Cooperative Grace - Catholic view

[LaGrange]

P321


Principle: Faculties, habits and acts are specified by their object as part of definition of Free Will


The essence of Liberty consists in the dominating indifference of the Will with regard to every object proposed by the reason as at the moment good in one aspect, and not good in another, according to the formula of St. Thomas:


STh., I-II q.10 a.2


If, on the other hand, the will is offered an object that is not good from every point of view, it will not tend to it of necessity


My Comment: What this is saying is that “Each” object has good aspects and bad aspects about it. This means the Will will not look at “any” object with absolute Necessity. If the object always looked perfect the Will would always seek it. (All of this is a reminder too that the Intellect is involved and not just the Will; the intellect seems to have a lot to do with the object)


Even when the Will, in fact, actually Wills this object, when it is already determined to Will this, it is still inclined freely toward this with a dominating indifference that is no longer potential but actual.


My Comment: This means the Will is really free (dominating indifference) all the way through to the act.


The Thomists also say in opposition to Suarez, that not even His absolute power can God move our Will by necessity to Will a certain object, the indifference of judgement remaining as it is, so long as we judge the object to be good in one aspect and not so in another.


“Although the will wills the last end by a certain necessary inclination, it is nevertheless in no way to be granted that it is forced to will it. For force is nothing else but the infliction of some violence. According to the Philosopher that is violent “whose principle is outside it with the being which suffers the violence contributing nothing.” The throwing of a stone upward would be an example, because the stone of itself is not at all inclined to that motion. But seeing that the will is an inclination by the fact of its being an appetite, it cannot happen that the will should will anything without having an inclination to it. Thus it is impossible for the will to will anything by force or violently even though it does will something by a natural inclination. It is therefore evident that the will does not will anything necessarily with the necessity of force, yet it does will something necessarily with the necessity of natural inclination.” (Questiones Disputatae de Veritate, q.22, a.5)


My Comment: The Dominating Indifference ensures that man’s Will is truly free and that God cannot override this and move us by necessity to a particular object. God cannot override this because He is already the one actualizing the dominating indifference.


The Divine Motion is the cause of our Free Act


Free Act depends on 3 different Causalities:


P322


(1) the objective attraction of a particular good

(2) the direction of the intellect in forming a practical judgement

(3) the efficiency or production of the free choice of the Will


The Divine Motion transcends and actualizes these 3 causes without violating free Will.


(9) Premotion 6


P324


The Divine Motion and the Physical Act of Sin Principle


God is not the cause of sin directly or indirectly


Directly - inclining our Will to sin

Indirectly - by neglecting to keep us from sinning


This divine permission is not the cause of sin. This permission allows sin to happen. If God did not permit it, did not allow it to happen, there would be no sin.


This divine permission is not a punishment - why? Because the first sin or the sin by which the just person separates from God, causes the withdrawal of Grace.


My Comment: The sin causes the withdrawal of Grace; not the permission to sin.


P325


Divine Permission of Sin


It is a non-conservation of a certain created liberty in good


It is not a good

It is not an evil

It is not a privation of a good due to us

It is a negation of a good not due to us


Philosophy teaches that privation means more than negation


My Comment: A Negation of a good not due to us means God can give to each person what He wants.


God did not owe it to Himself to preserve Lucifer or Adam in a state of innocence from every transgression


Permission of sin is not a punishment

but withdrawal of Grace is a punishment:


STh., I-II q.79 a.3


Aquinas: The other thing is the withdrawal of grace, the result of which is that the mind is not enlightened by God to see aright, and man’s heart is not softened to live aright; and as regards this God is the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart.


My Comment: GL says that Calvin believed withdrawal of grace means permission of sin .

Aquinas says withdrawal of grace means more than just permission of sin. This withdrawal

also means punishment for sin.


Permission of a second sin is a punishment for the first sin (STh., I-II q.79 a.3)


Divine Cause (Physical Premotion) and the Physical Act of Sin


Augustine, On the Trinity 3.4.9


And so it comes to pass that the will of God is the first and the highest cause of all corporeal appearances and motions. For nothing is done visibly or sensibly, unless either by command or permission....


STh., I-II q.79 a.2


I answer that, The act of sin is both a being and an act; and in both respects it is from God. Because every being, whatever the mode of its being, must be derived from the First Being, as Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. v.). Again every action is caused by something existing in act, since nothing produces an action save in so far as it is in act: and every being in act is reduced to the First Act, viz. God, as to its cause, Who is act by His Essence. Therefore God is the cause of every action, in so far as it is an action.—But sin denotes a being and an action with a defect: and this defect is from created cause, viz. the free-will, as falling away from the order of the First Agent, viz. God. Consequently this defect is not reduced to God as its cause, but to the free-will: even as the defect of limping is reduced to a crooked leg as its cause, but not to the motive power, which nevertheless causes whatever there is of movement in the limping. Accordingly God is the cause of the act of sin: and yet He is not the cause of sin, because He does not cause the act to have a defect.


My Propositions:

God is the cause of the ACT of sin

God is NOT the cause of sin

God is NOT the cause of sin because He is NOT the cause of the defect


P326


The Divine Concurrence explained by St. Thomas (above) is not the Simultaneous Concurrence of Molina. Using the analogy of two men rowing a boat, neither of the two men rowing the boat moves the other. This divine concurrence precedes the physical act of sin or it would not be the cause of it. This means the divine concurrence is not a simultaneous concurrence but, rather, a Premotion. It is a Predetermining but not a necessitating Premotion.


Divine Motion presupposes in God an eternal decree which is:

Positive and effective as regards the physical entity of sin

Permissive as regards the deficiency


Independently of this twofold decree on God’s part, sin was merely possible, but it was not either a conditional or absolute future.


P327


For instance, if from all eternity God had not permitted it, the sin of Judas would not have happened; it would have been merely possible. But God having permitted it from all eternity to happen in this particular manner, place, and time, it had to happen freely and infallibly at this particular time and not before, with its particular kind of malice and not any other. Therefore the sin of Judas presupposed an eternal decree, positive as regards the physical entity of the act, permissive as regards its deficiency. It is the same with every sin that happens in time.


My Propositions:

Without God’s permission, the sin of Judas would not have happened

Without God’s permission, the sin of Judas would only have been possible

With God’s permission from all eternity it had to happen in a particular manner, place and time and not before

With God’s permission, it had to happen freely and infallibly

With God’s permission, it had to happen with a particular kind of malice

The decree regarding the sin of Judas was positive as to the physical entity of the act

The decree regarding the sin of Judaswas permissive as to its deficiency.

 

[LaGrange]

My Comment: Permission to sin is decreed from all eternity. God’s Permission includes man’s free Will but also God’s timing, manner, place and kind of malice. This Permissive Decree has to exist in order for the sin to happen.


To this eternal decree there corresponds a divine motion by which God is the First Cause of the physical act of sin as a being and an action. This divine motion can be predetermining but in a different manner from that which concerns the good and salutary act; for it depends upon an eternal decree that is not only positive and effective, but also permissive.


My Comment: Connected with God’s Decree is a Motion or Premotion. This causes the physical act of sin. This Decree can be said to be Predetermining only in the sense that it is Permissive. Otherwise, the Predetermining would make God the author of sin.


This can be better explained by pointing out that the divine motion as regards the exercise of the act presupposes the objective motion or the object as proposed. If this latter is defective, in so far as it does not come from God, but is the result of an evil instigation or of Concupiscence, then God cannot even counsel the physical act of sin, for this objective advice could not exclude the malice of the act. In the case of a good act, on the contrary, the objective motion prerequired is good and always comes from God, at least as First Cause.


My Comment: The Object proposed leads the divine motion as regards the physical exercise of the act. It the object proposed is defective (caused by temptation or Concupiscence) God could not be said to have counseled (helped in the decision to sin) the physical act of sin because of the malice involved.


The objectivity of the defective motion having been established, there intervenes a certain lack of consideration of his obligation on the part of the one who is about to sin, a lack of consideration permitted by God but by no means caused by Him; and the lack of consideration is at least virtually voluntary, for it is the deed of one who could and ought to consider the divine law, if not always, at least before acting. It is only after this, according to a priority of nature if not of time, that the divine influence intervenes to incline the Will to the physical act of sin, an influence which, as in the case of a good act, causes the Will to choose freely and in no way compels it.


My Comment: Once the defective Object has been proposed (outside temptation or inside Concupiscence), the person doesn’t consider the good (lack of consideration) and THEN God inclines the Will to the physical act of sin. It is a lack of consideration because the person should consider the divine law before acting.


My Comment: Order: defective proposed object - choice to sin (lack of consideration) - then God comes in and inclines the Will to the physical act of sin


P328


It is the common teaching, too, of the Thomists that God does not determine anyone to the material or physical act of sin before the created Will, by reason of its weakness, has determined itself in a certain way to the formal element of sin. The objective motion precedes by a priority of nature the efficient motion. We cannot Will a nothingness, but only a proposed object; and as regards the act of sin, the defective objective motion, which is accompanied by the lack of consideration of one’s duty, precedes the divine motion that inclines the Will to the physical act of sin. In other words, God moves the Will to the physical act of sin only when it is already badly disposed by reason of its weakness. Thus Jesus said to Judas, who was disposed to commit sin and took pleasure in it: “That which thou dost, do quickly.” (John 13:27) The Lord neither ordains nor counsels, but permits the accomplishment of the premeditated crime. Unless He permitted this evil, though disapproving of it, it would not happen.


My Comment: I think this is clear.


Lack of consideration - St. Thomas explains that lack of consideration is voluntary and culpable because the fault arises from the fact that we begin to Will and to act without taking the law into consideration. Moreover, as the Will is by nature inclined to what is truly good, it could not be inclined toward apparent good which is an evil, without being previously turned away, at least virtually (potentially), from true good, causing us not to consider this latter when the need of doing so presents itself. There is in this a resistance to sufficient Grace which virtually (potentially) contained the offer of efficacious Grace, as the fruit is contained in the flower. On account of this resistance, God can freely deprive us of efficacious Grace, a privation that is a punishment and that follows by a priority of nature the lack of voluntary consideration which is the commencement of sin, whereas the simple divine permission preceded it. (STh., I q.19 a.8, STh., I-II q.79 a.2)


P329


STh., I-II q.79 a.2


God’s Will is the cause of the act of sin:

On the contrary, The act of sin is a movement of the free-will. Now the will of God is the cause of every movement, as Augustine declares (De Trin. iii.). Therefore God’s will is the cause of the act of sin.


STh., I q.19 a.8


The Will is by nature inclined to what is good:


I answer that, Since the ratio of good is the ratio of appetibility, as said before (Q. V., A. 1), and since evil is opposed to good, it is impossible that any evil, as such, should be sought for by the appetite, either natural, or animal, or by the intellectual appetite which is the will. Nevertheless evil may be sought accidentally, so far as it accompanies a good, as appears in each of the appetites.


My Comment: With God’s sufficient Grace, the good object is shown to us but resisted by a lack of consideration for the law. Then, as a punishment (divine permission), the defective object is proposed to us and God can move the Will to the physical act of sin. God can deprive us of efficacious Grace as a punishment for our lack of consideration of the law. The consideration of the law is presented to us through Sufficient Grace.


Finally, we must note that Predetermination to the physical act of sin as explained, is not something of primary importance in the Thomist Doctrine relative to the divine decrees and motion; it is merely a secondary importance and a philosophical conclusion. What is of primary importance in this doctrine is that the divine decrees relative to our salutary acts are efficacious of themselves and not because of our consent foreseen by God. Of primary importance is the principle of predilection, which may be stated thus: “For since God’s love is the cause of goodness in things, as has been said (A. 2), no one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for another.” (STh., I q.20 a.3) Everything else is of secondary importance. Besides, this truth is related closely to the interior life.


Objections


Principal Objections raised against Premotion with regard to the Physical Act of Sin


P330


(1) God is the cause of sin - It has been said that he who moves efficaciously and determinately to the act of sin, is the cause of sin.

Answer: The Efficacious Motion can account for the being of the action without accounting for the malice. (STh., I-II q.79 a.2 - see quote above)


(2) God moves one to the act, as it proceeds from the Will. Now the act of sin, as it proceeds from the Will, is bad, for malice is not excluded.

Answer: God moves one to the act as it proceeds “Effectively” from the Will, but not as it proceeds “Defectively” from it; for the deficiency depends solely upon a defectible and deficient cause.


(3) The sinner is not responsible for his defection; for the Sufficient Grace which he receives gives him only the “power” to keep the Commandments but not actually to do so, as God demands.

Answer: Sufficient Grace is sufficient in its own way just as bread is sufficient for one’s sustenance yet it must be digested. The natural power of the intellect is “sufficient” for acquiring a knowledge of certain truths, yet it must institute a methodical inquiry into them so as to acquire this knowledge. Christ’s passion was sufficient for our salvation, yet its merits had to be applied by the sacraments or in some other way (STh., III q.61 a.1).

 

[LaGrange]

(4) Man sins because he is deprived of Efficacious Grace - For man not to resist Sufficient Grace, but consent to it, Efficacious Grace is required according to the Thomists teaching. Therefore, if man resists, it is because he did not receive the Efficacious Grace necessary for consent. The non-bestowal of Efficacious Grace is the cause of one’s resisting. This is an application of an axiom: if affirmation is the cause of affirmation, negation is the cause of negation. Sunrise is the cause of day, and sunset is the cause of night.

Answer: The axiom holds good in the case of a unique cause, such as the sun, which is either present or absent, but it does not hold good in the case of two causes, one of which is absolutely indefectible and the other defectible. It is true to say that man is deprived of Efficacious Grace because he resisted Sufficient Grace, whereas it is not true to say that man resists or sins because he is deprived of Efficacious Grace.

My Comment: The deficiency is in the secondary cause.


P333


(5) Some still insisted asking how we can claim that at the moment the first sin is committed, by which a just person separates from God, efficacious Grace is refused because of a previous defection or an accompanying resistance? This resistance, far from preceding the divine refusal of efficacious help, follows it. Hence the sinner is not to blame.


Objection Logic:

Sufficient Grace is given but resisted

Efficacious Grace refused because of this resistance

Refusing to give efficacious Grace seems to cause the mortal sin

Sinner is not to blame


Answer:

(Principle: Mutual relation between causes - this means that when things happen instantaneous, the 4 Causes mutually interact but in a different order)


Propositions

In the justification of the sinner:

The remission of sin follows the infusion of grace (in the order of nature)

The liberation from sin precedes the reception of sanctifying grace

(In the order of material causality)

(STh., I-II q.113 a.8)


My Comment:

The “remission” of sin is AFTER the infusion of grace

The “liberation” from sin is BEFORE the reception of sanctifying grace

This seems to show both sides of Justification: Remission and Liberation. They happen instantaneously.



STh., I-II q.113 a.8


“...as the sun by its light acts for the removal of

darkness, and hence on the part of the sun, illumination is prior to the removal of darkness; but on the part of the atmosphere to be illuminated, to be freed from darkness is, in the order of nature, prior to being illuminated, although both are simultaneous in time. And since the infusion of grace and the remission of sin regard God Who justifies, hence in the order of nature the infusion of grace is prior to the freeing from sin. But if we look at what is on the part of the man justified, it is the other way about, since in the order of nature the being freed from sin is prior to the obtaining of justifying grace.”


P334


Answer (continued): If justification is explained by the mutual relation between causes, then it must be the same for the loss of grace, which is the reverse process; for the rule is the same for contraries. John of St. Thomas shows (Cursus Theologica, I q.19) the moment man sins mortally and loses habitual grace, his deficiency, in the order of material causality, precedes the refusal of God’s actual efficacious grace and is the reason for this. From another point of view, however, even the first deficiency presupposes (precondition) God’s permission of sin, and would not result without it. But in opposition to justification, sin as such is the work of the deficient creature and not of God. Therefore it is true to say that purely and simply (simpliciter in the scholastic sense is the opposite of secundum quid), sin precedes God’s refusal of efficacious grace. In other words, “God forsakes not those who have been justified, unless He is first forsaken by them.” (Denz #804) He withdraws habitual grace only because of mortal sin, and actual efficacious grace only because of a resistance, at least initial, ro sufficient grace.


My Comment: While in sanctifying Grace one resists sufficient grace (sins) and God then allows permission of sin. Man sins and then God withdraws His grace. The deficiency was before God allowed the permission of sin. When you sin against Sufficient Grace, God will not give Efficacious Grace.


Answer (continued): It concerns us here to note carefully against Calvin, as we did at the beginning of this chapter, that the withdrawal of divine Grace spoken of by St. Thomas (STh., I-II q.79 a.3), means far more than merely God’s permission of sin; for this divine withdrawal is a penalty. Every penalty presupposes at least a first defection. This defection could not happen without God’s permission, which is not at all its cause, but not its indispensable condition. The Thomists say that we must avoid the contradiction and, instead of doing away with the mystery, we this safeguard it.


My Comment: God’s permission of sin is a “penalty” and NOT the cause of sin. Calvin said God is the Cause of sin.


P335


Conclusion


God cannot will evil

God cannot be directly or indirectly the cause of sin

God’s Intentions are morally correct and certain

God never commands the impossible

Commanding the impossible would be contrary to His justice and goodness

God Wills to make it possible for all to keep His Commandments and be saved

God is the author of all good

God’s love is the cause of all created good

Augustine and Aquinas say that no one would be better than another if God did not Will a greater good for one than another


FINIS +

 

[LaGrange]

(10) Premotion 7



Bible Verses


On Grace - not GL

Cooperating Grace - Synergism - Premotion


Cooperate = Wrought (KJV)

συνήργει synērgei (Strong’s #4903)

in these verses:


DRV

Rom 8:28 Working Together

Mark 16:20 working withal

1 Cor 16:16 worketh with us

2 Cor 6:1 we helping do

James 2:22 Cooperate


KJV

Rom 8:28 Work together

Mark 16:20 Working With

1 Cor 16:16 one that helpeth with

2 Cor 6:1 Workers together

James 2:22. Wrought


ESV

Rom 8:28 Work together

Mark 16:20 worked with them

1 Cor 16:16 fellow worker

2 Cor 6:1 working together

James 2:22 Was active along with



Clementine Latin Vulgate

Rom 8:28 cooperantur - Work together; cooperate

Mark 16:20 cooperabatur - to work together; cooperate

1 Cor 16:16 cooperanti - to work together; cooperate

2 Cor 6:1 Adjuvantes - To help; assist

James 2:22 cooperabatur - to work together; cooperate



Rom 8:26, Luke 10:40 Helpeth (Cooperate) = Strong’s #4878 - sunantilambanŏmai

soon-an-tee-lam-ban´-om-ahee; from 4862 and 482; to take hold of opposite together, i.e. co-operate (assist):—help.- also Synergism)


Here’s more:

Rom 16:3 ,9,21, 2 Cor 1:24 , 8:23, Phil 2:25 , 4:3, Col 4:11 , 1 Thess 3:2 , Philem 1 ,24, and 3 Jn 8.

The Greek for “labourer” is sunergos (Strong’s word #4904). It appears (usually as “fellow labourer” or “helper,” etc.)

Strong’s 4904. συνεργός

sunĕrgŏs

, soon-er-gos´; from a presumed comp. of 4862 and the base of 2041; a co-laborer, i.e. coadjutor:—companion in labour, (fellow-) helper (-labourer, -worker), labourer together with, workfellow.



1Thess 3:2 says “Minister” (DRV), Fellow laborer (KJV), Servant (RSV), Coworker (ESV)

“Cooperation” - not only can God not work within you without Cooperating Grace, but you also can’t work with God to save souls without cooperative grace either.

Minister = Strong’s 4904. συνεργός

sunĕrgŏs

, soon-er-gos´; from a presumed comp. of 4862 and the base of 2041; a co-laborer, i.e. coadjutor:—companion in labour, (fellow-) helper (-labourer, -worker), labourer together with, workfellow.


1 Cor 15:10 But by the grace of God, I am what I am. And his grace in me hath not been void: but I have laboured more abundantly than all they. Yet not I, but the grace of God with me: (DRV)

1 Cor 15:10 ...yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me....(KJV)

With = Strong’s 4862. σύν

sun, soon; a prim. prep. denoting union; with or together (but much closer than 3326 or 3844), i.e. by association, companionship, process, resemblance, possession, instrumentality, addition, etc.:—beside, with. In comp. it has similar applications, includ. completeness.


Bestow (Luke 12:17) And he thought within himself, saying: What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?

Strong’s 4863. Lemma = synago συνάγω

sunagō, soon-ag´-o; from 4862 and 71; to lead together, i.e. collect or convene; spec. to entertain (hospitably):—+ accompany, assemble (selves, together), bestow, come together, gather (selves together, up, together), lead into, resort, take in.

My comment: Bestow is something received but it is a “Coming together” which implies a “Working together”. The Lemma is “synago” which is similar to “Synergism”.


Is 63:7 I will remember the tender mercies of the Lord, the praise of the Lord for all the things that the Lord hath bestowed upon us...


*********************************************

Operating Grace


Operating Grace - Operating Grace is Grace where God moves us alone (First Cause). Without it you cannot have Cooperating Grace (Secondary Cause).


1754. ἐνεργέω

ĕnĕrgĕō

,

en-erg-eh´-o

; from

1756; to be active, efficient:—do, (be) effectual (fervent), be mighty in, shew forth self, work (effectually in).


Phil 2:13

1 Cor 12:6


There are many others

 

[SavedByGrace]

Instead of 24 posts that got this "featured", why not simply tell use that YOU believe that Bible teaches? I can't see many reading through all of this!

 

[LaGrange]

Instead of 24 posts that got this "featured", why not simply tell use that YOU believe that Bible teaches? I can't see many reading through all of this!

I'm hoping some will copy it and study it. I don't expect anyone to read it in one day and I'm not trying to overwhelm anyone but only trying to present the whole thing. It has to cover a lot to be convincing. I know most people won't read all of it. I even say in my opening remarks that you can read the first few posts that give some history, quotes and an analogy and then go to the end and see the bible verses.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I'm hoping some will copy it and study it. I don't expect anyone to read it in one day and I'm not trying to overwhelm anyone but only trying to present the whole thing. It has to cover a lot to be convincing. I know most people won't read all of it. I even say in my opening remarks that you can read the first few posts that give some history, quotes and an analogy and then go to the end and see the bible verses.

the Roman Catholic teaching on salvation is AGAINST The Holy Bible! As with other teachings

 

[LaGrange]

the Roman Catholic teaching on salvation is AGAINST The Holy Bible! As with other teachings

Our view needs to be convincing because many people think we are Pelagian. They say this because we believe Free Will is necessary in the salvation process. Another way they say it is that our view is "Man-Centered". I just watched a Youtube Video with James White and he said it.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Our view needs to be convincing because many people think we are Pelagian. They say this because we believe Free Will is necessary in the salvation process. Another way they say it is that our view is "Man-Centered". I just watched a Youtube Video with James White and he said it.

who is "our view"?

 

[Salty]

This thread is temporally closed until decision by admin team
Do not start another similar thread