SUfficient Grace? Where?

[JDaniel]

But the will cannot assent to the call of Grace unless grace precedes it: Prevenient grace. In other words, all acts of the will that are oriented toward GOd, are GOd acting in that person:

SO, in what sense can all be given sufficient grace, if it is a bare and empty thing unable to effect any change?

Gregory:

You are correct: sufficient grace (gratia sufficiens) precedes efficacious grace (gratia efficax). Basically, it means that the first grace is a grace which gives the power to do something; while the second grace is a grace that will be made use of. It is one thing to have the power to do something and quite another to actually do that something. These are concepts that were explained and taught by the Council of Trent. I believe.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

But the question still stands, how can a grace be considered sufficient that is incapable of accomplishing anything without another grace; the one that really matters; Intrinsically efficacious grace?

Gregory:

It accomplishes the receptivity, in us, of all of the efficacious graces we are to be given. So, it does ‘accomplish’ something. It is the ‘first asking of us’, so to speak: “do we wish to be a part of the process towards the Beatific Vision AND do we wish to be a part of the Mystical Body of Christ?” All grace is freely given by God. There is nothing we can do to merit it. This we understand from the old dispute between the Thomists and the Molinists.

It is important to remember that with efficacious grace, the result of it is something that will infallibly happen. Sufficient grace was often called merely sufficient grace. We receive sufficient grace precisely because God knows beforehand (since we are immersed in ‘time’) that we will infallibly make use of the efficacious graces he ‘gifts’ to us.

Beyond that, I will have to do some research!

God bless,
jd

 

[Gregory_I]

Based on this definition of sufficient grace, that it causes us to be receptive (Something I perceive as strangely intrinsically efficacious), does the church teach that all are given sufficient grace? THerefore are all made “receptive” to efficacious grace? And are all then saved?

Or is sufficient grace the grace GOd gives everyone, and if they respond to it, then he gives them more grace?

But they can’t respond without prevenient grace!

I cannot see sufficient grace in this context as anything except insufficient, although I would be happy to revise my thinking if someone can at least tell me what it’s sufficient FOR since it isn’t doing anything…

 

[fhansen]

Grace can be hindered,and even refused. Sanctifying grace is available to all. Even if all choose it, our will can be disordered. Actual (sufficient) grace helps return to sanctity.

peace

I don’t believe actual and sufficient grace are the same. Actual grace can be either efficacious or sufficient, for example.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Based on this definition of sufficient grace, that it causes us to be receptive (Something I perceive as strangely intrinsically efficacious), does the church teach that all are given sufficient grace? THerefore are all made “receptive” to efficacious grace? And are all then saved?

Or is sufficient grace the grace GOd gives everyone, and if they respond to it, then he gives them more grace?

But they can’t respond without prevenient grace!

I cannot see sufficient grace in this context as anything except insufficient, although I would be happy to revise my thinking if someone can at least tell me what it’s sufficient FOR since it isn’t doing anything…

If it were not for Paul in his writings, making declarations that all are given knowledge of the one true God, I am not sure on what other basis there is for such an idea.

 

[Gregory_I]

See, now THAT is interesting.

I can perceive sufficient grace as the infused knowledge of God which God gives to all. THe yearning in man’s heart for something more. THAT makes sense.
But it is not sufficient for salvation, it is sufficient for knowledge.

Efficacious grace is the grace that GOd chooses to give to some (The minority) and not to all. The faithful all receive the intrinsically efficacious grace of conversion. THe Elect are those among the faithful who receive the gift of perseverance, the reprobate are both those who God decides to give NO efficacious grace for conversion, AND those who GOd decides not to give the grace of perseverance to.

So we have the Elect: THose who persevere to the end.
And we have the reprobate: Either though Falling away, through their own sinfulness, or those who Refuse to have any knowledge of God, again by their own sinfulness.

What do you think of Sufficient grace as being sufficient for the knowledge of God? I wouldn’t call it sufficient however…maybe general grace, or grace sufficient for knowledge.

But what IS clear is that GOd does not choose everyone to be saved; only a few. And of those who are saved, only a few of THOSE will persevere.

Is that Faithful to Augustinian THeology?

fhansen:

Is it not a strange thing to conceive of a “sufficient” grace that is ineffectual? Sufficient for what?

 

[hazcompat]

As I see it. there is grace that exists because Our Father desires all should be saved. Some accept and cooperate and need no further assistance. Others, whom He Loves unimaginably, persist obstinately to act disorderly. these have need of a second level of grace. the second is sufficient proportional to the disorder. I may be wrong. see also

ewtn.com/library/Theology/MOSTSOLV.HTM

peace

 

[Gregory_I]

I believe GOd wants all to be saved.

I also believe he only gives the graces neede for salvation to some, not to all.

But the reprobate are not damned because God has deserted them, but, from the beginning they have deserted God. And because of this, God has chosen to use their selfish sinfulness to show his justice in NOT giving them the graces necessary for salvation.

Also, we should avoid a God of sentimentalism. GOd is all good, and he only wills the good for all. THat said, not all will this good for themselves; in fact, the majority will evil things.

THey are reprobate. But he loves them: But this is no human wishy-washy love. This transcends what that love fails to reflect.

 

[JDaniel]

Based on this definition of sufficient grace, that it causes us to be receptive (Something I perceive as strangely intrinsically efficacious), does the church teach that all are given sufficient grace? THerefore are all made “receptive” to efficacious grace? And are all then saved?

No: because of his Divine foreknowledge, He knows there will be those who won’t infallibly use the efficacious graces later given them.

Or is sufficient grace the grace GOd gives everyone, and if they respond to it, then he gives them more grace?

God is Infinite being. That means, he is ontologically before time and after time, in an Eternal Now. He knows all and everything within that Eternal Now.

But they can’t respond without prevenient grace!

As I understand “prevenient” grace, it is that grace which is given prior to any human action or inaction. But, it is a gift given only after sufficient grace has been received, that helps us get past those instances when we are in sin, and, therefore unable to receive any of the other graces (except sufficient grace). Remember, grace has very much to do with human actions.

I cannot see sufficient grace in this context as anything except insufficient, although I would be happy to revise my thinking if someone can at least tell me what it’s sufficient FOR since it isn’t doing anything…

It precedes any and all of the other graces. It could be called a birthright, because it is given so early on and before any of the other graces. The word “sufficient” did not always have the modern meaning you ascribe to it. According to the Oxford Dictionaries: Origin:
Middle English (in the sense ‘legally satisfactory’): from Old French, or from Latin sufficient- ‘meeting the need of’ (see suffice)
God, in his omniscience, is the sole determiner of whose needs shall be met. He does not waste grace on those that will not infallibly make use of any of the efficacious graces they might receive later. This leads to the notion of predeterminism.

God bless,
jd

 

[StrawberryJam]

The Catholic God is simply hard to argue against if you are a christian of another denomination IMHO.

Credit is due where it belongs.

 

[hazcompat]

The Catholic God is simply hard to argue against if you are a christian of another denomination IMHO.

Credit is due where it belongs.

All is grace. my God and my all.
grace and peace

 

[paduard]

Gregory:

You are correct: sufficient grace (gratia sufficiens) precedes efficacious grace (gratia efficax). Basically, it means that the first grace is a grace which gives the power to do something; while the second grace is a grace that will be made use of. It is one thing to have the power to do something and quite another to actually do that something. These are concepts that were explained and taught by the Council of Trent. I believe.

God bless,
jd

I agree Daniel. In my opinion you put it well.

In addition the doctrine of free-will must be retained at all costs.

As for - “God does not choose everyone to be saved; only a few. And of those who are saved, only a few of THOSE will persevere” - that is nonsense.

 

[Gregory_I]

JDaniel

Can you please reference this teaching in the magisterial documents that contain them?

I agree Daniel. In my opinion you put it well.

In addition the doctrine of free-will must be retained at all costs.

As for - “God does not choose everyone to be saved; only a few. And of those who are saved, only a few of THOSE will persevere” - that is nonsense.

What part is nonsense?:

That God does not actively will to save all he can, or that of those saved, not all persevere?

The Scriptures and the Fathers teach both points, so I do not see why it is nonsense…

“When the Son of Man comes, do you think he will find faith upon the earth?” -Jesus-

Also try reading “The little number of the Saved” By St. Leonard of Port Maurice.

And what is so “free” about the will of fallen man? Man is a willing servant of sin, and a man is enslaved by those things that master him. THerefore our wills are bound by sin and cannot choose God on our own.

Every decision you make apart from God’s grace will NEVER be to choose God. EVER. You have the ability to choose God, but onlyactually DO because he chooses us, gives us prevenient and efficacious grace and FREES our will so it can act according to its fully free potential.

The Will is free in potential, but not in act. It has the potential to make totally free and arbitrary choices, but it cannot unless aided by divine grace, which elevates the will.

THis is the Teaching of the Doctor of the Church whose teachings on grace the CHurch has made its own:

St. Augustine.

‘And so that which is said ‘God wills all men to be saved’ though he is unwilling that so many be saved, is said for this reason: that all who are saved, are not saved except by his will.’ (Epistle 217)

‘Hence we must inquire in what sense is said of God what the apostle has mostly truly said: ‘who will have all men to be saved.’ For, as a matter of fact, not all, nor even a majority, are saved: so that it would seem that what God wills is not done, man’s will interfering with, and hindering the will of God. When we ask the reason why all men are not saved, the ordinary answer is: ‘because men themselves are not willing.’ …for he does not will some things and do them, and will others and do them not; but ‘he hath done all that he pleased in heaven and in earth.’’ (Enchiridion 97)

In further proof of the doctrine that God does not want all men to be saved, Augustine cited passages from the New Testament where he was unwilling that miracles should be performed in certain places though the people there would have converted and been saved.

“21 Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes.

22 But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you.

23 And thou Capharnaum, shalt thou be exalted up to heaven? thou shalt go down even unto hell. For if in Sodom had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in thee, it would have remained unto this day.

24 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.” (St. Matthew 11)

“13 Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida. For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the mighty works that have been wrought in you, they would have done penance long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” (St. Luke 10)

Augustine commented as follows. God does not want all men to be saved otherwise he would not have refused to work miracles for people who would have repented. As we have seen:

‘Or, it is said, ‘who will have all men to be saved;’ **not that there is no man whose salvation he does not will **(for how, then, explain the fact that he was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, he said, would have repented if he had worked them?), but that we are to understand by ‘all men,’ the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances.’ (Enchiridion 103)

IN other words all different KINDS of men God desires to save, but not all men without exception. And GOd does not will something and not do it, does he?

Or his Student, St. Propsper of Aquitane:

‘He who says that the Lord withholds from some men the message of the gospel, lest hearing it they be saved, can escape the odium of the objection by invoking the authority of the saviour himself. He did not want to work miracles among people who, he said, would have believed had they seen them. He forbade his apostles to preach to some nations, and he still allows other nations to live untouched by his grace.’ (Answers to the Gauls, qualification to article 10)

‘What, then, about the trite objection from the Scripture text, ‘God will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth?’ Only they who fail to see its meaning think it goes against us. All those who, from the past ages till today, died without having known God, are they of the number of ‘all men’?’ (Letter to Rufinus 13)

(cont’d)

 

[Gregory_I]

Or St. Fulgentius of Ruspe:

‘Truly, by these ‘all persons’ whom God ‘wills to be saved’ are signified not the entire human race completely, but the entirety of all who are to be saved. And, likewise, they are called ‘all’ because divine goodness saves all those from humanity, that is, from every nation, condition, and age, from every language and from every province.’ (Epistle 17:61)

‘For the power of God is not less than his will, and therefore he is found to will nothing which he is not able to bring about. …] For, ‘the Lord did all things whatsoever he willed, in heaven and on earth, in the sea and in all the abyss’ (Psalm 135:6). Therefore, since he does all things whatsoever he willed even in the realm of people, whomsoever he ‘wills to be saved’, he makes saved.’ (De Veritate 3:14)

St. Caesarius of Arles:

‘Perhaps you will say: ‘God indeed wills that all believe in him, but not all are willing.’ Why? Because they are not able without his grace. And at this point I ask you whether the human will is more able to contradict the divine will or whether the power of God is more able to convert human wills to itself. If you presume to deny this [latter assertion], the Psalmist cries out to you: ‘But our God in heaven on high did all things whatsoever he willed in heaven and on earth’ (Psalm 135:6); and the apostle says: ‘Who has resisted his will?’ (Romans 9:19) If he did all things whatsoever he willed, what he did not do, he certainly did not will, by a judgment hidden and also deep, and although incomprehensible nevertheless just.’ (On Grace)

SO THe Latin Fathers Following Augustine pretty clearly teach that God saves who he wants, that this number is not great, and that God moves and enables the will.

Where is “sufficient” grace in the Fathers?

 

[FCCopleston]

God’s will can be resisted but not overcome is what I meant.

If GOd wills a person to be saved, they will infallibly be saved. They can delay the action, resist it, or fight against it their whole life, but eventually, they will be saved. THis means grace is RESISTABLE but still infallibly and intrinsically efficacious. THis is what St. Augustine and Aquinas Taught.

But Since this only pertains to those whom God chooses, how can we say he gives sufficient grace to all when he clearly does not choose all?

This is a mystery often called the crux theologorum, i.e., the cross of the theologians. It is called that because it is what every Christian–no matter what denomination, no matter how “clever” their attempts to avoid it–must eventually confront in confessed ignorance. There is no clean answer.

As Catholics, we believe that God desires all people to be saved. Yet all are not saved. Therefore, according to the rules of logical inference, it would seem that God does not desire all people to be saved in the same way. That is, it would seem that God desires some people to be saved efficaciously, while others only sufficiently. But this, in light of Scripture and Tradition, is implausible, seeing that Christ wept over Jerusalem, and gave His life for the sins of the whole world.

I think it is helpful to distinguish between God as He works in His naked majesty (in His hiddenness), and God as He works through humble means (Word, water, bread, and wine). This is not an ontological distinction, but an empirical one. That is, this distinction is not positing the existence of two wills in God, but our false perception of two wills. It is the latter will, the will of grace in Christ, that has been given to us and has revealed to us God’s “inscrutable will.” Jesus Christ is the true will of God: the suffering, dying, and rising God FOR US. God’s will is fully and truly known in Christ (though not exhaustively known–for on this side of the vale of tears we only know in part).

Therefore, the job of all Christians to bear this cross, this crux theologorum, is not to seek out in idle speculation the “hiddenness” of God, but to cause us to draw nearer to Christ and His Church, to adore His mysteries, and to believe that the Lord’s will is a gracious and good one–FOR US AND FOR ALL.

In Christ,
JCCopleston

 

[Gregory_I]

“Who gave his life as a ransom for many.”

My question is not that I deny Christ won sufficient grace to save the WOrld in his atoning death on the cross:

He did.

BUt he simply does not will to communicate it to all, because grace is what actualizes the will. And he clearly does not desire to save everyone, because, in point of fact, he doesn’t.

WOuld you say that sufficient grace is the grace given to all by GOd, not for conversion, but for the easier things in life: DOing natural (not supernatural) good. Natural justice. All the pagan virtues, etc. General grace.

I think of the verse: “He causes his rain to fall upon the just and the unjust.”

 

[fhansen]

“Who gave his life as a ransom for many.”

My question is not that I deny Christ won sufficient grace to save the WOrld in his atoning death on the cross:

He did.

BUt he simply does not will to communicate it to all, because grace is what actualizes the will. And he clearly does not desire to save everyone, because, in point of fact, he doesn’t.

WOuld you say that sufficient grace is the grace given to all by GOd, not for conversion, but for the easier things in life: DOing natural (not supernatural) good. Natural justice. All the pagan virtues, etc. General grace.

I think of the verse: “He causes his rain to fall upon the just and the unjust.”

I’m not sure what the purpose of grace should be if not for conversion and ultimately salvation, which I believe, is what the Church teaches. If the rain falls on both the just and the unjust, and the sun shines on both, it seems that Gods grace is more or less uninvolved in everyday things, unless to say that we all rely on Him for sustenance moment by moment.

 

[FCCopleston]

My question is not that I deny Christ won sufficient grace to save the WOrld in his atoning death on the cross: He did.
BUt he simply does not will to communicate it to all, because grace is what actualizes the will. And he clearly does not desire to save everyone, because, in point of fact, he doesn’t.

Once again, this is attempting to pry into the mysteries of God. I’m sorry, but you’re outmatched here, Gregory I.

We must affirm both:

1. God have died for all
2. God desires the salvation of all

The fact that God *does not save all * is indeed troubling (at least philosophically). But when we are confronted by the discomfort of this reality, we need only seek out God’s sure and unfailing promise: that He has given us His Son, and that He wills that we receive Him unto life everlasting.

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[JDaniel]

I agree Daniel. In my opinion you put it well.

Paduard:

Thank you, kind sir.

In addition the doctrine of free-will must be retained at all costs.

Not only the doctrine, but also, that actuality.

As for - “God does not choose everyone to be saved; only a few. And of those who are saved, only a few of THOSE will persevere” - that is nonsense.

That seems right to me, as I have never heard or read of any human soul in Hell. Scripture tells us that Hell exists, and that there is always the potentiality that people can choose it, but, something must happen to them before their souls either depart earth, or depart Purgatory.

God bless,
jd

 

[Gregory_I]

Read the book " THe little number of the saved" By St. Leonard of Port-Maurice. THis Catholic saint contends the majority of Catholics are going to hel…

It’s a bit unsettling, but it should be perfect for Lent, if anyone wants to dig deep.

Ok, but I still haven’t heard a straight answer: What is sufficient grace sufficient for if it cannot attain to salvation? THe will cannot choose God apart from efficacious grace. THat grace is what enab;es “sufficient” grace.

What is “sufficient” grace sufficient for? What exactly does it do?

DIdn’t the idea of sufficient grace only come around when the Jesuits put forth their ideas on Molinism, and the empowering of the free will?