I remember engaging myself in a somewhat fierce discussion with an online Roman Catholic apologist concerning Irresistible Grace some time ago. The guy insisted upon the typical anti-Calvinist objection that if Reformed theology is true that God is absolutely sovereign in Salvation (i.e. that God effectively leads to saving faith and repentance those whom he chooses to be saved by His free grace), then men are no better than puppets who have no freedom of choice.
On the contrary, however, Calvinists insist that God's sovereignty is perfectly compatible with man having a free will. St. Augustine of Hippo, the greatest post-apostolic church father of the Christian religion and a distant mentor of Martin Luther and John Calvin, puts it this way:
"We maintain," says he, "that men are the work of God, and that no one is forced unwillingly by His power either into evil or good, but that man does either good or ill of his own will; but that in a good work he is always assisted by God's grace, while in evil he is incited by the suggestions of the devil." To this I answer, that men, in so far as they are men, are the work of God; but in so far as they are sinners, they are under the devil, unless they are plucked from thence by Him who became the Mediator between God and man, for no other reason than because He could not be a sinner from men. And that no one is forced by God's power unwillingly either into evil or good, but that when God forsakes a man, he deservedly goes to evil, and that when God assists, without deserving he is converted to good. For a man is not good if he is unwilling, but by the grace of God he is even assisted to the point of being willing; because it is not vainly written, "For it is God that works in you, both to will and to do for His good pleasure," (Philippians 2:13) and, "The will is prepared by God." (Proverbs 8:35) ~Source: St. Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, I, Ch. 36-XVIII
Now here's what interests me. There are plenty of Romanist apologists today who falsely accuse Calvinism of doing away man's freedom of choice and human responsibility; all this while affirming Mary's supposed lifelong perfection in holiness by the sovereign preservation of God. They view Mary as someone who has been purified from every stains and corruption of original sin the very first moment of her conception, and was constantly and effectually moved by God's grace unto all holiness throughout her entire life.
Does this make Mary a puppet, too? Well, obviously, the anti-Calvinists of Rome won't apply to themselves the same line of objection they use against Calvinists who hold to Irresistible Grace. Why the double standard?
-Jeph
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteCertainly, Mary was not a puppet of God. She was a free woman, ever virgin, full of grace.
Mary was promised to our first parents to bear the new Adam who will crush the head of the serpent.
She was conceived and born immaculate by the merits of the Son whom she was to bear.
Before she conceived the Lord in her womb, she was asked by the angel if she was willing to be the mother of the Messiah. It was precisely her "fiat", an exercise of free will, that sparked the beginning of Christian history and our salvation.
God offered Love; Mary accepted it; and, lo and behold, there is Immanuel, there is our salvation.
Hello Frank,
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm trying to point out here is the double standardness of Catholics who hate the reformed doctrine of irresistible grace, accusing Calvinists of making God a tyrant who violates man's free will, yet affirming that Mary was effectually led by God unto all holiness throughout her entire life without making her a puppet.
I don't believe Mary was a puppet either. I believe that God infallibly leads to salvation those whom he has chosen to be saved by His grace without Him taking away their free will. It is we that will when we will, and it is we that act when we act - but it is God who makes us will and act according to His good pleasure. This is how we, Calvinists, understand irresistible grace and the compatibility between God's sovereignty and human responsibility. I am very sure Augustine held the same understanding.
But going back to the issue at hand, why the double standard?
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteThere is no double standard.
The Catholic Church teaches that efficacious grace is "actual grace to which free consent is given by the will so that the grace produces its divinely intended effect... does not necessitate the will or destroy human freedom."
Mary was privileged to be conceived without sin as she was prepared to be the Mother of the Lord. But this privilege did not force her to be the Mother of the Lord. God, through an angel, still asked her if she was willing to co-operate with Him in saving humanity.
Certainly, there is no double standard.
That's exactly the double-standardness I was taking about all along. You actually did more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteCalvinists also believe that God's grace, although effectual in the accomplishing of its purpose in the recipient, does not in any way take away man's freedom of choice. Yet there are those within your camp that accuse Calvinism of denying man's free will without applying the same objection to their belief that Mary herself was effectually preserved from all sin without her being made a mere puppet.
AGain, why the double standard?
[Mary was privileged to be conceived without sin as she was prepared to be the Mother of the Lord. But this privilege did not force her to be the Mother of the Lord. God, through an angel, still asked her if she was willing to co-operate with Him in saving humanity.]
ReplyDelete@Forest King,
Sir, your dogma of immaculate conception states that Mary was full of grace from her birth. You're arguing that this grace was not forced into her since she expressed her agreement during Gabriel's annunciation. But that's several years after her birth. So how can you say that she had the choice whether or not to accept this saving grace?
That's a good question Gerry. I'd like to hear an answer to that as well.
ReplyDeleteHere's my prediction of their counterargument: God knew in advance that Mary will cooperate with His plan of salvation so He made her full of grace.
ReplyDeleteWhat say you? :)
Ah, the semi-Pelagian approach. That would be equivalent to saying that merits precedes Grace. An idea that was condemned as heretical by the second Council of Orange AD 529.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, Roman Catholics argue that God saved Mary from original sin by ANTICIPATION. Meaning, in order for Mary to be a worthy vessel God made sure that she wouldn't sin by giving her full of grace.
ReplyDeleteSo you're right to say it's a double standard that they reject the doctrine of irresistable grace.
Jeph and Gerry,
ReplyDeleteI already responded to your queries. I dont know where my response went.
Anyway, there is no double standard. The Dogma of Immaculate Conception only says that Mary, by the merits of her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, was conceived without the stain of Original Sin. The Church teaches that from the first moment of her existence, Mary was preserved by God from the Original Sin and filled with sanctifying grace that would normally come with baptism after birth. If I am going to simply put it, her baptism in Jesus Christ was advanced - she was baptized at the moment of her conception.
Does the Dogma suggest impeccability of Mary? No. With this dogma, Mary is not immune from sinning. She could have sinned if she chose to; but, she did not. She did not refuse God. All her life, she gave her "fiat" to God. She willed her co-operation with God in his plan of salvation.
We know that her motherhood to Jesus was not forced. She was asked for her yes. Her will to co-operate with God, her "fiat", sparked the dawn of our salvation in Christ Jesus.
Forest, if you haven't noticed already there is no one here who assert God forcing anybody to do His will.
ReplyDeleteWe are in agreement that we remain free even under the influence of God's grace, but listen: THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
The issue at hand is the double standardness of 'some' Catholics when it comes to their objection to the doctrine of irresistible grace. I've explained this many times over, yet you keep on barking at
the wrong tree.
I suggest you do a back-read through my previous explanations, especially through the article above. Put on the glasses if necessary.
And of course, never forget to read with the lights on, okay?
I'm still hoping to get a relevant response from you. Godbless!
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteThere is no double standard because there is actually no such thing as "irresistible" grace. We can resist God. We have the option to resist his grace, which is free but not forced.
This is the point.
Well, unfortunately you missed it again.
ReplyDeleteJeph,
ReplyDeleteOkay, let us do it this way.
Let us go to the 2nd to the last paragraph of your original post which starts with "Now here's what interests me."
Let me point out the error in your statement. You talked about Mary's "supposed lifelong perfection in holiness by the sovereign preservation of God." And you attribute this to her Immaculate Conception. And because of this, you accuse Catholics of double standard. This is FALSE.
The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception only teaches that Mary was conceived without the stain of Original Sin, that from the first moment of her existence, Mary was preserved by God from the Original Sin and filled with sanctifying grace that would normally come with baptism after birth.
The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not teach by implication a "lifelong perfection in holiness". Mary enjoyed "lifelong perfection in holiness" not because of her Immaculate Conception but because of her constant "fiat" to God. AS I have said in the past, Mary could have sinned if she chose to; but, she CHOSE not.
Therefore, your erroneous understanding of grace in Mary's Immaculate Conception led you to believe that Catholics have double standard on this issue. You cannot stretch the dogma beyond its limits.
Hence, again, there is no double standard and I hope I clarified my point this time.
Forest, listen.
ReplyDeleteThe Roman Church teaches that Mary was preserved from all acts of sin throughout her entire life by a special grace endowed upon her. Her fiats which you always mention, therefore, are products of God's work (efficacious/irresistible grace) in Mary's life to make sure she'll never be stained by sin without her reducing into a puppet. She says yes to God's will all the time, all by her free choice as she is being sovereignly preserved and moved by God unto all holiness. This is an unwitting affirmation of Rome to the doctrine of effectual grace of Calvinism which, by the way, St Augustine was also an advocate of.
Now, despite Calvinists clarifying that God does not take away man's freedom of choice whenever He draws sinners unto himself for Salvation effectively (or irresistibly), anti-Calvinist Catholics like you (who believe in the teaching explained above about Mary's lifelong preservation from all acts of sin by God's grace) would still insist in their objection that Calvinism actually does away man's free will.
You see, the question of double-standardness still remains. You won't easily get away with it.
By the way guys, if you'll notice the title of the post was changed from "Immaculate Conception & Irresistible Grace" to "Mary's (Supposed) Impeccability And The Catholic Objection On Irresistible Grace". It is for the sake of clarity and accuracy that it was changed.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteThat is not Catholic teaching. What was only defined by the Dogma of Immaculate Conception is that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
The Dogma does not suggest impeccability. If she chose to, she could have committed personal sins. But, she did not. Remember that Original Sin is different from Personal Sin. I don't need to discuss this here.
The Catholic Church does not share with your opinion that "Her fiats ..., are products of God's work (efficacious/irresistible grace) in Mary's life". This is an imposition of your fallacy called "irresistible" grace on Catholic teaching.
There is no double standard. Well, possibly, if we interface Catholic teaching with your fallacy.
Forest,
ReplyDeleteYou said: The Catholic Church does not share with your opinion that "Her fiats ..., are products of God's work (efficacious/irresistible grace) in Mary's life". This is an imposition of your fallacy called "irresistible" grace on Catholic teaching.
In case you didn't know, we can find in the second Council of Orange (AD 529) a strong affirmation of the ancient church to St. Augustine's teaching on irresistible grace in opposition to the semi-Pelagian heresy. The council made it plain that God does not merely await man's willing cooperation to His grace so that good may be done, but that the very willingness (fiats) to cooperate with God's will is a work of grace itself (canons 4, 6, 7, 9).
Are you telling me this is no longer the position of Rome today? Oh, well.
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteFor the purpose of clarity, let me quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this matter.
"Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life." (CCC Par. 1996)
"Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God's call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God's interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification." (CCC Par. 2000)
"The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"" (CCC Par 2001)
“God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy.” (CCC Par 2002)
What can we learn from these?
We can distinguish two kinds of grace: Sanctifying Grace and Actual Grace.
Sanctifying grace is the grace that justifies. “It is called habitual, [sanctifying or] deifying grace because it sanctifies and divinizes us. It is supernatural because it depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative and surpasses the abilities of the intellect and the powers of human beings. It therefore escapes our experience.” (Compendium of CCC 423)
On the other hand, Actual Graces are “gifts for specific circumstances.” (Compendium of CCC 424).
Now, what is the relationship between grace and human freedom?
“Grace precedes, prepares and elicits our free response. It responds to the deep yearnings of human freedom, calls for its cooperation and leads freedom toward its perfection.” (Compendium of CCC 425).
Now, let us apply this to the case of Mary and her Immaculate Conception.
Since the Immaculate Conception was some sort of “advance baptism” of Mary, we can say that Mary received SANCTIFYING GRACE upon her conception. Sanctifying grace is the grace we receive in baptism. This grace “perfects the soul” and allows Mary “to live with God, to act by his love.”
Does this sanctifying grace have anything to do with Mary’s “fiat”?
The answer is YES. It “ELICIT(ED)” her free “fiat”. It invited her will to conform to the will of God; to unite with the will of God. However, IT DID NOT “CAUSE” THE “FIAT”. It merely elicited it. Her “fiat” was NOT a “product” of sanctifying grace ALONE but a product of the will as it respond and met with grace.
What grace came forth after she said her “yes”?
It was an actual grace, a grace obtained as a consequence of her “yes”.
IT DID NOT “CAUSE” THE “FIAT”
ReplyDeleteThe Council of Orange is therefore wrong. Is that what you're saying?
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteRead the decrees of the Council of Orange along with the Council of Trent so you can truly understand what Orange taught.
Forest,
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I'm already aware of the inconsistency of Rome with regards to this subject, so there's really no need of reminding me about that.
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteThere will only be inconsistency if you interface Catholic teachings with your evangelical fallacies.
The inconsistency of Orange and Trent is for you to prove, using a Catholic Lens.
Forest,
ReplyDeleteYou said that the divine grace have nothing to do whatsoever with Mary's willingness to obey God, except that she was merely invited to do so. In other words, her yeses were all from herself alone and not caused by God in anyway. Hence, your statement: However, IT DID NOT “CAUSE” THE “FIAT”. It merely elicited it.
Am I reading you correctly?
Simple lang yan Jeph. Gamitin mo utak mo. Kung si God ang nagdudulot satin na sumunod sa kanya, lalabas na robot or puppet nga talaga tayo! But the truth is: we naturally able to obey God. Hindi totoo yang Total Depravity na yan dahil imbento lang yan ng ereheng si Calvin. When God created us, he created us good. He have given us the free will to choose between good and evil.
ReplyDeleteCommon-sense lang kailangan dyan.
Tsaka kung totoo ang irresistible grace, bakit ganito ang sabi sa Acts 7:51?
“You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: YOU ALWAYS RESIST THE HOLY SPIRIT!"
So maliwanag na resistible pala ang grasya ng Panginoon! Mali ang aral niyo kasi imbento lang ni Calvin.
Sana maliwanagan na kayo.
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteThis was what I said: "It “ELICIT(ED)” her free “fiat”. It invited her will to conform to the will of God; to unite with the will of God. However, IT DID NOT “CAUSE” THE “FIAT”. It merely elicited it. Her “fiat” was NOT a “product” of sanctifying grace ALONE but a product of the will as it respond and met with grace."
Notice the conclusion of this statement: "Her “fiat” was ... a product of the will as it respond and met with grace."
Here, we will notice the interaction of will and SANCTIFYING grace. SANCTIFYING grace elicits, will responds. While we can attribute the response, the "fiat", to the invitation of SANCTIFYING grace; at the end of the day, it is the product of the will. It is caused by the will.
Nowhere in my response can you find "will alone." Remember that I am Catholic, I don't subscribe to your "solas". And, notice, to avoid confusion, I specifically indicated "SANCTIFYING" grace, which is different from ACTUAL grace.
Forest,
ReplyDeleteWhat I want to know at this point is whether you believe that Mary was caused by God in anyway so that she'll humbly and willingly obey. Can you clarify that for me? A simple 'Yes' or 'No' will do.
Seed,
ReplyDeleteYou said: Simple lang yan Jeph. Gamitin mo utak mo.
Perhaps, bro, you could turn down a bit. Please know that I'm always willing to have a discussion with anyone here UNLESS a peaceful conversation is guaranteed.
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "caused"?
UNLESS a peaceful conversation is guaranteed daw.... hehehe. Peaceful naman ako ha? Ang sabihin mo takot kang sagutin ang mga arguments ko. Acts 7:51 pa lang tumba na yang Calvinism niyo eh! Ha ha ha...
ReplyDeleteSeed,
ReplyDeleteDebating with an apologist is not the same as debating with a heckler. You know, it's a horse of a different color.
Forest,
ReplyDeleteAre you implying with your question that God after all 'caused' Mary to willingly cooperate in His grace at least in some sense and therefore not 'MERELY' elicited as what you've previously asserted? Are you now withdrawing from your 'Mary's-fiat-was-merely-elicited' position? If not, then why the need of asking me on what I mean when I say 'caused'?
Good word, buddy. Great blog, too! Somehow I've not run across you before. Let's be friends. :)
ReplyDelete-Tim
Tim,
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by my blog and for the complements; the glory goes to God. Sure, let's be friends! Nice to meet ya!
Forest,
ReplyDeleteI was editing my comments (deleting and reposting) to improve grammar and all when I accidentally deleted yours. My bad, I mistook your comment for mine. Please do forgive me.
Fortunately, all of your comments were being sent to my email as notification, so it's not totally lost. Here's what you said:
First things first.
You asked me the question: "What I want to know at this point is whether you believe that Mary was caused by God in anyway so that she'll humbly and willingly obey. Can you clarify that for me? A simple 'Yes' or 'No' will do."
AS regards this question, I needed a clarification on what do you mean by "caused". I need to know what you mean by this so I can give you a correct answer.
Now here's my response:
Actually, I don't have to define what I mean by "caused" since what I'm asking you is whether God "caused Mary IN ANYWAY..." - so it's up to you to clarify if there's somehow a 'causing' that's been done (and in what sense the 'causing' was done) if ever you'll say there is.
What concerns me now, however, is that you seem to be abandoning your previous position that Mary's fiat was "MERELY elicited" by asking me that question, if you know what I mean. You should have directly answered "NO" if you're really consistent and firm with what you hold.
Jeph,
ReplyDelete1. I asked what you meant by "caused" so I can provide you the right answer. There are a lot of ways of causing, say for example, biological causation. I really dont know, if by "caused" you are asking in biological or theological sense. This is the reason why I asked.
2. I never abandoned my position that Mary's fiat is elicited by SANCTIFYING grace and caused by the WILL. My question has nothing to do with my position.
Forest,
ReplyDeleteLet me correct you a bit. You didn't just say "it is elicited", you actually said that it was "MERELY ELICITED" - which denotes the rejection of Mary's fiat being caused by God IN ANY WAY. This is the reason why I was expecting a direct answer from you, but it appears to turn out to be quite the contrary.
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteI used the adverb "merely" for "elicited" to stress a contrast between "elicited" and "caused". "Merely" which means "nothing more than". In fact, if you will read my statement before I used that adverb in a sentence, I said this: "It “ELICIT(ED)” her free “fiat”." My position was simply this: "Mary's fiat is elicited by SANCTIFYING grace and caused by the WILL." I hope this is already clear to you.
Perhaps, you have "good" reason for thinking that "eliciting" is in one way of another "causing." After all, the "fiat", although directly CAUSED BY THE WILL, was "stimulated" by SANCTIFYING grace; although "stimulate" is already somewhat an exaggeration of "elicit".
Assuming that "eliciting" is "causing", we cannot deny the fact that that the gravity of causing in WILL in this issue is stronger than in GRACE. In this sense, therefore, we can somehow, though cautiously, say that the Mary's fiat was "directly" caused by the WILL and "indirectly" caused by Sanctifying grace (since it was indeed only elicited).
I think, at this point, the Church is so wise for using the word "elicit" to avoid confusion; aside from the fact that the this word precisely describes what the Church wants to say.
Now, let me go back to your question: "What I want to know at this point is whether you believe that Mary was caused by God in anyway so that she'll humbly and willingly obey. Can you clarify that for me?"
Honestly, I cannot answer this question with a simple "yes" and "no". This is so because the word "cause" is so broad that it may cause confusion. I cannot say "yes" because "elicit" does not have the same meaning as "cause"; it is "merely" eliciting and NOT causing. On the other hand, I cannot simply say "no" precisely because Sanctifying grace "elicited" the response. Sanctifying grace entered into a dialogue with the Will so that the latter caused the response - the fiat.
I think you asked a wrong question.
Forest,
ReplyDeleteSo in short, Mary's fiat wasn't infused unto her by any inner working of God, but it is just that: merely elicited. In other words, the fiat was a product of Mary's own will apart from ANY driving influence from God. Does this present your position accurately?
And what exactly do you mean when you said: "After all, the "fiat", although directly CAUSED BY THE WILL, was "stimulated" by SANCTIFYING grace"?
ReplyDeleteIn what way was Mary's fiat "stimulated" by SG?
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteYOur statement: "the fiat was a product of Mary's own will apart from ANY driving influence from God" does not echo an accurate Catholic teaching. We cannot really say that Mary's fiat was made "apart from ANY driving influence from God". Mary's fiat was made as her Will encountered and entered into a "communion of love" with the grace of God. We cannot separate her fiat from sanctifying grace; but, this does not mean that her fiat is a "product" of or "caused" by SG. Her fiat is the product of or caused by her Will as it entered into a "communion of love" with the grace of God.
If by "driving influence" you mean nothing more than "eliciting", the Catholic will not have any problem with this formula.
Again, this is my position: "Mary's fiat is elicited by SANCTIFYING grace and caused by the WILL."
As to my statement: "After all, the "fiat", although directly CAUSED BY THE WILL, was "stimulated" by SANCTIFYING grace".
ReplyDeleteI am simply finding ways by which we can accommodate your insistence on grace as the cause of the fiat. I just tried to present the same thought in a somewhat different manner. I replaced "elicit" with "stimulate", which in some sense suggest eliciting but actually an exaggeration of it. If it confused you, ignore it.
If by "driving influence" you mean nothing more than "eliciting", the Catholic will not have any problem with this formula.
ReplyDeleteForest,
By 'driving influence' I actually meant more than just merely eliciting. Is this already beyond the teaching of Rome?
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteI have already stated that the "driving influence" of SG cannot go beyond eliciting. Otherwise, it will violate the freedom of the Will.
Forest,
ReplyDeleteDo you honestly think it is impossible for God to unfailingly bring about one's willing submission to His will without violating his/her freedom of the choice? "Is any thing too hard for the LORD?" (Gen. 18:4). Haven't you read the citation from St. Augustine that I've included in the article above concerning the compatibility of God's sovereignty with human responsibility? What does it say?
And if it's God grace that made Mary WILLING, how is that a violation to her freedom of will? Pardon me, but I just can't see the logic behind your assertion.
Jeph,
ReplyDeleteGod cannot force us to conform to his will. He can only invite us; he cannot make us submit to his will without us willing it in the first place. Otherwise, he will violate our freedom of the will; He will destroy this gift that he gave man. He will contradict himself and fashion himself as an unreasonable god.
Indeed, nothing is impossible with God... as long as he remains to be himself - the Logos (Reason). The Christian God is a reasonable God. He cannot contradict himself, he cannot be unreasonable. Unreason is not the province of the Christian God.
I am not an authority on Augustine. So, I cannot comment so much on his teachings. As a Catholic, I am morally obliged to read Augustine's writing using a Catholic lens. I also have to accept that Augustine is not the final authority on Catholic teaching. He is not infallible.
Lastly, it is not catholic teaching that God's "grace [that] made Mary WILLING". God cannot MAKE Mary submit to his will without first Mary willing to submit to his will. It is beyond the function of Sanctifying grace to "direct" or "make" our will; it can only elicit a favorable response of the will.
Remember that "making" means creating, constructing. God cannot do these for us (i.e. creating or constructing our will to conform to his) without violating our will. Our will is our "private room" which God gave us as our "private property" that even He cannot enter it without asking our permission.
He created us and he owns us; but, because he loves us, he gave us something that we can truly call ours and ours alone that even the giver cannot claim co-ownership of it. He gave us our Will - totally private, totally owned by us - as a gift and He, being a reasonable God, did not intend to take it back nor intrude into the private decisions of our will. He can only knock, invite, or properly - elicit. He does this because he respects us, he loves us.
@Forest,
ReplyDelete[God cannot force us to conform to his will. He can only invite us; he cannot make us submit to his will without us willing it in the first place. Otherwise, he will violate our freedom of the will; He will destroy this gift that he gave man. He will contradict himself and fashion himself as an unreasonable god.]
Nobody's saying God is forcing anybody.
[Indeed, nothing is impossible with God... as long as he remains to be himself - the Logos (Reason). The Christian God is a reasonable God. He cannot contradict himself, he cannot be unreasonable. Unreason is not the province of the Christian God.]
God is reasonable indeed. But it doesn't take away God's freedom (as the Sovereign "Potter") to fashion us (the lump of clay) in accordance to His own good pleasure.
[I am not an authority on Augustine. So, I cannot comment so much on his teachings. As a Catholic, I am morally obliged to read Augustine's writing using a Catholic lens. I also have to accept that Augustine is not the final authority on Catholic teaching. He is not infallible.]
Using a Catholic lens in reading any thing would be equivalent to saying that you should be bias in your interpretation. I know why you're saying those things because you're afraid you'll find out that St. Augustine wasn't Roman Catholic at all in his view on Grace and Free will. He is much more like a proto-Calvinist to be exact.
[Lastly, it is not catholic teaching that God's "grace [that] made Mary WILLING". God cannot MAKE Mary submit to his will without first Mary willing to submit to his will. It is beyond the function of Sanctifying grace to "direct" or "make" our will; it can only elicit a favorable response of the will.]
ReplyDeleteWhat you're saying is actually a distinctive heresy of the semi-Pelagianians which was already condemned centuries before the Reformation. These pronouncements from the Council of Orange (529) will prove that I'm not making this up:
CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that IT IS NOT GRACE ITSELF WHICH MAKES US PRAY TO GOD, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).
And again,
CANON 4. If anyone maintains that GOD AWAITS OUR WILL to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that EVEN OUR WILL to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
And again,
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, THE WILL, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man AND DOES NOT AGREE THAT IT IS A GIFT ITSELF THAT WE ARE OBEDIENT AND HUMBLE, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
And lastly,
CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.
These don't sound like God is merely awaiting man's willing cooperation to His Grace but does not cause them to willingly cooperate, do they?
[Remember that "making" means creating, constructing. God cannot do these for us (i.e. creating or constructing our will to conform to his) without violating our will. Our will is our "private room" which God gave us as our "private property" that even He cannot enter it without asking our permission.]
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, we are told in the Bible that God is absolutely Sovereign over all things including man's freedom of choice.
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and HE DOETH ACCORDING TO HIS WILL in the army of heaven, AND AMONG THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH: and NONE CAN STAY HIS HAND, or say unto him, What doest thou? (Dan. 4:35)
Even man's free-will can't outdo the power of God. It is God's purpose that will stand:
Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand. (Prov. 19:21)
The verse doesn't say, "Many are the plans of God for man, yet it is man's free-will that will prevail" - as if it is the clay that dictates how it should be fashioned by the Potter. Such is the implication of your insinuation which is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
[He created us and he owns us; but, because he loves us, he gave us something that we can truly call ours and ours alone that even the giver cannot claim co-ownership of it. He gave us our Will - totally private, totally owned by us - as a gift and He, being a reasonable God, did not intend to take it back nor intrude into the private decisions of our will. He can only knock, invite, or properly - elicit. He does this because he respects us, he loves us. ]
ReplyDeleteThis is just plain heresy. It is already refuted above in the citations from Orange.
Jeph,
ReplyDelete1. Yes, nobody is saying that God is not forcing anybody. But, common sense will tell that for God to make us conform to his will without us willing it in the first place is equivalent to forcing. Or perhaps, if there is no "force", we can call it manipulation.
2. God is free. But he can only exercise his freedom within the confines of the Logos, his self-limitation. His sovereignty only applies within the confines of his freedom, at least that is what we know. But God is God and as St. Augustine said "if we know him, he is not God." The will is an area which he granted to be the province of man.
3. Augustine is a Bishop of the Catholic Church. And, every teacher of the Catholic faith is free to present Church doctrine in different ways as long as the doctrine remains itself. For example, Augustine says that "Hell is the absence of heaven." This is an original assertion during his time when it was taught that Hell actually exists distinct from heaven. Is this heresy? No. Augustine is not denying the Catholic doctrine of the existence of Hell but simply teaches that you cannot find in hell what you can find in heaven - the eternal bliss with God.
This is the reason why you have to interpret Ausustine's teachings using the lens of the Catholic faith. Can we find errors in Augustine's teachings? I am not sure, but it is possible. At the end of the day, he is a Catholic saint, a doctor of the Catholic Church. Therefore, only the Catholic Church has the authority to make correct interpretations of his teachings; not Luther or Calvin. This approach is not being bias, it is being proper.
4. The Catholic Doctrine of Sanctifying Grace and Actual Grace is not in conflict with the teachings of the Council of Orange. Canon 3, 4, 6 and 9 teach Sanctifying Grace as understood in the Catholic Church. Again, let me point out that the teachings of Orange can best be understood in the context of the teachings of the Council of Trent, which corrected the confusions that arose from the misinterpretation of these teachings of Orange and other catholic beliefs.
ReplyDelete5. Man's doing the will of God (e.g. act of charity) is a fruit of Actual Grace and not of Sanctifying Grace. I haven't studied Dan. 4:35 very closely; but, I will suppose that this is the sense of it. As regards Prov. 19:21, the Catholic doctrine of Sanctifying Grace and Actual Grace has nothing to do with it. Even if man, as the whole humanity, refuses God's salvation, God's plan to redeem us through the sacrifice of Jesus shall prevail and indeed, it prevailed.
@Forest,
ReplyDelete1) Forcing is an act of compulsion to make a person to do something "AGAINST" his will screaming and kicking. God does not that. He rather makes us WILLING to do His good pleasure as clearly stated in Php. 2:13, "For it is God which WORKETH IN YOU BOTH TO WILL AND TO DO of his good pleasure." This isn't God "forcing" us to do His will, but God "infusing" us the WILLINGNESS so that we may freely do His good pleasure.
2) Nowhere in the pages of the Bible can we find any indication that God's is Sovereign over everything except man's free-will. In fact, the Bible is clear that the choices of men are entirely subject to the disposal of God (Dan. 4:35; Act. 17:28; Rom. 11:35). God is self-limited, but it still doesn't take away the Potter's freedom over the clay (Rom. 9:18-22).
3) St. Augustine was Catholic, but not Roman. He teaches the absolute Sovereignty of God in Providence and Salvation in opposition to semi-Pelagianism of your Church. I can let the saint speak for himself on this matter, and mind you - that's the proper way of objectivity.
4) Is that all you can say? We all know that evading and denying is not at all an argument. And may I add, it is not even close to being objective. Orange is clear enough in its rejection to your heretical view that God does not cause people to willingly cooperate with His grace in anyway except that He merely invites (or elicits) them to do so. It is "by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, THE WILL, or the strength to do all these things as we ought..," says Orange. And there's no other way to interpret those pronouncements except to let them speak according to their plain reading.
ReplyDelete5) Daniel 4:35 tells us that God does whatever pleases Him in all His creatures including man. Nothing, including man's freewill, can stay His hand. In Prov. 19:21 we are told that man's choices are subject to the eternal decrees of God. If God decreed something to be done, it will happen - and NONE can stay His hand. Say, for example, the crucifixion of Christ. The horrible death of our Savior was done through the wicked choices of men who gathered together to slay the prophesied King, yet we are told in the Bible that:
"The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'—for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, TO DO WHATEVER YOUR HAND and YOU PLAN HAD PREDESTINED TO TAKE PLACE." (Act. 4:26-28)
Forest, God is not subject to anybody. Nothing can stay His hand for He "works ALL THINGS according to the counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1:11). The Potter has freedom and sovereignty over the clay, and that's the irrefutable truth.
Jeph,
ReplyDelete1. Correction, please. The Council of Orange did not teach "infusion of willingness" but "infusion of the Holy Spirit." Infusion of the Holy Spirit happens at baptism where we receive Sanctifying Grace which "perfects the soul itself to enable [it] to live with God, to act by his love" (CCC). "Infusion of willingness" is a protestant imagination of the teachings of Orange. "Infusion of willingness" is a violation of Free Will; it suggests manipulation of the will to conform to the will of the manipulator.
2. It is in the Bible that God is a reasonable God(John 1). "God is the God who has revealed himself as logos" (Benedict XVI Regensburg Address). He ordered Will to be free, to be the province of man. Yes, "God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures' co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God's greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan." (CCC 306) God cannot take away the freedom of our will. God cannot steal our "dignity of acting on [their] own." This is against Reason. As Manuel II Paleologus said: "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God."
3. Augustine is a Bishop of the Catholic Church. He was faithful to the Roman Pontiff. He was ordained by a Roman Catholic bishop. He sang the Roman Liturgy. I think these are enough to dismiss all folly that Augustine was not Catholic of the Latin Rite (Roman).
ReplyDelete4. Trent AND Orange are clear enough in rejecting your distortions of Catholic teachings. Canon 6 of the Council of Orange is in harmony with Paragraphs 2000 and 2001 of the Catechism. APPROPRIATE INTERPRETATION of CATHOLIC TEACHINGS is only achieved by using a Catholic lens. This is not being bias; this is only being PROPER. "There's no other way to interpret those pronouncements except" the Catholic way considering the fact that these are CATHOLIC DOCUMENTS. Surely, it is IRRESPONSIBLE to interpret Vatican II documents the protestant way. It won't work. The same is true with the teachings of Trent and Orange.
5. As regards God's providence, I choose to lead you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraphs 302 onwards (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P19.HTM).
@ Forest,
ReplyDelete1) Correction please. I didn't say "infusion of willingness." This is what I said:
[This isn't God "forcing" us to do His will, but God "infusing" upon us the WILLINGNESS so that we may freely do His good pleasure.]
Yes, it is the GOD (through His Spirit) who infuses upon us the WILLINGNESS to fulfill His precepts, and this is clearly taught in Php. 2:13, one of Orange's proof text in condemning semi-Pelagianism which you seem to ignore.
Also, the statement coming from Orange itself, "it is BY THE INFUSION and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, THE WILL, or the strength to do all these things as we ought..." - is explicitly dismisses the idea that God merely awaits man's willing cooperation without causing them to be willingly cooperative. "For it is God," says Paul, "which WORKETH IN YOU BOTH TO WILL AND TO DO of his good pleasure" (Php. 2:13). Admit it, you're checkmate.
2) God being reasonable does not in anyway imply that God's sovereignty is limited with regards to human choices. It simply doesn't follow. The truth is that there's not one verse from the Bible that can support your claim. In fact, this is what the Bible says:
"Therefore GOD HAS MERCY ON WHOM HE WANTS TO HAVE MERCY, AND HE HARDENS WHOM HE WANTS TO HARDEN. One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will? BUT WHO ARE YOU, O MAN, TO TALK BACK TO GOD? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' DOES NOT THE POTTER HAVE THE RIGHT to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath— prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—EVEN US, WHOM HE HAS CALLED, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" (Rom. 9:18-24)
St. Augustine concludes:
"...and if this divine record be looked into carefully, it shows us that NOT ONLY MEN'S GOOD WILLS, which GOD HIMSELF CONVERTS FROM BAD ONES, and, when converted by Him, directs to good actions and to eternal life, BUT ALSO THOSE WHICH FOLLOW THE WORLD ARE SO ENTIRELY AT THE DISPOSAL OF GOD, that He turns them wherever He wills, and whenever He wills,— to bestow kindness on some, and to heap punishment on others, as He Himself judges right by a counsel most secret to Himself, indeed, but beyond all doubt most righteous." (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 41-xx)
I don't honestly know how would you interpret these passages in a way that would fit with your heresy.
3) Is that really how you determine if one's a Roman Catholic or not? Don't you think that's too shallow? What about the doctrines that St. Augustine held which are not in conformity with the teachings of Rome today, don't they count?
ReplyDelete4-5) King, I was expecting for a more objective response from you. My last points (#4-5) still stand. Please try again. I'll wait.