Catholic Meaning of Grace

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Thanks. So, would you say grace is *only* God’s disposition and never His empowerment?

Interesting question, though I am not sure what you mean by empowerment. I do make a couple of distinctions with grace where context is concerned, in theological terms "common grace" and "saving grace". Common grace is general and applies to non-salvic blessings while saving grace is particular to the blessing of salvation. I think it was St. Augustine who said something along the lines that "all of life is grace", and it's true when a person considers what they really deserve or merit from God.

 

[Doug Melven]

Thanks. So, are you saying anything and everything we receive from God is an example of His grace (e.g., each answered prayer *is* grace)?

Every good and perfect thing comes down from the Father of lights. James 1:17
God gave us rain so our crops would grow, there is an element of everyone receiving grace.
God in His grace gave us the power to get wealth.
God in His grace gave us breath and air to breathe.

Death and sickness are not examples of God;s grace. Giving us strength to endure is an example of God's grace.

So not anything and everything. Job went through a lot, and it was not from God. But God did use it to bless him.

 

[spockrates]

I agree with all of that, yes. At the same time, let's dig a little deeper. Your categories and experience--particularly your concept of 'salvation'--are largely formed by Evangelical Christianity. Since Catholics and Evangelicals have notably different understandings of salvation the question can become complicated. For example, let's take two propositions, one from a Catholic and one from an Evangelical:

• The Catholic says, "Sanctification leads to salvation."
• The Evangelical says, "Salvation leads to sanctification."

While it looks fairly simple, the fact that the two groups define 'salvation' differently becomes important. I just wanted to point that out. But let's talk about the early Protestants, such as the Lutherans and the Calvinists, rather than the Evangelicals. The early Protestants were the first Protestants to break away from the Catholic Church and for that reason they make for an easier comparison.

Both Catholics and early Protestants agree that the initial state is called 'justification,' and that justification leads to sanctification. At the same time they disagree over certain details of justification. This dispute about justification eventually came to be seen as the heart of the Reformation. Each of the four sources I gave you in this post talk about justification, and many of them compare the Catholic understanding to the Protestant understanding.



Evangelicals will say this, yes, but at the heart of the issue is that question of justification. In response to the Reformation the Catholic Church called the Council of Trent. Session VI of the Council addressed the question of justification, and you can read the canons here. The first three canons relate to the theme I pointed out about Ephesians 2 in this post, that idea that "God did it."

I don't want this post to be too long. It may already be too long. For now I will just give a very short glimpse of the Catholic view. Protestants distinguish grace and work. If it is grace then it is not a work (a work is just something that a human does). If it is a work then it is not grace.

For Catholics it's not that simple. As I said earlier, God's nature is very mysterious. Catholics believe that something can be grace and a work at the same time. They don't have to be completely separate, even if they often are separate. So for Catholics justification is always God's act, it is always grace, but it can still involve a work (cf. James 2:24). Really for Catholics, even the act of faith, the act of believing, is a work, for it is something that a human does. Belief is a human act. Maybe you could even say that belief is a good work. Anyway, that's enough for now!



That makes sense. It is my belief that, in the end, it will be more of a blessing than a curse.

Thanks. Regarding faith not being an example of a good work, I suppose one might approach an Evangelical this way:


Catholic: Would you say good works are deeds, only, or may they also be words, or even thoughts?


Protestant: I suppose they may be any of the three, for Jesus spoke of committing sins, such as adultery in one’s heart.


Ca: So, what I think may be a sin, Even though I don’t act on that thought with words or deeds?


Pr: Yes, I believe so.


Ca: And what I think may be a good work, even if I don’t act on that thought with words or deeds?


Pr : It seems possible, as choosing to abstain from dwelling on a sinful thought is neither an example of speech or deeds, I think.


Ca: Well said! In this we agree.


Pr: Yes.


Ca: And these good works, which are thoughts. What makes them good?


Pr: They’re good insofar as they are obedient to God and thought according to His will.


Ca: Excellent! Now let’s compare good deeds with faith. Would you say faith is a thought, word or deed?


Pr : Obviously, thought only. Though there may be words or acts of faith, which aren’t faith itself, but only it’s effects.


Ca: Well said. And is it correct to say faith consists of good thoughts, rather than bad?


Pr: Of course.


Ca: And are these thoughts we call faith good because they are obedient to God and according to His will, or are they good for some other reason.


Pr: No other reason. It is obedient and according to God’s will to trust Him, otherwise He might chastise us, saying, “Oh ye of little faith!”


Ca: I agree! So, now do you see that we also agree that faith is a good work?


Pr: No. Please explain.


Ca: Well, you said a good work can be a thought that is obedient to God.


Pr: Yes.


Ca: And you said faith is a thought (specifically trust) that is obedient to God.


Pr: Yes.


Ca: Then isn’t faith the same thing as a good work?

 

[Doug Melven]

Thanks. Regarding faith not being an example of a good work, I suppose one might approach an Evangelical this way:


Catholic: Would you say good works are deeds, only, or may they also be words, or even thoughts?


Protestant: I suppose they may be any of the three, for Jesus spoke of committing sins, such as adultery in one’s heart.


Ca: So, what I think may be a sin, Even though I don’t act on that thought with words or deeds?


Pr: Yes, I believe so.


Ca: And what I think may be a good work, even if I don’t act on that thought with words or deeds?


Pr : It seems possible, as choosing to abstain from dwelling on a sinful thought is neither an example of speech or deeds, I think.


Ca: Well said! In this we agree.


Pr: Yes.


Ca: And these good works, which are thoughts. What makes them good?


Pr: They’re good insofar as they are obedient to God and thought according to His will.


Ca: Excellent! Now let’s compare good deeds with faith. Would you say faith is a thought, word or deed?


Pr : Obviously, thought only. Though there may be words or acts of faith, which aren’t faith itself, but only it’s effects.


Ca: Well said. And is it correct to say faith consists of good thoughts, rather than bad?


Pr: Of course.


Ca: And are these thoughts we call faith good because they are obedient to God and according to His will, or are they good for some other reason.


Pr: No other reason. It is obedient and according to God’s will to trust Him, otherwise He might chastise us, saying, “Oh ye of little faith!”


Ca: I agree! So, now do you see that we also agree that faith is a good work?


Pr: No. Please explain.


Ca: Well, you said a good work can be a thought that is obedient to God.


Pr: Yes.


Ca: And you said faith is a thought (specifically trust) that is obedient to God.


Pr: Yes.


Ca: Then isn’t faith the same thing as a good work?

Faith can be a good work. But, if all you have is good deeds, you may not have faith.
Even an atheist can serve in a soup kitchen and come judgment day it will do him no good whatsoever because he did not have faith in Jesus Christ to take his sins away.

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks. Regarding faith not being an example of a good work, I suppose one might approach an Evangelical this way:


Catholic: Would you say good works are deeds, only, or may they also be words, or even thoughts?


Protestant: I suppose they may be any of the three, for Jesus spoke of committing sins, such as adultery in one’s heart.


Ca: So, what I think may be a sin, Even though I don’t act on that thought with words or deeds?


Pr: Yes, I believe so.


Ca: And what I think may be a good work, even if I don’t act on that thought with words or deeds?


Pr : It seems possible, as choosing to abstain from dwelling on a sinful thought is neither an example of speech or deeds, I think.


Ca: Well said! In this we agree.


Pr: Yes.


Ca: And these good works, which are thoughts. What makes them good?


Pr: They’re good insofar as they are obedient to God and thought according to His will.


Ca: Excellent! Now let’s compare good deeds with faith. Would you say faith is a thought, word or deed?


Pr : Obviously, thought only. Though there may be words or acts of faith, which aren’t faith itself, but only it’s effects.


Ca: Well said. And is it correct to say faith consists of good thoughts, rather than bad?


Pr: Of course.


Ca: And are these thoughts we call faith good because they are obedient to God and according to His will, or are they good for some other reason.


Pr: No other reason. It is obedient and according to God’s will to trust Him, otherwise He might chastise us, saying, “Oh ye of little faith!”


Ca: I agree! So, now do you see that we also agree that faith is a good work?


Pr: No. Please explain.


Ca: Well, you said a good work can be a thought that is obedient to God.


Pr: Yes.


Ca: And you said faith is a thought (specifically trust) that is obedient to God.


Pr: Yes.


Ca: Then isn’t faith the same thing as a good work?

Hehe, I love your use of the Socratic method!

Yeah, that's definitely the gist of it. The act of faith is a human act and a good work. Not only is this act of faith a response to the prevenient grace of God, it is itself a manifestation of God's grace working within us.

The Catholic does not take credit for the act of faith as if it is something he does apart from God. The act of faith would not happen at all without God's grace. But the key thing is this: for Catholics this can apply to any good work, not just the act of faith. We don't take credit for our good works as if they are something we do apart from God. Our good works would not happen at all without God's grace.

 

[spockrates]

Interesting question, though I am not sure what you mean by empowerment. I do make a couple of distinctions with grace where context is concerned, in theological terms "common grace" and "saving grace". Common grace is general and applies to non-salvic blessings while saving grace is particular to the blessing of salvation. I think it was St. Augustine who said something along the lines that "all of life is grace", and it's true when a person considers what they really deserve or merit from God.

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

 

[spockrates]

Faith can be a good work. But, if all you have is good deeds, you may not have faith.
Even an atheist can serve in a soup kitchen and come judgment day it will do him no good whatsoever because he did not have faith in Jesus Christ to take his sins away.

I know! Right?

 

[spockrates]

Hehe, I love your use of the Socratic method!

Yeah, that's definitely the gist of it. The act of faith is a human act and a good work. Not only is this act of faith a response to the prevenient grace of God, it is itself a manifestation of God's grace working within us.

The Catholic does not take credit for the act of faith as if it is something he does apart from God. The act of faith would not happen at all without God's grace. But the key thing is this: for Catholics this can apply to any good work, not just the act of faith. We don't take credit for our good works as if they are something we do apart from God. Our good works would not happen at all without God's grace.

Would you be surprised to learn many Evangelicals believe the same? For example, quote this passage from the Old Testament to an Evangelical:

“'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty.”
(Zachariah 4:6)

And ask her what it means. She will likely tell you there is nothing good she can do without God’s help, for as Jesus said, “Apart from me you can do nothing.”

Interestingly, many Evangelicals will say this applies to faith, as well. For they are familiar with Christ’s words, “No one can come to me unless the Father draws him.”

So, there is a recognition of the idea that the God is involved in the process of enabling a person to put her trust in Him.

 

[zippy2006]

Would you be surprised to learn many Evangelicals believe the same? For example, quote this passage from the Old Testament to an Evangelical:

“'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty.”
(Zachariah 4:6)

And ask her what it means. She will likely tell you there is nothing good she can do without God’s help, for as Jesus said, “Apart from me you can do nothing.”

Interestingly, many Evangelicals will say this applies to faith, as well. For they are familiar with Christ’s words, “No one can come to me unless the Father draws him.”

So, there is a recognition of the idea that the God is involved in the process of enabling a person to put her trust in Him.

Okay, but then why does the Evangelical tell me that I'm trying to save myself by my own works? As if those works are somehow divorced from God and his sanctifying grace?

 

[Doug Melven]

Okay, but then why does the Evangelical tell me that I'm trying to save myself by my own works? As if those works are somehow divorced from God and his sanctifying grace?

When I hear people tell me works are necessary for salvation I hear them saying they are dependent on those works for there salvation. Which means they are dependent on themselves, not God.

I have never heard someone say I am saved by the works that God does through me.

 

[spockrates]

When I hear people tell me works are necessary for salvation I hear them saying they are dependent on those works for there salvation. Which means they are dependent on themselves, not God.

I have never heard someone say I am saved by the works that God does through me.

I believe this is exactly what Catholics tell me. They are saved from hell by the works of God alone - works he does for them (e.g., the sacraments) and works he does through them (i.e., the Holy Spirit enabling them to become more like Christ).

But I hope Catholics here will correct me if I’m mistaken.

 

[spockrates]

Okay, but then why does the Evangelical tell me that I'm trying to save myself by my own works? As if those works are somehow divorced from God and his sanctifying grace?

So, it’s the chicken or the egg thing we discussed earlier where the egg is salvation and the chicken is sanctification. Those Evangelicals who believe salvation comes first and is the cause of sanctification, and sanctification is not a cause of salvation, see salvation as an event instead of a process. At the moment one sincerely repents of unbelief, acknowledges the need for God’s forgiveness and puts faith in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross alone to save her, she is saved. It is that event that she believes saves her - that decision to make a U-turn in the road of her life, so to speak. At that moment she’s believes she receives eternal life.

If she then asks you if you’ve had such a moment and you say you haven’t, or she asks if you believe you are already saved and you say you won’t be until you get to heaven, or she asks if you are trusting in your faith and not good works and you say you’re trusting in both - 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. In short, she may believe you are deceived.

 

[spockrates]

Interesting question, though I am not sure what you mean by empowerment. I do make a couple of distinctions with grace where context is concerned, in theological terms "common grace" and "saving grace". Common grace is general and applies to non-salvic blessings while saving grace is particular to the blessing of salvation. I think it was St. Augustine who said something along the lines that "all of life is grace", and it's true when a person considers what they really deserve or merit from God.

Empowerment = def. the Holy Spirit enabling a Christian to think, speak and act more like Christ.

 

[spockrates]

...

 

[zippy2006]

So, it’s the chicken or the egg thing we discussed earlier where the egg is salvation and the chicken is sanctification. Those Evangelicals who believe salvation comes first and is the cause of sanctification, and sanctification is not a cause of salvation, see salvation as an event instead of a process. At the moment one sincerely repents of unbelief, acknowledges the need for God’s forgiveness and puts faith in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross alone to save her, she is saved. It is that event that she believes saves her - that decision to make a U-turn in the road of her life, so to speak. At that moment she’s believes she receives eternal life.

If she then asks you if you’ve had such a moment and you say you haven’t, or she asks if you believe you are already saved and you say you won’t be until you get to heaven, or she asks if you are trusting in your faith and not good works and you say you’re trusting in both - 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.

I think that is an accurate and insightful psychological analysis of the encounter. In fact it perfectly answers a common interpretation of my question, "Why does the Evangelical tell me...?" It explains the Evangelical's thinking process and psychological motivations.

At the same time, the problem is that the Evangelical's thinking is not strictly rational; her conclusion is non sequitur. That issue of rationality is what my question was really asking about.

According to your explanation, the Evangelical thinks to herself, "This Catholic I am talking to believes that salvation is a process rather than an event, therefore they must believe that they are earning their salvation by their own works apart from God." But that's a false inference; her conclusion simply does not follow from her premises. She is using poor reasoning to justify a false conclusion.

In short, she may believe you are deceived.

Right. She believes that if I am deceived in A, then I must be deceived in B. That's poor reasoning, especially in a theological context. The only time that reasoning could plausibly be justified is in the case of induction (e.g. "The Catholic is deceived in A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J; therefore he must be deceived in K"). Obviously the case of induction is not deductively valid, but I think it holds in a weaker sense and influences people's thinking. Yet it doesn't seem to me that induction is at work here.

 

[zippy2006]

I believe this is exactly what Catholics tell me. They are saved from hell by the works of God alone - works he does for them (e.g., the sacraments) and works he does through them (i.e., the Holy Spirit enabling them to become more like Christ).

But I hope Catholics here will correct me if I’m mistaken.

To simplify the Catholic view: we are justified entirely by God's grace working through faith, but we can lose this justification through serious sin. I think that is really the key difference: what Evangelicals call 'OSAS' (Once Saved, Always Saved).

(In the simplified view I left out 'works' except to say that justification can be lost by works, by sin. Catholic justification = Evangelical salvation. Notice that I haven't said a word about the Catholic concept of salvation, which, again, is different from the Evangelical concept of salvation. Catholics and Evangelicals agree that works can further sanctification, and Catholics believe that growth in sanctification leads toward final salvation.)

 

[spockrates]

I think that is an accurate and insightful psychological analysis of the encounter. In fact it perfectly answers a common interpretation of my question, "Why does the Evangelical tell me...?" It explains the Evangelical's thinking process and psychological motivations.

At the same time, the problem is that the Evangelical's thinking is not strictly rational; her conclusion is non sequitur. That issue of rationality is what my question was really asking about.

According to your explanation, the Evangelical thinks to herself, "This Catholic I am talking to believes that salvation is a process rather than an event, therefore they must believe that they are earning their salvation by their own works apart from God." But that's a false inference; her conclusion simply does not follow from her premises. She is using poor reasoning to justify a false conclusion.

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.

Right. She believes that if I am deceived in A, then I must be deceived in B. That's poor reasoning, especially in a theological context. The only time that reasoning could plausibly be justified is in the case of induction (e.g. "The Catholic is deceived in A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J; therefore he must be deceived in K"). Obviously the case of induction is not deductively valid, but I think it holds in a weaker sense and influences people's thinking. Yet it doesn't seem to me that induction is at work here.

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

 

[Doug Melven]

To simplify the Catholic view: we are justified entirely by God's grace working through faith, but we can lose this justification through serious sin. I think that is really the key difference: what Evangelicals call 'OSAS' (Once Saved, Always Saved).

(In the simplified view I left out 'works' except to say that justification can be lost by works, by sin. Catholic justification = Evangelical salvation. Notice that I haven't said a word about the Catholic concept of salvation, which, again, is different from the Evangelical concept of salvation. Catholics and Evangelicals agree that works can further sanctification, and Catholics believe that growth in sanctification leads toward final salvation.)

We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to do good works which God prepared beforehand that we do. Ephesians 2:8-10

We don't do good works to get saved, but because we are saved.
Then Colossians 2:6 says we are to walk just as we have received Christ. That is by faith.
Salvation is a onetime event.
Sanctification is a process and a onetime event.
When we trusted Christ we were born-again and God immediately set us apart for Himself.
Now that we are born-again we have the Holy Spirit living inside of us and we can live for Christ. Galatians 2:20
Before we were born-again we could not live for Christ.

 

[spockrates]

We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to do good works which God prepared beforehand that we do. Ephesians 2:8-10

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
(Ephesians 2)

So, I wonder: Why does Paul leave out the word *good* in verse 9, but adds it to verse 10?

 

[Doug Melven]

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
(Ephesians 2)

So, I wonder: Why does Paul leave out the word *good* in verse 9, but adds it to verse 10?

Because some people think they can earn salvation or keep salvation through there works and those types of works cannot be considered good.