DOGMA SYNTHESIS
DIVINE WORD SEMINARY, Tagaytay City
Compiled by ARNOLD C. BIAGO, SVD
VI. GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION
50. The basic meaning and the different usages of the word “grace” in the Bible.
THE SCRIPTURAL FOUNDATION ON GRACE
1. The concept of grace in Scripture is always juxtaposed with history. Biblical people understood grace vis-à-vis their historical experience of God.
2. Grace is known as a sequence of remembered events (Thomas Oden). Grace is experienced as God’s attitude and way, which includes: fidelity, justice, uprightness, and magnanimity.
3. Grace is regarded as God’s action towards people, in terms of essential events like: creation, liberation, and election. Hence, grace is connected to God’s gracious deeds, which became history in the memory of His people.
OT THEMES FOR GRACE
- HEN: a Hebrew noun, which derives from Hanan, and it appears 67 times in the OT. It means “favor”, charm, attractiveness, and elegance. This is a disposition of a person towards another. Yet, its practice needs not to be mutual for one gives it to another, so long as the giver so desire. It is fully understood in the context of human relationships.
- HANAN: a verb used for the favor shown in personal relationships, referring to kindness, or acceptance of special favors: pity, mercy and generosity. This term is more active. IN its practical sense, it requires an active involvement to aid the poor, feed the hungry, and deliver those in distress from defeat and death. For the Jews, Hanan is an expression of God’s love, which is a free gift. It connotes the freedom of God and his compassion. “I have heard the groaning of my people” (cf. Gen 42,21; Ps 62).
3. HESED = In the LXX, it means ELEOS = mercy! A dynamic word, pointing to an action toward somebody and an attitude, a meeting of heart and action (=kindness). It is understood as a "covenant love' that presupposes rights and obligations demanding a favorable attitude from the parties in a relationship. which is long term.
GRACE IN THE SYNOPTICS
In the Synoptics grace signifies God's favor, benevolence. kindness and benignity.. it means "favor' in relation to Christ. Grace is always associated with the person of Jesus Christ: "the word full of grace!"
PAUL'S THEOLOGY OF GRACE
- Paul’s understanding of grace is captured by the term “charis” (derived from hen), which is linked with the word EIRENE = peace! Thus, “charis kai eirne” as used in the greetings of all the Pauline epistles.
- Paul linked Charis to charm, amiability and lovability (Gal 4,6), and charism (Rm 12,6; Eph 4,7). He used Charis to combine the positive features of Hen and Hesed.
- To Paul, Charis is God’s powerful action, and gratuitous gift in Christ, overflowing in abundance. It is the essence of God’s decisive saving act in Christ that took place in his sacrificial death (Rm 3,24).
- Charis is connected to Christ (2 Cor 13,13) – it is Christ-centered for Christ is the Incarnated Grace! It is in Christ that God’s grace is given as the most precious gift (1 Cor 1,4). Apart from Christ, there can be no talk of grace.
51. The Pelagian Controversy and Augustine’s understanding of grace. Present a contemporary view of the relationship.
Ø Pelagian Controversy
The Pelagian controversy is a mere mentality rather than a logically structured body of doctrine. Pelagius presumed that the complete freedom of man who in his free choice of good and evil can achieve salvation by his own unaided powers. Several errors followed from this assertion of man’s self-sufficiency, human liberty essentially consists in the absence of all compelling force bending man towards evil must be denied; therefore, Adam’s sin is reduced to a bad example set by him to his descendants and freely followed by them in their own personal decisions; baptism of children is not necessary, since no original sinfulness needs to be remitted. Christ’s redemption is confined to the forgiveness of personal sins. His grace, moreover, is not absolutely necessarily to avoid them. The contrary would be derogatory to the intrinsic dignity of man’s self-sufficient nature impoverishing greatly the Christian message according to which our sufficiency comes from Christ alone, this system left no room for trust in God and personal commitment to His action.
Ø Some Pelagianism
All men being equal with God, receive from Him an equal measure of grace: any difference in the bestowal of grace comes solely from the difference in man’s dispositions; man needs grace to perform good works but the beginning of conversion is his own doing for which grace is not required; after this foundation has been laid by man’s own strength. God will grant him a further increase of faith. This conception of man’s salvation by God as a transaction between equal partners at least in its initial stage implied a practical denial of the supremacy of grace.
Ø For Pelagius, “Freedom” was the grace given by God to a person. After that a person can do good by itself. God’s revelation and the life of Christ further help a person to do the good.
Ø Augustine’s Understanding of Grace
o The two major points of Augustine’s understanding of Grace:
i. Absolute Necessity of Grace based on:
§ Original Sin: Loss of the capacity to do good.
§ Neoplatonic view of Participation: God is the Supreme Good. All those who do good participate in his goodness.
ii. Absolute Gratuity & Efficacy of Grace: This brought Augustine to speak about Predestination
o Grace is omnipresent – in all things there is grace
o Prevenient grace – (pre vinere – come before)
§ There is already grace before the movement of heart
§ Theology of love is theology of grace
o Pessimistic
§ Augustine has a pessimistic view: MASSA DAMNATA – due to Adam’s sin, man is incapable of holiness. Hence man is condemned to hell, but out of God’s grace, he (man) is saved.
§ Before the fall, we are in the state of righteousness. They live very whole life – immune to sickness. They were given by God the ability not sin (which is different from inability to sin). But this does not mean man does not have weakness. This weakness facilitates the entry of sin.
Ø Contemporary View of the Relationship Between Grace and Human Freedom
- Salvation is based on the action of God and not on Human Freedom
- Grace is offered objectively to everybody. A person however, must become aware of it and accept it existentially in his life.
- Subjectively, grace is necessary always, not only because we are in sin, but even if there was no sin, grace would be necessary to perfect our freedom.
Ø On Grace and Freedom
Grace is an absolute necessity for freedom and the moral life (unlike the will of Pelagius). Because human freedom is crippled, it is internal; it must be in our interiority. We cannot aspire to do good without grace. It is prevenient. God initiates in us every good. But after initiating, we need cooperating grace. God must accompany. Sufficient grace is what is given to Adam. It is actually the grace of perseverance. Efficient grace enables us to accomplish the good God decrees for us. These are the different phases of grace. Thus, we need God absolutely. Without grace, we are impotent. In a way all is grace.
Free will is the freedom to do what one wants. Libertas is to use one’s free will to select the good. It is putting free will on its proper use. Grace, thus, does not destroy freedom. But it is in fact guaranteeing freedom. The one who chooses good is finding rest for his soul. Synonymous is to choose the good and to be in love with God. To choose the good is experientially taking delight in the one I love.
Conversion of free will to libertas is effected by God’s giving us delight in life. Grace enables us to love. This love is the fruit of the Spirit. It is the gravity countering the dreadful gravity of sinful desires. Delight in loving is the new freedom of the heart.
52. Present and evaluate Aquinas’ understanding of grace. What are its contributions to the theology of grace?
Ø Aquinas: Healing, Elevating, Special Divine Grace
o We can’t avoid sin in our fallen nature
o We need a habitual healing grace. Without this, we can’t avoid sin for a long time.
o To do a meritorious act, we need elevating grace.
o Grace corrects the inner relationship of the will to God.
o Without healing grace, man can’t fulfill the demand, obey the law through his own resources.
o We can’t prepare to receive grace through our own with special divine grace. This divine assistance must move us interiorly, must come before one’s reception.
o God prepares us to receive justification.
§ 4 Movements:
· infusion of grace
· free movement of the will towards God
· free movement of the will against sin
· remission of sin.
o Aquinas’ notion of Supernatural Grace
§ Grace that makes a person do beyond his power (e.g. perfect loving)
§ Grace needed by Human Being to reach finality.
§ Grace to perfect our nature, to close the gap between the goal and human nature.
§ Grace is purely supernatural – “beyond nature”.
o Aquinas’ notion of Habit and Nature
§ Nature: a permanent principle of being that makes a reality that it is. it also determines how a being would operate or act. Every a being has a goal, proportionate to his nature. Between Human Nature and Goal (which is the Supernatural nature), there is grace which let the human nature reach his goal (supernatural nature).
§ Habit:
· A virtue. A power, an interior quality, a permanent disposition of the soul.
· It is not a movement, it is a stable disposition or orientation that is immanent source of the action.
· For Aquinas, it is an infused habit, an enduring.
· Grace is a disposition of the sould to act in particular way.
· A new mode of personal ebing.
· Grace is an accident – a-being-in-another being, not a thing but a mode, so it begin to behave, act and look at in different ways.
· Habitual/sanctifying grace is participation the divine life.
Ø Aquinas Contribution to theology:
o Reason and faith
o Human being is ordained to certain goal beyond their capacity (Supernatural Nature).
53. Present and evaluate Luther’s doctrine on grace and justification. What are its main contributions to the Theology of Grace?
Ø For Luther, grace is a relationship of friendship and communion established by God in spite of one’s sinfulness.
Ø For him:
1. A person is “SIMUL JUSTUS ET PECCATOR”: Man is sinful but justified.
§ Even after baptism, we are sinners.
§ Justification involves instantaneous change of heart.
§ God attributes to us the justification of Christ. God considers us righteous even if we are not.
2. JUSTIFICATION
§ Remissions of sins
§ Justification comes through faith alone
§ God’s work
§ God’s tool is Word = promised the Gospel
§ Source of faith is the Word of God.
§ Faith is not a work, not self-initiated; it is pure receptivity, self-surrender.
§ Active while stressing the passivity of Human Being.
§ Justification is imputed to the person (imputed justice).
3. SALVATION
§ Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura
§ Christ alone
§ A divine work through Christ.
4. GRACE
§ Willingness and completeness of the divine mode of operation
§ Operation of God himself
§ Word of promise of a personal God is personally appropriated.
Ø Evaluation
(a) anthropology: simul justus et peccator: not on ontological realities but in relationship, (personal categories); relationship of friendship and communion
(b) justification: forgiveness of sins; not mere ‘imputed justice’ (vs. Scholastics) – a new mode of being of the soul; grace is a ‘favor of God’ and not a ‘quality of the soul’
(c) sola gratia: knowledge (theory) vs. existential (practice), not a quality of the soul but God’s disposition towards the human being; self-surrender and pure reception
(d) cooperation: strong legalism in Catholic thought; strong altruism in Protestantism
o Some Questions
(1) pessimistic view of human existence; the wonder (power) of grace lies in its capacity to evoke a free response from human beings
(2) too attached to personal faith experience; sick-soul experience (focus on sin); is there something more to grace than the moral context of forgiveness? Law and God (simul justus et peccator) too constricting?
(3) grace is attached to explicit knowledge of Christianity; can be present to those who have never heard of Christ?; nature of missionary work?
Ø Luther’s contribution
(1) elevation (raise up) – in personalist categories it is a union; image of bride and bridegroom; relation between two persons; power of love making the lovers equal; Tillich’s “creative justice” (listening, giving and forgiving); preferred image of “testament” over “covenant”; grace-filled person is a healthy person
(2) inner freedom that liberates one from the world; no human claim before God; all are finite before God; plays a role in theologies of hope, history and liberation
(3) life for others; caritas is love of neighbor for the neighbor’s sake (vs. for God’s sake); Christ was a “man for others”; grace through the cross; Deus absconditus et revelatus
54. The main teaching of Trent on Grace and Justification as contained in its “Decree of Justification”
Ø Trent denied Luther’s doctrine of justification. Trent claims that we are saved by faith because it is the absolutely indispensable beginning, the root of justification but it is not the totality of salvation. It is also true that nothing precedes justification is merited … it is a gift that we have to accept in faith:
o Faith plus free will and cooperation
o Before justification even repentance and conversion is not merited by men … it is a free gift, a grace from God.
Ø Teaching of Trent on Justification
Main points on justification:
(1) the power of nature cannot justify human beings,
(2) essence of justification is remission of sins,
(3) justification is sanctification and interior renovation of the person,
(4) justification involves the free acceptance of the person; cooperation through preparation for justification,
(5) justice of justified persons is their own,
(6) no absolute certitude of the state of grace, perseverance and salvation,
(7) possibility and necessity to obey the law,
(8) justification is lost by mortal sin,
(9) through good works one merits salvation
3 stages of justification:
(1) initial transition from the state of sin to justification (9 chapters),
(2) once justified, how may one increase in righteousness (4 chapters),
(3) how may one forfeit, regain justification, difference of this justification from the status primus) (3 chapters)
Causes of justification:
(1) final - glory of God and eternal life,
(2) efficient –mercy of God,
(3) meritorious – passion of Christ,
(4) instrumental – sacrament of baptism,
(5) formal- righteousness of God; the single formal cause of justification is the “iustitia Dei, non qua ipse iustus est, sed qua nos iustus facit”
55. What are the basic points of difference between the Catholic and the mainline Protestant teachings on Grace and Justification?
DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION (Oct. 31, 1999)
1. Common Understanding between Lutherans and Catholics:
o Justification is the work of the Triune God.
o Centrality of Jesus Christ for Justification and Salvation.
2. Human Powerlessness of sin in relation to Justification
o Catholic: Persons cooperate in preparing for and accepting justification. This cooperation is already effect of grace.
o Protestant: Human Beings are incapable of cooperation in their salvation. For them people must only have faith.
3. Justification as forgiveness of sins:
o Catholic: Through the reception of grace the person is completely renewed.
o Protestant: The righteousness of Christ is attributed to us. They do not deny that life is renewed, but they want to stress that justification remains free from human cooperation.
4. Justification by Faith and through Grace:
o Catholic: Faith is fundamental for justification (Baptism)
o Protestant: “Sola Fide”. A distinction but not separation is made between justification itself and the renewal of one’s life that follows justification.
5. The Justified as Sinner:
o Catholic: The grace of God imparted in Baptism removes all sin although evil inclinations (concupiscence) remain. Concupiscence is not in the plan of God but it does not separate us from God.
o Protestant: The Christian is at the same time “righteous and sinner”. Concupiscence is sin in the person although a ruled sin.
6. The Good Works of the Justified:
o Catholic: Good works are made possible by the work of the Holy Spirit and will be rewarded in heaven. This is to stress responsibility of each person.
o Protestant: Good works are signs of God’s justification and have no merits because they come totally from God.
Ø Ideas of Luther and Trent compared:
The traditional teaching on justification between Luther and Trent
| Theme | Reformation | Catholic |
| Human Nature | Fully corrupt. Freedom to do the good is totally lost | Weakened; freedom to do good is not totally lost |
| Concupiscence | Original sin = foundation of all sins | It is not a sin if there is a firm will to oppose concupiscence (i.e. evil desires). |
| Human being before God | Fully passive in justification | |
| Grace of justification | God’s forgiving love Only divine realization | |
| Faith and justification | Justification | |
| Power of faith | Creates wisdom of salvation | |
| Merit | Works are not merits | Works are power of merited grace |
| Essence of justification | | |
*Extrinsicist dictum: God does not create a nature in vain (Deus non creavit frustra; natura non potest esse inane)
*How can the supernatural be valued as the person’s highest perfection and still be unnecessary?
*How can original sin be a serious wound and intrinsic to human nature?
56. Karl Rahner’s understanding of Grace and its main implications. What are Rahner’s main contributions to the Theology of Grace?
Ø The background of Rahner’s idea on Grace is his disagreement on De Lubac’s idea on Grace. In disagreeing with De Lubac, he writes that God would be destroying his creatures whom he created with a natural orientation towards a union with God if he refuses to give them grace. If he gives them grace, conceive of supernatural end of humans which at the same time does not belong to the human nature as human nature. If it is in the human nature, God is compelled to fulfill it. God really gives man the orientation towards divine union, but it is not found in the human nature.
Ø Supernatural Existential
o Example of Existential: Being-in-the-world, being-with-others, being-in-history, being-toward-death.
o Rahner speaks of “Supernatural Existential. It is like a Being-immersed-in-grace. A characteristic that like other existentials belong to every human being.
o It is not a portion of our body, a section of human existence, or of our rational body. It is a structure that permeates the whole of existence. It does not exhaust what being human is all about. But it runs across everything that is human.
o For him, supernatural existential is the actual historical state of the fact that all of us are called to grace even before we receive grace. This supernatural existential stems from the universal will of God to save. We are born into existence within this structure that says God is offering you the grace of salvation. Grace is offered, yes, but will it be received? Even if we refuse to accept the grace, the grace offered will remain. Note the being intact of human freedom. So, the supernatural existential is the objective offer of salvation. The “subjective part” of human is the reception of the grace. Sometimes the humans come to a conscious explicit acceptance of the grace (existentiell), which is usually implicitly, although always readily available, being offered. For Rahner, even if people are not existentiell, the existential remains.
Ø Obedential Potency
o Potency, a scholastic term, is the capacity for something. Obedential is receptivity to something, openness to something. Obediential potency is human nature itself. It is not just one of the aspects of the human nature. It is the characteristic of human nature. Humans are created by God with capacity to be receptive to grace, to the fulfillment of grace, it and when it is available.
o Grace, then, is never demanded by human nature. Obediential potency is not just experienced in the divine realm. Even in knowing, were there is receptivity, it is operative. It is also in loving. With this obediential potency, humans can still pursue their goals and remain faithful to their human nature.
o In this light, his anonymous Christianity makes sense.
Ø Main Contributions:
o Notion of supernatural existential which gives view of who God is and what man is. God as self-communication and man as self-transcendent.
o Grace as God’s self-communication to persons who are self-transcendent.
57. Explain what is meant by “social sin” and “social grace”.
SOCIAL SIN
Ø Two suppositions to bridge personal and social sin.
i. Idea of interdependence: man’s existence is essentially social
ii. Social institutions and system have been originally set up and continue to be maintained and sustained through the agency of human willing.
Ø Based on these two suppositions, we come up with 5 thesis on social sin:
1) Social institutions insofar as they originated from human willing and to the extent that they are harmful, are at least objectively and materially sinful.
2) The intentional creation and the deliberate participation in systems that are harmful to the human person are sinful both subjectively and materially sinful.
3) However, since institutions depend not only on one will but collectively (wills), the kind of personal responsibility is different from personal sin and the degree of one’s responsibility varies according to the level/degree of participation in the institution/
4) There are actually very few, if any institutions that do not discriminate or harm individuals. It is likewise true that there are blatantly selfish institutions which have the explicit intent of oppressing and harming people. One, therefore must be careful in judging institutions and in assigning to these behind these institutions.
5) Social institutions by their very definition are behavior routinized behavior routinized behavior becoming unreflective. In such a case, social institutions cease to be subjectively and formally sinful. But precisely for this same reason is there need to call attention to their existence, to call for reflection.
SOCIAL GRACE
Ø Grace is a force for self-transcendence. As such it becomes real and tangible in concrete human activity. Hence, grace can be institutionalized like other human activity. It can take on organized form, breaking out into the public sphere.
Ø e.g. Christian charity, voluntary organizations, orphanages, rehabilitation centers.
Ø Thesis on Social Grace
1. Grace or God’s action in history exhibits double movements:
i. The interior-upward movement, that is, from individual to institution. This means that graced individuals influence others, particularly structures and thereby institutionalize the grace they received (institutionalization)
ii. The external-downward movement, that is, institutionalized grace influences individuals and move individuals into graced, routinized behavior-socialized into the graced institution (socialization).
2. Insofar as institutionalized grace is routinized and become unconscious of the spontaneous self-transcending lace at its root, it ceases to be grace. But precisely for this same reason must attention be called to it so that graced action be made.
3. No institution is a pure example of social grace. Because of the dialectic of the supernatural existential, there is always something good in bad institutions and something bad in good institutions.
4. While institutions influence individuals, the latter actually remain free within the institutions. It is possible therefore that individual in a graceful institution may act in a sinful way just as he may set in self-transcending love even in sinful institution.
5. The precious case (#4) does not do away with the value of graced institutions because this value is not primarily influencing individual but in incarnating grace in the public, social sphere and thus reveal God’s goodness and love in a tangible and social way.
