Catholic Meaning of Grace

spockrates said:

Thanks for the reply. So, what type of works are considered good?

Click to expand...

Those that Christ does through us. Galatians 2:20

spockrates said:

Are you thinking these good works are the results of His grace?

Click to expand...

Christ in us is because of His grace.
Any works accomplished through us are because of His grace.

Christ doesn't do any works through us unless He is first living in us. Romans 8:9, 2 Corinthians 4:7

spockrates said:

Thanks. Do you have an example or three of comman and saving grace, so I might discern the difference?

Click to expand...

Rather than post a few bare examples, I recommend reading the following article which is too lengthy to post here because of character limitations. Common Grace by Louis Berkhof from his Systematic Theology book. This explains the origins of the doctrine, defines and explains it, along with references to examples from Scripture, and explains Special (Saving) grace with the difference between the two. Oh and a tip, would be helpful to copy and paste the text into MS Word or equivalent program to enlarge the text for easier reading. Hopefully it's not overwhelming, and sorry if it is.

spockrates said:

Yeah, no. Sorry for being clear as mud! Her line of reasoning I had in mind in its simplest form is more like this:

1. The Catholic believes salvation is a process
2. Salvation is never a process
Therefore,
The Catholic is deceived

The argument has no LE (logical errors) I can see, though it might suffer from FE (factual errors). One would need to investigate the truth of premise (2) further to determine whether it’s probable FE are present, I believe.


Sorry for not following you! Please explain which is A and which is B.

Click to expand...

But do you remember the question you were responding to? It was, "Okay, but then why does the Evangelical tell me that I'm trying to save myself by my own works?"

According to what you say here, I don't see how that question has been answered. My assumption was that your reply implicitly concluded, "That's why Evangelicals tell you that!"

Let's look at your original reply where you came much closer to answering that question explicitly. You said:

spockrates said:

...in short if you say salvation is a process, not an event, she might be of the opinion that you’re not saved, have never received the Holy Spirit, and so the good thoughts, words or deeds you do are done not by God, but only you.

Click to expand...

Here is a more precise way to describe the Evangelical argument you gave:

1. The Catholic erroneously believes salvation is a process.
2. Therefore the Catholic is not saved.
3. Therefore the Catholic's deeds are not from God.

Let's include another possible alternative conclusion:


Note that (3a) is the characteristic Evangelical charge, and is precisely what my question was asking about.

Given the context of this thread, the biggest problem is that (3) does not answer the original question (technically we would call this an equivocation). The Evangelical's characteristic charge, (3a), is that the Catholic tries to earn salvation; the Catholic tries/intends to save themselves by their own works apart from God. But this is not what has been proved. (3) is not (3a), and neither (2) nor (3) imply (3a). So when the Evangelical concludes with 3a they have made a logical mistake. They have no grounds regarding their claim about the Catholic's intention, what the Catholic is trying to do. The argument you provided does not justify (3a), so either the Evangelical who holds (3a) is mistaken or there is some other argument at play.

[A second problem is that there is no clear reason to believe that (2) follows from (1). Indeed, most Christians reject an inference such as this.]

Sorry for the technicality here--I don't have time to write a longer post at the moment!

spockrates said:

I appreciate your logical response!

Click to expand...

And I yours.

I believe you are correct, that some Evangelicals would fairly be said to commit the informal fallacy of equivocation, but to be fair to the more careful thinkers among them, we should modify your premises, lest we be accused of slaying scarecrows, who have no brains! LOL!

So, let me see what we might do to create a more thoughtful argument.

(1) Salvation is an event whereby the person becomes a Christian by repenting of her sin and putting her faith only in Him, or more precisely in the finished work of Jesus Christ accomplished by His sacrificial death on the cross.
(2) At the moment she puts her trust in Christ, His righteousness is imputed to her, and she receives the Holy Spirit and eternal life.
(3) The event described is the gospel of Jesus Christ, as confirmed by the clear teaching of the Apostles.
(4) This event excludes the need for any sacraments or any good deeds done by the Holy Spirit through the Christian.
(5) An event is not the same as a process.
(6) Many Catholics believe in a different gospel, whereby salvation is a process requiring sacraments and good deeds the Holy Spirit accomplishes through them.
(7) A different gospel cannot make someone a Christian or result in them receiving the Holy Spirit or eternal life.

Therefore, the conclusion:

Those Catholics who believe this false gospel must not be Christians, nor have eternal life, nor have the Holy Spirit, and when they say the Holy Spirit is doing the good deeds through them, they must be mistaken.

So, sticking to the rules of logic (many of which I must admit I’ve forgotten since I graduated years ago!) we may approach the argument by either (A) demonstrating the seven premises actually don’t support the conclusion because of the presence of an LE (logical error), or (B) showing any one of the seven premises is false, and so the argument suffers from an FE (factual error).

I’m sure you know a logical argument is only as good as it’s weakest link, so there’s no need to make too much effort. We only need to find one FE or LE to break the chain.

How do you think we should proceed?

Click to expand...

For now I will give a three-fold response. The first two parts will reiterate the two points made in my last post, and the third will relate more generally to theology.

First Point: What is the proper conclusion?

The first point from my last post related to equivocation which in this case is also a kind of invalidity (or as you say, "logical error"). Also remember my question, and the related possible alternative conclusion, (3a), from this post. Your conclusion is very similar to my conclusion, "3. Therefore the Catholic's deeds are not from God."

So my original point still seems to stand. (3) is not (3a) and your conclusion in this post is not (3a). Even supposing that your argument is valid with no logical errors, the conclusion still doesn't fit my question. So at this point I am wondering whether (3a) is important to you. Has your "careful thinker" dropped (3a) entirely? The crucial aspect of (3a), as noted in my last post, is the word "trying," the matter of intention.

It may seem trivial, but I think it is really important in ecumenical dialogue. We want to ask about the intent, aim, or goal of the Christian. In talking with the Evangelical, this is the first matter I want addressed. If one Evangelical tells me that I am trying to earn salvation apart from God, and then another tells me that I am not saved, I will always address the first Evangelical before the second. He is making a claim about my intentions which I know to be false. The argument with him is simple. The argument with the second Evangelical is much more complicated.


Second Point: Inferences about salvation.

In my last post I also noted "A second problem." This had to do with the inference from (1) to (2) in the argument given within that post. It seems to me that your expanded argument really aimed at clarifying this issue in particular. The possible logical error in the argument I gave was (1 -> 2). Where would I point to a similar problem in your post?

Given the way you presented your argument I think the possible problem moves from a logical error to a factual error (or as I would say, the argument is valid but unsound). Although Catholics would probably disagree with a number of your premises, I will isolate premise (4). Earlier in the thread I spoke about the problem of language, different definitions of salvation, and the question of justification. All of that bears heavily on premise (4). You talk about an event. Evangelicals call that event salvation. Catholics call it justification. Catholics associate that event with the sacrament of baptism. Catholics disagree that it excludes any good deed, for as I already explained, the act of faith is a good deed.

So I see two crucial starting points for unraveling premise (4). First is the equivocal use of the concept "salvation." Catholics and Evangelicals understand different things by that term, and this fact needs to be addressed in (4) and in the rest of the argument. (I realize that the precise word isn't used in (4), but the important contrast between salvation-as-event and salvation-as-process is very much present in the premise.) For example, Catholics call Evangelical salvation (initial) justification and agree that it is an event. Caution with language brings truths like these to the surface. The second starting point is the matter we have already discussed: is the act of faith a good work? My arguments for this can be found earlier in the thread. (A third point relates to OSAS, which I still see as a foundational difference and an implicit premise in your argument.)


Third Point: Theological justifications and broad differences.

I see this thread more as an opportunity to understand differences rather than to argue about who is right. For example, we could go to scripture while arguing about things like premise (3), but that's not really my aim at the moment. At the same time, understanding broad theological differences is conducive to mutual understanding and therefore I will point out one significant difference.

It's sort of interesting that Catholics and Evangelicals define salvation differently. One might see it as a historical accident or a mere matter of semantics. While there is some truth to such a claim, I think it goes a bit deeper. For Catholics, justification is an important step and beginning, but it's not the heart of the issue. Justification is like ignition, like starting the car. It is essential, but the reason you start the car is to drive somewhere. Starting the car is just the first step.

For Catholics, Jesus came to earth so that we could be united with God (John 10:10). Jesus came to heal us from our Fall and elevate us even beyond the state of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:15). That is what God wants for us: healing, sanctification, transformation, participation in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). That's the point: restoring the image of God in which we were created (Genesis 1:27). That's salvation; that's what it's all about.

When Catholics see Evangelicals doing their altar calls we are happy for them but also concerned due to the fact that we think they're confusing ignition with arrival. They've confused the beginning of the journey with the end. So an Evangelical thread which says something like, "Is Salvation all there is?" makes perfect sense to me. I think we intuitively know that starting the car isn't the point.

At the same time I should be clear that justification is sufficient. If you're baptized and then die 10 seconds later you will be saved. Catholics have never taught that you need to do a good work in those 10 seconds.

Best,
Zip