Do I understand you to be saying that without actual grace we cannot come to obtain sanctifying grace?

Correct.

And that the Catholic understanding of semi-Pelagianism is to state that one can obtain sanctifying grace without God’s intervention (either through actual grace or sanctifying grace). Therefore, does semi-Pelagianism destroy the distinction altogether?

Semi-Pelagianism claims that we (without grace) make the first move, then God gives grace in response. Pelagianism denies that God needs to give grace at all, in order for us to be saved. Pelagianism denies the necessity of grace for salvation. Semi-Pelagianism denies the necessary of prevenient grace (i.e. operative actual grace, where God acts upon us, without us), but does not deny the need for grace for salvation.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

Thanks for your comments. Guess I’ve just talked to with some Protestants who have thought more about the process. (Or it’s equally likely that I misunderstood them as well!)

As far as the Forensic Justification topic goes, I note a particular distinction. If I’m reading you correctly, the Catholic thought process is that the declaration and gift of Grace in the forms of faith, hope, and agape – the metaphysical change of the person’s soul – occur simultaneously. But my understanding of the majority of Protestantism is that the declaration – the divine favor in your terms – precedes and causes the justification. When I speak of Forensic Justification, I am thinking of the latter, not the former.

Of course, my understanding of Protestants on this point could be mistaken. But I am trying to understand them.

I am surprised that you repeated the topic of Grace as participation in the divine nature. Like you, I’ve never seen Protestants talk this way. I didn’t think that my previous question even came close to implying that they did.

Again, thank you.

Thank you so very much for this post, it was incredibly enlightening. I think you give a very fair, dare I even say full, summary of the different approaches Catholic and Protestant thinking brings to bear on the text. I had one question:

“Without actual grace, we cannot turn and prepare ourselves, to faith and calling upon God. To claim that we could do so without actual grace would be at least semi-Pelagianism.”

Do I understand you to be saying that without actual grace we cannot come to obtain sanctifying grace? And that the Catholic understanding of semi-Pelagianism is to state that one can obtain sanctifying grace without God’s intervention (either through actual grace or sanctifying grace). Therefore, does semi-Pelagianism destroy the distinction altogether?

Thanks again.

-JohnO

I think that what Kenny said (in #45) is quite right. Protestants tend not to go into the metaphysics of grace. So among Protestants grace is most commonly treated as divine favor. Reformed theologians will note that the term ‘grace’ also refers to blessings of God, and to the working (i.e. operations) of the Holy Spirit within us, or to the Holy Spirit Himself. I have never seen a Reformed theologian describe grace as participation in the divine nature. Berkhof (p. 429) quotes Smeaton as saying:

The term grace, which in Augustine’s acceptation intimated the inward exercise of love, awakened by the operations of the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5), and which in the scholastic theology had come to denote a quality of the soul, or the inner endowments, and infused habits of faith, love, and hope, was now taken in the more scriptural and wider sense for the free, the efficacious favour which is in the divine mind.

I should point out that Catholics do not reject forensic justification. In Catholic soteriology, God declares because He effects it. It is not a legal fiction, but a legal truth, because our hearts have been given agape at that very instant. The Protestant position (if I can speak of it as one position), is simul iustus et peccator, without a distinction between mortal and venial sin, i.e. without a distinction between those sins that destroy/remove agape from the soul, and those that do not.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

Thank you for this excellent article!

If I may ask, could you please flesh out something you wrote.

Here at this point is a crucial distinction between Catholic and Protestant soteriology. In Protestant theology grace is primarily understood as divine favor, that is, an attitude or stance by God toward us. In Catholic soteriology, by contrast, grace is not merely divine favor, but is also and primarily the gift of “participation in the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) by which we have the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and agape.

My area of concern is where I’ve added the emphasis to your quote; namely that Protestants see Grace as an attitude or stance by God toward us. I think you are aiming at the concept of Forensic Justification, and as a Catholic I do not subscribe to that concept. But I would be afraid that I were creating a strawman by putting it this way. My understanding of Protestant theology is that they are somewhat more nuanced in this regard. I understand them to see Grace as much more than a change in attitude on God’s part. Rather, it is a declaration by God, with the understanding that this declaration has the same force as the creation declarations spoken by God in Genesis.

This would make Grace a creative force which, by God’s declaration, creates the “new man” in Christ. Then from this new creation by the power of Grace, Protestants believe we receive the gift of faith. They would then claim that from faith flows hope and agape. I think this was the point that Kenny was trying to make in his questions. (However, I should not speak for him!)

At any rate, did you really mean that the Protestant concept of Grace is that simple, or did I misread you?

Again, excellent article!

Just to be clear, I did not say that, “the sacrament of baptism can come to us even prior to our reception of the sacrament of baptism.” We cannot receive the sacrament of baptism before receiving the sacrament of baptism. Here’s what I said:

the grace [and faith and hope and agape] that comes to us through the sacrament of baptism can come to us even prior to our reception of the sacrament of baptism.

Notice the difference. We can receive the grace the comes through the sacrament, prior to receiving the sacrament itself.

Then you asked:

would it then follow that the Church would teach that if parents wanted to baptize an infant but didn’t have a chance to, then we could consider that the child was baptized “by intention” or something similar?

No, that conclusion would not follow. The teaching of the Church regarding children who die without baptism is the one found in the paragraph from the Catechism, which I quoted in comment #27 above. Our faith needs to rest at that point, in what the Church has given us. There is no basis to say anything further on this subject at this point (in time); it would be mere speculation.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

In addition to what Bryan said, you might also be interested in this article on Original vs Ancestral sin. A distinction really without a difference, it’s been exagerrated by the hyperpolemics of some Eastern Orthodox theologians

http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html

So, to take this one step further…if the Church teaches that the “sacrament of baptism can come to us even prior to our reception of the sacrament of baptism” and since the Church allows parents to decide to baptize an infant, would it then follow that the Church would teach that if parents wanted to baptize an infant but didn’t have a chance to, then we could consider that the child was baptized “by intention” or something similar? The thing is, how are WE to know who has really been baptized by the Holy Spirit? We are told that the Holy Spirit will go where it wills. I believe that people all over the world who truly seek to know God and His will can be baptized by the Holy Spirit.

I will not continue taking up time and space here with more questions after this one. Thanks for your time!