O
Odell
Guest
I’m sorry I’ve asked this question numerous ways and I am still not satisfied. I really want to understand Thomism. Most of it makes sence to me but I still strugle with this.
- Status
E
EmeraldWings
Guest
perhaps you are complicating it to much? sometimes it’s good to step back from all that deep understanding and look at things from a more simple perspective, because it’s that simple understanding of things that is the foundation of the more deep understanding, and you need to build on that first.
so, God’s grace is freely given, as you know, but what are those graces? they are an increase of sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and actual grace…among other things, but that is the grace referred to here.
when God give us graces, and we accept them, we are given the means to choose good by increasing in the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Ghost, God doesn’t give us the grace simply to choose good, He gives us the graces we need to make that choice, and although that grace is available to us, we still can reject it by choosing our own will in things,
the choice to do good is not merely an act(though primarily) but it is also a condition of the heart, to want to do good is also the choice, and then God gives the grace, and we move forward with that initial interior choice in our actions.
or to put it more simply, we choose to do good before we do it, we choose it by accepting the grace, and then we move forward with it.
the choice to do good is in saying “Yes” to Gods grace, and the grace is the means to accomplish that good,
does that help at all? if not i’d be happy to try and explain it further, i guess i’m just not sure exactly what you want to know, but either way, hope this helps, take care.
so, God’s grace is freely given, as you know, but what are those graces? they are an increase of sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and actual grace…among other things, but that is the grace referred to here.
when God give us graces, and we accept them, we are given the means to choose good by increasing in the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Ghost, God doesn’t give us the grace simply to choose good, He gives us the graces we need to make that choice, and although that grace is available to us, we still can reject it by choosing our own will in things,
the choice to do good is not merely an act(though primarily) but it is also a condition of the heart, to want to do good is also the choice, and then God gives the grace, and we move forward with that initial interior choice in our actions.
or to put it more simply, we choose to do good before we do it, we choose it by accepting the grace, and then we move forward with it.
the choice to do good is in saying “Yes” to Gods grace, and the grace is the means to accomplish that good,
does that help at all? if not i’d be happy to try and explain it further, i guess i’m just not sure exactly what you want to know, but either way, hope this helps, take care.
P
passus
Guest
We often refer to “cooperation with grace,” which possesses a nuance that presumes that grace is present, but that it is nonetheless up to the free will of the individual which enables him to choose to act upon that grace and do good, or to reject grace.
Grace in this way acts as an enabler of sorts. Grace doesn’t influence the individual in a way that it affects or detracts from the freedom of the will. Rather, at the most simple level, grace makes it possible for the individual to enable the will in such a way that he can align it toward that of God.
O
odile53
Guest
Wow, my hat’s off to you for trying to understand Thomism!
I’m certainly no theologian, but maybe grace makes the morally correct choice more attractive to us on a natural plane? For example, maybe grace influences us to think twice about having that second piece of chocolate cream pie (thus avoiding the sin of gluttony) by making us remember that it’s not particularly good for us to be pigging out on a physical level?
Just a thought here.
I’m certainly no theologian, but maybe grace makes the morally correct choice more attractive to us on a natural plane? For example, maybe grace influences us to think twice about having that second piece of chocolate cream pie (thus avoiding the sin of gluttony) by making us remember that it’s not particularly good for us to be pigging out on a physical level?
Just a thought here.
O
Odell
Guest
But efficacious grace not only allows to choooe us but causes us to choose good (freely)
Sufficient grace provides us with the ability but does not cause us to do good.
The only way I can get some sort of grasp on this is this analogy.
A bear who has triad eating a porky pine made a huge mistake. The next time he come accros a porky pine he has the efficacius grace to avoid the porky pine. He has the ability to eat it. But will not act and chooses good because he knows the consequinces. It may be apealing to eat but he will not. Some other bear may be given sufficent grace to avoid going after this porky pine he does not and has the ability not to eat it. If he had efficacius grace then it would cause him to find different food. He still has the ability and can choose bad but will not because of the efficacious grace that caused him to freely choose.
One question does God give those he gives efficacius grace the foreknowledge that he needs to freely choose?
Sufficient grace provides us with the ability but does not cause us to do good.
The only way I can get some sort of grasp on this is this analogy.
A bear who has triad eating a porky pine made a huge mistake. The next time he come accros a porky pine he has the efficacius grace to avoid the porky pine. He has the ability to eat it. But will not act and chooses good because he knows the consequinces. It may be apealing to eat but he will not. Some other bear may be given sufficent grace to avoid going after this porky pine he does not and has the ability not to eat it. If he had efficacius grace then it would cause him to find different food. He still has the ability and can choose bad but will not because of the efficacious grace that caused him to freely choose.
One question does God give those he gives efficacius grace the foreknowledge that he needs to freely choose?
A
awatkins69
Guest
So the understanding is that there are two types of grace: sufficient grace, and efficacious grace. Efficacious grace is the grace which when had by a person brings about what God wants to happen. So say God wants me to convert to Jesus Christ. When I do that, it’s because I had efficacious grace. On the other hand, sufficient grace is grace which when had by a person does not bring about what God wants to happen. So suppose in the same scenario, God wants me to convert to Jesus Christ, but I do not. This is because the grace was only sufficient grace.
Now there are two main ways of understanding this (there are others, but they’re mostly all variations on these). One which is called the Banezian (or Thomist) system, the other which is called the Molinist system. They both claim to be the correct interpretations of St. Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine of grace, but for one reason or another the Banezian system got the title.
The first one, developed by a Dominican named Domingo Banez, says that grace is efficacious by direct causality; essentially, God gives us this grace and it determines our action to happen. The way he says this can be free is because we can resist it. It’s still up to us whether we resist it or do not resist it, but when we do not resist it, it causes us to do good actions. Merely sufficient grace on the other hand, according to Banez, is grace which God gives but knows will not bring about what it is supposed to. It is simply inefficacious.
The second system, developed by a Jesuit named Luis de Molina, says that grace is efficacious by our will; the way this works is that God gives everyone what is called prevenient grace. This prevenient grace just gives the ability of our fallen wills to freely choose God (though we can always elect not to). When we do in fact choose God, this renders the grace efficacious. Merely sufficient grace on the other hand, according to Molina, is grace which is not rendered efficacious. It’s merely sufficient grace because we do not use it to choose God.
Both of these views are acceptable for a Catholic to hold, though Thomists and Molinists have argued in the Church for a very long time as to which side is correct. Though I used to be more inclined to the Thomist position, I’m now more open to Molinism, and so I’m undecided. Any questions and I will try at some point to further clear things up. Hope that helps some.
A
Areopagite
Guest
That was a beautiful, clear, and concise explanation. I didn’t know a lot this. Thank you.
O
Odell
Guest
I’m more inclined to the Thomist possition only because it makes slightly more sense
What is starting to make sense to me and still not sure if this is correct Thomist possition, is that with efficacious grace God moves mans will and Thomist teach that this grace causes man to freely choose good. This is what I had the most problem with. But what makes sense to me is that possibly with this efficacious grace God gives us the forknowledge to the consequnces to our actions with the proper knowledge we can’t help but choose the good. In this way God causes us to choose good but it was still within our freedom to reject that grace. (The bear analogy above) and actually while writing this post I just came across this St. Thomas defines operating grace as the grace that presents man’s will with a good and moves his will toward that good. Philippians 2:13 says that God works in man both to will (operating grace) and to accomplish (cooperating grace). Hence the bear wills to walk away from the porky pine operating grace and he actually walks away cooperating grace. Efficacious grace has an operating effect empowering the will to act and cooperating effect applying the will to act.
You can’t act without first being applied to act. This is the problem I have with Molinism we know God is not determined by mans actions. Molinism teach that God bestows grace by his forknowlege of future merits, one renders God passive by making the salutary act dependent upon man, not God. God is no longer the auther of our good act. St Thomas teaches that there is no passivity or potentiality in God. God is Pure act who does not change. This is what convienced me of Thomism. Further, if the devine motion requires the concurrence of human motion, then God who is pure Act is determined and not determining, which is also impossoble. If God as the primary cause does not apply the will to act as a secondary cause, then some good (the human action) does not come from the Source of all good. The greater would come from the lesser. This again, is impossible.
Council of Orange II Canon 18 says " that grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed; but grace, which is not due, precedes that they may be done." And the protestants thinks we teach a salvation by works gospel
One last think that I was sold on same. Concept as above. Because man cannot attain to eternal life by his own natural efforts, he must be predestined to that end bt God. St. Thomas says that " if a thing cannot attain to something by the power of its nature, it must be directed thereto by another; thus, an arrow is directed by the archer towards a mark"
O
Odell
Guest
I’m more inclined to the Thomist possition only because it makes slightly more sense
What is starting to make sense to me and still not sure if this is correct Thomist possition, is that with efficacious grace God moves mans will and Thomist teach that this grace causes man to freely choose good. This is what I had the most problem with. But what makes sense to me is that possibly with this efficacious grace God gives us the forknowledge to the consequnces to our actions with the proper knowledge we can’t help but choose the good. In this way God causes us to choose good but it was still within our freedom to reject that grace. (The bear analogy above) and actually while writing this post I just came across this St. Thomas defines operating grace as the grace that presents man’s will with a good and moves his will toward that good. Philippians 2:13 says that God works in man both to will (operating grace) and to accomplish (cooperating grace). Hence the bear wills to walk away from the porky pine operating grace and he actually walks away cooperating grace. Efficacious grace has an operating effect empowering the will to act and cooperating effect applying the will to act.
You can’t act without first being applied to act. This is the problem I have with Molinism we know God is not determined by mans actions. Molinism teach that God bestows grace by his forknowlege of future merits, one renders God passive by making the salutary act dependent upon man, not God. God is no longer the auther of our good act. St Thomas teaches that there is no passivity or potentiality in God. God is Pure act who does not change. This is what convienced me of Thomism. Further, if the devine motion requires the concurrence of human motion, then God who is pure Act is determined and not determining, which is also impossoble. If God as the primary cause does not apply the will to act as a secondary cause, then some good (the human action) does not come from the Source of all good. The greater would come from the lesser. This again, is impossible.
Council of Orange II Canon 18 says " that grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed; but grace, which is not due, precedes that they may be done." And the protestants thinks we teach a salvation by works gospel
One last think that I was sold on same. Concept as above. Because man cannot attain to eternal life by his own natural efforts, he must be predestined to that end bt God. St. Thomas says that " if a thing cannot attain to something by the power of its nature, it must be directed thereto by another; thus, an arrow is directed by the archer towards a mark"
- Status