S
SaintAugustine
Guest
Yes. And, your point is?
- Status
O
Origen52
Guest
Interesting question, but I see no one has yet tried to answer it. I’d be interested in the response. Perhaps you should post it in the apologetics forum.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Degrees of grace received.
For example God nudges on the heart of all men. This is how we know to look (or run from) God. That is a bit of God’s grace.
Baptism using proper form, provides Gods grace to whoever receives it in any church.
There are other things where God can impute his grace on whoever wherever.
His normative way if doing this is through the sacraments he established.
However , we may be bound by obedience, to follow the sacraments. God however is not. He can and does work outside of them.
A
anthony022071
Guest
That Jesus ordered the behavior that you seem to disapprove of.
A
anthony022071
Guest
It is true that atheists can be touched by grace,but to receive grace permanently into their hearts and be led to salvation,a person must be respond with belief or at least desire for God and observance of God’s laws.
S
SaintAugustine
Guest
So, you believe Jesus would have wanted Christians to stop evangelizing me? Really?
S
SaintAugustine
Guest
Well, after you shake the dust from your sandals and stopped evangelizing, how is that going to happen exactly?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Yeah that verse is being taken out of context. It has nothing to do with evangelization but instead hospitality issues.
S
SaintAugustine
Guest
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Honestly, I didn’t expect an answer because the claim that belief doesn’t matter is unCatholic and nonsensical.
I was hoping for a more sensible response to this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11260268#post11260268
I won’t speculate as to why those cheerleading Pope Francis here have avoided responding. Their silence speaks for itself.
M
migueltojose
Guest
I hoped someone else might answer. I’m no expert but I’ll take a shot at it looking at the Catechism of the Catholic Church…
35 “God willed both to reveal hmself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith”
1996 “Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call…”
2002 “God’s free initiative demands man’s free response… he has placed in him a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy…”
678 Jesus regarding the final judgement… “the culpable unbelief that counted the offer of God’s grace as nothing will be condemned…”
Sacramental grace is specific type of grace, as are charisms, graces of state, habitual grace, etc…
C
Coolhandlukeboy
Guest
Who says Adam and Eve didn’t need grace before the fall? Clearly they were not beholding the beatific vision, for if they were then they would have God fully and would not sin. But they did sin and no theologian claims that they saw God fully. If they did not have God fully, they were still reliant upon grace.
If this is so, then your previous point is moot:
Man, even before the fall, would be dependent upon God for his state of being. Since all beings - metaphysically - are dependent upon God who is pure act (or you can say: just is), Adam and Eve would be reliant upon God for their state of union with him prior to the fall.
Valid Catholic Source:
What were the consequences of Adam’s sin? (CCC 402-409)
“Humanity lost its state of original holiness and justice, which constituted four general losses. Man lost his harmony with (1)God, (2)other men, (3)himself, and (4)nature. As well, he lost sanctifying grace (faith, hope and love), the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the four preternatural gifts (see question, “What was the condition of man before the Fall?”).”
St. Thomas Aquinas:newadvent.org/summa/2109.htm
Question 109, Article 2
“And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.”
Perfect nature would be before Adam and Eve, and after the fall, would obviously be the corrupt nature.
Before the Fall of Man, there was a natural ordering to man:
- God
- Others
- Self (directed toward God and Others)
- Material needs
Grace is a gift of God so that man can fulfill his purpose. Since man knows through material things, yet God is not material, man needs the assistance of God so that he can come to know the supernatural.
About the part where you say there is no need for a Church… since the fall of man was material (obviously a spiritual factor to it as well), the redemption of man must also be in some way material. The fact that man chose fruit over God is not the point. It is that man chose anything over God. But not just anything, a material thing over God… not even a spiritual thing…
Thus the need for a material dimension to our redemption. We are so grounded in the material world after the Fall, that God is just meeting us where we are at. Jesus Christ, is that connection, and he clearly gives reason for a Church so that we can obtain grace again and choose God again as well.
It seems rather evident to me the need for a Church, not only from scripture, but also from the demand of our concupiscence, which is always disordered toward the material world.
For more philosophical clarification:
Question 109, Article 5
“Acts conducing to an end must be proportioned to the end. But no act exceeds the proportion of its active principle; and hence we see in natural things, that nothing can by its operation bring about an effect which exceeds its active force, but only such as is proportionate to its power. Now everlasting life is an end exceeding the proportion of human nature, as is clear from what we have said above (Question 5, Article 5). Hence man, by his natural endowments, cannot produce meritorious works proportionate to everlasting life; and for this a higher force is needed, viz. the force of grace.”
Since the final cause or purpose of man’s life is happiness, but not just any happiness: infinite happiness, it is impossible for man, through his own merits to attain this happiness. Thus, even Adam and Eve would need the grace of God to attain this happiness. After the fall, they still retain this need for grace, they just don’t actually have it anymore.
The only argument that comes to mind against what I have said would be: Before the Fall, the purpose of man was NOT Everlasting Life, but something else.
However, if this were true, it would change the final cause (purpose) of man. And since we define things by what they are made for (purpose), it would also change the form, and thus we would no longer have man, but another form, with a different purpose. But yet it is clear theologically that “man” falls, and that we are speaking of one and the same form. Thus the purpose of man before the fall is the same as man after the fall.
And lastly you said without God there would be no sin.
This is a moot point. Without God there would be nothing. However, sin is not a thing. It is merely the privation of something that ought to be there: good. Technically speaking, your statement would logically have to become: With God there would be no sin. It is very clear that through sin, Adam and Eve are no longer with God, by their own free choice. Were they to never have sinned, they would remain in sanctifying grace.
To speak of sin as if it were a thing created is philosophically illogical. Thus there is no direct causal link between God and sin, which is what you propose (or failed to make a qualification). You may speak of an indirect link, but this would only be metaphysical dialogue, and not scientific, since sin is not a thing.
C
Coolhandlukeboy
Guest
I meant elaborate here that after the fall of man, we place the following order:
- Material needs/wants
- Self
- Others
- God
We can still contemplate God, but we do so through the physical world. But because God has also showed himself to us, through the prophets and then through Christ. And through the sacraments, we have God, in the material world (two natures of Jesus), at our disposal. If we have God in the flesh, how can you ask the question, why do we need the sacraments? If no one today denies the materialistic tendencies of man, how is having God in the flesh not important?
And furthermore, if one professes - as I do - faith in Jesus Christ, it is so very clear that he instituted the Church and left us these sacraments as a way to find God in the state of concupiscence that man has.
A good book to read regarding the need for Christ is Chesterton’s Everlasting Man. worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part2c4.htm
I think the analogy of the keys is a beautiful one. You can’t change the key, it won’t fit the lock. But having the key is knowing that you have the only thing that will unlock the Kingdom of Heaven. And a key either fits the lock, or it doesn’t.
The difference between a Catholic and an atheist, is we have the key. It fits the lock. The atheist is constantly being drawn toward the key. God tries to place it in their hand, but until they have the key, they cannot unlock sanctifying grace which is a union with God, and a return to ordering ourselves to him.
And I think this is where you are getting confused (Bubba) about what’s the difference between an Atheist and a Catholic if they both receive grace? The difference is that sanctifying grace is what man lost after sin. Actual grace is the “push” by God to bring us all back to sanctifying grace (to have the keys!). But actual grace is not sufficient to reach heaven or God, because you don’t have the key yet. Unless one is in sanctifying grace, one cannot go to heaven.
So, although we may all have actual grace in some form or another, unless we have sanctifying grace, it’s all just potential. We are potentially with God, but not actually there yet. It is our choice, freely to accept or not. If you die not having accepted… then God will respect that free choice.
T
TMC
Guest
Let us hope the Grace is stronger than sin or we are all in trouble.
As to whether there is a theological litmus test for salvation - of course there is not! None of us can truly know or understand God, and gaining perfect theological knowledge is not the goal of the church.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I think 678 alone is more than sufficient to rebut the claim that belief doesn’t matter. Yes,God’s grace rains on the saint and atheist alike but the Church teaches that something more than that is required for salvation. Even the Protestants who believe in Sola Fida assert that you have to be once saved to be always saved. Catholics believe that we must respond to God’s grace (typically described as a combination of faith and good works).
J
J_Peterson
Guest
That’s not true. Once you start to believe in God and have Faith, the realization that there is such a thing as sin happens shortly after. It all begins and ends with God.
I once didn’t believe in sin and only came to believe through God. The blindness metaphors come in handy here.
C
Coolhandlukeboy
Guest
I teach plenty of atheists, and not these American agnostics, mind you. They have no issue with the idea of sin.
Have you ever done something you either know or perceived to be wrong, but did it anyhow? Yes. That is sin.
A real atheist has no problem with sin, as it just defines a concept clearly provable. An “anti-theist” (someone who doesn’t like religion or religious people) does because they can’t separate the theological term with its truthful definition. It is easy to do so.
Sin is just a disordered love. That’s all. It is when we love something not worthy of love, or when we choose a love that is lesser in value.
Made a promise and broke it? Sin: illogical action
Knew you shouldn’t have eaten a third helping, but did it anyhow? Sin: illogical
Ever betrayed the trust of a friend, while knowing you shouldn’t have done so? Sin: disordered love.
Knew you shouldn’t have eaten the last of your child’s easter candy, but did it anyhow? Sin: disordered love
No one can claim to have never sinned. No rational person ever has, in my experience. This is so evident, I rarely have to say anything in addition during teaching.
Speaking about grace is fruitless? Not if you can demonstrate that every human is sinful or disordered in some way. Inductive generalization has little trouble doing so.
T
TMC
Guest
God’s grace is all that is required for salvation. That Grace must be accepted, but good theological training is not required to accept God’s grace. The Church has made clear that non-Christians and even atheists can be saved, so it is clear (at least according to the Church) that salvation does not turn on theology.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
The question is not whether grace is a gift from God or whether it is necessary. The question is whether it is sufficient. If God’s grace is sufficient then there is no hell and no need of the Church.
The redemption and salvation of man requires man’s active participation. Because redemption and salvation require man’s active participation it matters what men believe and what they do. Because it matters what me believe and what they do the Church has an evangelical mission.
This is a moot point. Without God there would be nothing. However, sin is not a thing. It is merely the privation of something that ought to be there: good. Technically speaking, your statement would logically have to become: With God there would be no sin. It is very clear that through sin, Adam and Eve are no longer with God, by their own free choice. Were they to never have sinned, they would remain in sanctifying grace.
To speak of sin as if it were a thing created is philosophically illogical. Thus there is no direct causal link between God and sin, which is what you propose (or failed to make a qualification). You may speak of an indirect link, but this would only be metaphysical dialogue, and not scientific, since sin is not a thing.
People who do not believe in God do not believe in the need for grace. Leading with grace will be fruitless.
Your problem is that you refuse to get into the heads of those who do not share your beliefs. As a result you do not understand them and you will be unable to change their minds.
- Status