The gift of Grace and Free Will

[whalljim1]

Okay, I was listening to ‘Call to Communion’ and get flat out confused. about the relationship between God’s Grace and free will.

What got me confused was that Dr. Anders seemed to say:

A) We cannot accomplish anything without Grace.

B) God chooses to whom he gives Grace and from whom he withholds Grace

C) Even for those given Grace, whether they accept it or not is a gift of God…

Maybe I misunderstood him? Where on earth is there even a sliver of room for free will???

If God withholds Grace from you, then you cannot choose to do accept Him.

If God gives you Grace, then your choice of accepting that Grace or not is dependent upon whether God gifts to you the ability to accept the Grace. If he doesn’t, you can’t.

Maybe its that if God does gift you the ability to accept Grace, you then have the choice to turn it down?? Does that even make sense?

And, as an aside, while I trust God’s judgement, of course, I have great pity that there are those to whom He would deny grace!

 

[GratefulFred]

I do not know Dr Anders or the Call to Communion so I cannot analyze the issue of Grace and Free Will on that basis.

As I understand our relationship with God:

1. God LOVES each of us. In His love for us He gave each of us Free Will. If we have no choice we cannot love because love requires one to choose to love.
2. God also gives us Grace - the ability to do good, to love.
3. With our Free Will, we can choose to accept God’s Grace to do good. We can also reject His Grace and do bad. That is our free choice. Accepting God’s Grace does not mean we will automatically do good. It means He is with us as we make the required effort. We can choose to not make the necessary effort because we have Free Will.
4. We are constantly tempted to skip doing good and focus on doing bad to one degree or another.
5. To the degree that we love God, we will pray for His continue Grace that we make the required effort to love Him and others as we should.

 

[PJM]

GREAT POST! Thanks

1st. God in order to BE GOD, commits Himself to OFFER “sufficient grace” to every soul, so that ALL COULD by right application of their minds, intellects and FREEWILL; attain heaven

1st Tim 2: 3-4 “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth”

Isa. 43: 7 &21 “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” & the people whom I formed for myself that THEY MIGHT [freely] declare my praise.

So it is evident that God desires to save every soul that is WILLING to be saved.

Your point “C” needs clarification.

Points A & B are "right on

God offers every soul grace; it is then incumbent upon that soul to then FREELY choose to cooperate with Gods Grace OFFER [and to what degree] or to reject it. OUR CHOICE.

READ PLEASE: Gen 1:26-27 & compare it to John 4: 23-24…

How can [DOES???] Mortal man emulate our God who is “SPIRIT”?

It is what I have come to term: “our other [spiritual] self”… our GIFTED by God, mind, intellect and freewill which are permanently attached to every HUMAN Soul [and ONLY to human souls]

Because we CAN; God expects all of too.

It is OUR freewill cooperation with God’s grace that causes God to then OFFER even more grace, and that is what “C” means.

ALL grace can only be “accepted” by God’s will; BUT GODS WILL is that ALL Grace does Be accepted.

Hope this clarifies it for you,

GBY

 

[The_Revelator]

God LOVES each of us. In His love for us He gave each of us Free Will. If we have no choice we cannot love because love requires one to choose to love.

Now you’ve created a paradox.

God is described as being omnibenevolent…pure love. But if God is pure love, then He can’t possibly choose not to love. And per your previous statement, if God can’t choose not to love, then He can’t love. Therefore, either God isn’t omnibenevolent, or your previous statement that love requires the choice to love…is wrong.

There is of course, a rational way around this paradox…but you wouldn’t like it, because it forces you to re-examine your concept of God.

 

[Gorgias]

What got me confused was that Dr. Anders seemed to say:

B) God chooses to whom he gives Grace and from whom he withholds Grace

Was he, perhaps, saying that God can choose to whom to give grace? In other words, that it’s truly a gift God gives? And not an obligation that He must share?

If we look at it that way, then we see that what’s being said is that God – who chooses to give grace to all – truly gives a gift to all.

C) Even for those given Grace, whether they accept it or not is a gift of God…

Again, yes, but… although it’s a gift, it can be a gift given to all, right? What’s important here is to avoid the trap of saying “I, myself, on my own, merited my salvation.” If we say that it’s a gift of God, then we’re getting close to the authentic Christian teaching that justification comes from God, not from us. But… if we say that there’s a gift and it’s necessary to accept it, then there’s room to respond, “a-ha! it’s the accepting of the gift that counts! Therefore, you merit justification by your act of acceptance!”

However, by saying that even the act of accepting is made possible by God, then we get away from that sort of clam about “merit”. Again, it’s not that God gives this to some but not all… just that He gives the gift. Period.

If God withholds Grace from you, then you cannot choose to do accept Him.

Right. But the point is that He doesn’t without grace from anyone.

If God gives you Grace, then your choice of accepting that Grace or not is dependent upon whether God gifts to you the ability to accept the Grace. If he doesn’t, you can’t.

Right. But, again, God doesn’t withhold this gift from anyone, either.

Maybe its that if God does gift you the ability to accept Grace, you then have the choice to turn it down??

Yes!! Now you’ve got it!!!

And, as an aside, while I trust God’s judgement, of course, I have great pity that there are those to whom He would deny grace!

Don’t worry… there aren’t any “to whom God denies grace”…!

 

[The_Revelator]

Catholicism is about mollifying as many people as possible. To give them enough of an answer to assuage their anxieties, without actually answering their most fundamental question, what’s the purpose of it all? Catholicism gives a definitive answer to a question for which there is no definitive answer. Why am I here? Why is any of this here? Am I just a fluke of nature? Destined to be here for but an instant, and then be gone. All that you can be certain of, is the same thing that God was certain of in Exodus 3:14…I am. Beyond that, any purpose, any overarching meaning, must come from within each of us. Catholicism attempts to provide a universal purpose, to love God. But although it’s the simpler task, it keeps us from the more difficult task, to love each other.

The true answer is, that you don’t need God for life to have a purpose. You have to give it a purpose. That…is free will. You have the grace, you have the ability, to love others, and perhaps that grace was given to you by God, and perhaps it too is but a fluke of nature. The real question is…how are you going to use it?

 

[davidv]

Catholicism is about mollifying as many people as possible.

Really? How do you know this? What teaching of the Church justifies this claim? The practice of Catholicism is difficult, so there is no mollifying.

 

[The_Revelator]

The practice of Catholicism is difficult, so there is no mollifying.

It’s not Catholicism that’s difficult…it’s LIFE that’s difficult. It’s life that’s unjust, and cruel, and indifferent. Catholicism simply attempts to mollify this cruelty by imparting to it a greater purpose. Catholicism attempts to supply order, and meaning, and ultimate justice to a life that oftentimes seems to have none of them. Catholicism doesn’t make life harder, it simply makes rationalizing life’s cruelty easier. But there is no rationalizing life’s cruelty under the guise of “free will” or “original sin”. Life is hard…because life doesn’t give us anything freely. Everything must be struggled for, and fought for, and clung to. And so Catholicism finds its place because people need a purpose beyond the mere struggle to survive. They need a reason to persevere. To be kind, when life isn’t. To be just, when people aren’t. They need order and meaning, and Catholicism gives them these things.

But we don’t really need God or Catholicism to give us this meaning. Being kind, and good, and just should be enough, in and of themselves, even without God. Show me a person who’s kind, simply for the sake of being kind, and I’ll show you a person who’s greater in God’s eyes than any Catholic.

No…Catholicism isn’t difficult…for many…it’s far too easy.

 

[Vico]

…
What got me confused was that Dr. Anders seemed to say:
A) We cannot accomplish anything without Grace.
B) God chooses to whom he gives Grace and from whom he withholds Grace
C) Even for those given Grace, whether they accept it or not is a gift of God…
Maybe I misunderstood him? Where on earth is there even a sliver of room for free will???
…

Some Catholic dogmas of faith are:

• There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will.
• There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will.
• God gives all the just sufficient grace (gratia proxime vel remote sufficiens) for the observation of the Divine Commandments.
• The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistable.
• There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious (gratia vere et mere sufficiens).

Council of Trent, Session VI - Celebrated on the thirteenth day of January, 1547 under Pope Paul III.

CHAPTER XI - THE OBSERVANCE OF THE COMMANDMENTS AND THE NECESSITY AND POSSIBILITY THEREOF

But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one should use that rash statement, once forbidden by the Fathers under anathema, that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified.

For God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to pray for what thou canst not, and aids thee that thou mayest be able.[58]

His commandments are not heavy,[59] and his yoke is sweet and burden light.[60]

For they who are the sons of God love Christ, but they who love Him, keep His commandments, as He Himself testifies;[61] which, indeed, with the divine help they can do.

For though during this mortal life, men, however holy and just, fall at times into at least light and daily sins, which are also called venial, they do not on that account cease to be just, for that petition of the just, forgive us our trespasses,[62] is both humble and true; for which reason the just ought to feel themselves the more obliged to walk in the way of justice, for being now freed from sin and made servants of God,[63] they are able, living soberly, justly and godly,[64] to proceed onward through Jesus Christ, by whom they have access unto this grace.[65]

For God does not forsake those who have been once justified by His grace, unless He be first forsaken by them.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

 

[davidv]

It’s not Catholicism that’s difficult…it’s LIFE that’s difficult. It’s life that’s unjust, and cruel, and indifferent. Catholicism simply attempts to mollify this cruelty by imparting to it a greater purpose. Catholicism attempts to supply order, and meaning, and ultimate justice to a life that oftentimes seems to have none of them. Catholicism doesn’t make life harder, it simply makes rationalizing life’s cruelty easier. But there is no rationalizing life’s cruelty under the guise of “free will” or “original sin”. Life is hard…because life doesn’t give us anything freely. Everything must be struggled for, and fought for, and clung to. And so Catholicism finds its place because people need a purpose beyond the mere struggle to survive. They need a reason to persevere. To be kind, when life isn’t. To be just, when people aren’t. They need order and meaning, and Catholicism gives them these things.

But we don’t really need God or Catholicism to give us this meaning. Being kind, and good, and just should be enough, in and of themselves, even without God. Show me a person who’s kind, simply for the sake of being kind, and I’ll show you a person who’s greater in God’s eyes than any Catholic.

No…Catholicism isn’t difficult…for many…it’s far too easy.

Why is “meaning” the ultimate gauge?
It is too easy to make the proclamations above. Loving God and loving your neighbor is far far from easy, particularly, when to do so, requires you to not do what you want. Or do what you don’t want to do.

 

[The_Revelator]

Why is “meaning” the ultimate gauge?

“Meaning” isn’t the ultimate gauge. There is no ultimate gauge to life, other than the one that you give it. You may decide that God’s will is the ultimate gauge, and that’s your choice, but it becomes the ultimate gauge only because you choose to make it so. This is true, whether there’s a God or not.

Think of it like evolution…like survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest says that the one that survives is the one best adapted to survive. This is simply a cold, hard truth of evolution. It can’t be reasoned with, or appealed to, or avoided. The one that survives is the one best suited to survive. For evolution this is the equivalent of an ultimate gauge. A truth that can’t be avoided. But I as a human, have a choice, to accept this as my gauge, or not. I may decide that it’s more important to have lived well, than to have survived. It’s more important to have been kind, and compassionate, and forgiving…and die, than to have been cruel, and indifferent, and unjust…and live. In such a case, my gauge supersedes evolution’s gauge, even if ultimately it can’t overcome it. Because my gauge isn’t measured by who lives longest…but by who lives best. And I get to decide what that means.

And so it is with God, or anything else, I get to choose what my gauge is. You as a Catholic try to align your gauge with what you presume to be God’s will. But there are those in this world who’s gauge aligns with God’s, not because it’s God’s will, but because it’s their will. It’s they who are greater in God’s eyes than any Catholic will ever be.

It is too easy to make the proclamations above.

This is true, proclamations are easy, actions are hard. But harder still, is accepting the truth, when it goes against what you believe.

 

[GratefulFred]

God’s Ways are far above man’s ways.

We cannot set limits we think God should have.

God is fully complete with or without mankind. He CHOSE to create mankind out of His love. He would suffer no loss at all if He never made mankind. He used His Free Will and shared His Love with us and gave us Free Will as well so that we may share our Love with Him and others.

Once one decides to love, he willingly takes on the effort to love unconditionally. It is important to realize that God did not have to make mankind. He CHOSE to do so. He chose to love us.

 

[The_Revelator]

God’s Ways are far above man’s ways.

That’s a comparison that you can’t objectively make. You can’t compare two distinct things and assert that one’s ways are in some objective manner superior to the other one’s ways. It would be like you comparing yourself to a dog and concluding that because you’re more intelligent than the dog, that your ways are superior to the dog’s ways. The dog may assert that it has a much keener sense of smell, therefore it’s ways are superior to yours. The standard that you use to compare the two must always be subjective. There’s no objective manner by which to compare me and God, therefore you can’t say that God’s way are objectively above my ways.

It doesn’t matter how vehemently you assert otherwise, such a comparison simply isn’t objectively possible.

 

[GratefulFred]

Isaiah 55:6-11: Seek the LORD while he may be found,
call upon him while he is near.
Let the wicked forsake their way, and sinners their thoughts;
Let them turn to the LORD to find mercy; to our God, who is generous in forgiving.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts.

Yet just as from the heavens the rain and snow come down
And do not return there till they have watered the earth,
making it fertile and fruitful, Giving seed to the one who sows
and bread to the one who eats,

So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; It shall not return to me empty, but shall do what pleases me, achieving the end for which I sent it.

---

Man’s reasoning cannot surpass God’s according to God’s Revelation. If one accepts God, one accepts what He tells us.

 

[The_Revelator]

Man’s reasoning cannot surpass God’s according to God’s Revelation. If one accepts God, one accepts what He tells us.

But now you’re simply presuming that the standard by which man and God should be measured is by each’s ability to reason. But I may assert that man’s existence within time makes him superior to God, for men have the ability to change. An ability that God doesn’t have.

The fact that we’re not both forced to use the same standard means that the standard is subjective and not objective. So you can claim that God’s ways are superior to man’s ways, but you must keep in mind that that’s a subjective statement, not an objective one.

Think of it this way, my ability to reason is greater than your ability to reason…but does that make me superior to you?