Why all the Fuss over the Reformation 2

[guanophore]

Well, that’s because we Catholics don’t view “pleasing to God” as synonymous with “therefore we are saved when we please God.”

Good point.

But Scripture says without faith, itis impossible to please Him, and the Reformed position is that one cannot have faith until they are already saved.

Catholicism professes that the human person is absolutely capable of doing morally good things (which would, of course, please God), without grace.

Can you cite a reference for this? I am confused.

Despite Original Sin which weakened and harmed our human nature, human nature is still good in itself and** we can do actions that are morally good, but not deserving of eternal reward, without grace.**

From the Council of Trent: “although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.”

I am not following this. Trent is saying that free will was not extinguished by the fall (which Calvin denies) but it seems to me that any good we choose is becauae we are created in the image and likeness of God in the first place.

You admit that Cornelius receieved prevenient grace which enabled him to do good works in the first place, but then you assert that we can do good without grace? It does sound Pelagian.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Catholicism professes that the human person is absolutely capable of doing morally good things (which would, of course, please God), without grace.

Despite Original Sin which weakened and harmed our human nature, human nature is still good in itself and** we can do actions that are morally good, but not deserving of eternal reward, without grace.**

From the Council of Trent: “although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.”

In reading that, PR, I am wondering if that is a distinction without a difference. While the action would please God and may benefit the neighbor for whom the good work is done, what is the benefit spiritually as it relates to either regeneration or justification? Just curious, because that seems to be the topic.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Can you cite a reference for this? I am confused.

I am not following this. Trent is saying that free will was not extinguished by the fall (which Calvin denies) but it seems to me that any good we choose is becauae we are created in the image and likeness of God in the first place.

You admit that Cornelius receieved prevenient grace which enabled him to do good works in the first place, but then you assert that we can do good without grace? It does sound Pelagian.

I was confused by this, too. Doesn’t any good that anyone does come from God’s grace—always and necessarily, by the very nature of goodness and its origin? Maybe I’m being kind of weird here, but I often think of prevenient grace in the imagery of Gerard Manley Hopkin’s “God’s Grandeur”:

“Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and ah! bright wings.”

 

[PRmerger]

Can you cite a reference for this? I am confused.

I think the best example is given by Jesus.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan.
29
But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30
Jesus replied, “A man fell victim to robbers as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead.
31

• A priest happened to be going down that road, but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
  32
  Likewise a Levite came to the place, and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
  33
  But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him was moved with compassion at the sight.
  34
  He approached the victim, poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them. Then he lifted him up on his own animal, took him to an inn and cared for him.
  35
  The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction, ‘Take care of him. If you spend more than what I have given you, I shall repay you on my way back.’
  36
  Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?”
  37
  He answered, “The one who treated him with mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
  Martha and

Not to mention the quote I gave from Trent.

I am not following this. Trent is saying that free will was not extinguished by the fall (which Calvin denies) but it seems to me that any good we choose is becauae we are created in the image and likeness of God in the first place.

Indeed. And that means that even with the stain of Original Sin, we can do good acts, because we are ordered towards goodness naturally.

You admit that Cornelius receieved prevenient grace which enabled him to do good works in the first place, but then you assert that we can do good without grace? It does sound Pelagian.

The 2 are not related.

Tomi simply asked if people can do good without grace. And the Catholic answer is: of course.

 

[PRmerger]

In reading that, PR, I am wondering if that is a distinction without a difference. While the action would please God and may benefit the neighbor for whom the good work is done, what is the benefit spiritually as it relates to either regeneration or justification? Just curious, because that seems to be the topic.

It does not benefit them spiritually, nor does it regenerate anyone, nor does it save them.

 

[Per_Crucem]

It does not benefit them spiritually, nor does it regenerate anyone, nor does it save them.

Okay. Then may I ask what the significance is of saying that a person may perform a deed pleasing to God, as opposed to a Calvinist who says the deed doesn’t? I’m also curious how you reconcile it with the Scripture that guanophore mentioned that says without faith it is impossible to please God?

 

[guanophore]

I think the best example is given by Jesus.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan.

I am afraid I am more lost now than I was before! Jesus is giving the good samaritan as an example of what it meant so love one’s neighbor.

I don’t see anything here that indicates the good Samaritan is without grace. In fact, I would argue that it was grace that is the foundation of such loving acts.

**

who came upon him was moved with compassion at the sight.**

The characteristic of mankind that we are able to be moved with compassion comes from being created in the image and likeness of God. If the fact that anyone allows oneself to be moved thereby is not a response to grace then what is it?

PRmerger:

He answered, “The one who treated him with mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

Are you suggesting that Christ is telling us to emulate a role model devoid of His grace?

Not to mention the quote I gave from Trent.
“although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.”

I think I am still confused because I believe free will is one of the foundational aspects of being made in the image and likeness of God. Trent is saying (in opposition to Calvanism) that the image of God is not extinguished in us because of the Fall.

But it seems to me that any good that comes from us originates from that Image in which we are created.

Indeed. And that means that even with the stain of Original Sin, we can do good acts, because we are ordered towards goodness naturally.

But our nature comes from God.

Tomi simply asked if people can do good without grace. And the Catholic answer is: of course.

I can see that human beings can do good even when they are not born again (as Cornelius did) but it seems to me that this is possible because of grace. I don’t know about Toni, but I am not convinced that goodness comes from anywhere but God.

Jesus said there is only One who is good.

 

[guanophore]

It does not benefit them spiritually, nor does it regenerate anyone, nor does it save them.

I think this position goes against a lot of Jesus’ teaching. He said that anyone who gives the litttle ones a cupt of water would not lose his reward. He said that whoever was not against Him was for him. He held up the Samaritan as a role model. He said that whatever one does for the least of His brethren, that they did unto Him.

I agree that good works to not regenerate a person, but it is quite clear that Cornelius’ good works rose up to heaven so as to be noticed by God. The works did not save him, but they did seem to have some spiritual benefit.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay. Then may I ask what the significance is of saying that a person may perform a deed pleasing to God, as opposed to a Calvinist who says the deed doesn’t?

Because it is true, and it is the correct answer to the question that I was posed.

I’m also curious how you reconcile it with the Scripture that guanophore mentioned that says without faith it is impossible to please God?

I think “pleasing God” needs to be understood with some nuance.
God is pleased with any morally good act–that is, any act ordered towards His Will.
An actor may do an objectively good action without any grace, and it pleases God. But it merits him (the actor) nothing. It is not salvific. It is not regenerative.

“Pleasing God” may also mean, as it does in Hebrews, that God sees that His Grace has been received, and cooperated with, and this pleases God. Salvation is thus achieved by faith, in our cooperation with this grace.

 

[PRmerger]

I think this position goes against a lot of Jesus’ teaching. He said that anyone who gives the litttle ones a cupt of water would not lose his reward. He said that whoever was not against Him was for him. He held up the Samaritan as a role model. He said that whatever one does for the least of His brethren, that they did unto Him.

Now I am confused.

The above conclusions you are drawing sound Pelagian.

I agree that good works to not regenerate a person, but it is quite clear that Cornelius’ good works rose up to heaven so as to be noticed by God. The works did not save him, but they did seem to have some spiritual benefit.

Certainly.

As I said earlier, Cornelius is not to be confused with my generic answer that the human person may do good without grace.

 

[guanophore]

I think “pleasing God” needs to be understood with some nuance.
God is pleased with any morally good act–that is, any act ordered towards His Will.
An actor may do an objectively good action without any grace, and it pleases God. But it merits him (the actor) nothing. It is not salvific. It is not regenerative.

So how does one reconcile this with the fact that without faith, iti s impossible to please God?

 

[PRmerger]

I am afraid I am more lost now than I was before! Jesus is giving the good samaritan as an example of what it meant so love one’s neighbor.

I don’t see anything here that indicates the good Samaritan is without grace. In fact, I would argue that it was grace that is the foundation of such loving acts.

Where does the Scripture say that the Good Samaritan was grace-filled?

Why do you think Jesus chose to use the example of a Samaritan, rather than a Jew?

The characteristic of mankind that we are able to be moved with compassion comes from being created in the image and likeness of God.

Yes. Exactly. So even after the Fall, we are ordered towards goodness.

That’s the Catholic position.

We reject the position that because of the Fall all of our actions are corrupt, depraved and evil, and that we can do no good.

Of course, it is true, that any good we do comes from God–because, yes, we are “created in the image and likeness of God”

If the fact that anyone allows oneself to be moved thereby is not a response to grace then what is it?

Sometimes our own reason, devoid of grace, can lead us to do the morally right thing.

That is the Catholic position. Our intellect can discern right from wrong by the light of human reason alone. Why? Because we are “created in the image and likeness of God”.

Please note, folks: I am **not **saying God is unnecessary. It is All God. All the Time.

Are you suggesting that Christ is telling us to emulate a role model devoid of His grace?

Sure.

Do you not think that the atheist soldier who gives his life for his mates ought not be emulated?

Good is good, no matter who does it, and how grace-devoid the person is.

I think I am still confused because I believe free will is one of the foundational aspects of being made in the image and likeness of God. Trent is saying (in opposition to Calvanism) that the image of God is not extinguished in us because of the Fall.

Egg-zactly

But it seems to me that any good that comes from us originates from that Image in which we are created.

Yes!

Jesus said there is only One who is good.

Amen!

 

[PRmerger]

So how does one reconcile this with the fact that without faith, iti s impossible to please God?

As I said, it depends upon what you mean by “pleasing God”.

Do you not think that God is pleased with the atheist who gives his kidney for a stranger, even while saying, “I reject the existence of God and I do this because I value the life of a stranger, not because God wills it”?

I certainly think God is pleased with it.

It is a good action. Objectively. And thus God is pleased.

It is not a faith-filled action. And thus, it cannot please God, in the sense that I already articulated earlier.

 

[guanophore]

Where does the Scripture say that the Good Samaritan was grace-filled?

I think there is a great continuity of degree between “without grace” and “grace filled”.

Jesus is holding up his actions as a role model of loving one’s neighbor. I think his actions show that he was moved by grace.

Why do you think Jesus chose to use the example of a Samaritan, rather than a Jew?

I think because the Samaratins were considered “half breeds” for intermarriage with local tribes, and that they had left the covenant.They were “outsiders” and less than those of the covenant. I think the Lord was trying to illustrate that loving one’s neighbor was above adn beyond race, covenant relationship, and even role/vocation (the priest avoided the victim too).

Yes. Exactly. So even after the Fall, we are ordered towards goodness.

And this is not a result of God’s doing?

That’s the Catholic position.

That without faith, it really IS possible to please God? That human beings are good in and of themselves, apart from the image and likeness of God in which we are made?

We reject the position that because of the Fall all of our actions are corrupt, depraved and evil, and that we can do no good.

Yes, but it still seems to me that what emanates from us that is good is because God
created it that way.

This makes it difficult to claim that any good works we do happen apart from grace.

Sometimes our own reason, devoid of grace, can lead us to do the morally right thing.

Our ability to reason and choose what is morally right is the gift of God.

That is the Catholic position. Our intellect can discern right from wrong by the light of human reason alone. Why? Because we are “created in the image and likeness of God” Please note, folks: I am **not **saying God is unnecessary. It is All God. All the Time.
.

I am still lost. how is this “apart from grace” since this ability comes from Him?

Do you not think that the atheist soldier who gives his life for his mates ought not be emulated?

Did not Jesus say that there is no greater love than a man lay down his life for his friends?

Good is good, no matter who does it, and how grace-devoid the person is.

This does not make any sense to me. Because of our fallen nature, being deviod of grace a person is a slave to sin. Grace is not completely blotted out of us, and the image of God is marred, but not destryed.

Still, I think it is only grace that enables people to act in accordance with that image, overcoming concupiscence.

Egg-zactly
Yes!
Amen!

So how is it "devoid of gracie?

 

[PRmerger]

So how is it "devoid of gracie?

I have to laugh–my youngest daughter’s name is Gracie…and almost every time I type “grace” here on the CAFs, I type “gracie” by habit, and have to change it to “grace”.

So the above made me smile.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And no, if you think that a person who will eventually be saved is not predestined until he/she is regenerate, then you don’t understand how Catholic theologians have traditionally used the terminology. You don’t understand how Augustine or Aquinas or Molina used it, for instance.

Edwin

Correct,

**God, by His Eternal Resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness. (De fide.) ** *Ott, L. (1957). Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (p. 242)*.

This doctrine is proposed by the Ordinary and General Teaching of the Church as a truth of Revelation. The doctrinal definitions of the Council of Trent presuppose it. D 805, 825, 827. Cf. D 316 et seq., 320 et seq.

The reality of Predestination is clearly attested to in Rom. 8:29 et seq.: “For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son: that He might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom He predestinated, them He also called. And whom He called, them He also justified. And whom He justified, them He also glorified.” This text stresses all the elements necessary for complete predestination, the activity of reason and of will (praescire, praedestinare) and the principal stages of its temporal realisation (vocare, iustificare, glorificare). Cf. Mt. 25:34; John 10:27 et seq.: Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4 et seq.

St. Augustine and his disciples defend Predestination against the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, as a tradition of Faith. St. Augustine comments: “The belief in this predetermination, which is now being zealously defended against new errors, has always been held by the Church.” (De dono persev. 23, 65).

Predestination is a part of the Eternal Divine Plan of Providence. (See Doctrine of Creation, Par. 10.)

Ott, L. (1957). Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (p. 242).

α) The Thomists, the Augustinians, the majority of the Scotists and also individual older Molinists (Suarez, St. Bellarmine) teach an absolute Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), therefore ante praevisa merita. According to them, God freely resolves from all Eternity, without consideration of the merits of man’s grace, to call certain men to beatification and therefore to bestow on them graces which will infallibly secure the execution of the Divine Decree (ordo intentionis). In time God first gives to the predestined effective graces and then eternal bliss as a reward for the merits which flow from their free co-operation with grace (ordo executionis). The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis are in inverse relation to each other (glory-grace; grace-glory).

β) Most of the Molinists, and also St. Francis of Sales († 1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), that is, post and propter praevisa merita. According to them, God, by His scientia media, sees beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace. In the light of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure a fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis, He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly cooperate with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny their co-operation. The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis coincide (grace-glory; grace-glory).

Both attempts at explanation are ecclesiastically permissible (cf. D 1090).

*Ott, L. (1957). Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (p. 243). *

 

[PRmerger]

And this is not a result of God’s doing?

sigh.

Clearly I have done a poor job of making this quite clear: it is always God first. We love because God first loved us.

It is always a result of God’s doing.

It is All God. All the time.

Any good we do comes from God–because, yes, we are “created in the image and likeness of God”

'nuff said.

I will say no more about this particular issue, save to point out that there are some Reformed folks here, and even some Catholics here who must consider this: either God is pleased with an atheist giving his life for a stranger, or God is not.

And by “atheist” I mean: someone who, using his full intellect and reason, willingly and forcefully rejects God.

When this atheist gives the ultimate sacrifice of his life…in this action…is God pleased?

I cannot accept that any rational Christian would answer anything except: YES.

 

[spina1953]

sigh.

Clearly I have done a poor job of making this quite clear: it is always God first. We love because God first loved us.

It is always a result of God’s doing.

It is All God. All the time.

Any good we do comes from God–because, yes, we are “created in the image and likeness of God”

'nuff said.

I will say no more about this particular issue, save to point out that there are some Reformed folks here, and even some Catholics here who must consider this: either God is pleased with an atheist giving his life for a stranger, or God is not.

And by “atheist” I mean: someone who, using his full intellect and reason, willingly and forcefully rejects God.

When this atheist gives the ultimate sacrifice of his life…in this action…is God pleased?

I cannot accept that any rational Christian would answer anything except: YES.

Hi PM Merger: I agree. It seems to me that God created all things good. Man fell because of his not following Gods will, but it was not because man himself wanted to disobey God but was tricked, and God knew that, but God has unending Love so while is born with the stain of sin, God call all to Him and prompts one to accept Him and whatever Good man does it is because God prompted it and man chooses to respond to it, If one responds out of love for God and his fellow man than that is more pleasing to God than doing good out of duty. Which seems to me to be the difference between CC teaching and the teachings of the Reformation.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Hi PM Merger: I agree. It seems to me that God created all things good. Man fell because of his not following Gods will, but it was not because man himself wanted to disobey God but was tricked, and God knew that, but God has unending Love so while is born with the stain of sin, God call all to Him and prompts one to accept Him and whatever Good man does it is because God prompted it and man chooses to respond to it, If one responds out of love for God and his fellow man than that is more pleasing to God than doing good out of duty. Which seems to me to be the difference between CC teaching and the teachings of the Reformation.

If that were the case, then man would not have been held responsible for the action.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If that were the case, then man would not have been held responsible for the action.

That’s right, there was no trick.

4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”