] We make this statement only to refute the claim that God’s efficacious grace makes man an automaton or robot.

It does not. Rather, efficacious grace causes man to freely desire and choose the good, which beings without free will are unable to do. End quote.
.

THE KEY TO UNDERSTAND

God moves man’s will internally by (efficacious operating grace) and makes man capable outwardly of performing the salutary acts by (efficacious cooperating grace).
.
By efficacious operating grace God enlightens the mind and the enlightened mind freely wills to choose the good.
.
An enlightened mind by efficacious operating grace does not need to be forced to choose the good.
.
Moreover, our supernatural decisions and our salutary acts are the products of God’s efficacious graces, which moves our wills to freely decide and to freely perform.
.
The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza. Page 77
If God wills to permit a person to resist His grace, He grants him a sufficient grace, and not an efficacious grace.

 

[Richca]

The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza. Page 77
If God wills to permit a person to resist His grace, He grants him a sufficient grace, and not an efficacious grace.

Does this not make God the author of sin in some sense? We cannot maintain that God is the author of sin either directly or indirectly as the CCC says. I believe one of the problems with the model of the distinction of grace into efficacious grace and sufficient grace and how that has been traditionally understood in various schools of theological thought in the Church is that it boils down to that God himself determines without any regard to the exercise in some real manner of the free will of human beings who will be saved and who will not be saved.

St Paul says that God wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and the Church explicitly teaches that God predestines no one to hell. The Council of Trent decreed that the grace in the process of justification can be resisted and as I said in a prior post the CCC says that God’s initiative demands man’s free response. Holy Scripture and the Church also teach that human beings do have free will, can merit under the influence of grace, and are justly punished for evil works by God which could potentially result in the eternal punishment of hell.

It doesn’t appear that the model of the distinction of grace into efficacious or irresistible grace and sufficient grace which is necessarily resisted can be satisfactorily reconciled with the truths of the faith as I just mentioned. Further, the Church has not formally or officially endorsed the model of the distinction of grace into efficacious and sufficient with the consequences that follow from this model. I’m not saying that God cannot move a man irresistibly under the influence of some efficacious grace without destroying his freedom but this may be considered an extraordinary grace such as St Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus and not the ordinary way of God’s bestowal of grace. The Church sided neither with the Molinists or the Thomists during the controversies de auxiliis in the late 16th century. Concerning the efficaciousness of grace, the Molinists were in favor of the freedom of the will by its free consent to or acceptance of grace while the Thomists were in favor of God’s causality which itself determined infallibly and irresistibly the efficaciousness of grace.

Are you famaliar with Fr. William Most’s book titled ‘Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God’? It’s quite an interesting read. I believe his solution to the interplay of grace, predestination, and the salvific will of God is most in conformity to the official teaching of the Church and the sources of revelation, namely, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=214

 

[Latin]

Thank you Richca for your post and your question.

Your question:
Does this not make God the author of sin in some sense?
.
Some people think, we are sinning because we have free will, but this is a serious logical fallacy because in Heaven we will also have free will and no one will commit even the smallest act of sin.

So, our free will is not the reason that we are sinning, the reason we are sinning is somewhere else.
.
God created the Universe, if God would willed he could create the Universe and our world like the situation exists in heaven and would be no sin in this world.
.

The real question is:
What is God’s reason that He created the universe and our world which world at this stage, we cannot even not to sin?
.
I believe we find the answer to this question in the Scripture and in Catholic teachings.

.
The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza. Page 113

However, the Church teaches that God infused Adam with sufficient grace to resist temptation and to perform his duties with charity.

St. Thomas says that “neither the state of perfect nature, nor in the state of corrupt nature can man fulfill the commandments of the law without grace. ST, Pt I-II, Q 109, Art. 4.

Like the Prodigal Son, God moved Adam to repentance and obedience through prevenient, efficacious graces prior to regenerating his soul with infused grace. End quote.

.
The crucial question is:
Why God instead of sufficient grace He has given Adam and Eve efficacious graces which graces would infallible protected them from the “fall”? – Something to think about.

.
I believe the answer is in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence.
.
Evil He converts into good (Genesis 1:20; cf. Psalm 90:10); and suffering He uses as an instrument whereby to train men up as a father traineth up his children (Deuteronomy 8:1-6; Psalm 65:2-10;
.
Nor would God permit evil at all, unless He could draw good out of evil (St. Augustine, “Enchir.”, xi in “P.L.”, LX, 236; “Serm.”
.
Evil, therefore, ministers to God’s design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii in “P.L.”,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
.

THE ANSWER OF THE ABOVE QUESTION

The reason God has given only sufficient grace to Adam and Eve because God converts the sins of the human race into a greater good.
.
I believe in the sense that God instead of efficacious graces, which graces would infallible protected them from the “fall,” He has given Adam and Eve only sufficient graces which graces could not protected them from the “fall,” God is the author of sin.
.
Of course, according to the teachings of the Church, God is NOT the author of sin.

.
SUMMARY

The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza. Page 117.

While St. Thomas says that man turns to God by his own free will, he explains that free will can only be turn to God, when God turns it.

Based on Scripture and the teachings of the Church, St. Thomas is clear that man cannot do anything spiritually without being moved by God’s intrinsically efficacious grace. End quote.

 

[michaelArc]

I was never a fan of the show.

 

[Latin]

The Church sided neither with the Molinists or the Thomists during the controversies de auxiliis in the late 16th century. Concerning the efficaciousness of grace, the Molinists were in favor of the freedom of the will by its free consent to or acceptance of grace while the Thomists were in favor of God’s causality which itself determined infallibly and irresistibly the efficaciousness of grace.

Thank you Richca for your post.

I’m not yet familiar with Fr. William Most’s book titled ‘Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God.
This book will be my next study and I’m sure will be great spiritual feasts.

.
Yes we haeve the Molinist and Thomist position.

I believe God fulfils His duty of care of the human race according to the Thomist position.

.
FOR EXAMPLE
The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza. Page 84.

St. Thomas properly explains the chain of causality:

It is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first: for the agent moves the second to act.

And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself: and therefore He is the cause of action in every agent. ST, Pt I, Q 105, Art 5.

Because God is the cause of action in every agent, even man’s free will determination to do good comes from God. End quote.

.
THE SCRIPTURE ALSO PROCLAIMS IN LINE WITH THE THOMIST POSITION:

John 15:5; apart from Me you can do nothing.

John 15:16; You did not chose Me, but I chose you.

John 6:44; No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them.
.
Ezekiel 36:26-27; I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my Spirit in you and cause you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

.
There is much bigger difference between God and us, than between us and our 5 years old child.
We are always stay God’s little children.

.
LET’S SEE THE THOMIST AND THE MOLINIST POSITION IN A HUMAN FAMILY SITUATION:

Thomist family:

Father: It is time to have the shower.

Little Child: Yes my father I love to and he goes and he has the shower.
.
The father fulfilled his duty of care, the father is the authority.

.
Molinist family:

Father: It is time to have the shower.

Little Child: No my father, I will never have a shower.

Father: As you wish my child. – The child is the authority.

.
IT IS CLEAR:
In a Molinist position, neither God nor a human father able to perform his duty of care.

.
The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza. Page 83.

In the light of the teachings of the Scripture as explained by Church councils and St. Thomas, the Molinist position appears incorrect. End quote.

 

[MT1926]

When an infant is baptized it receives grace from god but cannot choose whether or not to receive that grace, it automatically happens. Does this take away our free will?

Yes and No.

Yes the baby didn’t get to choose, but it was the parents who took away that child’s free will at that particular moment in time, not God. The parents chose what was best for the child just as they will many, many more times throughout the child’s life.

No this does not take away our future free will. When that baby grows up he/she will more than likely reject God’s grace at some point in their life.

This concept can be applied to anyone that receives gods grace. We can only control our actions after we receive the gift of grace but not the act of receiving the grace.

What is the catholic teaching on this?

Take a look at this…

Grace: What It Is and What It Does | Catholic Answers Tract

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

timber501:

When an infant is baptized it receives grace from god but cannot choose whether or not to receive that grace, it automatically happens. Does this take away our free will?

Yes and No.

Umm… no – the answer is solely “no”.

Yes the baby didn’t get to choose, but it was the parents who took away that child’s free will at that particular moment in time, not God. The parents chose what was best for the child just as they will many, many more times throughout the child’s life.

The parents didn’t just “choose what was best for the child”; they chose what we would expect any person would choose, given that their wills and intellects hadn’t been damaged by sin. Given that an infant hasn’t been damaged by personal sin, then, a parent’s choice for baptism is really just a proxy for what we believe the child would choose – if he were able to express that choice!

So… no. Baptism of infants is not an example of taking away free will.