>Catholic vs Orthodox on grace:
Is grace created or uncreated i.e is it only a quality imparted to the soul like whiteness being an accident of a formal cause or a movement done on it, or is it an actual substance that works in it to divinization?
>Catholic-Orthodox vs Protestant on grace
Is grace something infused in the soul that makes a person actually righteous, or does grace merely impute righteousness to the believer as a cover for their sins i.e. is salvation by faith alone or does it require subsequent grace for works?
>Lutheran-Reformed vs Arminian on grace:
Is the will of the believer captivated to God's movement of grace or does the believer have the ability to respond to God's calling to faith i.e. is salvation done by God alone or is it cooperative?
>Lutheran vs Reformed on grace:
Is man able to fall away from the grace of God or are all saints preserved until the end i.e. though salvation is done by God alone, is damnation cooperative or done by God alone?
None of these are stable categories along with the fact that many of them overlap.
Orthodoxy will always be wrong because it is clear God hates Orthodox countries and therefore made sure that they are all shitholes
That logic doesn't work since in Christian thought persecution and trials are considered blessings you should rejoice for
yuh don't think god gives blessings to the wicked otherwise this is one 1300 year old trial by being shit
lmao sounds like a cope
you'd have to prove prosperity gospel is correct
pro tip
you can't
The Catholic Church is full of pedos and the Orthodox Church is holy.
Let's see how Franc is doin- OH NO NO NO HAHAHA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_Family_House
You have no authority to rule over you, that's why your church is in schism with itself. Lmao.
cope
Ok prosperity gospel
Blessed are the rich. Blessed are thise who are not persecuted. -_-
The answer is yes.
The meaning of "created Grace" is explained quite clearly by Aquinas in the Summa:
>And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Eph. 2:10, "created in Jesus Christ in good works."
The "created" thing in question is the human, not the Grace.
Since grace, in Thomistic theology, can refer to both to God's Life *and* the "state" (a human who is in grace), created grace is used to refer to the state of being of a person who is "created in Christ" or "born again" or a "new creature in Christ" etc.
It is called created because a person must be "made anew"; the state of Grace did not exist in the person before, and now it does (and the person is a new creature, has new being).
There is no such thing as "created Grace" as a being or thing separate from the Divine Life (called uncreated Grace in Latin theology).
"Created grace" thus refers to the state or quality of *a creature* having the Divine Life. It does **not** mean that Latins believe grace is a creature.
Roman Catholic theology maintains that when uncreated grace, i.e., God Himself, is communicated to us, He has the effect of transforming us into His own likeness. This grace of transformation is called "created" because it is an effect of God's communication of Himself to us, created persons.
To use an example, let's take the Divine Energy of Love (or Charity, in Latin terms). God's Love is uncreated because it is God, and God's Loving is uncreated because God has Love for all Eternity without beginning; God never "starts" Loving. Humans who have Charity have God's Love, there is no substantial difference between the Love that humans in Grace have, and the Love that God has. When we Love, we are Loving with the Divine Energy. We must "start" Loving, however, as we do not have eternal existence without beginning. We "start" by becoming "new creatures in Christ".
-Orthodox vs Protestant on grace
>Is grace infused or imputed?
Painting in broad strokes here, and without getting into every nuance that the question raises, In the Catholic view, "justification is an announcement or fiat of Almighty God, which breaks upon the gloom of our natural state as the Creative Word upon Chaos; that it declares the soul righteous, and in that declaration, on the one hand, conveys pardon for its past sins, and on the other makes it actually righteous" (quote from John Henry Newman's book on justification).
What God imparts in the gift of grace is Himself, nothing less, and this life-giving divine gift is a metaphysical, ontological communication of Christ's sonship.
The internal renovation is essential. For individuals are both imputed with Adam's guilt *and* infused with his fallen nature; they are declared sinful, and at the same time, they really ARE sinful.
Hence, in saving us, justified persons are both imputed with Christ's righteousness *and* infused with His life; they are declared righteous because, in virtue of Christ's indwelling life and holiness, they really *are* righteous.
>If the sinner is to be freed from God's disfavor, it will not at all suffice for God to cover up the sinful deed with the cloak of forgetfulness, and simply remit the guilt in response to the sinner's repentance. To forgive the sin fully, God must again confer on man that favor and grace which He had bestowed on him before he sinned. God must again draw man up to His bosom as His child, regenerate him to new divine life, and again clothe him with the garment of His children, the splendor of His own nature and glory.
The remission of sins is possible because the grace of Christ is infused into the person, making him a child of God.
Source: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a134.htm
1/2
Why do you think OP wrote
>None of these are stable categories along with the fact that many of them overlap.
Maybe fricking read the post before you start to actually criticize it. It's impossible to list every single nuance in each theology, especially when the goal here is to only give a generalized account of the teachings of each tradition.
Relax. I didn't criticize anybody, much less the OP. I simply responded to the questions posed, and explained the differences between Catholic and EO on the matter of "created grace," and Catholics and Protestants on infused versus imputed righteousness.
>Maybe read the post before you start to actually criticize it.
I suggest you take your own advice.
>especially when the goal here is to only give a generalized account of the teachings of each tradition.
Which is exactly what I did.
2/2
To explain "imputed" or "forensic" justification, I’ll quote the Protestant definition from Protestant sources:
>….justification, instead of being an efficient act changing the inward character of the sinner, is a declarative act, announcing and determining his relation to the Law and justice of God.
Charles Hodge, Justification Is a Forensic Act.
>[J]ustification, according to Calvin, doesn’t mean we are made righteous but that we are counted as righteous; believers are not transformed in justification, but forgiven. Justification is extrinsic instead of intrinsic, so that those who are justified have a new status before God. Our justification, then, is perfect from the beginning. Believers don’t become more justified as they progress in holiness, for justification doesn’t denote inner renewal but the declaration from God that one is acquitted and not guilty before him.
Source: https://www.9marks.org/article/a-brief-look-at-john-calvin-on-imputation/
Catholics agree with Protestants that justification does have a forensic aspect: we *are* "declared righteous."
However, in the Catholic view, justification goes beyond a mere declaration of righteouness. It includes, as well, an inner renewal by grace.
An interesting question is the extent to which the philosophy of nominalism influenced both Luther and Calvin's theological positions respecting grace and justification:
>The nominalist impact on Lutheranism and Calvinism came to the fore particularly in the tendency to interpret the divine-human relationship in external or nominal – rather than in participatory or real – terms. The Reformation teaching on justification by faith alone (sola fide) exemplified a great deal of continuity with the nominalist tradition. This continuity centered on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The imputation—according to the Reformers, a forensic declaration—was external or nominal in nature. Luther’s notion that the believer was at the same time righteous and sinner (simul iustus et peccator) gave strong evidence of the nominal character of salvation. While believers were righteous in Christ, they remained sinners in themselves....
>Calvin, much like Luther, was intent on keeping justification separate from human works. In order to do this, he, too, maintained that justification was a nominal or external judicial declaration rather than an internal transformation worked by the Holy Spirit.
>The underlying pattern of the Reformation doctrine, with its strong focus on imputation, would not have been possible without the nominalist developments of the late Middle Ages.
Source: https://robinmarkphillips.com/calvin-nominalist-part-1-historical-theological-background/
Grace is uncreated because it is intrinsically bound with the nature of God as Supreme Judge and architect of Love. Only God *can* bestow grace.
If you sin against me, I can forgive you, but I cannot forgive whatever sins you committed which didn't involve me.
I don't disagree with that.
Marvel has better superheroes than DC
-Reformed vs Arminian on grace:
>Is the will of the believer captivated to God's movement of grace or does the believer have the ability to respond to God's calling to faith i.e. is salvation done by God alone or is it cooperative?
I would be curious to read a clear explanation of this conflict. I see it alluded to, but never understood it, not being a Protestant.