God’s Gift of Sufficient Grace

Having looked in detail at efficacious grace, we now turn to the mystery of sufficient grace. Like efficacious grace, sufficient grace gives man the power to do God’s will, for God never commands the impossible. However, unlike efficacious grace, the power of sufficient grace remains in potency and is not actualized, because man resists it. This is a great mystery, for God could have willed to grant an efficacious grace to break man’s resistance. Instead, God willed to permit man to freely resist the grace, and from all eternity. Nevertheless, even though efficacious grace is required to break resistance, sufficient grace empowers man not to resist in the first place. This means that the defect is always attributable to man, not God. This is because God ordains all things to Himself, and it is impossible that He should be the cause of the departure from the order of His own divine ordination. We are again reminded of the prophet’s statement: “Destruction is thy own, O Israel” (Osee 13:9).

Let’s provide a basic illustration of potency and act in the context of sufficiency. If I am sitting on my couch, my power to stand is in potency. This means I truly have the ability to stand, not just a theoretical ability. If the phone rings, I have the power to stand up (move from potency to act) and answer the phone. If I choose to remain sitting, my power to stand remains in potency. If I later discover that my wife was calling me due to an emergency, I will not be able to blame my wife for my refusal to stand up (actualize my potency) and answer the phone. I can only blame myself. Moreover, if my wife warned me earlier in the day that she would call if she had an emergency, I will be guilty of not responding to her call. Similarly, if God grants me sufficient grace to perform a salutary act, I can only blame myself for resisting the grace, especially when God has warned me in advance about doing His will.

As we have seen, St. Thomas teaches that an operating and a cooperating grace are the same grace. Critics of Thomism say this is proof that there is only one kind of grace (not two different graces) whose efficacy is determined by man’s cooperation or non-resistance. These critics misread St. Thomas. One reconciles St.Thomas’s description of one grace with two effects and his teaching that there are two different graces (sufficient and efficacious) by understanding that efficacious grace has both effects, whereas sufficient grace has only one. We recall that St. Thomas defines operating grace as the grace that presents man’s will with a good and moves his will toward that good. If this grace is not efficacious, then man freely resists it. If this grace is efficacious, then man freely cooperates with it. This is why St.Paul in Philippians 2:13 says that God works in man both to will (operating grace) and to accomplish (cooperating grace). God wills the grace to be either sufficient or efficacious from the very beginning of the operation.

Hence, a sufficient grace has an operating effect only (empowering the will to act), whereas an efficacious grace has both an operating and a cooperating effect (applying the will to act). Sufficient grace remains an interior impulse, whereas an efficacious grace produces an exterior act. Again, the mystery is that with sufficient grace, man is truly able to cooperate with the grace to perform the salutary act, but freely chooses not to, and God permits him to resist. With efficacious grace, man is able to resist the grace but does not, because the grace causes him to freely choose the good. In both cases, man is completely free, but in the former, the resistance (which is an evil) comes from man, while in the latter, the cooperation (which is a good) comes from God. St. Thomas clearly teaches that God chooses to communicate grace either sufficiently or efficaciously when he says, “[T]he merit of Christ, as far as its sufficiency is concerned, is the same towards all, but not as far as efficacy is concerned. This happens partly as a result of free will, partly from divine choice, by which to some the effect of the merits of Christ is mercifully conferred, but from others it is withheld by just judgment.”¹

Notwithstanding God’s choice of election, God gives all men the gift of sufficient grace. St.Thomas says, “For God so far as He is concerned, is ready to give grace to all ‘for He wills all men to be saved.’”² Just as God in His mercy gives man a human nature, in His justice He gives man the power to obey the laws of nature. This is why St. Thomas says, “Thus also God exercises justice, when He gives to each thing what is due to it by its nature and condition.”³ St. Thomas also says, “It is also due to a created thing that it should possess what is ordered to it.”⁴ This means that God gives all men the ability to obey the moral laws, which are ordered to man and his happiness.

In the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul says, “And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation. That they should seek God, if happily they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us” (Acts 17:26-27). God made “all mankind” so that man could “find him,” not so that man would be unable to “find him.” As the Catechism teaches, “The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself ” (CCC 27). God gives all men sufficient grace to seek and find Him, which makes salvation a possibility for all.

Even though God wills to permit man to resist sufficient grace for the greater good of the universe, this does not mean the grace is “insufficient” for salvation. This truth is probably the most profound mystery presented in this book. Sufficient grace is truly sufficient for salvation. As we said, God truly gives all men the power to obey His commandments through the grace of the New Covenant. St. Thomas explains, “And this is why the New Law is not said to work wrath: because as far as it is concerned it gives man sufficient help to avoid sin.”⁵ If God did not give man the power to do His will, then man would not be accountable for his sin. Neither would God punish man for his sin, or reward him for his virtue. As we have seen St. Thomas say, if man did not have the power to respond to God, then “counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain.”⁶ Thus, even though God allows man to resist sufficient grace, the grace is absolutely sufficient to obey God’s laws.

In fact, because God’s justice is founded upon His infinite mercy, St.Thomas teaches that God gives all men much more than strict justice demands. He says, “For this reason does God out of the abundance of His goodness bestow upon creatures what is due to them more bountifully than is proportionate to their deserts: since less would suffice for preserving the order of justice than what the divine goodness confers; because between creatures and God’s goodness there can be no proportion.”⁷ This means that God’s gift of sufficient grace is more than sufficient to save man’s soul. Man has no one to blame but himself for refusing it.

Notwithstanding St. Thomas’s teaching on the sufficiency of God’s grace, Fr. Most says that sufficient grace is really insufficient, based on a metaphysical argument. He says, “These graces give the ability to do good, but do not give the application. For the application, efficacious grace is required. Without the application, a good act is metaphysically impossible. The application is given to those who do not resist sufficient grace. But efficacious grace is required not to resist.”⁸ Thus, in Thomistic terminology, Fr. Most identifies the metaphysical issue as follows: Sufficient grace gives man the potency to do good, but efficacious grace is required to move him from potency to act. Therefore, sufficient grace is insufficient to move him to act. This is what Fr. Most calls the “vicious circle.”⁹

Here Fr.Most imagines there is an inconsistency or incompatibility between St. Thomas’s metaphysics and divine revelation, even though no such contradiction exists. Rather, the Thomist understanding of grace flows from both the metaphysical truth (known by reason) and the theological truth (revealed by Scripture) that all good comes from God and all evil comes from man.

Moreover, Fr. Most does not follow the metaphysics of St. Thomas. As we have seen, St. Thomas does not teach the principle that man’s non-resistance (potency) is the “first decisive step” to his action (act). This is a gross deviation from St. Thomas’s metaphysical principles, which hold that God is the cause of all being and action. Pope St. Pius X also warns theologians that “if they deviated so much as a step, in metaphysics especially, from Aquinas, they exposed themselves to grave risk.”¹⁰ Pope Pius XI also says, “The metaphysical philosophy of St.Thomas, although exposed to this day to the bitter onslaughts of prejudiced critics, yet still retains, like gold which no acid can dissolve, its full force and splendor unimpaired.”¹¹ Pope Pius XI even says that “the Church has adopted his [St. Thomas’s] philosophy for her own.”¹²

Regarding Fr. Most’s argument, it is true that some older Thomists (but not St. Thomas himself) held sufficient grace to be insufficient to apply man to act, based on the metaphysical principle that God must cause man to act. Nevertheless, we maintain that although sufficient grace is less powerful than efficacious grace, it is still sufficient to apply man’s will to act. It is still in man’s created power to work with this grace. God gives man everything he needs to obey His laws. Sufficient grace does not lack the application. Rather, man prevents the application.¹³ As St. Thomas teaches, “The power of the divine incarnation is indeed sufficient for the salvation of all. The fact that some are not saved thereby comes from their indisposition, because they are unwilling to receive the fruit of the incarnation within themselves.”¹⁴

St. Thomas also says, “Now this lacking of grace comes about as a result of two things: both because [the man] himself does not will to receive [it], and because God does not infuse it into him, or does not will to infuse it into him. But the sequence of these two is such that the second does not happen except on condition that the first has happened … It is clear, then, that the absolutely first cause of this lack [of grace] is on the part of the man who lacks the grace;but on the part of God there is no cause of this lack, except on condition of that which is the cause on the part of man.”¹⁵

In contending for the insufficiency of sufficient grace, Fr. Most refers to St.Thomas’s comparison: “Whatever applies the power of acting to acting is said to be the cause of that action: for an artisan applying the power of a natural thing to some action is said to be the cause of that action, just as a cook [is said to be] the cause of cooking which is [done] through fire.”¹⁶ Based on this statement, Fr. Most concludes that “just as the fire never can or will cook anything unless the fire is applied to the food, similarly a man even with sufficient grace never will act unless God applies the will of man to act.”¹⁷

Thus, Fr. Most’s understanding of sufficient grace attributes the defect to God, not man. This understanding, of course, is incompatible with St.Thomas’s teaching. As we have seen, God orders all things to Himself, and so He cannot be the cause of man’s failure to act. Using St. Thomas’s comparison, the cook (God) can be prevented from applying the fire (grace) to the food (man) because of a defect in the food (for example, the food is spoiled). This doesn’t mean the cook willed the food to spoil; he only allowed it to spoil. Similarly, God’s sufficient grace is prevented from applying man’s will to act because of the defect in man (he resists). God did not will man’s resistance; He only allowed him to resist.

In the deepest recesses of the mystery, it seems that if man would only cooperate with sufficient grace, it would have an efficacious effect.¹⁸ If this were not the case, man would not be culpable for resisting. Even though man needs an efficacious grace to apply his will to act, sufficient grace is sufficient for this purpose if he would only cooperate with it. While this seems like a contradiction, we resist the temptation to abandon the principles and simply resign ourselves to the mystery.¹⁹ Moreover, because we can comprehend the truths of sufficient and efficacious grace in isolation, the mystery lies only in their reconciliation but not in the truth of their independent existences. Fr. Most acknowledges the truth of our approach when he describes the conclusion of the good theologian: “Now we are in theology, in lofty divine matters. It is not strange if mysteries appear. Therefore, even though I cannot see how to reconcile two lines, yet I must hold both truths.”²⁰

Let’s penetrate the mystery another way. As we have seen, according to St.Thomas’s principle of God’s consequent will, when God gives man sufficient grace, He wills to permit him to resist the grace. As St. Thomas says, God does not will man to sin, nor does He will man not to sin; rather, He wills to permit man to sin, and this for a greater good. However, because God wills only the permission to reject the grace, God must also will to allow man to cooperate with the grace. If God is neither willing the acceptance nor willing the rejection of the grace (only willing the permission), then God is willing to give man a choice. This means the grace must truly give man everything he needs to act.

This does not mean God is passive during the operation, because the sufficient grace does begin to move man (presenting his mind with a good and moving him to it); but he impedes it. This also does not mean God is determined by man, because He decreed to permit man to resist the grace from all eternity. God does give less help with sufficient grace than with efficacious grace, but the help is sufficient to perform the salutary act and resist sin. Less powerful does not necessarily mean insufficient. A bicycle is less powerful than a car, but it is sufficient to take me to my neighbor’s house next door. If these conclusions weren’t true, then sufficient grace would indeed be insufficient and man would not be guilty for his sins. As St. Thomas says, “[F]or no one is charged with that which depends on another.”²¹

Perhaps the best way to explain the truth of sufficient grace is to apply it to our own lives. Let’s think back to the moments before we committed serious sins. We know that we had the grace to resist committing those sins. We know in our heart that we could have avoided giving in to those temptations. But we didn’t. We know it is our fault, not God’s fault. The people in hell will not be saying, “God, you only gave me graces that were metaphysically impossible for me to apply myself! It is your fault I am in hell!” As we said, the doctrines concerning sin and reprobation are more mysterious than those dealing with grace and salvation. We don’t know how sufficient grace can be sufficient when an efficacious grace is required. But we do know that sin is our fault and not God’s doing. Thus, we can have some comfort in letting the mystery be a mystery and putting our trust in the Lord.

We do not criticize Fr. Most for using metaphysics to address the issue, for metaphysics deals with truth and cannot be inconsistent with divine revelation. Yet, although Fr. Most raises a legitimate (but rebuttable) argument against sufficient grace, he also admits that man does resist grace and that all good (including non-resistance) comes from God. Fr. Most and all theologians would also admit that our understanding of metaphysical principles (and any branch of study) is limited by the fallible human intellect. Our finite minds cannot put all the pieces together, and we dare not say that God is determined by metaphysical conclusions. Although it may appear metaphysically impossible for man to cooperate with sufficient grace, nothing is impossible with God (see Luke 1:37). As we have shown, just because man resists sufficient grace does not mean that it is impossible for him not to resist. In other words, just as it is not impossible to resist sufficient grace, it is also not impossible to cooperate with sufficient grace. And this conclusion violates no metaphysical principles.

Scripture is clear that God gives grace to all men.²² To Titus, St. Paul writes, “For the grace of God our Savior hath appeared to all men” (2:11). To the Ephesians, St. Paul says, “But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ” (4:7). Because St. Paul opens his letter to the Ephesians with a dissertation on divine election, Calvinists argue that St. Paul in Ephesians 4:7 is referring only to the elect. However, in the next verse, St. Paul says that “he gave gifts to men,” which is a quote from Psalm 67:19. This verse in the Psalms continues by saying, “Yea for those also that do not believe.” Thus, St.Paul teaches very clearly that God gives grace to all men,even to the reprobate.

St. Peter also says, “As every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another: as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet. 4:10). Like St. Paul, St. Peter does not teach that God gives grace only to His elect. St. Paul also reveals that this grace is sufficient for salutary acts. For example, St.Paul tells the Corinthians, “God is able to make all grace abound in you; that ye always, having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work” (1 Cor. 9:8). Man is able to abound to every good work because God empowers him to do so. St. Paul also says, “[B]ut our sufficiency is from God” (1 Cor.3:5). If our sufficiency comes from God, then we have no one to blame for sin but ourselves. Jesus also tells St.Paul, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for power is made perfect in infirmity” (1 Cor. 12:9). Even though St. Paul continued to commit sin throughout his life (see Rom. 7:15-25), he had sufficient grace to resist those sins.

Jesus’ parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16) illustrates the truth that God gives sufficient help to all men . In the parable, the householder agreed to give all the laborers a penny for a day’s work. Some worked from the very beginning of the day, while others were invited to work much later in the day, but all were paid “what shall be just” (v. 4). At the end of the day, the householder paid each laborer a penny. But those who worked the longest and bore most of the day’s heat murmured against the householder saying, “[T]hou hast made them equal to us” (v. 12). And the householder responded, “Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee. Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will?” (vv. 13-15).

The point of the parable is that in God’s gratuitous justice, everyone is given the grace to receive his eternal reward; but in His mercy, some are given more grace than others. Thus, Jesus finishes the parable by communicating the truth of divine election: “For many are called, but few chosen” (v. 16).

Just as Scripture reveals that God gives all men grace and no one resists God’s will, Scripture also reveals that man is able to resist God’s grace (proving the distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace). For example, St.Paul tells the Corinthians, “And we helping do exhort you, that you receive not the grace of God in vain” (1 Cor. 6:1). We cannot receive grace “in vain” if all grace is efficacious. St. Paul also warns Timothy about those who “resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.”²³ Men resist the truth that is intended for them, not for someone else. St. Paul also warns the Hebrews, “See that you refuse him not that speaketh” in reference to the grace of Christ’s heavenly intercession (12:25). St. Stephen, the first martyr of the Church, declared to the council of the Jews: “You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also” (Acts 7:51). The Jews could not have resisted the Holy Ghost if He didn’t intend to reach them. St. Paul and Barnabas also tell the Jews: “To you it behoved us first to speak the word of God: but because you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46). Jesus also tells the Jews, “And you will not come to me that you may have life” (John 5:40).

There are countless scriptures where God implores man to repent of his sins, choose good, and avoid evil. For example, we read in Ecclesiasticus: “Turn to the Lord, and forsake thy sins” (17:21); “Return to the Lord, and turn away from thy injustice, and greatly hate abomination” (17:23); “Go not after thy lusts, but turn away from thy own will” (18:30); “Turn away from sin and order thy hands aright, and cleanse thy heart from all offense” (38:10). David says, “Turn away from evil and do good: seek after peace and pursue it” (Ps. 33:15);and, “Be converted, O ye sons of men” (Ps. 89:3). God also says through the prophet Isaias: “Return as you had deeply revolted, O children of Israel” (31:6); “[R]eturn to me, for I have redeemed thee” (44:22); “[L]et him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him” (55:7); “[R]eturn for the sake of thy servants, the tribes of my inheritance” (63:17).

God says through the prophet Jeremias: “Return, O rebellious Israel, saith the Lord, and I will not turn away my face from you” (3:12); “Return, O ye revolting children, saith the Lord:for I am your husband” (3:14); “Return, you rebellious children, and I will heal your rebellions” (3:22); “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return to me” (4:1); “[L]et every man of you return from his evil way, and make ye your ways and your doings good” (18:11); “Return ye, every one from his evil way, and from your wicked devices” (25:5); “Return ye every man from his wicked way, and make your ways good” (36:15). Osee also says, “Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment, and hope in thy God always” (12:6); “Return, O Israel, to the Lord thy God: for thou hast fallen down by thy iniquity” (14:3).

Based on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, the Catholic Church has consistently taught that God gives man all of the graces necessary to obey His commandments. For example, the Council of Arles says that “he who perished, could have been saved.”²⁴ The Council of Trent teaches that “[w]hile God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit … he can indeed reject it.”²⁵ Trent also teaches that “no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under an anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified … For God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do, and assists you that you may be able; ‘whose commandments are not heavy’ [1 John 5:3], ‘whose yoke is sweet and whose burden is light’” [Matt. 11:30].²⁶

Under Pope Innocent (1644-1655), the Church condemned as heretical the following propositions of Jansenius: “Some of God’s precepts are impossible to the just, who wish and strive to keep them, according to the present powers which they have; the grace, by which they are made possible, is also wanting;”²⁷ “In the state of fallen nature one never resists interior grace.”²⁸ In the dogmatic Constitution Unigenitus, Pope Clement XI (1700-1721) also condemned the following propositions of Quesnel which denied sufficient, resistible grace: “Grace is the working of the omnipotent hand of God, which nothing can hinder or retard;”²⁹ “When God wishes to save a soul and touches it with the interior hand of His grace, no human will resists Him;”³⁰ “There are no attractions which do not yield to the attractions of grace, because nothing resists the Almighty.”³¹

St. Thomas’s teaching on sufficient grace, which gives us the power to act freely, and efficacious grace, which infallibly moves us to act freely, allows us to hold in balance the two truths that God gives all men the chance of salvation but only predestines His elect. St. Thomas’s use of potency and act in light of these two types of graces helps us to reconcile, insofar as possible this side of heaven, God’s sovereign election with human free will. It also mandates that we attribute divine election to God (through the cause of intrinsically efficacious grace) and reprobation to man (through the resistance of sufficient grace). No other system within either Catholicism or Protestantism results in such a harmony of these seemingly contradictory truths.

SUFFICIENT GRACE AND JOHN 6

Calvinists use Jesus’ teaching in John 6 to deny the truth of sufficient grace and to demonstrate the truth of predestination and irresistible grace. Arminians, on the other hand, say that John 6 teaches God’s sufficient grace is made efficacious by man’s free will to believe. As with Romans 9, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and other texts, Calvinists and Arminians have fierce debates over the meaning of Jesus’ teaching on grace in John 6. Let’s attempt to sort out these issues by examining the applicable texts. In so doing, it is very helpful to keep in mind St. Thomas’s teaching on God’s antecedent/consequent wills and the distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace.

In the first part of John 6 (v. 1-34), St. John establishes the unbelief of the Jews. This is an important fact to keep in mind as we proceed with our analysis. Jesus performs the miracle of the loaves and fishes for the multitude (v. 11) and then travels to Capharnaum (v. 17). When the multitude discovers that Jesus is gone, they search for Him. When the crowd finds Him, Jesus rebukes them for their carnal ways. They seek Him not for His divine miracles, but because He has filled their bellies (v. 26). Jesus tells them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting” (v. 27). After the Jews ask how they may do the works of God, Jesus tells them to “believe in him whom he hath sent” (v. 29).

After witnessing the miracle of the loaves and fishes, the hardened Jews have the nerve to ask Jesus, “What sign therefore does thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee?” (v. 30). Then the Jews boast about how God miraculously gave their fathers manna in the desert to eat (v. 31). Jesus replies by saying, “Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven” (v. 32). After the Jews ask for this bread, Jesus says, “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst” (v.35). Then Jesus upbraids the Jews for their ongoing unbelief: “But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not” (v. 36).

Having indicted the Jews for their unbelief, Jesus begins His teaching on the dynamic relationship between God and man in His work of salvation. He says:

All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing: but should raise it up again in the last day. And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day (vv. 37-40).

In the first half of verse 37, Jesus says, “[A]ll that the Father giveth to me shall come to me.” It is clear that those who come to Jesus come only because the Father has given them to Jesus. The Father’s giving precedes the person’s coming. The person cannot come unless the Father gives him to Christ. In this one verse, Jesus reveals the divine causality of efficacious grace: the Father’s giving is the primary cause, and the person’s coming is the secondary cause. As St.Thomas says, “[T]he second always acts in virtue of the first: for the first agent moves the second to act. And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself: and therefore He is the cause of action in every agent.”³²

The causes are not partial and coordinated, as Molina argued. Rather, the divine motion (the Father’s giving) moves the secondary cause (the person’s coming) to act. The determination of one who comes to Christ is entirely from God as first cause (operating grace) and from the one who comes as secondary cause (cooperating grace). This means the entire operation (the giving and the coming) is a work of grace. As St. Thomas says, “Now there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination; as there is no distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause.”³³

What does it mean to “come to Jesus?” It means to believe in Him. This is because we do not come to Christ by the physical act of walking, but by the intellectual assent of faith. While the act of faith necessarily involves our freewill choosing, we have learned that God must move man’s will to freely choose the good. This means the Father’s giving results in the person’s believing. The resulting faith is a gift from the Father, as St. Paul teaches: “For by grace you are saved through faith … for it is a gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). St. Paul also says that we “believe according to the operation of the might of his power” (Eph.1:19);and, “For unto you it is given for Christ . .. to believe in him” (Phil.1:29). Jesus also says, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent” (John 6:29). This is why St. Thomas says, “All that the Father gives me shall come to me, i.e., those who believe in me, whom the Father makes adhere to me by his gift.”³⁴

Although verse 37 does not reveal how the Father chooses those He gives to Christ, we have seen that God’s decisions are not determined by man’s will or works, for “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Rom. 9:16). Thus, the Father’s giving is not dependent upon the person’s willingness to come or his foreseen response to the Father’s giving.³⁵ Instead, the Father’s giving is inspired solely by His love and mercy. No one thing would be better than another unless God loved it more. Although God loves all men, He loves and gives more to those who come to Christ, for God is the source of all goodness, including the good of our free-will actions.

Although verse 37 speaks of the causal relationship between God’s giving and man’s coming (believing), Calvinists often make too much out of the verse. For example, Calvinist James White says, “And since all of those so given infallibly come, we have here both unconditional election as well as irresistible grace, and that in the space of nine words!”³⁶ Although Thomists believe in unconditional election and infallibly efficacious grace, proper exegesis requires one to assert only what the verse asserts, and not any more. With that in mind, the verse does not mention either election or grace—terms that White and other Calvinists automatically read into the verse.

Of course, from a Thomist perspective, the verse certainly can be about divine election. In fact, St. Thomas says that one of the ways to understand the verse is in the context of predestination. St. Thomas says, “In one way, those who come to him are those who have been given to him by the Father through eternal predestination. Of these he says: the one who comes to me, predestined by the Father, I will not cast out: ‘God has not rejected his people, the people he chose’” (Rom. 11:2).³⁷ Thomists would even say that election is the preponderant meaning of the passage. However, the verse does not have to be about predestination as Calvinists maintain. Why?

Because the verse does not say the person who comes to Jesus will stay with Jesus. White says that the person “infallibly comes,” but the verse doesn’t say that the person “infallibly stays.” In fact, the verb for “shall come” (Greek,heko) denotes ongoing as opposed to completed action, and ongoing actions can cease in the future. In the second half of verse 37, Jesus says “[H]e that comes to me I will not cast out.” But this speaks to what Christ will do (the divine action) and not what man will do (the human action). If Christ efficaciously wills the person to remain with Him, then he is predestined to heaven. However, if Christ wills to permit the person to fall away for a greater good, then he is among the reprobate.

Catholics agree with Calvinists that the elect have been given by the Father to Christ. However, does the Father give the efficacious grace of final perseverance to every single person He gives to Christ? Verse 37 doesn’t say. In fact, the Father’s giving (Greek, didomi), like the person’s coming, is a substantive participle that denotes an ongoing action that doesn’t necessarily have to continue in the future. That is, the Father could cease giving certain people to Christ whom He formerly gave to Him. Why would God do this? To punish them for their sins. As we have seen in the teachings of Scripture, the councils and St.Thomas, God withholds graces previously given to punish “those in whom He finds an obstacle.”³⁸ In short, the Father could have willed to give the person the efficacious grace of coming to Christ, but a less powerful sufficient grace for remaining with Christ which the person resisted through sin.

Jesus says as much in the previous chapter. After He tells the Jews to search the scriptures that reveal that He is the Messiah, He says, “And you will not come to me that you may have life” (John 5:40). In this verse, Jesus puts the responsibility of “coming” to Him on the Jews. If the Jews weren’t given sufficient grace to come to Jesus, then Jesus would be rebuking them for failing to do the impossible, which violates justice. In the same chapter, Jesus reveals that “they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life;but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment” (v.29). If those who did evil were not given sufficient grace to do good, then, as St. Thomas says, “exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain.”³⁹

Clearly, God did not efficaciously will these Jews to freely come to Jesus. Rather, He gave them sufficient grace to come to Him. And that is the point. If “coming” to Jesus is not always efficaciously willed by God, then “remaining” with Him may not always be efficaciously willed either. Those who don’t remain with Jesus are those who “believe for a while, and in time of temptation, they fall away” (Luke 8:13). These are the ones whom God wills to permit to fail in their goodness for the greater good of the universe. Although Thomists would not view this to be the primary meaning of John 6:37, the verse does not deny the truth of sufficient grace as Calvinism does, or deny that those who come to Jesus may not stay with Him.

As we have seen, Scripture reveals that God often gives people sufficient grace to believe but does not always will it efficaciously. In St. John’s gospel, Jesus repeatedly pleads with people to believe in Him to have eternal life, but not all responded.⁴⁰ St. Paul also continually exhorts people to believe in Christ.⁴¹ St. Peter does the same⁴² and so does St. John.⁴³ We also recall Jesus’ famous invitation: “Come to me, all you that labor, and are burdened, and I will refresh you” (Matt. 11:29). In these and many other verses in Scripture, God puts on man the responsibility to believe. This is a great mystery, for God could efficaciously will everyone to have faith in Christ. Nevertheless, because sufficient grace gives one the power to believe, it is the person’s responsibility for not believing in Christ. As St. Thomas says, “But those who do not come are responsible, because they create an obstacle to their own coming by turning away from salvation, the way to which is of itself open to all.”⁴⁴

In light of the reality of sufficient grace, St. Thomas provides an alternative interpretation of John 6:37: “In a second way, those who do go out are not cast out by Christ, rather, they cast themselves out, because through their unbelief and sins they abandon the sanctuary of an upright conscience. Thus we read: I will not cast out such; but they do cast themselves out: ‘You are the burden, and I will cast you aside, says the Lord’ (Jer. 23:33). It was in this way that the man who came to the wedding feast without wedding clothes was cast out (Matt.22:13).”⁴⁵ In other words, St. Thomas sees the possibility that some who come to Christ will later cast themselves away from Christ. Thus, St. Thomas sees John 6:37 as revealing both sides of the mystery: Those who remain with Christ receive an efficacious grace of perseverance, and those who cast themselves away receive only a sufficient grace which they reject.

In verse 38, Jesus says that He came down from heaven “not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.” In verse 39, He reveals that will: “Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.” Further revealing the Father’s will in verse 40, Jesus explains that those who are given by the Father and raised up by the Son are the ones who believe in the Son: “that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.” This string of verses flows naturally from verse 37: The Father gives a people to the Son, these people believe in the Son, and the Son raises them up on the last day.

Again, it is plausible to conclude that Jesus is referring to God’s elect in these verses. But it is not a necessary conclusion. Although Calvinists maintain that those whom the Father gives to Christ are infallibly raised on the last day, verses 39 and 40 reveal only the Father’s will that they be raised. If Jesus is referring to the Father’s consequent will, then it is a certainty that those whom the Father gives are raised. However, if Jesus is revealing the Father’s antecedent will (as He does in John 3:16, for example), then not all those whom the Father gives are raised. Only those who are predestined to eternal life will remain with Christ and be raised by Him. The verses simply do not say whether Christ is referring to the elect. He may be referring to those who “believe for a while” before God wills to permit them to “fall away” (Luke 8:13).

In fact, Jesus reveals that some of those whom the Father gives to Him do fall away. In John 17:12, in reference to Judas Iscariot, Jesus prays to the Father, “Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition.” The verb Jesus uses for “gavest” in John 17:12 (didomi) is the same that He uses for “hath given” in John 6:39 (didomi).⁴⁶ Since the Father gave Judas Iscariot to Jesus (just like He gave Him those in John 6:37 and 39), but Judas fell away, one can conclude that Jesus is revealing the antecedent will of the Father in John 6:38-40. Not all those given by the Father to Christ are among the elect. As St. Thomas concludes, of those given by the Father, “some will be lost, the wicked; but none of those given to Christ through eternal predestination will be among them.”⁴⁷

The Greek verb tenses in John 6:37 and 17:12 also provide some insights. In John 6:37, Jesus says, “I will not cast out” (ekballo). In John 17:12, He says, “I have kept” (phulasso). Both of these verbs are in the aorist tense, active voice. These characteristics speak to Christ’s divine action of preserving His elect, which the Father decreed before time began. However, when Jesus says that none “is lost” (apollumi) but Judas, He uses an aorist tense, middle voice. This indicates that Judas was responsible for his own destruction, which the Father also permitted before time began.⁴⁸ This distinction underscores that the elect are saved by God’s gratuitous mercy, and the reprobate are condemned through their own fault, according to God’s eternal decrees. It also reveals that the group the Father gives to Christ includes both those preserved by efficacious grace as well as those who are given (and reject) sufficient grace.

After Jesus presents these teachings, the Jews murmur at Him (v. 41). After Jesus rebukes them for their murmuring (v. 43), He thus explains: “No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day” (v. 44). This verse reveals two important points. First (and this should now be obvious to us), if one is to come to Christ, he must be drawn by the Father’s efficacious grace; he cannot come to Christ by his own natural powers. Because obtaining eternal life with Christ surpasses our natural abilities, man must be directed (or predestined) to that end by God. As Scripture often says, “Convert us, O God: and show us thy face, and we shall be saved.”⁴⁹

Second, Jesus is revealing why the Jews don’t believe in Him: because the Father is no longer drawing them. This is the primary purpose for Jesus’ statement in John 6:44 (it is not to provide a dogmatic statement on grace and predestination, as many Calvinists contend). The Jews murmur at Jesus, Jesus rebukes them for their murmuring, and then Jesus explains why they were murmuring. As. St. Thomas says, “First, he checks their complaining; secondly, he tells why they were doing it (v. 44).”⁵⁰ The Jews were given sufficient grace to come to Jesus in John 5:40 but resisted. Now, Jesus reveals that they will be punished for their resistance. The Father will not give them to Jesus. God is going to withhold His grace from them in John 6:44 and hand them over to unbelief. As St.Thomas teaches, when God withholds His grace as a punishment for sin, “God is the cause of spiritual blindness, deafness of ear, and hardness of heart.”⁵¹

Jesus drives home this point at the end of His sermon. After He presents His discourse on the Eucharist, the Jews “murmured” at Him once again (v.62). Jesus responds by saying that “the spirit quickeneth” and “the flesh profiteth nothing” (v.63). Jesus emphasizes that belief comes from the Spirit of God and not man’s natural powers, which He also does elsewhere in Scripture.⁵² Then, after Jesus says, “[T]here are some of you that believe not,” He says: “Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father” (v. 66). Jesus, once again, explains the reason for the Jews’ unbelief: The Father is no longer drawing them. They had the power to come to Jesus in John 5:40, but no longer have the power in John 6:44 and 66. This is why Scripture says, “After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him” (v.67). The verse does not say that they merely “left,” but that they “went back.” This means these disciples had been empowered to believe (through sufficient grace), but “turned back” from this power (by resisting sufficient grace).⁵³

Calvinists make a very common error when they conclude that all those the Father draws are infallibly raised up on the last day. In John 6:44, Jesus does not say that He raises all those who are drawn by the Father. He simply says that no one comes to Him unless he is drawn. There is a direct, causal relationship between drawing and coming, but there is not the same direct relationship between drawing and raising. That is, all who are drawn come, and all who come are drawn. But whereas all who are raised are drawn, not all who are drawn are raised. As we have seen, not all who come to Christ remain with Christ. Some are given and then are “lost” (John 17:12). Some “believe for a while” and then “fall away” (Luke 8:13). Such people are drawn but not raised. The Father antecedently wills to raise all those He draws, but consequently wills to permit some of them to fall away by their own choosing, for the greater good of the universe.

Calvinists deny the Thomist position because they view God’s drawing grace exclusively as irresistible. In fact, Calvinists interpret the word for “draw” in John 6:44 (helkuo) as “drag” or “force.” For example, Calvinist R.C. Sproul says, “Linguistically and lexicographically, the word means “to compel.”⁵⁴ Although Scripture does use helkuo in the sense of compelling or dragging,⁵⁵ it does not do so exclusively. In John 12:32, Jesus uses the same word when He says, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw (helkuo) all things to myself.” Jesus is not saying that He will “drag” or “compel” or “coerce” all things to Himself. Further, because all men do not come or remain with Jesus, His “drawing” in John 12:32 cannot refer only to an irresistible grace. The Calvinist interpretation not only denies the truth of sufficient grace, but also the proper effects of efficacious grace, which does not bypass man’s free will through coercion but elicits its free-will response.

The Septuagint uses “draw” with many different shades of meaning.⁵⁶ For example, in Solomon’s Canticle of Canticles, he says, “Draw me: we will run after thee to the odor of thy ointments .. . the righteous love thee” (1:3). God also says through the prophet Osee, “I will draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bands of love” (11:4). In these verses, God draws man by His “love” (predilection), and elicits man’s love in return (“the righteous love thee”). Because love is an act of the will, God’s drawing does not “compel” man to love Him, but moves man’s will to freely love Him. This is why the God of the Catholic Church is more sovereign than the God of Calvinism. He is in complete control of His entire creation in light of, and even in spite of, man’s free will.

Although God’s drawing produces man’s believing, Scripture does not eliminate man’s free will in the drawing process. For example, the Apostle James says, “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you” (4:8). God says through Malachias, “Return to me, and I will return to you” (3:7). Scripture also says, “The Lord is with you, because you have been with him. If you seek him, you shall find: but if you forsake him, he will forsake you” (2 Para. 15:2). Of course, man can only “draw nigh,” “seek,” and “return” to God by means of efficacious grace. But these verses also reveal that God empowers man with sufficient grace to come to Him, and that man is responsible for resisting the grace.

Because the universal drawing of “all things” in John 12:32 is problematic for Calvinists, they argue that “all” in this verse cannot mean “all” (just like they do with 1 Timothy 2:4). To convince us of this conclusion, they point out that Gentiles are seeking after Jesus in John 12:20. Because of this rather nonconsequential fact, Calvinists argue that the “all” in John 12:32 must mean “all kinds” of men out of the pool of Jews and Gentiles (similar to their “kinds” of men argument in 1 Timothy 2:4). Although Jesus’ drawing is efficacious only for the elect, the Calvinist interpretation is eisegetical (which means reading one’s own preconceived belief into a text). Jesus gives no indication that He will draw only certain people out of the total pool of Jews and Gentiles, for “both Jews, and Greeks . .. are all under sin” (Rom.3:9). In fact, prior to verse 32, Jesus says, “If any man minister to me, him will my Father honor” (v. 26). As we have seen with 2 Pet. 3:9, “any” (Greek, tis) can mean every single one, which it does in verse 26. The Father will honor every man who ministers to Christ, not just some of them. This means that the object of Jesus’ discourse in John 12 is not limited to the elect.

Jesus further indicates that He draws “all men” in the world. In verse 31, Jesus says, “Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.” Clearly, God judges every single person in the “world,” for the entire “world” is in sin. This means Jesus will draw “all men” of that same world to Himself. There is no exegetical basis to conclude that Jesus will draw only some men of the world, when all men of the world are in sin. The purpose of the drawing is to save sinners, and since every single man is a sinner, every man will be drawn in some way (efficaciously for the elect, and sufficiently for the reprobate). How God chooses those whom He efficaciously draws must be sought for in the divine will and goodness of God, for “he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth” (Rom. 9:18). St. Thomas’s commentary on John 6:44 follows precisely His teachings in the Summa on predestination:

A general reason can be given why God does not draw all who are turned away from him, but certain ones, even though all are equally turned away. The reason is so that the order of divine justice may appear and shine forth in those who are not drawn, while the immensity of the divine mercy may appear and shine in those who are drawn. But as to why in particular he draws this person and does not draw that person, there is no reason except the pleasure of the divine will … So God, for the completion of the universe, draws certain ones in order that his mercy may appear in them; and other he does not draw in order that his justice may be shown in them. But that he draws these and does not draw those, depends on the pleasure of his will.⁵⁷

To give God all the glory, Calvinists often describe their theology of grace as monergism, and pejoratively label the Catholic view as synergism.⁵⁸ Of course, it all depends on how one defines the terms. If God’s grace and human free will are viewed as two partial and coordinated causes that act simultaneously, as Molina held, then such a view is synergistic. However, if God’s grace is causing the cooperation of the will, as Thomists maintain, then such a view can be called monergistic.

There is no true synergism where the primary cause moves the secondary cause to act. God is the First Cause of all action. Moreover, a man can cooperate with a power outside of himself and still remain determined (that is, he does not determine the outcome). St. Thomas answers the Calvinist charge of “synergism” when he says, “God does not justify us without ourselves, because while we are being justified we consent to God’s justification by a movement of our free-will. Nevertheless this movement is not the cause of grace, but the effect; hence the whole operation pertains to grace.”⁵⁹

Nevertheless, although Calvinists despise the word “synergism” when discussing grace and man’s will, Scripture actually uses the word to describe how God works with man. At the end of Mark’s gospel, he says, “But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed” (16:20). The Greek for “working withal” is sunergeo, which literally means “working together with”⁶⁰ In fact, from this word we get the English cognate synergize. St. Paul also uses this word when he says, “And we helping (sunergeo) do exhort you, that you receive not the grace of God in vain” (1 Cor. 6:1). St. Paul is helping the Corinthians receive the grace of God by cooperating with God as a minister of His grace. If the Holy Ghost uses a word (sunergeo) that can be properly understood as “synergize” when describing grace and free will, then Calvinists should have no problem with the word.

SUFFICIENT GRACE AND CALVINISM

As we have learned, Calvinism believes that God wills to regenerate man only through irresistible grace. If a person does not accept Christ, then in Calvinism God granted him no grace at all and left him in sin. However, if God commands that man repent but does not give man the power to repent, then Calvinism makes God a liar. Scripture teaches that “it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18) and that God “lieth not” (Titus 1:2). If God is commanding man to do the impossible, then God is lying to man. God is also mocking man by threatening him with punishments that he cannot avoid. Although Calvinists accuse Catholics of having an anthropocentric religion, there is nothing more anthropocentric than the Calvinist view of God. It is a religion created by the mind and logic of sinful man.

The Calvinist will respond by saying God’s pleadings to man for repentance are not lies because He doesn’t intend the message for the reprobate. As we saw with 2 Peter 3:9, Calvinists interpret God’s pleadings with man as exhortations to the unbelieving elect, not to all people. Because we don’t know who is in the elect, the Calvinist argues, it is necessary to give a “general call” to all in order to get the “special call” to the elect. God’s call for repentance is not intended for all men, but only for the predestinate. Moreover, even though God never gives the reprobate sufficient grace to respond to His call (remember, only the elect get “irresistible” grace), God still holds them responsible for their sins. For the Calvinist, the “general call” evidently gets God “off the hook” for such an injustice.

As we have said, Scripture never makes a distinction between a “general call” to all men and a “special call” to the elect. Calvinists create this distinction to make their theology work. Moreover, Scripture is clear that God’s pleadings are intended for those who refuse them, and not for the unbelieving elect alone. This fact refutes the Calvinist position. For example, the people Jeremias begged to repent “have refused to receive correction” (5:3) and “have refused to return” (8:5). Why would God lament of their refusal to respond, if they were incapable of responding? Why would God express displeasure for their refusing correction, if He didn’t empower them to repent?

In the Book of Proverbs, we read, “Because I called, and you refused: I stretched out my hand, and there was none that regarded. You have despised all my counsel, and have neglected my reprehensions” (1:24-25). Again, God’s call is intended for those who refuse it, and not just for those who accept it. God says through Isaias, “I have spread forth my hands all the day to an unbelieving people, who walk in a way that is not good after their own thoughts” (65:2). God also says through Zacharias, “Turn ye from your evil ways, and from your wicked thoughts: but they did not give ear, neither did they hearken to me, saith the Lord” (1:4). It would be redundant to provide more verses. If God doesn’t provide sufficient grace to those with whom He pleads, then He is commanding them to do the impossible. This denigrates the absolute integrity and truthfulness of God.⁶¹ As we have said, such continual pleadings to the reprobate would be no more than lies and mockeries—an unthinkable suggestion for our holy God.

Calvinists also deny sufficient grace by referring to those scriptures where God blinds and hardens man. Isaias reveals that God will “blind the heart of this people, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes: lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted” (6:9). Jesus refers to Isaias’s revelation when He says, “He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted.”⁶² St. Paul does the same when he says, “That which Israel sought, he hath not obtained: but the election hath obtained it; and the rest have been blinded” (Rom. 11:7). St. Paul also reveals, “With the ear you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive” (Acts 28:26).

Although man can do nothing spiritual without God’s assistance, the Calvinist errs when he assumes that God never gave sufficient grace to those He blinds. The Calvinist simply assumes that these verses describe man’s original, pre-regeneration state. In other words, the Calvinist argues that spiritual blindness always precedes regeneration. The Calvinist also assumes that God, contrary to His infinite justice, wills to leave man in this blindness without giving him any help. How such a position glorifies God, we don’t know. Moreover, Scripture does not teach that God creates people in order to blind them, but blinds them as a punishment for sin. We just saw this truth with the Jews of John 6. We also saw this truth with Pharao in the Book of Exodus⁶³ and the sodomites in St. Paul’s letter to the Romans (1:28). God does not will the destruction of the blind, as Calvinists maintain. Rather, He wills to permit them to resist His grace and to punish them by withholding His grace for this resistance.

Thus, St. Thomas teaches that both man and God are the cause of spiritual blindness: “One is the movement of the human mind in cleaving to evil, and turning away from the Divine light; and as regards this, God is not the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart, just as He is not the cause of sin. The other thing is the withdrawal of grace, the result of which is that the mind is not enlightened by God to see aright; and as regards this God is the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart.”⁶⁴ This is why St. John says, “But he that hateth his brother, is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not wither he goeth; because the darkness hath blinded his eyes” (1 John 2:11). He that hates his brother rejects the grace that God gave him to obey the Commandments. St. Thomas analogizes such resistance “to a house whose window-shutters are closed, although the sun is in no way the cause of the house being darkened, since it does not act of its own accord in failing to light up the interior of the house.”⁶⁵

On the other hand, St. Thomas explains that “God, of His own accord, withholds His grace from those in whom He finds an obstacle.”⁶⁶ Unlike salutary acts, where God’s grace precedes and produces the effect, man’s defect always precedes God’s punishment. Nevertheless, as we have learned, this does not mean God is determined by man’s actions. God wills both the permission to sin and the punishment for sin from all eternity. As we saw in the councils of Quiersy and Valence, God does not predestine man’s sin, but He does predestine man’s punishments (including the withdrawal of grace and hardening of his heart). This is because both the permission to sin and the punishment for sin are part of God’s eternal decree. As Scripture teaches, “Judgments are prepared for scorners: and striking hammers for the bodies of fools” (Prov. 19:29).

Jesus’ admonition to the Jews also reveals the truth that man resists grace. Jesus laments: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not? Behold, your house shall be left to you, desolate” (Matt. 23:37-38). Because this passage reveals that man can resist grace, Calvinists are forced to respond. They do so by arguing that Jesus was trying to gather the Jewish leaders’ children, and not the leaders themselves. Since the Jewish leaders hindered the gospel message but were already among the reprobate, the Calvinist argues that they didn’t resist sufficient grace.

This is another example of reading one’s theology into a passage. First, who says Jesus wasn’t trying to gather the Jewish leaders as well? After all, Jesus preached the gospel to Nicodemus, who was a Jewish leader (John 3:1-15). In order to prevent his theology from unraveling (by admitting that the Jewish leaders rejected sufficient grace), the Calvinist must say that Jesus wasn’t seeking to save the Jewish leaders. Furthermore, what stopped Jesus from gathering the children, anyway? Couldn’t Jesus have regenerated the children in spite of their leaders’ resistance? For the Calvinist to argue that the “reprobate” Jewish leaders hindered the children from receiving the grace of the gospel is a tacit admission that man’s will (here, the will of the Jewish leaders) can thwart God’s sufficient grace.

Calvinist John Gill unwittingly admits the same. In his analysis of the passage, Gill first says, “The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ, were not made by the people, but by their governors.”⁶⁷ But then he says that there “is no proof of men’s resisting the operations of the Spirit and grace of God, but of obstructions and discouragements thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the word.”⁶⁸ This mouthful makes little sense. First, Gill admits that the leaders did resist the will of Christ, because Christ willed to gather the children but the Jewish leaders prevented Him from doing so. Secondly, if the will of Christ is an “operation of the Spirit and grace of God” (which it is), then Gill contradicts himself by saying that there is no proof of men resisting that operation (Gill just admitted that the Jewish leaders did resist it). Thirdly, how there is any distinction between “resisting the operations” of the Holy Ghost and throwing “obstructions and discouragements” in His way, Gill doesn’t explain.

The Calvinist’s denial of sufficient grace not only distorts the truth of God’s justice but also denigrates the truth of His infinite mercy. This is the most glaring error in Calvinism’s denial of sufficient grace. Although in every work of God is found both mercy and justice, God’s justice presupposes His mercy. This means that God first grants sufficient grace (out of His mercy) before He punishes (out of His justice) for resisting the grace. As Scripture says, “All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth” (Psalm 24:10). St. Thomas explains, “Now the work of divine justice always presupposes the work of mercy; and is founded thereupon. For nothing is due to creatures, except for something pre-existing in them, or foreknown. Again, if this is due to a creature, it must be due on account of something that precedes. And since we cannot go on to infinity, we must come to something that depends only on the goodness of the divine will—which is the ultimate end … So in every work of God, viewed as its primary source, there appears mercy.”⁶⁹

Moreover, if God deprives the reprobate of the sufficient grace to be saved, then He predestines them to hell and positively wills evil. Why? Because evil is a privation of good, and God is the greatest good. If God wills to deprive the reprobate of the greatest good (Himself), then God wills evil per se more than the good (the punishment) that is derived from the reprobate’s evil. This is absurd. St. Thomas explains,

No[,] the evil that accompanies one good, is the privation of another good. Never therefore would evil be sought after, not even accidentally, unless the good that accompanies the evil were more desired than the good of which the evil is the privation. Now God wills no good more than He wills His own goodness; yet He wills one good more than another. Hence He in no way wills the evil of sin, which is the privation of the right order towards the divine good. The evil of natural defect, or of punishment, He does will, by willing the good to which such evils are attached.⁷⁰

The Church is also clear that God does not will evil or predestine man to hell. The Council of Orange says, “We not only do not believe that some have been truly predestined to evil by divine power, but also with every execration we pronounce anathema upon those, if there are [any such], who wish to believe so great an evil.”⁷¹ The Council of Valence reiterated Orange’s condemnation.⁷² Valence also says, “Certainly neither (do we believe) that the foreknowledge of God has placed a necessity on any wicked man, so that he cannot be different” and that “God foreknew their malice, because it is from them, but that He did not predestine it, because it is not from Him.”⁷³

The Council of Trent further says, “If anyone shall say that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of Himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul: let him be anathema.”⁷⁴ Trent also says, “If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined to life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil: let him be anathema.”⁷⁵

Thus, God’s gift of sufficient grace to the reprobate is a crucial difference between Calvinism and Catholicism. Catholics believe that God permits the damnation, but does not will it. The permission to do something means that one has the power not to do it. If I give my child the permission to ride her bicycle, she has the power not to ride it. Similarly, if God gives a person the permission to sin, that means the person has the power not to sin. But the person can have the power not to sin only if God gives him the grace not to sin. And for God to give a person grace means that Christ won the grace for that person. In other words, Christ died for that person. This means that Christ died for all men, which is the teaching of Scripture and the Catholic Church. Let’s look at this issue in greater detail.

GENERAL VERSUS LIMITED ATONEMENT

Calvinists deny the truth of sufficient grace because of an erroneous understanding of Christ’s atonement. Calvinists view the atonement as a legal transaction whereby Christ pays the full penalty for man’s sin by offering Himself as a substitute victim. Two conclusions flow from this premise. First, because Christ makes a full payment for sin, those who benefit from the payment are eternally secure. Christ has died in their place and has made full satisfaction for their sins. Secondly, because not all people go to heaven, Christ must have died only for the elect. Calvinists call this view “Limited Atonement” (one of the Five Points of Calvinism).⁷⁶ In Calvinism, Christ did not die for the reprobate, because God would not require a second payment from them (in hell) if Christ already satisfied the payment (on the Cross). Thus, based on the doctrine of limited atonement, the Calvinist concludes that the elect receive irresistible grace, and the reprobate receive no grace.

Although there is a coherent, logical consistency in the Calvinist’s conclusions (which is why many people fall for the error), the premise is wrong:Christ’s atonement is not a legal transaction whereby He pays the penalty for the sins. In fact, Christ could not have legally satisfied the Father’s justice against sin because He was under no legal obligation to do so. Although Scripture does refer to Christ as “purchasing” our redemption and the Passion as its “price,” it uses such terms metaphorically.⁷⁷ As St. Thomas says, “Now Christ made satisfaction, not by giving money or anything of the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest price—Himself—for us. And therefore Christ’s Passion is called our redemption.”⁷⁸ Jesus’ atonement is rightfully described as the price of our redemption, but it does not connote a legal exchange like the payment of money for goods or services.⁷⁹

Rather, Christ’s atonement is a personal propitiation of the Father’s wrath against sin.⁸⁰ Propitiation is the means by which God’s anger toward sin is appeased and His honor restored through sacrifice. St.Thomas explains, “A sacrifice properly so called is something done for that honor which is properly due to God, in order to appease Him.”⁸¹ St.Thomas also says, “Now it is the proper effect of sacrifice to appease God: just as man likewise overlooks an offense committed against him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him … And in like fashion Christ’s voluntary suffering was such a good act that, because of its being found in human nature, God was appeased for every offense of the human race with regard to those who are made one with the crucified Christ.”⁸² The Catechism of Trent also says that the Passion of Christ “was a sacrifice most acceptable to God, for when offered by His Son on the altar of the cross, it entirely appeased the wrath and indignation of the Father.”⁸³ This is why St. John says, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

Propitiation is principally a part of personal relationships and not legal ones. If I steal money from a stranger, the stranger will seek a legal remedy. He will not care how much I apologize or try to appease him in other ways. He will only want his money back. That is because I don’t have a personal relationship with the stranger. However, if I steal from my parents, they won’t care as much about the money. They will be personally offended. Even if I return the money to them, they will continue to be hurt by my actions. It will not be about the money, but about my having harmed our relationship. Whereas the stranger will desire legal payment, my parents will desire to be appeased. They will desire some sort of sacrifice from me to prove my love for them, and to restore their honor and justice. A heart-felt apology in charity will mean far more to them than a return of the money. In a word, they will want to be propitiated for my sin.

In the same way, Jesus Christ did not satisfy the Father’s justice with an impersonal legal payment for our sins, but with a personal sacrifice that appeased the Father’s wrath and acknowledged His honor. In His voluntary offering for sin, it was Christ’s charity, and not legality, that satisfied God’s justice. Jesus says, “Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again” (John 10:17). St. John also says, “In this is charity: not as though we had loved God, but because he hath first loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). Christ’s sacrifice propitiated the Father because it pleased Him more than He hated man’s sins. As a result, God offers man grace out of His gracious benevolence and not legal obligation. As St.Paul says, in the New Covenant “you are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14).

Calvinists also see Christ as a substitute victim because Isaias says that “he hath borne our infirmities” and “hath borne the sins of many.”⁸⁴ St. Peter also says, “Who his own self bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24). If Christ literally bore the reprobate’s sins and their penalty on the Cross, then He is a substitute and God would not require those same sins to be punished again in hell. This is precisely why Calvinists argue that Christ didn’t die for the reprobate. However, the Greek word for “bore” (anaphero) in 1 Peter 2:24 is used five other times in the New Testament in the context of sacrifice, and it never connotes a transfer of sin to the victim or the sacrificer.⁸⁵ The word simply refers to a sacrificial offering for sin, but not a transfer or infusion of sin.⁸⁶ Jesus didn’t literally bear our sins in his body, but offered God a sacrifice to appease His anger against those sins.

Moreover, it is heretical to say that Christ was infused with our sins, because the Son of God could never assume anything evil or sinful. As St.Paul says, “Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” (1 Cor.6:14-15). The same applies to other like scriptures. For example, St. Paul says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Gal.3:13). St. Paul also says, “Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him” (1 Cor. 5:21). Because Christ is God who is the Light of the world, He does not literally become sin, or accursed, for there is no communion between light and darkness. Instead, Christ removes the curse of sin through His propitiatory sacrifice, efficaciously for the elect, but sufficiently for all.

When St. Paul in Galatians 3:13 and in 1 Corinthians 5:21 says that Christ became a curse and sin “for” us, the preposition “for” is the Greek huper. It is used in other verses dealing with the atonement. For example, St. Paul says, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for (huper) it” (Eph. 5:25). St. Paul also says, “He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for (huper) us all, how hath he not also, with him, given us all things?” (Rom. 8:32). To support their penal substitution theory, Calvinists argue that huper means “in place of.” This is a stretch. Huper has a wide range of meanings, but the primary meaning is simply “for,” such as “for the sake of,” or “for the benefit of.” Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance does not use “in place of” in any of its definitions. Moreover, if huper in Romans 8:32 means “in place of,” then the verse would reveal a universal salvation, since St.Paul says “for us all” (huper hemeis pas). The phrase “us all” is “all” inclusive.

Calvinists rebut by arguing that the “us all” in verse 32 refers to the elect of the surrounding verses (vv. 28-31, 33). It is true that St. Paul refers to the predestinated in these verses. It is also true that God delivered Christ up for the sake of the elect. However, verse 32 is not about predestination proper, but rather the atonement, which is the means by which God grants grace and predestines man. But since all men receive grace, the “for us all” of Romans would not exclude the reprobate. This means that the huper of Romans does not mean a literal “in the place of ” substitution (since the reprobate would be included in that substitution but are not saved). Instead, the preposition huper means “for the benefit of,” and it must be understood in the context of propitiation. We see this in Ephesians 5:2, where St. Paul says, “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for (huper) us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness.” The atonement is not a substitute sacrifice wherein Christ makes satisfaction through legal payment (in our place), but a sacrifice by which Christ propitiates the Father with an odor of sweetness (for our benefit).

Some Calvinists concede that propitiation is not the same as substitution. But the Calvinist then asks how the reprobate could be condemned if Christ fully propitiated God for their sins. Ultimately, this question goes to the heart of the mystery of predestination. But we can say a couple of things. First, because the atonement is not a penal substitution, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the sufferings of Christ on the Cross and the sufferings of the reprobate in hell. Christ’s appeasement procured sufficient grace for the reprobate but did not eliminate their ability to choose evil and be punished for their choices. Secondly, even if Christ and the reprobate suffer the same penalty (they do not), double jeopardy applies only when the same victim suffers twice for the same crime, not when two or more people suffer for the same crime. Further, Christ “fully propitiated” the Father for the sins of the reprobate because the propitiation is sufficient for their salvation but not efficacious for them because of the sovereign will of God.

Thus, although Scripture uses propitiation to describe Christ’s atoning work,⁸⁷ it never uses substitution. Calvinists incorrectly use these terms interchangeably, but they have different meanings. If my sister pays my parents the money I stole from them, her offer is one of substitution but not propitiation. Her payment will substitute for the money I owe my parents and they will be legally made whole. But they will not be propitiated. In fact, my parents may be even angrier at me. If my sister pays off the stranger, however, he will likely be satisfied with the substitute payment. He will be happy as long as he gets his money back (with maybe some interest). Propitiation is part of personal, intimate relationships (such as between parents and children); substitution is not.

Because Calvinists view the atonement as a legal substitution, they also say that Christ suffered the penalties of hell. Thus, they conclude that Christ’s sufferings cannot apply to the reprobate because they end up in hell anyway. Once again, the Calvinist is mistaken. It is true that Christ descended into hell after His death. The Apostles’ Creed says, “He descended into hell.” St. Peter says that Jesus “preached to those spirits that were in prison” (1 Pet. 3:19). St. Paul reveals that Jesus “descended first into the lower parts of the earth” (Eph. 4:9). Jesus also revealed that He would be “in the heart of the earth three days and three nights” (John 12:40). However, Scripture never says that Christ suffered the penalties of hell, or equates Christ’s sufferings with the pains of hell. There is also not a single Church Father or medieval theologian to advance such an idea.⁸⁸ Rather, as St. Peter says, Christ descended into hell to “preach to the spirits” by announcing their deliverance with His Resurrection.

St. Thomas further explains that the “name of hell stands for an evil of penalty, and not for an evil of guilt. Hence it was becoming that Christ should descend into hell, not as liable to punishment Himself, but to deliver them who were.”⁸⁹ St. Thomas confirms that the purpose of Christ’s descent into hell was to reveal the deliverance of the just: “Consequently, when Christ descended into hell, by the power of His Passion He delivered the saints from the penalty whereby they were excluded from the life of glory, so as to be unable to see God in His essence, wherein man’s beatitude lies.”⁹⁰ Further, St. Thomas teaches that Christ’s soul did not descend into the hells of the just and the lost in the same way. With regard to the just, Christ’s soul descended in essence, for “He visited them in place, according to His soul, whom He visited interiorly by grace.”⁹¹ However, with regard to the lost, His soul descended only in effect, for “He put them to shame for their unbelief and wickedness.”⁹²

Because the atonement is about propitiation and not legal payment, its value is therefore not limited to the elect. Even Calvinists admit that Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to forgive the sins of all men. Calvin himself says the same. In fact, Calvinists would agree with St. Thomas that “Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race.”⁹³ With this admission, however, the Calvinist must argue that God deliberately withholds the atonement’s benefits from the reprobate.⁹⁴ In this view, God gives more than what is necessary to the elect, but gives less than what is necessary to the reprobate. As Protestant Millard Erickson says, “It is as if God, in giving a dinner, prepared far more food than was needed, yet refused to consider the possibility of inviting additional guests.”⁹⁵

On the natural level, inviting guests to dinner and then refusing to feed some of them is an injustice. Yet this analogy applies to Calvinism’s view of God and the atonement of Christ. The dinner host calls his guests to dinner, and then fails to give all of them dinner. Similarly, God calls all men to salvation, but refuses to give all of them the means of salvation. Even if the Calvinist claims God doesn’t call all men to salvation (which is not true), he must confess that, in his theology, God gives all men a human nature but refuses to give some of them the grace to obey the laws of nature. Of course, there is no comparison between the temporal fate of the unfed dinner guests and the eternal fate of the un-graced reprobate; the supernatural injustice is infinitely greater—and it is committed by God Himself! Calvinists correctly point out that a double payment for sin is unjust. But wouldn’t God’s depriving the reprobate of the grace they needed to obey Him, and then punishing them for failing to obey Him, be equally unjust?

Even though they deny that God gives the reprobate sufficient grace for salvation, many Calvinists believe in something called “common grace.”⁹⁶ Common grace is a grace that God gives the reprobate to restrain them from being more evil than they already are. For example, in describing Pharao, Calvinist James White says, “His blackened sin-filled heart was constantly being reined in by God’s common grace so that he was not nearly as bad as he could have been.”⁹⁷ This view causes more problems for Calvinist theology. First, with this view, the Calvinist admits that not all grace irresistibly regenerates the sinner (even though irresistible grace is one of Calvinism’s Five Points). Secondly, if common grace restrains an unregenerated man’s sinfulness, then unregenerated man cannot be totally depraved, since he would sin more without the grace.

Furthermore when God restrains a sinner from committing sin, it is an act of His mercy, as David says: “[M]y God, his mercy shall prevent me” (Ps.58:11); and, “[T]he God of heaven gave them power to resist” (Jdt. 5:19). But Calvinists say that God leaves the reprobate to His justice, not His mercy. Also, if the reprobate receive any kind of grace from God, that means Christ died for them (or they would get no grace). That is, Christ propitiated the Father’s anger against their sins insofar as the Father is willing to “prevent” them in “His mercy.” Finally, this truth also highlights the fact that the atonement is not a penal substitution, since the reprobate receive grace but are not saved.

Calvinists marshal a number of scriptures to support their view of limited atonement, for example: “And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21); “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it” (Eph. 5:25); “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep” (John 10:11); “As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep” (John 10:15); “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and might cleanse to himself a people acceptable, a pursuer of good works” (Titus 2:14); “For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3).

Of course, none of these verses says that Christ died only for the elect. In fact, none of the verses uses the word “elect.” Moreover, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that Christ did not die for the reprobate just because He died for the elect. Finally, scriptures that refer to the beneficiaries of Christ’s redemption (the “church,” the “sheep,” the “acceptable people”) certainly can be interpreted to refer to the elect. Such an interpretation would emphasize those for whom Christ’s death was efficacious. But there is no exegetical basis to exclude the reprobate from the interpretation, especially when other verses include them.

For example, St. Paul says, “For therefore we labor and are reviled, because we hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of the faithful” (1 Tim. 4:10). In no uncertain terms, this verse says that Christ is the Savior of all, but especially of the faithful. The Greek adverb for “especially” (malista) means “chiefly,” “most of all,” or “above all.” The adverb is used eleven other times in the New Testament, and it always describes a particular within a class.⁹⁸ For example, in the same epistle, St. Paul says, “But if any man have not care of his own, and especially (malista) of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (5:8). St. Paul is exhorting us to care for all our relatives (not just some of them), but particularly those with whom we live. In Galatians 6:10, St. Paul says, “Therefore, whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially (malista) to those who are of the household of the faith.” Again, we are to work good to every single man (not just to certain men), but particularly to our brothers in the New Covenant.

As applied here, the particular in 1 Timothy 4:10 is the elect (the “faithful”) and the class is all men (the elect and the reprobate). That means Christ died for all men, but especially the elect. That is because the grace from Christ’s atoning death is sufficient for all, but efficacious only for the elect. Moreover, the transliteration for “all men” in 1 Timothy 4:10 is the familiar pas anthropos, which St. Paul uses earlier in the epistle, in 1 Timothy 2:4. This lends further support that 1 Timothy 2:4 is about God’s antecedent will to save all men. As one can see, pas anthropos must refer to every single man, since the “faithful” is a particular within the larger class. If not, 1 Timothy 4:10 would read that Christ is the Savior of a subset of men, but especially of a subset of the subset. Such an interpretation is nonsensical.

Thus, when St.John says, “And he is the propitiation for our sins:and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (1 John 2:2), he really means that Christ’s sacrifice is for all men. In light of 1 Timothy 4:10, the “our sins” of 1 John 2:2 can refer to the “faithful” (elect), while “those of the whole world” can refer to “all men” (elect and reprobate).

In his second epistle, St. Peter says, “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2:1). In this verse, St. Peter says that the Lord also “bought” unbelievers. The word for “bought” (agorazo) refers to the atoning death of Christ (“purchasing” our salvation;giving the “price” of His life).⁹⁹ This is demonstrated, for example, by St. Paul’s discourse to the clergy at Ephesus: “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased (agorazo) with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). While Christ especially purchased the Church (the elect) with His blood, He also purchased the lying teachers who denied Him (the reprobate).

When they see a verse like Acts 20:28, Calvinists want to limit the application of the verb agorazo to its object (here, “the Church”). Such an argument not only denies the plain meaning of 2 Pet. 2:1 but also ignores that the verb doesn’t function with such a limitation. For example, in the Apocalypse, we read: “These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased (agorazo) from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb” (14:4). This verse shows that “purchased” is not limited to the object of the verse (virginal men) because the elect also include non-virginal men. Calvinists may also argue that the heretics of 2 Pet. 2:1 were the unbelieving elect. However, this argument also fails because these unbelievers brought upon themselves “swift destruction,” that is, damnation. This means that Christ purchased both the elect and the reprobate by His death on the Cross, as 2 Pet. 2:1 unmistakably teaches.

In his second letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul says, “For the charity of Christ presseth us: judging this, that if one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all; that they also who live, may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again” (1 Cor. 5:14-15). St. Paul plainly teaches that Christ died for all men because all men are in sin. St. Paul’s use of a parallel construction (pas apothnesko for “all were dead” and “died for all”) ¹⁰⁰ emphasizes the exegetical parity between the group that is in sin (all men) and the group for which Christ died (all men).¹⁰¹ St. Paul follows Isaias’s prophecy: “All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (53:6). Just as “all” went astray and died, so Christ died and bore the iniquity of “all.” St. Paul also says, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor: that, through the grace of God, he might taste death for all” (Heb. 2:9). Jesus tasted death for all (pas) because all (pas) are in sin, but not all receive the fruits of His death.

Because Christ died for all men, He intercedes for all men before the Father in heaven. This is why St. John says, “But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just” (1 John 2:1). The Greek for “any man” (tis) refers to those who sin. Because all sin, Jesus is the advocate for all men, which means He died for all men. St. John says so in the next verse: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” (v. 2). Because God loves the whole world, He sends Christ to propitiate for all the sins of the world: “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting” (John 3:16).

Calvinist James White makes a very Catholic statement when he says, “Christ intercedes for all for whom He dies since intercession is simply the presentation of the finished work of Calvary before the Father.”¹⁰² A Catholic could not have said it much better. Christ presents His eternal sacrifice to God in His role as our High Priest and Mediator in order to forgive the sins of those who come to Him by grace. St. Paul says, “But this, for that he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood, Whereby he is able also to save for ever them that come to God by him;always living to make intercession for us” (Heb.7:24-25). St. Paul connects Christ’s ability to save with His propitiatory sacrifice. Jesus is our “faithful high priest before God, that he might be a propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that, wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted, he is able to succor them also that are tempted” (Heb. 2:17-18).

Note that Christ intercedes for those who “come to God by Him.” As we saw in John 6:44, no one comes to God unless the Father draws him. Because God draws all men to Christ in some way (John 12:31-32) and Christ’s intercession is the basis for the Father’s drawing, Christ must intercede for all men. Further, because not all those who the Father draws infallibly stay with Christ, Christ’s intercession must include those who receive sufficient grace and resist it, and not just those who receive the efficacious grace of perseverance.¹⁰³ St. Paul underscores this truth by revealing that Christ is able (dunamai) to save those who come to God, not that He infallibly saves all for whom He intercedes (see Heb. 2:18; 7:25). St. Paul does not say that Christ’s intercession automatically results in salvation. We understand Christ’s ability to save the reprobate in terms of sufficient grace: Christ is able to save the reprobate, but He lets them fall away in accord with His justice. Christ is also able to save the elect, which He actually does, in accord with His mercy.

Calvinists point out that Christ prayed specifically for the elect during His earthly ministry. For example, in His priestly prayer, Jesus says, “I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou has given me:because they are mine” (John 17:9). This does not necessarily mean that Jesus didn’t pray for the reprobate. ¹⁰⁴ He could have, insofar as He willed them sufficient grace. For example, before He raised Lazarus from the dead, Jesus prayed aloud so that the Jews who were present would believe that He was the Messiah (see John 11:42). Although “many” Jews believed in Him after the miracle, “some” Jews refused to believe (John 11:45-46). Whatever Christ intended in His prayers, we know one thing for certain: Christ willed in His prayers only what His Father willed. St.Thomas explains, “But according to the will of reason, Christ willed nothing but what He knew God to will. Wherefore every absolute will of Christ, even human, was fulfilled, because it was in conformity with God; and consequently, His every prayer was fulfilled.”¹⁰⁵

Thus, if Christ did pray for the reprobate, His prayers would have conformed to God’s antecedent will to give them sufficient grace to be saved. When Christ prayed for the elect, His prayers conformed to God’s consequent will to efficaciously save them. It is the same with the prayers of Christ’s heavenly intercession. Christ’s prayers always conform to the will of God, which is why Christ’s prayers are always answered by God. St. Paul tells us that Christ who offered “up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from death, was heard for his reverence” (Heb. 5:7). Thus, when Jesus from the Cross said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:43), He was not praying for the salvation of all of His persecutors, for it was not God’s efficacious will to save every one of them. As St. Thomas explains, “Our Lord did not pray for all those who crucified Him, as neither did He for all those who would believe in Him; but for those only who were predestinated to obtain eternal life through Him.”¹⁰⁶

In the face of all the evidence against their theology, Calvinists finally resort to the emotionally charged argument for Christ’s perfection: if Christ is a perfect Savior, then He didn’t die for those in hell, otherwise He is a Savior who fails. Of course, the Calvinist admits that Christ would have undergone the same death to save even one of the elect. They also admit that Christ’s death is sufficient to save all men. As we have said, this forces them, in order to preserve Christ’s perfection, to admit that God deliberately withholds His grace (except “common grace”) from the reprobate. We have already explained that such a view accuses God of the gravest of injustices and makes Him the author of the reprobate’s damnation. Moreover, calling Christ’s death “sufficient” to save the reprobate when no grace is offered to them is farcical. Sufficient for what? In Calvinism, Christ’s death has no value for the reprobate. A billionaire’s bank account may be sufficient to pay my bills, but it has no value to me unless he gives me access to it. In Catholic theology, Christ’s death is truly sufficient to save the reprobate, because it provides them sufficient grace to be saved. In Calvinist theology, the reprobates are never given the offer. Christ’s death is insufficient to save them.

Jesus Christ is a perfect Savior because He perfectly accomplishes the will of the Father through His atoning death: To propitiate the Father’s wrath sufficiently for all, but efficaciously for the elect. God’s consequent will is never thwarted by human beings. It is always achieved. If we are to admit that God’s perfect sovereignty includes human free-will decisions (we must), then it necessarily follows that God’s sovereign act of salvation is not rendered “imperfect” by human free-will decisions. Scripture never makes Christ’s perfection conditioned upon man’s decisions. Man’s imperfection takes nothing away from Christ’s perfection because God wills to permit some men to fail in their goodness.

The Council of Valence declared that Christ “does not regard the greatness and the fullness of the price.”¹⁰⁷ St. Thomas affirms this point: “God permits the devil to deceive men by certain persons, and in times and places, according to the hidden motive of His judgments; still, there is always a remedy provided through Christ’s Passion, for defending themselves against the wicked snares of the demons, even in Antichrist’s time. But if any man neglect to make use of this remedy, it detracts nothing from the efficacy of Christ’s Passion.”¹⁰⁸

MORE FROM THE CHURCH AND ST. THOMAS THAT CHRIST DIED FOR ALL MEN

The Catholic Church has always taught that Christ died for all men and obtained for them sufficient grace to be saved. The Council of Arles (475) says:

Also that Christ, God and Redeemer, as far as it pertained to the riches of His goodness, offered the price of death for all, and because He, who is the Savior of all, especially of the faithful, does not wish anyone to perish, rich unto all who call upon him [Rom. 10:12] … Christ came also for the lost, because they perished although He did not will [it]. For it is not right that the riches of His boundless goodness and His divine benefits be confined to those only who seem to have been saved. For if we say that Christ extended assistance only to those who have been redeemed, we shall seem to absolve the unredeemed, who, it is established, had to be punished for having despised redemption.¹⁰⁹

The Council of Quiersy repeated the Church’s teachings by condemning a Saxon monk named Gottshalk (d. 868) and his predestinarian views.¹¹⁰ In chapter 4, the Council declared:

Christ Jesus our Lord, as no man who is or has been or ever will be whose nature will not have been assumed in Him, so there is, has been, or will be no man, for whom He has not suffered; although not all will be saved by the mystery of His passion. But because all are not redeemed by the mystery of His passion, He does not regard the greatness and the fullness of the price, but He regards the part of the unfaithful ones and those not believing in faith those things which He has worked through love” [Gal.5:6], because the drink of human safety, which has been prepared by our infirmity and by divine strength, has indeed in itself that it may be beneficial to all; but if it is not drunk, it does not heal.¹¹¹

Pope Clement V (1342-1352) refers to the sufficiency of Christ’s Passion when he says that Christ “is known to have poured out not a little drop of blood, which however on account of the union with the Word would have been sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race.”¹¹² The Council of Trent teaches, “But although Christ died for all [2 Cor.5:15], yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated.”¹¹³ Pope Innocent (1644-1655) condemned the Jansenist heresy, which said, “It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception.”¹¹⁴ Pope Alexander VIII (1689-1691) condemned the Jansenist proposition that “Christ gave Himself for us as an oblation to God, not for the elect only, but for all the faithful only.”¹¹⁵ The same pope also condemned Jansen’s proposition that God does not give sufficient grace to non-Christians: “Pagans, Jews, heretics and others of this kind do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will without any sufficient grace.”¹¹⁶

Based on the plain teaching of Scripture and the councils, St. Thomas is clear that Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to atone for the sins of all men. He says, “Christ’s Passion was a sufficient and superabundant atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race,”¹¹⁷ and “Christ’s Passion was sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sins of the whole human race.”¹¹⁸ St.Thomas also makes a clear distinction between the efficacy of the grace of the atonement and its sufficiency: “He is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of His blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect, because of the obstacle to it.”¹¹⁹ He also says, “The Passion of Christ is profitable to all, as far as sufficiency is concerned, both for the remission of fault and for the gaining of grace and glory, but it does not have its effect except in those who are joined to the Passion of Christ by faith and charity.”¹²⁰ And again, “Christ satisfied for all human nature sufficiently, but not effectively; because not all become partakers of that satisfaction.”¹²¹

¹. De veritate, 29.7. When St. Thomas says “partly as a result of free will,” he is referring to man’s cooperation with efficacious grace and resistance of sufficient grace. When he says “partly from divine choice,” he is referring to God’s will to “mercifully confer” efficacious grace to some and withhold it from others “by just judgment.” St. Thomas’s teaching demands this distinction because God gives all men grace but not all men are saved.

². CG, 3.159.

³. ST, Pt I, Q 21, Art 1. St. Thomas calls this “distributive justice,” whereby a ruler gives to each what his rank deserves.

⁴. ST, Pt I, Q 21, Art 1.

⁵. ST, Pt I-II, Q 106, Art 2 (emphasis added).

⁶. ST, Pt I, Q 83, Art 1.

⁷. ST, Pt I, Q 21, Art 4. In the same article, St. Thomas even says that God’s mercy is seen in the damnation of the reprobate insofar as their punishments are “short of what is deserved.”

⁸. GPS, p. 14. Throughout his book, Fr. Most says that it is “metaphysically impossible” for sufficient grace to apply man to act.

⁹. Note that Fr. Most criticizes Thomists for “trying to deduce the whole solution from metaphysics” (GPS, p. 2; see also p. 55) but then tries to rebut the Thomist position using a metaphysical argument himself, all the while rejecting St.Thomas’s theological interpretation of Romans 9.

¹⁰. Pope St. Pius X, Doctoris Angelici (1914).

¹¹. Pope Pius XI, Studiorem Ducem (1923).

¹². Ibid.

¹³. Because Fr. Most believes that sufficient grace is insufficient for salvation, he claims that “God cannot, within the Thomistic system, simultaneously reprobate any man and still say He wills the salvation of that same man” (GPS, p. 162). This is why Fr. Most says that “in the system of the older Thomists, God becomes the author of sin” (GPS, p. 196). This, of course, is not true. St. Thomas answers Fr. Most’s dilemma by saying that God antecedently wills the salvation of the man (when considered in isolation) but consequently wills to permit his damnation (in view of the greater good). Thus, contrary to Fr. Most’s contention, St. Thomas teaches that both reprobation and God’s universal salvific will can coexist.

¹⁴. CG, 4.55.

¹⁵. I Sent. d. 40, Q 4, Art 2.

¹⁶. CG, 3.67.

¹⁷. GPS, pp. 427-428.

¹⁸. If this were true, man’s non-resistance would be attributable to the sufficient grace, thereby preserving the principles of God’s universal causality and predilection. Recall also that Fr. Most, in support of his non-resistance theory, cites St.Thomas’s teaching: “[I]t is in the power of free will to impede or not to impede the reception of divine grace” (CG, 3.159). If Fr. Most believes that man truly has the power not to impede divine grace (which Fr. Most does), then he cannot at the same time argue that it is metaphysically impossible for man not to impede sufficient grace.

¹⁹. In theology, this is called a paradox, not a contradiction. Our finite intellects cannot comprehend the many paradoxes of the Christian faith.

²⁰. GPS, p. 3.

²¹. CG, 3.159.

²². The early Church Fathers also taught that God gives all men sufficient grace for salvation. See, for example: Clement (Letter to the Corinthians); Arnobius (Against the Pagans); John Chrysostom (On John); Ambrose (On Psalms); Augustine (Psalms; Genesis Defended; Nature and Grace; Corrections; Predestination of the Saints); and, Prosper of Aquitaine (The Call of All Nations).

²³. 2 Tim. 2:25; see also 2 Tim. 3:8.

²⁴. Denz., 160a.

²⁵. Denz., 797.

²⁶. Denz., 804.

²⁷. Denz., 1092.

²⁸. Denz., 1093.

²⁹. Denz., 1360.

³⁰. Denz., 1363. This statement is heretical because it adheres to the Calvinist belief that all grace is irresistible and consequently denies that God provides even the reprobate sufficient grace for salvation. It also denies God’s antecedent will to save all men.

³¹. Denz., 1366.

³². ST, Pt I, Q 105, Art 5.

³³. ST, Pt I, Q 23, Art 5.

³⁴. Commentary on St. John’s Gospel (emphasis added). Notice that Jesus first says, “All that the Father giveth to me,” but then says “him that cometh …” Jesus switches from “all” to “him” to emphasize the personal nature of the faith that is required to have a relationship with Him.

³⁵. Protestant apologist Norman Geisler, who claims he is a Calvinist, provides an Arminian understanding of John 6:37 when he says, “[T]heir being drawn by God was conditioned on their faith. The context of their being ‘drawn’ (6:37) was ‘he who believes’ (6:35) or ‘everyone who believes in him’” (6:40; cf. v. 47). Chosen But Free, p. 95. Of course, God’s drawing of people to the Son is not conditioned upon anything (including faith, which is a gift from God). As we have seen, God is determining, not determined.

³⁶. The Potter’s Freedom, pp. 155-156 (emphasis in original).

³⁷. Commentary on St. John’s Gospel.

³⁸. ST, Pt I-II, Q 79, Art 3.

³⁹. ST, Pt I, Q 83, Art 1.

⁴⁰. John 3:12, 18; 4:21, 48; 5:44, 46-47; 6:36, 65; 8:24, 45-46; 9:35; 10:25-26, 37-38; 11:15, 40, 42; 12:36, 44; 13:19; 14:1, 10-12, 29; 16:31; 17:20-21; 19:35.

⁴¹. Rom. 3:22; 4:11, 24; 10:9-10, 14; 11:30; 1 Cor. 1:21; 1 Cor. 4:13; Gal. 2:16; 3:22; Eph.1:19; Phil. 1:29; 1Thess 4:13; 1 Tim. 1:16; 2 Tim. 2:13; Titus 3:8; Heb. 11:6.

⁴². 1 Pet. 1:8; 2:6-8; 4:17.

⁴³. 1 John 3:23; 5:13.

⁴⁴. Commentary on St. John’s Gospel.

⁴⁵. Ibid.

⁴⁶. Both are singular active verbs in the perfect tense.

⁴⁷. Commentary on St. John’s Gospel.

⁴⁸. As we noted, this distinction in voice is seen in Romans 9 between the “vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction” (v. 22) and the “vessels of mercy … prepared unto glory” (v. 23).

⁴⁹. Ps. 79:4. See also Ps. 79:8, 20; 84:5; Lam. 5:21; Jer. 31:18.

⁵⁰. Commentary on St. John’s Gospel.

⁵¹. ST, Pt I-II, Q 79, Art 3.

⁵². See John 1:13; 3:6; 8:15; Mark 14:38. St. Paul also uses the “Spirit versus flesh” paradigm in Rom. 8:5; 1 Cor. 2:12-15; 3:3; Gal. 5:7.

⁵³. See also Jer. 8:5: “Why then is this people in Jerusalem turned away with a stubborn revolting? they have laid hold on lying, and have refused to return.” These people were given grace but “turned away” from it. That is why the verse says that they “refused to return,” that is, to the state of grace they formerly had.

⁵⁴. Chosen by God, p. 69. Sproul takes his definition from the Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. However, Sproul fails to mention that this same resource also defines helkuo as “a powerful impulse” expressing “the force of love” and that “the compulsion is not automatic” (p. 227).

⁵⁵. John 18:10; 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; Jas. 2:6.

⁵⁶. See, for example, Deut. 21:4; 2 Esd. 9:30; Job 20:28; Eccles. 1:5; 2:3; Isa. 10:15; Dan. 7:10.

⁵⁷. Commentary on St. John’s Gospel.

⁵⁸. Because Molinism and Arminianism hold that God’s grace is dependent upon the will of man, the theology of these two views can be rightfully described as synergistic.

⁵⁹. ST, I-II, Q 111, Art 2 (emphasis added).

⁶⁰. The subject and predicate phrase “they going forth” (ekeinos de exerchomai) is the only referent for the verb “working withal” (sunergeo), which definitively demonstrates that God was collaborating with the apostles in their preaching of the gospel.

⁶¹. Incredibly, many Calvinists see no problem with claiming that God commands the impossible. For example, about the Jews in John’s gospel, Dr. James White says, “Yes, they had been called upon to repent and believe. It does not follow, however, that ‘they were able to do so’”The Potter’s Freedom, p. 108.

⁶². John 12:40, citing Isa. 6:9.

⁶³. Ex. 4:21; 7:3-4; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 14:4, 8.

⁶⁴. ST, Pt I-II, Q 79, Art 3.

⁶⁵. Ibid.

⁶⁶. Ibid.

⁶⁷. John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, p. 29.

⁶⁸. Ibid.

⁶⁹. ST, Pt I, Q 21, Art 4.

⁷⁰. ST, PtI, Q 19, Art 9.

⁷¹. Denz., 200.

⁷². Denz., 321.

⁷³. Denz., 321-322.

⁷⁴. Denz., 816.

⁷⁵. Denz., 827.

⁷⁶. Ironically, Calvinists vehemently debate whether John Calvin actually believed in “Limited Atonement.” In many of his writings, Calvin states that Christ atoned for the sins of all men.

⁷⁷. See, for example, Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 2 Pet. 2:1; Apoc. 5:9; 14:3-4.

⁷⁸. ST, Pt III, Q 48, Art 4.

⁷⁹. Moreover, if God made Christ a substitute victim in place of the elect, then Christ would have to suffer a substitute penalty. This means that Christ in His human nature would have to suffer for all eternity.

⁸⁰. For more on the propitiatory nature of Christ’s sacrifice, see my book The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist, pp. 24-41.

⁸¹. ST, Pt III, Q 48, Art 3.

⁸². ST, Pt III, Q 49, Art 4.

⁸³. Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 60.

⁸⁴. Isa. 53:4 and 53:12. See also Isa. 53:11.

⁸⁵. See Heb. 7:27; 9:28; 13:15; Jas 2:21; 1 Pet. 2:5. Scripture never says that our sins were infused into or imputed to Christ. Rather, Scripture teaches that Christ made an offering for those sins (1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 7:27; 9:28; 10:12).

⁸⁶. Protestant author John R.W. Stott cites Num. 9:13; 14:33-34; 18:22; 30:15; Ex. 28:43; Lev.5:17; 19:8; 22:9; and 24:15 as support for the “transference of guilt” theory (The Cross of Christ, p. 134). However, none of these verses say that sin is transferred from one person to another nor do the verses have anything to do with the future sufferings of Christ. In fact, St. Thomas teaches that one is not punished for the sin of another (ST, Pt I-II, Q 87, Art 8) based, in part, on Ezechiel 18:20: “[T]he son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son.”

⁸⁷. See Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10.

⁸⁸. Nicolas of Cusa (d. 1464) and Pico della Mirandola (d. 1494) were the first men to entertain this heresy. Luther and Calvin later adopted the heresy to support the theory of penal substitution. For example, Calvin says, “No wonder, then, if he is said to have descended into hell, for he suffered the death that God in his wrath had inflicted upon the wicked!” (Institutes, 2:16:10). While Jesus’ descent into hell is mentioned in the Apostles’ Creed, the Church removed it from the Nicene Creed, which reveals that the early successors to the apostles gave it little doctrinal significance.

⁸⁹. ST, Pt III, Q 52, Art 1.

⁹⁰. ST, Pt III, Q 52, Art 5.

⁹¹. ST, Pt III, Q 52, Art 2.

⁹². Ibid.

⁹³. ST, Pt III, Q 48, Art 2.

⁹⁴. For example, popular Calvinist R.C. Sproul asks and answers the question: “Does God give the ability to come to Jesus to all men? The Reformed view of predestination says no” (Chosen By God, p. 68).

⁹⁵. Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 852.

⁹⁶. Not all Calvinists believe in common grace. Reformed theologians also debate whether Calvin actually believed in common grace.

⁹⁷. The Potter’s Freedom, p. 220; cf. p. 113, 212.

⁹⁸. See Acts 20:38; 25:26; 26:3; Gal. 6:10; Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 4:10; 5:8, 17; 2 Tim. 4:13; Titus 1:10; Philm. 1:16; 2 Pet. 2:10.

⁹⁹. See, for example, 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 1 Pet. 2:9; Apoc. 5:9; 14:3.

¹⁰⁰. St. Paul uses similar parallels elsewhere. For example, in 1 Cor. 15:22 and Rom. 5:18, St.Paul says “all die” and “all are made alive.” Because only the elect are ultimately made alive, St. Paul in these verses is emphasizing that all who have died receive sufficient grace to be made alive. In Rom. 5:19, St. Paul says “many died” and “many are justified.” Because all die and not just many, “many” in this verse also means “all” —that is, all receive sufficient grace to be justified.

¹⁰¹. The transliteration for “that if one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all” is hoti heis huper pas apothnesko ara ho pas apothnesko kai huper pas apothnesko.

¹⁰². The Potter’s Freedom, p. 241.

¹⁰³. Calvinists rely on Romans 8:34 in arguing that Christ intercedes only for the elect. While the object of Christ’s intercession in this verse can certainly be interpreted as the elect (based on Rom. 8:28-33), this does not mean that Christ intercedes only for the elect. At most, it means that Christ’s intercession secures the elect’s election. As other scriptures reveal, Christ intercedes for all men (Heb. 7:24-25; John 12:32) because Christ died for all men (1 Tim. 4:10; 2 Pet. 2:1).

¹⁰⁴. Strictly speaking, Judas Iscariot was among those “given” to Christ by the Father (John 17:12) and “chosen” by Christ Himself (John 6:71).

¹⁰⁵. ST, Pt III, Q 21, Art 4.St. Thomas has a higher view of Christ’s prayers than the Calvinists who believe that Christ could have had negative answers to His prayers. See, for example, Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free (p. 81) and John Gill’s The Cause of God and Truth, 1.87-88.

¹⁰⁶. Ibid.

¹⁰⁷. Denz., 319.

¹⁰⁸. ST, Pt III, Q 49, Art 2.

¹⁰⁹. Denz., 160b.

¹¹⁰. Gottshalk’s heresy was in opposition to another heresy called preterition (or “single predestination”) whereby God elects some and simply passes others by, without giving them grace, leaving them to suffer for their sins.

¹¹¹. Denz., 319.

¹¹². Denz., 550.

¹¹³. Denz., 795.

¹¹⁴. Denz., 1096.

¹¹⁵. Denz., 1294. The Jansenists argued that Christ died only for Christians.

¹¹⁶. Denz., 1295.

¹¹⁷. ST, Pt III, Q 48, Art 4.

¹¹⁸. ST, Pt III, Q 49, Art 3.

¹¹⁹. Commentary on 1 Tim. 2:5, cited in Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, p. 80.

¹²⁰. ST, Pt III, Q 79, Art 7.

¹²¹. III Sent. d.13, Q 2, Art 2.

↑ Back to top