How could Adam and Eve sin?

[OneSheep]

I don’t understand the purpose of Hell if God is Love. Even parents who love their children forgive their children when they do what they are warned not to do.

I think the “purpose” of hell is simply an ultimate respect for human autonomy. It is not in the catechism that God sends people to hell, it is something that is chosen. People choose hell every day, right? They choose it in ignorance and blindness. I am talking about the hell people choose on Earth, i.e. addiction.

The priest who taught our scripture study said, “In my opinion, if a person actually chooses hell (afterlife), they do so kicking and screaming against God the whole way.” It is an image of a God who actively, not passively, tries to bring us to Himself.

Does this bring some congruity to the beautiful image you have? Not all parents forgive their children as you describe; you have been blessed.

 

[fhansen]

This is purpose of the conscience? Could you provide an example?

Moral outrage against injustice observed, pangs of guilt when convicted of injustice we, ourselves, have committed. The conscience is informed by the “natural law” and serves as a moral navigator.

Are you thinking that a person who is completely aware may reject God’s overtures? Perhaps, if the person was self-loathing. Is a self-loathing person aware at all?

‘Completely aware’ would necessarily imply that the person loves God with their whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, along with their neighbor and themselves. This does not happen overnight. It’s a process. Properly understood this process is the working out of ones salvation with He who works in us (Phil 2:12); it’s to be perfected, to become fully just.

The real point here is that man’s will is involved in God’s working in us, of becoming the beings He created us to be. And the behavior of this world demonstrates clearly that we aren’t forced to go along with His plan. If we want to believe in universal salvation anyway, that’s up to us. But justice and order and truth and beauty and goodness according to God’s wisdom and love will eventually reign exclusively in His universe, whether anyone likes it or rejects it or not.

 

[OneSheep]

Adam & Eve already had a conscience prior to eating of the fruit. The knowledge they gained was not a conscience but rather the direct, experiential knowledge of both good and evil, evil being something they hadn’t experienced prior to their own first sin, a sin that changed their world by distancing themselves for their Creator.

Given that the evidence that they ate of the fruit was that “they knew they were naked”, what did they experience, then, that led them to such a “knowing”? Surely, they now “knew” that being naked was shameful, unconscionable, which is part of why I conclude that the story is an allegory of acquisition of the conscience.

I think that what you are saying also makes a lot of sense too. Are you thinking, though, that the universe itself changed when man did what he was sure to do (defy God/conscience), given his lack of awareness?

the innocence we lose when at odds with our Creator

Do we lose our innocence, or do we lose a connection? Are you thinking that people who sin, which is done in ignorance (they know not what they do) somehow changes the value/dignity of the person?

 

[Gorgias]

One question for you Fhansen to RESOLVE the matter:
Is it possible that an elect of God lose his/her salvation and end up in hell.

The answer can be a clear yes or no. So, the answer is yes or no?

The answer is “yes, it is possible for a baptized Christian to lose his salvation and end up in hell.”

 

[OneSheep]

Moral outrage against injustice observed, pangs of guilt when convicted of injustice we, ourselves, have committed. The conscience is informed by the “natural law” and serves as a moral navigator.

I agree, but the healing part seems to fall under a different set of motivations.

it’s to be perfected, to become fully just.

Does God look at us in terms of partial/full justness?

Are you equating “justness” with awareness itself?

The real point here is that man’s will is involved in God’s working in us, of becoming the beings He created us to be.

Yes, this is my experience also.

 

[Gorgias]

Surely, they now “knew” that being naked was shameful, unconscionable

No. Being naked wasn’t ‘shameful’ or ‘unconscionable’. After all, that’s the state in which God placed them. If you want to claim nakedness as bad, then that implies that you believe that God is the author of that shame. That just doesn’t hold up.

So, the issue here isn’t what they “know” – it’s what they have made an erroneous moral judgment. That’s how God knows that they “ate from the tree” – it isn’t the truth of their conclusion, but the fact that they’ve unilaterally made a moral judgment in conflict with the morality that God had given them.

, which is part of why I conclude that the story is an allegory of acquisition of the conscience.

I think I would quibble: we don’t acquire a conscience, we form a conscience that we already possess. Adam and Eve had a conscience, as part of their human nature, at their creation. The issue here, then, at best, is that they’ve formed their conscience poorly by creating and following their own moral rules. It’s that faulty creation of morality that’s in play in this story…

 

[fhansen]

Does God look at us in terms of partial/full justness? Are you equating “justness” with awareness itself?

God wants the best for us-always has. He didn’t created anyone to be less than who we are-to be partially just or perfect IOW. Pride, incidentally if truth be known, does just that, it actually deflates us in an attempt to exalt ourselves. This is the problem with or injustice in man-that we fail to be all God wants from and for us due to our not being in union with Him first of all.

The purpose of Christs coming-and for the Church since that time-is to establish this union-or communion. We must struggle and strive for its full expression, with the help of His grace, if we will. It can take time to cultivate humility and the love it accompanies. We tend to be obstinate, doubting God, desiring our own way just as Adam did. We’re here to learn of the fallacy of such a notion. We’re here to learn of the reality of God, first of all, of His existence, goodness, mercy and love, and then of our absolute need for Him, to be partnered with Him, ‘apart from Whom we can do nothing’. We’re here to defintively learn, to put it another way, that we’re not God, the highest form of existence. There’s One yet higher-and this knowledge is crucial for us to know.

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

To truly know God is to love Him. All of man’s justice is based on and flows from this truth.

 

[OneSheep]

God wants the best for us-always has. He didn’t created anyone to be less than who we are-to be partially just or perfect

Makes sense. Assuming this is true, though, does God look at us in terms of partial/full perfection? Does it in any way change his love, mercy, acceptance of us?

Pride… actually deflates us

What does this “deflation” mean, though, in God’s eyes? Does it change something about the way He sees us?

Would you say that pride is our enemy?

 

[OneSheep]

No. Being naked wasn’t ‘shameful’ or ‘unconscionable’. After all, that’s the state in which God placed them.

You are thinking that authors did not subscribe to the idea that public nudity was immoral or shameful? Isn’t the conscience also guided by group mores?

If you want to claim nakedness as bad,

I am not. I used “knew” with the scare quotes.

… implies that… God is the author of that shame. That just doesn’t hold up.

Yes, it doesn’t hold up. What does hold up is that God is the author of the capacity for conscience, and that because of regional variations, acceptable levels of clothing also vary. For sure, though, the more skin showing (relative to the norm) is stimulating to people of the opposite sex, so the fallout from this is that societies have clothing norms, and violations are seen as shameful or immoral.

So, the issue here isn’t what they “know” – it’s what they have made an erroneous moral judgment. That’s how God knows that they “ate from the tree” – it isn’t the truth of their conclusion, but the fact that they’ve unilaterally made a moral judgment in conflict with the morality that God had given them.

When you use the word “issue”, are you saying that the most important point of the story is that people defied God’s wishes? That after that time, God sort of had a bad feeling about us, that we owed Him something?

we don’t acquire a conscience, we form a conscience that we already possess.

Yeah, but we possess it because God gave it to us. Acquisition, possession, no difference.

The issue here, then, at best, is that they’ve formed their conscience poorly by creating and following their own moral rules.

Well, conscience formation is not perfect, but it is completely understandable and logical in that it is based in personal and communal experience, as well as mores passed down through the ages, right? Think of the example we were discussing above. A woman in a group decides to “show more flesh” and ends up attracting too much attention from the men (and away from their wives). It is quite understandable that groups would form mores that involve shaming those who dress provocatively.

The question is, again, and this brings us back to Anselm: Does(did) God think we owed Him something for defying His wishes? Did He hold something against us?

 

[Gorgias]

You are thinking that authors did not subscribe to the idea that public nudity was immoral or shameful? Isn’t the conscience also guided by group mores?

That’s a different and unrelated question, though, isn’t it? In fact, it would underscore the point that our morality, today, continues to contain notions that are counter to the original intent of God’s code of morality!

For sure, though, the more skin showing (relative to the norm) is stimulating to people of the opposite sex

In his discussion of the Fall of Man (IIRC, in the context of his Theology of the Body teachings), St Pope John Paul II does a good job of identifying that it is precisely this disordered sexuality that is one of the consequences of the Fall! Whereas in the beginning, nudity wasn’t an instance of the ‘near occasion of sin’, nevertheless following the fall, humans are now scandalized by non-sexual nudity!

When you use the word “issue”, are you saying that the most important point of the story is that people defied God’s wishes?

My take on the story is that, due to pride and a lack of standing up for God’s law, we did indeed defy God by coming up with a morality in opposition to His.

That after that time, God sort of had a bad feeling about us, that we owed Him something?

Not really. That’s the subtlety in the discussion. “Offense” doesn’t mean – in an anthropomorphic way – that God was ticked off at us. That’s what the theory of penal substitution asserts, and the Catholic Church rejects that assertion.

Rather, we would suggest that there was an ‘offense’ against Justice, and since it’s God’s Justice that had been contravened, it was an infinite offense.

Does that help?

Yeah, but we possess it because God gave it to us. Acquisition, possession, no difference.

Gorgias:

However, Genesis 3 isn’t about the acquisition of conscience! Adam and Eve already have consciences by that point! So, the story isn’t about acquisition – it’s about the way they misuse their consciences!

The question is, again, and this brings us back to Anselm: Does(did) God think we owed Him something for defying His wishes? Did He hold something against us?

Anselm says ‘yes’. So does Calvin. Aquinas and Ratzinger say ‘no’ … at least, not in the way you’re putting it.

 

[fhansen]

Makes sense. Assuming this is true, though, does God look at us in terms of partial/full perfection? Does it in any way change his love, mercy, acceptance of us?

No, He loves us in spite of sin, in spite of hypocrisy/ untruth in us, in spite of our imperfections. But, as a good parent, He knows and desires only perfection for us. That’s where our own happiness lies as well.

What does this “deflation” mean, though, in God’s eyes? Does it change something about the way He sees us? Would you say that pride is our enemy?

It just means we become less whenever we try to be more than who we are; we can’t help but lose something precious in the process, because it means we must first demean our authentic selves. This demeaning or inferiority complex is the essence of shame. Adam & Eve hid from the fact that they were creatures, that they weren’t God. Shame is the flip-side of pride, its inevitable offspring, its counterbalance so to speak. Aquinas called pride “inordinate self-love”, desiring an excellence above and beyond our natures. It’s an everyday occurence now. It’s the essence of Original Sin, to want to be like God but apart from God, to deny one’s limitations. We’re here to learn of our true value, which, ironically perhaps, is greater than what we really think it is whenever we’re wanting to transcend or overreach that value, whenever we’re prideful IOW, and this means we must detach from false values, those inordinate ones. We must come to love who we really are, as God already does. We must learn of, acknowledge, and embrace the fact that we’re limited creatures relative to an unlimited infinite God. Then we can make peace with ourselves and Him. Then we can begin to appreciate true innocence.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

One question for you Fhansen to RESOLVE the matter:
Is it possible that an elect of God lose his/her salvation and end up in hell.

The answer can be a clear yes or no. So, the answer is yes or no?

The answer is “yes, it is possible for a baptized Christian to lose his salvation and end up in hell.”

God bless you Gorgias and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Thank you for your post and your answer.
.
I’m sure we both know, in Catholic Soteriology, there are two predestinations, one to heaven which is a predestination to final salvation, this predestination can NEVER BE LOST.
.
The other predestination is called; Predestination to Initial Salvation, this predestination is a Predestination for a limited time, every predestined lose salvation and when die goes to hell, there is no exception.
.
.
A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP James akin.

Quote: Is it predestination to initial salvation or final salvation?

The two are not the same.

One must define which kind of predestination is being discussed.

If one is talking about predestination to initial salvation, then the fact that a person will come to God does not of itself mean he will stay with God.

1. For example, if a person was predestined to enter my living room, it would not mean he was predestined to remain forever in my living room.
2. Catholic theology has defined “predestined” to mean "predestined to final salvation."
   Thus those who will end up with God in heaven are spoken of as “the predestined” or "the elect."

That a person experiences salvation at some point does not mean he is among the predestined (those God has chosen to persevere to the end). End quote.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm
.
.
In my post 198 I made it clear, my question referring to: God’s elect whose call to eternal life (not for a limited time) is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of the elect’s intellect and will,
.
Question for to RESOLVE the matter:
Is it possible that an elect of God lose his/her salvation and end up in hell.

The answer to the above question is an emphatic NO.
.

If I would ask the question as follows:
Is it absolutely sure that who is only predestined to Initial salvation lose his salvation and end up in hell?

The answer to the above question is an emphatic YES.
.

Do you agree Gorgias with my above two answers?

Thank you for your answer in advance.
.

I believe this post does not derail the thread because shows the way God corrects the sins of Adam and Eve.
God’s correction is, the Predestination of His elect to heaven.

Of course, someone my ask:
What about those whom God Predestined only to Initial Salvation/ Justification, God has chosen not to persevere them to the end??? - Something to think about.
.

Latin

 

[fhansen]

I’m sure we both know, in Catholic Soteriology, there are two predestinations, one to heaven which is a predestination to final salvation, this predestination can NEVER BE LOST.
.
The other predestination is called; Predestination to Initial Salvation, this predestination is a Predestination for a limited time, every predestined lose salvation and when die goes to hell, there is no exception.
.
.
A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP James akin.

Quote: Is it predestination to initial salvation or final salvation?

The two are not the same.

One must define which kind of predestination is being discussed.

If one is talking about predestination to initial salvation, then the fact that a person will come to God does not of itself mean he will stay with God.

1. For example, if a person was predestined to enter my living room, it would not mean he was predestined to remain forever in my living room.
2. Catholic theology has defined “predestined” to mean "predestined to final salvation."
   Thus those who will end up with God in heaven are spoken of as “the predestined” or "the elect."

That a person experiences salvation at some point does not mean he is among the predestined (those God has chosen to persevere to the end). End quote.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm
.
.
In my post 198 I made it clear, my question referring to: God’s elect whose call to eternal life (not for a limited time) is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of the elect’s intellect and will,
.
Question for to RESOLVE the matter:
Is it possible that an elect of God lose his/her salvation and end up in hell.

The answer to the above question is an emphatic NO.
.

If I would ask the question as follows:
Is it absolutely sure that who is only predestined to Initial salvation lose his salvation and end up in hell?

The answer to the above question is an emphatic YES.
.

Do you agree Gorgias with my above two answers?

Thank you for your answer in advance.
.

I believe this post does not derail the thread because shows the way God corrects the sins of Adam and Eve.
God’s correction is, the Predestination of His elect to heaven.

Of course, someone my ask:
What about those whom God Predestined only to Initial Salvation/ Justification, God has chosen not to persevere them to the end??? - Something to think about.

There’s no such concept in Catholicism about being predestined to initial salvation. More garbage. And while God alone knows with 100% certainty who the elect are, whose names are written in the Book of Life and whose are not, we don’t. For ourselves salvation is a process, one that a person must strive and persevere in as they work out their salvation with He who works in us. Phil 2:12

 

[OneSheep]

It just means we become less whenever we try to be more than who we are

Is this “becoming” less an actual characterization in God’s eyes? Yes He loves us in spite of sin, but is there an actual change in the dignity of a human because of sin?

I’m just wondering if, based on what you are saying, there is a need to describe any involvement in sin as something that changes our being.

It is the conscience that finds sin unacceptable, and by its action, the sinner himself unacceptable, characterized with some variation of condemning terms, i.e. “he is a jerk” or “he has a big ego”. Our expression of non-acceptance serves to modify the behavior of the sinner, and our feeling of guilt (non-acceptance of self) serves to modify our own behaviors.

it means we must first demean our authentic selves

Do we do this “self-demeaning” intentionally? Is the term “demean” an expression of value?

It’s an everyday occurence now. It’s the essence of Original Sin, to want to be like God but apart from God

Have you an experience of wanting to be God, but apart from God?

We’re here to learn of our true value, which, ironically perhaps, is greater than what we really think

Can a person come to know their true value if they actually believe what the conscience tells them, that they are “less” in some way when they sin? When one gets caught up in self-blame, rather than self-understanding, can one ever come to know their true value, or for that matter, the value of others?

We must come to love who we really are, as God already does

This is very difficult if for the person caught up in shame, correct?.

Are people, by the natural functioning of the conscience, ashamed of their natural desires for power, status and autonomy? When we label these desires as “pride”, are we already self-blaming?

Is there a distinction to be made between these natural desires, vs the thinking that one is better than everyone else, which is due to lack of awareness?

Then we can make peace with ourselves and Him.

In my own experience, that peace was found through reconciling with every aspect of myself. It is peace through relationship within, with Him. I found no peace in self-blame, even though there is certainly a good purpose for self-blame.

 

[Gorgias]

Question for to RESOLVE the matter:
Is it possible that an elect of God lose his/her salvation and end up in hell.

The answer to the above question is an emphatic NO.
.

If I would ask the question as follows:
Is it absolutely sure that who is only predestined to Initial salvation lose his salvation and end up in hell?

The answer to the above question is an emphatic YES.
.

Do you agree Gorgias with my above two answers?

OK… so, the way you frame up your position, your statements are true, but only trivially so. Essentially, you’re asking “do the people whom God knows will persevere, actually persevere?” The answer is “of course!”

However, stating the position outside of the context of God’s knowledge, and in a context that appears to be human in orientation, the answer to the question as stated (“is it possible that an elect of God lose his salvation”), is “of course it’s possible!”

 

[OneSheep]

That’s a different and unrelated question, though, isn’t it? In fact, it would underscore the point that our morality, today, continues to contain notions that are counter to the original intent of God’s code of morality!

Interesting. In what way do codes against public nudity counter the original intent of God’s code?

In his discussion of the Fall of Man (IIRC, in the context of his Theology of the Body teachings), St Pope John Paul II does a good job of identifying that it is precisely this disordered sexuality that is one of the consequences of the Fall!

Did God give man concupiscence as punishment for acting on the strong desire they had for the fruit?

Having strong desires that compromise our consciences is part of being human. Did not Eve and Adam have the same characteristic even before she ate the fruit?

My take on the story is that, due to pride and a lack of standing up for God’s law, we did indeed defy God by coming up with a morality in opposition to His.

Are you saying that mores concerning public nudity are in opposition to God’s intent concerning how morals are formed?

Rather, we would suggest that there was an ‘offense’ against Justice, and since it’s God’s Justice that had been contravened, it was an infinite offense.

Does that help?

I think I am getting closer to the bottom line…

Did God forgive the infinite offense? There is often practically no difference between “an offense against God” and “an offense against justice” especially when people assert that “God is justice”.

However, Genesis 3 isn’t about the acquisition of conscience! Adam and Eve already have consciences by that point! So, the story isn’t about acquisition – it’s about the way they misuse their consciences!

I’m saying that the entire story contains aspects of the conscience and our grappling with it. The question is, do we blame A&E, or do we understand them in the same way that Jesus understood us when we hung Him on the cross. Can we see that A&E did not know what they were doing?

If we can see this, then the “misuse” does not become an item of blame, but instead we simply see the error as one that precipitated from lack of awareness. Does God see the action of A & E as a subject of blame, or does He understand why they did what they did?

In other words, if this was a real, literal occurrence, did not God create the pair knowing full well that they would defy Him? And when doing so, did He already forgive them, or did He already blame them and plan to levy consequences?

Anselm says ‘yes’. So does Calvin. Aquinas and Ratzinger say ‘no’ … at least, not in the way you’re putting it.

I think you are finding the image of the latter two more in tune with your own experience, as am I, but earlier in my life the image of the former two made more sense. Can you say the same?

 

[Gorgias]

Interesting. In what way do codes against public nudity counter the original intent of God’s code?

Treating nudity as shameful and sinful are against the way God created things, according to the narrative of Genesis 3. (Of course, it’s just figurative, but it points to a distinct conclusion…)

Did God give man concupiscence as punishment for acting on the strong desire they had for the fruit?

I wouldn’t say that concupiscence is a punishment; rather, I think I’d say that it’s the result of the loss of the original gifts which our first human parents had. So, concupiscence is a consequence of the first sin.

Are you saying that mores concerning public nudity are in opposition to God’s intent concerning how morals are formed?

Let me answer that with a question: do you think that it was God’s intent that human sexuality is characterized, to an extent, by lust? That human bodies are perceived as ‘shameful’? That expressions of sexuality are often characterized by desires to ‘take’ rather than to ‘give’?

There is often practically no difference between “an offense against God” and “an offense against justice” especially when people assert that “God is justice”.

I agree that that it’s not uncommon to conflate the two ideas.

OneSheep:

Did God forgive the infinite offense?

• Anselm says “Christ’s sacrifice pays the debt of honor to God that we owed.”
• Aquinas says, “Christ’s sacrifice makes satisfaction with God and rights the moral injustice against God.”
• Calvin says, “Christ’s death was the sum total of the punishments that those who are saved should have received.”

The question is, do we blame A&E,

We ‘blame’ Adam and Eve in the same way that we accept blame for our sins.

Are you referring to the “they know not what they do” line? That means “they don’t realize that they’re killing the Son of God”, not “they don’t realize that they’re sinners”!

Can we see that A&E did not know what they were doing?

No, I don’t see that. As you point out, we see that they engaged their consciences, trying to decide whether to do what God asked of them, or to take a different course. And, we see that there were consequences for their sin, just as there are consequences for our sins.

I think you are finding the image of the latter two more in tune with your own experience, as am I, but earlier in my life the image of the former two made more sense. Can you say the same?

I think that Aquinas’ and Ratzinger’s solution is more mature and more nuanced, and therefore, I think it fits well with our own human experiences of formation and maturation…

 

[Latin]

There’s no such concept in Catholicism about being predestined to initial salvation. More garbage. And while God alone knows with 100% certainty who the elect are, whose names are written in the Book of Life and whose are not, we don’t. For ourselves salvation is a process, one that a person must strive and persevere in as they work out their salvation with He who works in us. Phil 2:12

God bless you Fhansen and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Thank you for your post, I was very impressed with it when I read it.

I have a same view about being Predestined to Initial Salvation.

It is NOT Catholic teachings and the concept is mocking God’s love and justice.

The concept of being Predestined to Initial Salvation is a POSITIVE PREDESTINATION and the DESTINATION of the predestination is hell, so cannot be Catholic teachings.
.

MY QUESTIONS FROM YOU FHANSEN:

Can we close the door on the concept of Predestination to Initial Salvation as it is not Catholic teachings?

As the result, there is only one predestination in Catholic theology which is described in Rom.8:30; Eph.1:5, 11; etc. and in the Catholic Encyclopedia Predestination of the elect to heaven.
.
Do you agree Fhansen, there is only one predestination in Catholic theology which is the Predestination of the elect to heaven?
.
Thank you Fahnsen for your answer in advance.
.

Latin

 

[fhansen]

Sure but all that means, as Georgias mentioned, is that the saved (those whom God foreknows to have eternal life) will be, um, saved. It doesn’t have much meaning for us-and there’s not much point in even discussing it because we can’t know with 100% certainty who the elect are. And that is Catholic teaching, that no one can know with absolute certainty that they have eternal life.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

Is it possible that an elect of God lose his/her salvation and end up in hell.

The answer to the above question is an emphatic NO.
.

If I would ask the question as follows:
Is it absolutely sure that who is only predestined to Initial salvation lose his salvation and end up in hell?

The answer to the above question is an emphatic YES.
.

Do you agree Gorgias with my above two answers?

OK… so, the way you frame up your position, your statements are true, but only trivially so. Essentially, you’re asking “do the people whom God knows will persevere, actually persevere?” The answer is “of course!”

However, stating the position outside of the context of God’s knowledge, and in a context that appears to be human in orientation, the answer to the question as stated (“is it possible that an elect of God lose his salvation”), is “of course it’s possible!”

God bless you Gorgias and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Thank you for your post.

I know you are a very good teacher with good knowledge, so as I like to learn, I like to take advantage of your knowledge and teaching skill.
.
I believe to understand how could Adam and Eve sin, we need to understand the reasons;
Why did God not prevent them from sinning?
What is the way God saves the human race?
.

I present you Gorgias an excerpt from; THE MYSTERY OF PREDESTINATION John Salza, page 119 and I like you have your detailed view on it, focusing on the technic of our salvation.
.
Quote: 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. End quote.
.
.
Ezekiel 36:25-27;
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.

26 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.
.
Did you notice Gorgias the words in v. 27 ‘cause you,’ seems like in the future God will operates only with efficacious graces.
.

I like to have your view on the subject.
.
Thank you in advance.
.

Latin