he Christian theology of grace

 

17.  The Christian theology of grace: the historical-theological development (synthesis) and theological-systematic outline.

Introduction: Grace is the personal presence of God in our life (creation, redemption and all the salvific events). Man was created by grace, redeemed by grace and will saved by grace. Everything we have in grace (Jn. 1:16). Life and activities of the church is going on by grace.

It comes from the Latin word, “gratia” and is the free and undeserved help from God. God desires to share His love with others by giving each person the opportunity to receive His help in following Him. Although grace is totally a created free gift from God, it is never forced upon anyone. Since grace is a supernatural gift from God, there is nothing we can do to earn it because it is totally a gift of the nature of God. Grace is a supernatural gift of God bestowed on us through the merits of Jesus Christ for our salvation.

Part I: Christian Theology of Grace

Grace in the Bible: In the New Testament the Greek word that corresponds to the English word grace is Kharis, when used in the technical sense of a gratuitous supernatural gift of God to man(e.g. Jn. 1:14, 16; 2 Cor. 12:9; Rom. 1:5). Etymologically, Kharis denotes that which causes joy (khara), hence, graciousness, attractiveness, a common meaning of the term in non-Biblical Greek that is also found in Lk. 4:22 and Col. 4:6. From this basic meaning, Kharis developed the notion of gracious care or help, good will, or favor, often with special signification in the New Testament, such as the favor of the New Christian economy of grace (Rom. 5:2; 6:14; Gal  2:21; 5:4), the favors of God’s external providence that dispose to grace (1Pt. 2:19),  divine help on a mission (Acts 14:25; 15:40), and divine favor in itself, which is the source of grace (Lk. 1:30; 2:40).

In the Old Testament there is no term to match the New Testament technical sense of Kharis. The Septuagint (LXX), however, often (61 times) usesKharis to translate the Hebrew word hen,which sometimes means grace in the sense of charm, attractiveness (e.g. Prv. 11:16; 22:1; 31:30), but more often denotes favor, good will, especially in the phrase masa hen de ene “to find favor in the eyes” of someone, i.e., to be pleasing to someone who thereby becomes favorably disposed (e.g. Gn. 6:8; 18:3; 19:19; 30:27; etc.). The Hebrew word hesed, however, is generally rendered in the LXX by Elaus (mercy). Although the concept of mercy fails to express the mutual bond God entered into through His covenant with Israel, yet since He did male His covenant out of mercy and does not owe anything to men.Elaus is not an entirely unfitting term, and it approaches the New Testament concept of grace. Grace in God: The grace of God is mercy (Ps. 36:7-8; 63:4).  God’s grace is a life much richer than the other human experience. Manifestation of God’s grace: God poured his grace out in all his works to be with mankind as his gifts (Sir. 1:10; Dt. 6:5; 7:7-8; 9:4; 10:12).

Fathers’ Themes of Grace: It took several centuries for grace to develop into a complete doctrine. The fullest development of Patristic understanding of grace was realized around the Fourth Century. St. Augustine and St. Athanasius were particularly instrumental at this time. The Fathers’ major themes of grace recognized the Holy Trinity as the origin of all graces; and the mystical aspect of grace – the Holy Trinity dwelling in our souls. The Western Fathers, St. Cyprian, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine emphasized man’s need of grace for salvation and baptism as rebirth and sanctification as a result of original sin. St. Augustine noted that, “Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration.”, and the “law of concupiscence”, an effect of original sin, “is taken away… in Baptism.” The Eastern Fathers, especially St. Athanasius, the Cappadocia Fathers and St. John Chrysostom emphasized grace’s elevation and divinization of the human person, our participation in the life of the Holy Trinity, the source of all graces.

Two types of grace

Actual grace is given to us each time we need God’s intervention to accomplish a particular act and is “used up” when the act is completed. The way we can obtain this type of grace is by prayer.It stimulates us to do things pleasing to God. Paul defines it in 1Cor. 15:9-12, “Only by God’s grace I am what I am, and the grace He has shown me has not been without fruit; I have worked harder than all of them, or rather it was not I, but the grace of God working in me.” Council of Trent describes actual grace as disposing man to justification/Sanctification. St. Thomas – Actual grace is a supernatural physical promotion, by which God means to soul to a salutary act. e.g. priestly ordination.

Sanctifying grace is that grace which confers on our souls a new life, that is, a sharing in the life of God Himself. By sanctifying grace, our souls are made holy and pleasing to God. It is an abiding or permanent grace. It is the divine life of Christ who permanently dwells within us and is infused by the Holy Spirit and exists in our soul so we may be in the state of holiness. This grace is what sanctifies us and allows an internal change to become sincere children of God.This grace will remain within us indefinitely as long as we remain faithful to God. The only way to lose this type of grace is to commit a serious or mortal sin. 1John tells us that there is a type of sin (mortal) that is deadly. The consequence of losing this type of grace is serious because it jeopardizes our promise of heaven.Sanctifying grace is obtained from all seven sacraments. So, we can call it sacramental grace. St. Thomas – Sacramental grace is new orientation of the whole supernatural organism toward the end to which the individual organism is constituted by grace, by the virtues and the gift of the H.P. e.g. Baptism, Eucharist, etc. Habitual Grace is a constant supernatural grace. A divine gift infused by God into the soul. Strict sense – habitual grace is that infused into the very essence of the soul; it also called sanctifying and justifying grace.  Brooder sense – habitual grace includes the virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:17).

Actual grace that works on the soul and sanctifying grace that works in the soul are free gifts from God.

Other types of Grace:

Sufficient Grace: A supernatural gift which confers on man to power to act in a salutary way. Council of Trent – God does not command impossible things, but he tells you to do what you can and to ask for what you cannot do, and he helps you that you may be able to do.” (St. Augustine)

Efficacious Grace: Grace that is acknowledged by people. A supernatural, divine influence, on account of which the human will, is determined, freely to act with respect to eternal life. (Ezekiel 30:27). e.g. the conversion of Paul on the Damascus road. Uncreated Grace: God Himself (Trinity) loves all things and wants to communicate with everything through Jesus Christ’s unending love. Created Grace: Supernatural gift or grace. It sanctifies us because uncreated God dwells among us. Free Grace:Free gift of tongue, gift of miracle, leadership. Grace of Sanctification: It is given for all but has to be evaluated personally. Grace of Illumination: It is to enlighten to intellect and strengthens the will by the power of God. e.g. plan for doing something.

The Doctrine of grace: Grace in general: The God – man Jesus Christ suffered and his merit in the redemption, achieved the reconciliation of humanity with God in principle and objectively. Jesus redeemed human and sanctify them by his blood. The fruit of the redemption itself is called grace (objectively). Subjectively, the source of redemption is triune God. The communication of grace is work of the divine love, effected by the three person.

Concept of Grace: 1. The language of the theology: Theology takes the word grace in the objective sense and understand God’s gift to man. Wider sense – a natural grace, e.g. the creation, bodily heath and mental soundness. Narrow sense – grace a supernatural grace. 2. cause of grace: principle efficient – the Triune God, Christ’s humanity and sacraments, the glorification of God, the eternal salvation. Necessity of Grace: Grace is necessary because human being is helpless without grace, man is created and lived on grace, overcoming the temptation. Twofold necessity – physical – the law of nature in its being and operation. Moral – the human conditions and customs.

Effect of Grace: In describing the effects of divine favor, Scripture speaks at first chiefly of exterior and general effects, but in time it comes to penetrate increasing into particular effects within man’s soul. The Old Testament first stresses the favor of being God’s chosen people, who lived in the hesed bond with Him, since by covenant as the sprinkling of blood in Ex. 24:8 testified, for life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11). He bound Himself to act towards them as a blood kinsman and as the goel (redeemer) who is committed by covenant to rescue them from their straits. Yet the Old Testament speaks at times of other effects of divine favor. The most general word is beraka (blessing) by which men receive joy, strength, fullness of life, and a special relationship of God. More specific interior effects are mentioned at times, especially wisdom, which makes one spiritual perfect.

In the Synoptic Gospel, karis occurs rather rarely (eight times in Luke, never in the others). The picture of grace in the Synoptic is much like that of the Old Testament in that God’s favor invites men to belong to His kingdom (Mt. 22:1-14, 13:3-50),  to be under a new covenant (Mt. 26:28), and to be His children (Mt. 6:9-10). They must imitate Him (Mt. 5:48) and bear much fruit (Mt. 7:17; Lk. 8:4-15).

The Epistles of St. James and Jude do not penetrate further to describe effects of grace interior to man. James, like Old Testament, speaks much of wisdom and the law. The Petrine Epistles for the most part remain at the same level, speaking of the effects of grace as salvation (1 Pt. 1:10), light (1 Pt. 2:9), and sanctification (1 Pt. 1:2). Some texts go further, speaking of a sanctification that must be interior since it imitates the sanctity of Him who called the faithful (1 Pt. 1:15-16) and is a rebirth (1 Pt. 1:3). The penetration is deeper if the words about a Christian’s participation in the divine nature (2 Pt. 1:4) refer to the present life.

The Johannine writings speaks of effects of grace as light and truth, but also as passing from death to life (Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 3:14) and an abundant sharing in Christ’s life (Jn. 10:10) through a rebirth in the Spirit (Jn. 3:3). Insofar as man lives this divine life, he cannot sin (1 Jn. 3:6;9). The father and Son (Jn. 14:23), and the Holy Spirit too (1 Jn. 4:13), dwell in him.

By far the deepest and richest penetration of Grace is described in the Pauline Epistles. In progressive transformation (2 Cor. 3:18) men dedicated to the Christ mystery become a new creation (Gal 6:15, 2 Cor 5:17) and the temples of God (1 Cor 6:16-17). They are sons of the Father (Rom: 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26) and are no longer coerced by the Mosaic Law from without (Rom. 7:4-6), but rather are moved interiorly by God’s Spirit (Rom. 8:14, 26-27) who moves the faithful, not only to the exterior performance of good works, but even to the inner act of will, which God works in them (Phil. 2:13). On Him Christians depend for the very thought of good (2 Cor. 3:5). Paul distinguishes different effects of grace; there are the greater gift (1 Cor. 12:31), accessible to all. There are also other Charism or charismatic gift, that are not given to all. Some receive diverse external roles, as those of apostles, prophets, and teachers (1 Cor. 12:27-29; Eph. 4:7-13); some receive the gifts of tongues, of interpretation, of healing etc. (1 Cor 12:12:30).

Part II: Historical-theological development of Grace

Early Centuries: The Catholic doctrine of grace was first attacked by Gnostics, against whom St. Jude seemed to be writing “godless men” are perverting the life of grace our God has bestowed on us. St. Irenaeus continued to defend the doctrine of grace against Gnosticism “ I, insisting on the presence of the Holy Spirit in souls”. Origen emphasized “Christ's presence in the Christian”. Macedonianism, which attacked the divinity of the Holy Spirit, caused St. Basil to describe the role of the Holy Spirit as sanctifier and to develop the theology of grace. Gregory of Nyssa also treated the Holy Spirit as sanctifier but further emphasized the divine Indwelling in the souls of the just.

St. Augustine, father of Western theology, under the stimulus of Pelagian opposition, developed a doctrine of grace and predestination that still is very influential in the West. In it he emphasized the remedial character of grace and its necessity, the gratuity of grace and of predestination, the fewness of the elect, and the divine indwelling. For Augustine grace is a collection of gifts pertaining to salvation, really distinct from nature and natural perfections. Pelagius considered all sins mortal but held that men not only could and should achieve sinlessness but had. Augustine denied this. His treatise on free will was condemned at Carthage (416). Nine canons dealing with Pelagianism survive from the Council of Carthage in 418.John Cassian and others were finally and effectively condemned by the Second Council of Orange (529), under Caesarius of Arles, which asserted vigorously that grace anticipates man's Salutary Acts and causes them; these conciliar pronouncements now have dogmatic value.

Medieval Period. The Carolingian era experienced a revival of Augustinian theology under Alcuin. But shortly afterward the Benedictine Gottschalk of Orbais taught an uncompromising predestination that permitted the letter of Augustine’s thought to triumph over the spirit. Denounced by RabanusMaurus, he passionately defended himself at Mainz (848) but was condemned at Quiercy (849) and imprisoned for life. Hincmar of Reims enlisted the dubious aid of John Scotus Erigena. But John's emphasis on human liberty was so strong and his reduction of predestination to prescience was so evident that to the opposition he seemed to be a pure Pelagian. Still, Hincmar’s views prevailed at Quiercy-sur-Oise (853), where it was declared that God predestines the good and foresees the loss of the wicked, that man can choose if preserved and helped by grace, and that Christ died for all without exception. But a rival council at Valence (855) maintained a double predestination. This protracted struggle brought some profit to the theology of grace by its insistence on God's universal salvific will.

The great schoolmen, especially St. Thomas Aquinas, while remaining Augustinian, revived the Greek emphasis on the divine indwelling. But some extreme and erroneous views appeared in the 14th and l5th centuries. Eckhart, the German mystic who identified men in so absolutely with God as to say, “God's eyes are his eyes,” was condemned in 1329. The Beghards, who had identified God with grace-filled souls, were also condemned (1312) at Vienne.

Reform and Counter Reform. Martin Luther, Ockham's heir, taught man's radical corruption through original sin, which poisons good works. Luther scorned the justitiarius obsessed with the law. Justification is not through common beliefs and observances but comes from a divine decree of justification that renders the mortally sinful actions of those thus justified only venial. Hence man is saved by a juridical fiction in a once-and-for-all event when a man grasps by faith the fact of his election by God. In De servo arbitrio (1525) Luther taught double predestination, using the analogy of a beast ridden by God or tire devil, but later Lutheran theologians rejected this doctrine. He separated absolutely grace here from glory hereafter since grace is only imputed but never really belongs to the soul.John Calvin carried Lutheran justification to its logical conclusion: absolute antecedent predestination and reprobation. Though God calls all to salvation through exterior preaching, this affects only the predestined, and they cannot lose grace.

The Council of Trent’s comprehensive decrees on original sin and justification were the Catholic dogmatic answers to the errors of Luther and Calvin. The council rejected the idea of extrinsic justification and maintained that man is justified by an interior justice infused by the Holy Spirit that asserts that we are interiorly transformed by the grace of Christ.Baius (d. 1589), man must be satisfied with imperfect justice that God mercifully accepts as true justice. Condemned (1567) by Pius V, Baius submitted and died in the Church, but his theories survived in Jansenism.

De Auxiliis. The most dramatic controversy on grace, although happily not the most disastrous, was the struggle between Dominicans and Jesuits over Molinism. Luis de Molina, Sj (1536 - 1600), theologian and teacher, was opposed by Domingo Banez, OP. The controversy revolved around the questions of predestination and, more narrowly, the infallible efficacy of grace, which both sides accepted absolutely. Banez and the theologians of Salamanca opposed Molinism, for Molina’s efforts to save human liberty seemed to them, among other things, an oversimplification of the divine action. The struggle was augmented when Banez published his course (1584), and Molina, extracts from his called Concordia liberiarbitrii cum gratiaedonis . . . (Lisbon 1588). In 1748 Benedict XIV stated that all three views of grace, the Dominican, the Jesuit and the Angustinian, could be held. This controversy on grace helped to clarify the question of God's universal salvific will just when the West was becoming conscious of the existence of countless pagans.

Jansenism. Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638), tried to present a purely Augustinian theology of grace in his “Augustinus” which was published posthumously (Louvain 1640). In book 3, "De gratia Christi Salvatoris,” Jansen said that man is not really free. There is no truly but merely sufficient grace. Jansen's errors were condemned in 1653 and in 1656. A formula of submission was offered the Jansenists, but they continued to resist and their errors were condemned again by Alexander VIII, and by Clement XI in 1705. Finally the bull Unigenitus condemned the Jansenist errors as elaborated by P. Quesnel, who was called the second founder of Port -Royal.

Later Developments:  The Jesuit D. Petau (1583- 1652) recognized the fact of development of doctrine and the imperfections in patristic teaching. Though many of his views were almost universally rejected, he opened up again vistas on the divinization of the Christian by grace that prepared the way for the “theology in excelsis” of M. J. Scheeben (1835-88). St. Thomas suggests that the divinization of souls is not merely a work ad extra. Hence he taught that the Trinity dwells in the soul in grace in such a way as to set up in it personal relations with each member of the Trinity. He was sharply criticized, especially by T. Granderath. Today the nature and mode of the divine indwelling are matters of l liveliest controversy.Many 2Oth-century Protestant theologians, such as K. Barth and T. F. Torrance, differed sharply from Catholic theologians on matters of grace. Contemporary Lutheran theology comes closer to the Catholic position, though there are differences.

Part III: Theological-systematic outline of Grace

For in the light of biblical theology and a deeper appreciation of the history of theology, a much larger perspective has been given. In it the term "grace" is seen not only as a personal gift but as a whole economy. Seen in this perspective, the various aspects stressed as a result of particular historical situations are judged to be derivative and secondary. Grace, then, rather comprises the whole history of God's saving dealing with man. It signifies essentially an economy of love. As such it denotes the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—giving itself freely to man and calling for man's free response through faith, hope, and charity. It connotes at the same time Christ in the supreme moment of the encounter and this in turn embodied in the Sacraments and the Church, His Body. This approach is thus more comprehensive and more fully expressive of the theology of Scripture and the fullness of the Christian tradition.

Don’t catholics teach that we are saved by our works, apart from god’s grace?

This is a common misunderstanding by many Protestants.  Almost all Protestants believe in salvation by faith alone.  This means that, according to Protestants, while works may play a role in the identification of a true believer, works do not play a role in our salvation.  Thus when they see Catholics and their emphasis on works and how it affects their salvation, many Protestants believe that Catholics teach that we are saved by our own works apart from God’s grace.

While such Protestants are absolutely right to condemn a works-based salvation in the way it is phrased above (since it is contrary to the Holy Word of God), they are incorrect to assert that this is part of Catholic Church teaching.  Though we do differ from Protestants in our proclamation of the importance of works for salvation, we do not differ from them in the importance of Grace for our salvation.  The Protestant who believes that Catholic teaching proclaims we are saved directly by our works apart from God’s Grace, in other words that we are capable of saving ourselves entirely or partially on our own merit and not by God’s Grace, does not understand Catholic teaching on Grace, salvation, or works.  The true debate between Protestants and Catholics on this issue is not ‘Saved by Grace vs Saved by Works’, but rather ‘Saved by Grace through Faith Alone vs Saved by Grace through Faith and Works’.  This distinction is necessary for Protestant-Catholic dialogue, but it does not call in to question the necessity of Grace.

The Three Types of ‘Merit’

A lot of difficulty between Protestants and Catholics on this issue arise because of a misunderstanding of the word ‘merit’.  This is a word used by a lot of Catholics in discussions on justification (i.e. we ‘merit’ eternal life), and to many Protestants the use of such a word implies that we ‘merit’ salvation in the sense that we ‘earn’ salvation, like an employee who works a certain amount of hours in a business and, purely as a result of said work, is entitled to compensation.

In Catholic theology, however, there are three types of ‘merit’: Strict Merit, Congruent Merit, and Condign Merit.

Strict Merit is the type of merit just described above, where one is owed a reward purely based off of the work that one does on their own basis.  In Catholic teaching there is only one person who has such merit: Jesus Christ.

Congruent Merit is merit in which we are rewarded when there is no necessity to be rewarded and we did nothing to deserve it, like when a father takes his child out to get candy as a reward for cleaning up his room.  The child is not owed it, but the father rewards him for it nonetheless.

Condign Merit is merit in which a reward is promised for certain actions being taken.  Such a reward is not deserved by the recipient nor is it earned in a strict sense, but is still ‘owed’ in the sense that a promise was made to give the reward on the basis of such actions.  In the case of salvation, God rewards us for our faith and good works; but we nonetheless do not deserve it nor do we achieve such a reward by our own actions apart from God’s Grace.  God simply promised us that if we have faith and do good works, all of which take root in His Grace, then He will give us eternal life.  It is this type of merit that explains our justification by Grace through faith and works.

This is the framework of the Catholic understanding of Grace and its effects on our eternal life.  This is not a defense of Catholic teaching on this matter; it is nothing more than an explanation of what said teaching is and a response to some of the misunderstandings that surround it.  May it be helpful in your understanding of God’s grace and how it operates in your life.

Conclusion:Grace is what is given to us by God so that we might attain eternal life; it is impossible for us to attain eternal life apart from God’s grace, and it is solely due to God’s grace that we can be saved and enter into Heaven.