Category Archives: Creation

Patristic Theology of Man and Grace

The Fathers of the Church, by reflecting on revealed truth, contributed much to our understanding of the human person.  As created in the image and likeness of God but wounded by original sin, reflecting on man can tell us something of God, and likewise, reflecting on God tells us something of man. Ultimately, we were created by God and for God, and it is this overarching theme that must form the basis of any reflection on the human person.

The first major theme of the Fathers is that of the created human person.  The human person is created, according to revelation, in the image and likeness of God.  All things reflect God in some way, but man (and in this way he is also like the angels) has intellect and will.  He is therefore free in a way other created beings, rather animate or inanimate, are not.  Man, then, is in some way master of his own decisions and, ultimately, his end. But man is made, as we said, not only by God but for God, and because of this, his only rightful end is to choose God. He is not, therefore, free to choose what his end should be, but he is free to choose or reject that which he was created for.

This brings us to the second great theme of the Fathers on this subject; that of the original state of humankind. Man was created in what might be called the state of original justice. He was created with natural gifts, preternatural gifts, and supernatural gifts. A natural gift is that which is proper to the structure of nature.  A preternatural gift is that which goes beyond the structure of the nature of the material universe (from “praeter naturam”, beyond nature).  A supernatural gift is that which goes beyond any created nature, and belongs only to God.

However, original sin, or the Fall, injured but did not erase completely, all of these gifts. But “O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer.” We come to a third theme of the Fathers, that of the Redeemer and of the justification, through grace, of man.

Man lost, through his rejection of God, and this due to pride, his share in the divine life. The supernatural gifts in man were lost through sin, the preternatural gifts erased, and even the natural strengths of man were greatly injured (This is not to be confused with the error of total depravity. Man is wounded in the sense that he lost the preternatural gifts so the natural gifts did not work well together  but they remain in their natural orientation:  the intellect to truth, the will to good and the passions to be obedient to reason.  The preternatural gifts insured they would be used well). The infinite God was rejected by finite man, and only an infinite love could redeem man. Man, however, has no way of such an offer to God, and so grace alone, God’s own gift of self, would be required.

The salvation of man, then, depends on the supernatural grace of God. Through our Redeemer, Christ Jesus, we are made “partakers of the divine nature” and it has been said that “God became man so that man might become God.” This is, of course, meant in no pantheistic way, but is consistent with revealed truth, which tells us that “we will be like God, for we shall see Him as He is.”

Grace, however, does not rule out man’s free will and his participation in his own salvation. As St. Augustine tells us, “God who created you without you, will not save you without you.” God wills that all be saved, but we remain free, and many reject the salvation offered by God through His Son. To those then that are saved, all glory is due to God.  But to those that are damned, the fault is completely their own.

Of course, this teaching, which is that of the Fathers in general and of Augustine, the “Doctor of Grace,” specifically, has always been a controversial one, and because of this, especially in light of the Reformation and its disputes on faith and works, many of the other aspects of the Fathers on the doctrine of Grace has received less attention than they deserve.

The doctrines of the divinization of man and the indwelling of the Trinity in man are key to understanding the Patristic teachings on grace, and again, because of the focus on faith and works for the last several centuries, sadly, much of the Fathers’ teaching on these topics is not well known.

The bestowal of grace and gifts is the work of the Trinity. Grace is a gift that comes from the Father, comes through the Son, and is given in the Holy Spirit. This could lead us into the patristic understanding of the Trinity itself, where the Father has a primacy of origin but not of nature, and into the appropriations within the Trinity, as discussed especially by St. Augustine. But here, we note that, although God is One and in His being works as one toward creation, the Persons do act in their own ways towards creation. This, of course, we only know through revelation, and the Fathers reflect on this at great length.

There is no doubt, however, that the understanding of grace and free will was of great importance in the writings of the earliest Christians, and much was debated and discussed from the earliest times. Controversies certainly arose in reconciling the providence of God with the freedom of man, and the greatest of these controversies was that of Pelagius and Augustine. But even Augustine, who preached so strongly the primacy of grace (Command what you will; give what you command“), tells us that “God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you do what you can and to pray for what you cannot.”

The Church Fathers have a deep and rich reflection on man, his creation in the image and likeness of God, and of his salvation through the Grace of God merited through our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Only the slightest introduction, of course, could be offered here in so short an essay, but a lifetime could be spent reflecting on the great patristic contribution that has been left to us as a wonderful gift.

Grace does not destroy, but rather perfects nature

This article is a revised and expanded version of an earlier post, so much will be familiar to one who has read it, of course.

Gravity, Predestination, and Occasionalism: How God’s grace works

If one where to ask the question “why does a rock fall when released from the hand,” it would, no doubt, be a true yet odd answer to say that “God wills it.”  Yet, we must not argue that indeed, the falling of the rock does not escape God’s providence.  It certainly did not catch Him by surprise.

However, when asking the question, we are usually seeking the more proximate answer.  To say that “the rock falls because of gravity,” that still hardly understood force that draws massive objects toward one another, is to in no way infringe upon God’s power and providence.

In fact, we could not believe in miracles if we did not believe in a normal order of the world, created by God, in which things had proximate causes.  By this, I mean that, if we did not understand it to be that gravity is what caused a thing to fall to the ground, we would make no sense in saying that a levitation of an object is miraculous.  It would simply be “that particular occasion” of God’s will.  We could say that, in our experience, God seems to more often will a rock to fall than to levitate, but we could in no way make a distinction between the one being natural and the other being miraculous.

Miracles, by definition, do not destroy belief in a natural world, as many that reject the faith assume, but rather, presuppose it.  Likewise, grace, that super-immanent power of God, does not destroy nature but perfects it, elevates it.

Once a miracle enters reality, it acts with reality.  Miracles enter the world from without, but behave within it once present.  Take the loaves and the fish.  Once present, the loaves and the fish are “loaves and fish;” they feed hungry human beings and are part of nature.

If we deny that grace works with nature and instead say that it supercedes it, indeed replaces and destroys it, we have an analogous problem with miracles and can no longer assume a God who is not simply arbitrary in His will and design.  One is free, I imagine, to believe in such a God, as is the result of nominalist thinking along the lines of William of Occam, which undoubtedly leads to occasionalism, a close partner.

But once we accept this, we say that things are so merely because God says they are, to the point where, if God commanded murder, if God commanded even idolotry and denial of God by humans, these would by that fact be the right things to do.

This is, indeed, the teaching of Islam, and the teaching of reformed (Calvinist) theology within Christianity. Things happen because of God’s will, but apart from this being in line with His nature as goodness itself. One may look to Plato’s Euthyphro to see an in-depth discussion of whether things are good because God says so or if God says so because they are good.  The Christian answer, for centuries, has always been that it is both, and that it is a false dichotomy to ask the either/or question.

However, in those that fall into the camps of either emphasizing God’s sovereignty to the detriment of man’s freedom (John Calvin) or emphasizing man’s freedom to the detriment of God’s sovereignty (Jacobus Arminius), the old problem has returned.  We need, instead, the clear picture that God’s goodness, His will, His love, and all of the features we apply to God are indeed one and simple in Him, who simply IS.

Why, then, do we struggle to understand the place of our free will and our works in salvation?

St. Thomas teaches us, in the most clear manner, the truth of Predestination and man’s cooperation through God’s grace:

Wherefore we must say otherwise that in predestination two things are to be considered–namely, the divine ordination; and its effect. As regards the former, in no possible way can predestination be furthered by the prayers of the saints. For it is not due to their prayers that anyone is predestined by God. As regards the latter, predestination is said to be helped by the prayers of the saints, and by other good works; because providence, of which predestination is a part, does not do away with secondary causes but so provides effects, that the order of secondary causes falls also under providence. So, as natural effects are provided by God in such a way that natural causes are directed to bring about those natural effects, without which those effects would not happen; so the salvation of a person is predestined by God in such a way, that whatever helps that person towards salvation falls under the order of predestination; whether it be one’s own prayers or those of another; or other good works, and such like, without which one would not attain to salvation. Whence, the predestined must strive after good works and prayer; because through these means predestination is most certainly fulfilled. For this reason it is said: “Labor more that by good works you may make sure your calling and election” (2 Peter 1:10).

Man is Created by Nature to See God

What is man, by nature, called to do? Or more correctly put, what is man’s fulfillment? What is it that is the act by which man’s potentiality is perfected? It is to see God.  But “Man is called to an end by nature that he cannot attain by nature, but only by grace because of the exalted character of the end.” (Fr. Mullady, Lecture on Nature and Grace).

Grace is needed because man’s end as an intellectual creature is to know the first cause.  He is to “see God as He is” (1John 3:2). But can we really “be like God?” Of course we cannot be like Him in a univocal way, as no created being can in any way match the uncreated One, Being Himself. Yet, “all created beings, so far as they are beings, are like God; moreover, in many this likeness is in life and intelligence. Not infrequently Holy Scripture speaks of this likeness, even of the likeness according to image, as when it says: ‘Let us make man to our image and likeness.’ (Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, The One God, Ch. 4)

Aristotle opens his Metaphysics with the well known phrase that “all men by nature desire to know,” and here he shows the wisdom that our desire for God is fulfilled in the intellect.  We are created by God to know God.  Without knowing of revelation, and seeing man in his fallen state without realizing the existence of a fall from grace, Aristotle had no way of knowing that man could actually attain this knowing of God. But with grace, we can actually know God, and “see Him as He is.” We will never comprehend God, for that is not even possible with grace, and this again because grace does not replace or destroy nature but perfects it.

Saved by Grace Alone, through Faith and Works as Gifts of Grace

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Fr. Garriogou Lagrange, when speaking on grace and especially on predestination, always emphasis the importance of 1Cor 4:7: “what hast thou that thou hast not received?” But with grace, we receive the faith to believe in God and believe God, and to live according to what He tells us we must do, in order to attain the perfection of our nature, the fulfillment of our natural desire to “know thee, the only true God,” (John 17:3) for “you have created us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.” (Confessions)

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” It is this Christ “who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will” and who will “render to every man according to his deeds:  To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life.” Certainly, it is by grace we are saved and “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

But do not be fooled; these works are part of how we are judged unto salvation or damnation, when Christ “will sit on his glorious throne.  All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.”

All these, both sheep and goats, are judged by what they did or did not do.  It is by grace, a pure gift, that I may be saved, but I find no evidence that Christ will say, at the judgement, “come, you who were predestined by grace apart from works” but rather we know from the mouth of the King of Kings that we will hear one of two things:

‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.  For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,  I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’


‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,  I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

It is God’s will that a rock fall when released from the hand., but it is His will that this be caused by gravity. It is grace that will save us, and by this grace, God wills that what we do or do not do will be the standard by which we are judged.

Why I can’t support “Intelligent Design”

Why I can’t support “Intelligent Design,” at least in the form typically defended by its adherents.

Well, needless to say, I am a Thomist.  St. Thomas shows that we look upon creation as a change, whereas in reality it is not a change, saying:

“Change means that the same something should be different now from what it was previously.” (Summa Theologica)

But this is impossible in the case of creation, because the subject that is to undergo the change is not as yet in existence. The following two short videos say this quite well, and show why a true understanding of creation ex nihilo (from nothing) is not compatible with the popular Intelligent Design theories:

Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers (1/2)

Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers (2/2)

If one pays careful attention, one will see the nominalism (in the form of occasionalism) that is prevalent in the error of the Intelligent Design apologists.  Obviously, I am, again, no fan of William of Ockham and the errors he introduced into our modern thought.  These errors have not only influenced the Darwinists (those of atheistic tendencies) but also the defenders of creation that want to reject Darwin.

A wonderful book that includes insight into this in a late chapter from a philosophical and scientific view is The Savior of Science, Chapter 6.