The doctrine of Sola Gratia ("grace alone") is the third of the five founding solae of the Protestant Reformation. It concerns specifically the source of salvation — affirming that salvation is the work of God's grace alone, without any meritorious cooperation of the human free will. Often confused with sola fide, it is strictly distinct from it: sola fide concerns the mode of reception of salvation (faith, without works); sola gratia concerns the origin of salvation (divine grace, without human cooperation).
The most radical formulation is that of Martin Luther in his De servo arbitrio ("On the Enslaved Will," December 1525)[1] — a violent polemical reply to Erasmus of Rotterdam's Diatribe on Free Will (De libero arbitrio diatribe) (September 1524)[2]. Luther maintains there that the human free will is radically destroyed by original sin: without grace man can do nothing but sin, and he cannot even cooperate freely with that grace. This position was taken up and radicalized by John Calvin in the Institutio II, 2-5 (free will destroyed) and III, 21-24 (double predestination)[3], then fixed by the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) in its Canons[4] — from whose theology later English-speaking writers drew the acronym TULIP — see Calvinist Predestination.
Catholic doctrine holds a rigorous middle way between two extremes: Pelagianism (condemned as early as the Council of Carthage in 418)[5], which claimed that man can save himself by his own powers without grace; and strict Lutheranism, which denies all free human cooperation. The Council of Orange II (529)[6] and the Council of Trent (Session VI, 1547)[7] define the Catholic position: prevenient grace (gratia praeveniens) is absolutely first and necessary — without it no man can begin to will the good — but free will, wounded by original sin without being destroyed, cooperates freely under the motion of that grace.
This article sets out the Protestant formulation, presents the classical Catholic doctrine of grace (with the Thomist distinctions gratia praeveniens / habitualis / cooperans), traces the great patristic, medieval, and modern stages of the debate (Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, Gottschalk, Thomas, Baius, Jansenius, the De Auxiliis controversy), treats seven classic Protestant objections with their sourced Catholic answers, and presents the contemporary ecumenical assessment (JDDJ 1999 § 15).
The Protestant Formulation
The Erasmus-Luther Debate (1524-1525)
The founding debate of Protestant sola gratia took place between Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) and Martin Luther in 1524-1525.
September 1524 — Erasmus publishes at Basel De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio ("Diatribe or Conference on Free Will"). The Catholic humanist's position: the human free will, wounded by original sin but not destroyed, cooperates with God's grace. Erasmus relies on the biblical passages exhorting conversion (“Repent”, Mt 4:17 — which presuppose the free possibility of responding) and on the teaching of the late Saint Augustine (De gratia et libero arbitrio, c.
426).
December 1525 — Luther replies with De servo arbitrio ("On the Enslaved Will"), published at Wittenberg. It is his most systematic theological treatise — Luther himself, in a letter to Wolfgang Capito (1537)[8], declares that of his writings he would have only this work and his Catechism (1529) reprinted. In it he maintains:
“If you deny what Scripture says, I have nothing more to say to you. If you admit what it says, that there is no righteousness before God without Christ — then free will is nothing but the slave of sin, death, and Satan.” — Martin Luther, De servo arbitrio, WA 18, p. 786[9]
And more radically:
“Free will is an empty word; what actually happens is that man is under the necessity of sin and damnation.” — Martin Luther, De servo arbitrio, WA 18, p. 638[10]
Luther uses the famous metaphor of the ridden horse: man is like a horse that does not choose its rider — either God rides him toward salvation, or Satan rides him toward damnation, but the horse (man) has no power to choose. This is the radical destruction of free will as a principle of supernatural action.
Calvin and the Systematization
John Calvin takes up the Lutheran position in his Institutio christianae religionis (definitive Latin edition of 1559)[11]. In Book II, chapter 3, he radicalizes Luther's horse metaphor:
“The human will is so enslaved to malice and corruption that it can strive after nothing good. […] We must therefore hold this resolve, that so far is man from being able by his own motion to crawl up to God, or to approach Him ever so little, that on the contrary no upright heart, or good will, can in any way proceed from us, except insofar as God regenerates us.” — John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion II, 3, 5[12]
On double predestination, Calvin writes:
“We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which He determined what He willed to do with each man. For He does not create them all in the same condition, but ordains some to eternal life, others to eternal damnation.” — John Calvin, Institutes III, 21, 5[13]
Further on, he embraces the harshness of this doctrine, speaking of a decretum horribile — a “horrible decree” yet just (Institutio III, 23, 7)[14].
The Synod of Dort (13 November 1618 – 9 May 1619), bringing together 84 theologians from the Netherlands and 27 foreign delegates to condemn the Arminian Remonstrants (who defended in five articles of 1610 a conditional predestination founded on divine foreknowledge), promulgated on 6 May 1619 the Canones Synodi Dordrechtanae. These 59 articles, structured in five chapters, are what 19th-century theology summed up in the acronym TULIP[15]:
- T — Total depravity: total corruption of man by original sin — free will is now only a slave of sin
- U — Unconditional election: unconditional election (without consideration of foreseen merits)
- L — Limited atonement: redemption limited to the elect alone
- I — Irresistible grace: irresistible grace — the elect cannot refuse conversion
- P — Perseverance of the saints: final perseverance of the elect
This is the maximalist formulation of sola gratia. For detail, see Calvinist Predestination.
The Place of the Five Solae in Protestant Architecture
Protestants classically distinguish the two formal principles and three material principles:
| Solae | Status | Concerns |
|---|---|---|
| Sola Scriptura | Formal principle of authority | Scripture alone carries authority |
| Sola Fide | Material principle | Mode of reception of salvation |
| Sola Gratia | Material principle | Source of salvation |
| Solus Christus | Material principle | Unique mediator |
| Soli Deo Gloria | Final principle | End of salvation |
Sola gratia is thus the theocentric point of the five solae — affirming that God alone acts in salvation, without the least created concurrence.
The Catholic Doctrine of Grace
The Classic Thomist Distinctions
Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae I-II, questions 109-114, articulates the Catholic doctrine of grace in several canonical distinctions inherited from Saint Augustine:
1. Prevenient / prevening grace (gratia praeveniens) — the grace that precedes every free movement of the soul, enlightening the intellect and inclining the will toward the good without constraining it. Scriptural foundation: John 6:44 (“No one can come to me unless the Father draws him”); Revelation 3:20 (“I stand at the door and knock”); Philippians 2:13 (“It is God who works in you to will and to act”).
2. Concomitant / habitual grace (gratia habitualis) — the sanctifying grace that abides in the soul as an infused permanent quality (habitus infusus), a participation in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Defined dogmatically by Trent Session VI, ch. 7-8 (Denzinger §§ 1528-1532).
3. Cooperating / subsequent grace (gratia cooperans) — the grace that acts in and with the cooperation of the free will once converted. Saint Augustine formulates the distinction in De gratia et libero arbitrio (c. 426): “He works therefore without us so that we may will; but when we will, and will in acting, He cooperates with us”[16].
4. Actual vs. sanctifying grace — actual grace is a specific transient movement of God for a precise act; sanctifying grace is the permanent state infused in the soul.
5. Sufficient vs. efficacious grace — the classic distinction of the De Auxiliis controversy (1598-1607) between Thomists (Domingo Báñez: sufficient = giving the power, efficacious = producing the act) and Molinists (Luis de Molina: middle knowledge and simultaneous concurrence). A question left open by Paul V in 1607 (“neither position shall be imposed”).
The Council of Orange II (529) — A Too-Often-Forgotten Central Text
At the impetus of Saint Caesarius of Arles (470-542), the regional council of Orange met on 3 July 529 to close the semi-Pelagian debate definitively (Cassian and the school of Lérins having maintained that the first movement of the soul toward salvation comes from the human free will, grace arriving only afterward). The council, in 25 canons plus a conclusion, fixes the strict Augustinian doctrine:
Canon 5:
“If anyone says that the very beginning of faith, the very impulse of belief by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and attain the regeneration of holy baptism — resides not in us through the gift of grace, that is, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will from unbelief to faith, but resides naturally in us, let him be proved an adversary of the apostolic dogmas.” — Council of Orange II, canon 5 (Denzinger § 375)[17]
And the famous canon 4 on prevenient grace:
“If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to cleanse us from sin, and does not profess that it is also through the infusion and interior working of the Holy Spirit in us that we will to be cleansed, he resists the Holy Spirit.” — Council of Orange II, canon 4 (Denzinger § 374)
Confirmed by Pope Boniface II in 531, the Council of Orange II is doctrinally received as magisterial in the universal Church — it fixed for 1,500 years the Catholic doctrine of absolute yet cooperating prevenient grace.
Trent Session VI (1547) — The Complete Anti-Lutheran Answer
The Council of Trent, in the Decree on Justification of Session VI (13 January 1547), takes up Augustine and Orange II in formulating the Catholic position against the radical Lutheran sola gratia:
Chapter 5 (Denzinger § 1525) — “On the necessity of preparation for justification in adults, and whence it comes”:
“The holy council further declares that in adults, the beginning of this justification must be drawn from the prevenient grace (praeveniens gratia) of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His calling, by which they are called without any prior merit of their own.”
Chapter 6 (Denzinger § 1526) — “On the manner of preparation”:
“Stirred up and helped by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised.”
Note: “freely moved” (libere moveri) — Trent affirms freedom maintained in cooperation.
Canon 4 (Denzinger § 1554) — against the Lutheran denial of free will:
“If anyone says that man's free will, moved and stirred up by God, by consenting to God who stirs and calls, cooperates in nothing toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification; and that it cannot dissent if it wills, but that, like some inanimate thing, it does nothing at all and merely remains passive: let him be anathema.” — Council of Trent, Session VI, canon 4 (Denzinger § 1554)[18]
Canon 5 (Denzinger § 1555):
“If anyone says that man's free will was lost and extinguished after Adam's sin; or that it exists in word or name only, indeed a title without reality, and even a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church: let him be anathema.” — Council of Trent, Session VI, canon 5 (Denzinger § 1555)[19]
Canon 6 (Denzinger § 1556) — against Calvinist predestination:
“If anyone says that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that God works evil works as well as good ones — not only by permission, but properly and of Himself — so that the betrayal of Judas is no less His own work than the calling of Saint Paul: let him be anathema.”
These canons are still doctrinally binding for the Catholic Church today. The 1999 JDDJ did not lift these anathemas — it established a differentiated consensus on the doctrine as presented in the JDDJ, without modifying the original canons.
Catechism of the Catholic Church §§ 1996-2005
The CCC synthesizes the contemporary doctrine:
§ 1996: “Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.”[20]
§ 1998: “This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends wholly on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal himself and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as of every other creature.”[21]
§ 2001: “The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun: ‘Since he begins by his action to make us will; and completes by his cooperation with our will already converted’ (Saint Augustine, De gratia et libero arbitrio, 17: PL 44, 901).”[22]
§ 2002: “God's free initiative demands man's free response. […] It is not in our nature merely to respond, but to act freely, by grace, that is, with grace and cooperating with it.”[23]
This is the Catholic middle way: grace is first, absolute, gratuitous — but it addresses itself to a free man whom it elevates and liberates without constraining him.
Saint Augustine and the Anti-Pelagian Struggle
Pelagius (c. 360-c. 422) and His Heresy
Pelagius, a British monk living in Rome, taught between 405 and 418 that man can, by his natural powers alone, perfectly observe God's Law and merit salvation. Original sin is but a “bad example” of Adam, not a transmitted corruption. Grace is only an external help facilitating human action — not an interior transformation. His fundamental thesis: “if I ought, I can” (posse, velle, esse).
Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430), bishop of Hippo, became the great opponent of Pelagianism between 412 and his death in 430. He wrote some fifteen anti-Pelagian works, the most important being:
- De peccatorum meritis et remissione (412)
- De spiritu et littera (412)
- De natura et gratia (413-415)
- De gratia Christi et de peccato originali (418)
- De gratia et libero arbitrio (c. 426-427)
- De praedestinatione sanctorum (428)
- De dono perseverantiae (429)
The Founding Augustinian Formula
In his Confessions (Book X, ch. 29), Augustine formulates the prayer that sums up his entire doctrine of grace and that scandalized Pelagius:
“Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt.” — Saint Augustine, Confessions X, 29, 40 (c. 397-401)[24]
According to the Augustinian account reported in De dono perseverantiae XX, 53, Pelagius heard this prayer read at Rome in a bishop's house, “and he could not bear it, and contradicting it with some vehemence, he almost came to blows with the one who had quoted it”[25]. For this prayer implies that man can do nothing good without prevenient grace, which Pelagius absolutely rejects.
Augustine on the Cooperation of Free Will
In De gratia et libero arbitrio (c. 426), Augustine formulates the position Trent would take up:
“He works therefore without us so that we may will; but when we will, and will in acting, He cooperates with us. Yet without His working so that we will, or without His cooperating with us when we will, we can do nothing good in the matter of piety.” — Saint Augustine, De gratia et libero arbitrio XVII, 33 (c. 426)[26]
This operating grace (without us) / cooperating grace (with us) distinction has become the canonical formula of Catholic doctrine. Trent Session VI takes it up (ch. 5-6), Thomas Aquinas systematizes it (Summa I-II q. 111 a. 2), Vatican II confirms it (Lumen Gentium 40), CCC § 2001 quotes it word for word.
The Augustinian Merit
And in the formula that became famous:
“When God crowns our merits, He crowns nothing but His own gifts.” — Saint Augustine, De gratia et libero arbitrio VI, 15 (c. 426)[27]
This formula safeguards the entire Catholic teaching on merit without falling into Pelagianism: yes, man truly merits eternal life by his good works — but this merit, in its origin and in its power, is itself a gratuitous gift of God. The Council of Trent would take up this formula verbatim in Session VI, chapter 16 (Denzinger § 1548)[28]. For the Catholic detail on merit, see Sola Fide.
Grace from Carthage to Trent: Twelve Centuries of Catholic Refinement
Between the condemnation of Pelagianism (418) and the Tridentine definition (1547), the Catholic doctrine of grace went through several crises that sharpened its expression. Luther and Calvin therefore did not find a Church asleep on grace: they encountered a doctrine already finely articulated, which they shattered out of a concern to absolutize one of its poles.
Council of Carthage (1 May 418) — The First Condemnation of Pelagianism
Gathered around Saint Aurelius of Carthage, the African council promulgated nine canons against Pelagianism. Canon 5 strikes directly at the root of the system:
“If anyone says that the grace of God by which we are justified through our Lord Jesus Christ has force only for the remission of sins already committed, and not also as a help for committing no more sins: let him be anathema.” — Council of Carthage (418), canon 5 (Denzinger § 226)[29]
These canons were confirmed by Pope Zosimus in the Epistola tractoria (418), incorporated into the African Codex canonum, then taken up by Pope Celestine I in the Indiculus (c. 435).
Bernard of Clairvaux, De gratia et libero arbitrio (c. 1128)
The debate resurfaced in the 12th century in the wake of the controversies stirred up by Abelard. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) then composed De gratia et libero arbitrio (c. 1128), a short work that became a classic of Augustinian Thomism:
“Take away free will, and there is nothing left to be saved; take away grace, and there is nothing left that saves. […] The whole of our salvation is the work of God, and the whole is our work.” — Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, De gratia et libero arbitrio I, 2 and XIV, 47 (c. 1128)[30]
This is the formula that became proverbial: salvation is wholly the work of God and wholly the work of man, not by a sharing of causes, but by total concurrence under different titles (God as first cause, man as free second cause).
Gottschalk of Orbais and the Synod of Quierzy (853)
In the 9th century, the monk Gottschalk of Orbais (c. 808-868) defended an absolute double predestination (to grace and to damnation), relying on Augustine. The synod of Quierzy-sur-Oise (853), at the initiative of Hincmar of Reims, answered him with four chapters that remain magisterial (Denzinger §§ 621-624):
“Almighty God wills that all men, without any exception, be saved, although not all are saved. That some are saved is the gift of Him who saves; that some perish is the fault of those who perish.” — Synod of Quierzy, chapter 3 (853, Denzinger § 623)[31]
This is the clear medieval condemnation of all positive predestination to damnation — exactly the doctrine Calvin would reformulate seven centuries later.
Thomas Aquinas and the Summa Theologiae I-II q. 109-114 (c. 1271)
The great treatise on grace constituted by quaestiones 109 to 114 of the Prima Secundae fixes for all scholastic theology the Catholic technical vocabulary:
“Man, to perform an act ordered to eternal life, needs the human will to be prepared by God by means of grace. […] Yet, after sanctifying grace has been conferred on man, he still needs the help of God moving and stirring him to act well.” — Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 109, a. 6 and a. 9 (c. 1271)[32]
Thomas distinguishes three axes: (1) gratis data grace (charisms) vs. gratum faciens (sanctifying); (2) operating vs. cooperating grace; (3) prevenient vs. subsequent grace. This articulation becomes the common grammar of Catholic doctors down to today.
The Post-Tridentine Catholic Anti-Protestant Struggle
After Trent, the Church faced three learned reformulations of the Lutheran-Calvinist sola gratia under a Catholic mask:
Baius and the Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus (1567)
Michel de Bay (Baius) (1513-1589), professor at Louvain, maintained that the corruption of free will by original sin is total and that remaining concupiscence is itself formal sin. Pope Saint Pius V, in the bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus of 1 October 1567, condemned 79 propositions drawn from his writings (Denzinger §§ 1901-1980)[33]. That is, any conception reducing human freedom to a physical necessity of sin was excluded as early as the 16th century — the Catholic Church indeed holds its narrow corridor between Pelagianism and determinism.
Jansenius and the Five Propositions Condemned by Innocent X (1653)
Cornelius Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, published in 1640 (two years after his death) the Augustinus, which reinterprets Augustine in the sense of a grace inwardly irresistible to the just and insufficient to reprobate sinners. Five propositions drawn from the work were condemned by Pope Innocent X in the bull Cum occasione of 31 May 1653 (Denzinger §§ 2001-2007), notably:
“In the state of fallen nature, interior grace is never resisted.” — proposition 2, condemned as heretical
“It is a semi-Pelagian error to say that Jesus Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception.” — proposition 5, condemned as heretical — Innocent X, Cum occasione, 31 May 1653[34]
This is the most precise magisterial condemnation ever issued against a sola gratia without free cooperation. Clement XI would confirm and extend these condemnations in Unigenitus Dei Filius of 8 September 1713, against the 101 propositions of the late Jansenism of Pasquier Quesnel (Denzinger §§ 2400-2502)[35].
The De Auxiliis Controversy (1597-1607)
At the end of the 16th century, two Catholic theological schools clashed violently over how divine grace and human freedom articulate in the salvific act:
- The Thomists (Domingo Báñez, OP, 1528-1604) maintain that efficacious grace moves the will intrinsically by a physical premotion (praemotio physica), which infallibly produces the free act without constraining it.
- The Molinists (Luis de Molina, SJ, 1535-1600) propose in Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis (Lisbon, 1588) the doctrine of middle knowledge (scientia media): God knows before every decree what each free creature would do in every possible situation, and chooses the setting that renders grace efficacious without constraining freedom.
Faced with the bitterness of the dispute, Pope Clement VIII instituted in 1597 the Congregatio de Auxiliis (Congregation on the aids of grace), which held 85 sessions between 1602 and 1607. On 28 August 1607, Pope Paul V closed the controversy with a decree of peace leaving both opinions free and forbidding each school to brand the other heretical[36]. The Catholic Church thus consecrated theological freedom between Thomism and Molinism, refusing to absolutize one school at the expense of the other — striking proof that the Lutheran-Calvinist sola gratia, which claims to settle the matter by absolutizing one pole, is not the only Catholic way of holding the primacy of grace.
Seven Protestant Objections and Their Catholic Answers
Objection 1 — “Sola gratia is Augustinian; Trent added human cooperation, which is Pelagian”
Answer: The reverse is true. Augustine himself affirms the cooperation of free will in his treatise De gratia et libero arbitrio (c. 426), specifically addressed against the semi-Pelagians of Hadrumetum who had misinterpreted his doctrine of grace. The gratia operans / cooperans distinction Augustine formulates in De gratia et libero arbitrio XVII, 33 (c. 426) is quoted word for word by the Catechism of the Catholic Church at § 2001 — proof of the historical continuity of the doctrine.
The Council of Orange II (529), which confirms and systematizes Augustine against the semi-Pelagians, is likewise part of this continuity — it was doctrinally received in the universal Church long before the Council of Trent. The doctrine of the cooperation of free will under grace is therefore patristic, Augustinian, conciliar — not a Tridentine innovation.
It is on the contrary Luther and Calvin who innovated with respect to Augustine:
- Augustine teaches absolutely necessary prevenient grace but cooperation of free will
- Luther/Calvin teach absolutely necessary prevenient grace and destruction of free will
This is what Alister McGrath (Iustitia Dei, Cambridge UP 2005) — an Anglican — demonstrates: the Lutheran conception of imputed righteousness as aliena iustitia (a righteousness foreign to man that remains fully foreign even after imputation) has “no patristic or medieval antecedent”[37]. See Sola Fide article, Objection 5.
Objection 2 — “Ephesians 2:8-9 explicitly teaches sola gratia: ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God’”
Answer: The quoted passage is indeed decisive — but on condition of not stopping at verse 9 as Reformed apologetics does. Verse 10, in the same Pauline sentence, states:
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” — Ephesians 2:10
The Greek original uses epi ergois agathois (“for good works”) with the preposition epi indicating finality. Paul thus affirms in the same sentence: (1) the radical gratuitousness of salvation (vv. 8-9), and (2) the operative finality in good works (v. 10). Strict sola gratia (without cooperation) arbitrarily severs this Pauline unity.
Catholic doctrine is exactly this: “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). See Sola Fide article, Objection 3 for detail.
Objection 3 — “The human free will was destroyed by original sin (Rom 8:7: ‘the mind of the flesh is hostile to God’; Rom 3:10-12: ‘none is righteous, no, not one’)”
Answer: This interpretation contradicts the Council of Orange II (529, canon 4) and the Council of Trent Session VI canons 4-5 (1547), which explicitly condemn the denial of human free will after the Fall.
Scripture itself affirms everywhere that the human free will is wounded but not destroyed:
- Sirach 15:14-17: “When God created man in the beginning, he left him to his own counsel. If you will, you will keep the commandments, and it is mercy to keep faithfulness. […] Before man are life and death: what pleases each will be given to him.”
- Mt 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets […] how often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” — Jesus “willed” but Jerusalem “was not willing”: this is the biblical archetype of free will resisting grace.
- Mt 11:28: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden” — an invitation that presupposes the free possibility of coming or refusing.
- Ezek 33:11: “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” — God wills the salvation of all (cf. 1 Tim 2:4), but conversion presupposes free cooperation.
- Rev 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him” — Christ knocks; man opens. Without the free possibility of opening, the image is empty.
- Phil 2:12-13 — Paul's resolved paradox: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Both affirmations coexist: man works (free cooperation) AND God works (prevenient grace). No contradiction.
- 1 Cor 3:9: “For we are God's fellow workers” (Theou synergoi) — Saint Paul explicitly claims the concept of cooperation (synergy) with God.
Romans 8:7 and Romans 3:10-12 describe the state of unregenerate man without grace; they do not deny that prevenient grace can liberate that same man and restore to him the capacity to cooperate.
Objection 4 — “If free will cooperates, then there is human merit, so man contributes to his own salvation, so we are no longer saved by grace alone”
Answer: It is precisely the Augustinian formula that dissolves this objection:
“When God crowns our merits, He crowns nothing but His own gifts.” — Saint Augustine, De gratia et libero arbitrio VI, 15[38]
Catholic merit is never an independent Pelagian self-salvation: it is the full recognition that the meritorious work is itself a gift of God, accomplished under the motion of grace, and has meritorious value only because Christ is united to the soul by sanctifying grace (Gal 2:20: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me”).
Saint Thomas Aquinas takes up the same insight in the Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 114, a. 2:
“Eternal life is a good exceeding the proportion of created nature, since it exceeds even its natural knowledge and desire. And therefore no created nature suffices as the principle of a meritorious act of eternal life, unless there be added some supernatural gift, which is called grace.” — Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 114, a. 2 (c. 1271)[39]
The classic Thomist analogy: an instrument played by a master musician truly produces the music — without ceasing to be an instrument. The soul liberated by grace truly cooperates in its salvation — without ceasing to be radically dependent on God.
The Council of Trent distinguishes two moments:
- Initial justification (from the unjustified to the justified) — strict sola gratia: no prior human merit can cause it
- Increase of grace and final perseverance — prevenient grace presides, but the just man “cooperates” (Trent Session VI ch. 10) and “truly merits the increase of grace, eternal life, and the increase of glory” (canon 32, Denzinger § 1582)
This is the exact Catholic middle way. See Sola Fide article, Objection 5 for detail.
Objection 5 — “Romans 9 on Jacob and Esau proves absolute predestination: God loved Jacob and hated Esau before their birth, hence independently of their works”
Answer: The Romans 9 passage (Paul quoting Malachi 1:2-3) must be read in the context of the whole epistle — which ends with Romans 11. Yet Saint Paul himself concludes his great development on predestination with:
“God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” — Romans 11:32
“All men” — pantas anthrōpous — a universal formula excluding any limited predestination. And earlier, in the same Pauline pastoral epistle:
“This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” — 1 Timothy 2:3-4
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise […] but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” — 2 Peter 3:9
Pauline predestination in Rom 9 thus concerns the initial gratuitousness of the divine choice of the Covenant (Jacob as figure of the elect people, not chosen for his merits) — not the positive decreeing of certain men's damnation. This is the constant patristic interpretation (Origen, Chrysostom, late Augustine, Thomas Aquinas) — see Calvinist Predestination article for the detailed refutation of Calvinist double predestination and the condemnation by Trent Session VI canons 17-18 (Denzinger §§ 1567-1568).
Objection 6 — “The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ 1999) recognizes sola gratia; Rome thus yielded on the doctrine of grace”
Answer: Actually reading § 15 of the JDDJ is enough to see the reverse:
“By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.” — JDDJ, § 15 (Augsburg, 31 October 1999)[40]
Note three decisive points:
(1) The text uses “by grace alone” (sola gratia) — NOT “by faith alone” (sola fide). This is a major theological distinction: sola gratia is common to Catholics and Lutherans (since both confess that God is the unique source of salvation); sola fide remains a point of disagreement (Trent Session VI canon 9 still anathematizes strict sola fide in the Lutheran sense).
(2) The sentence ends with “equipping and calling us to good works” — exactly the position of Trent Session VI chapters 7-10 and of Romans 8:4 (“in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit”). Grace “equips” (befähigt) — that is, renders capable of cooperating. This is not Calvinist irresistible grace constraining without cooperation.
(3) The Official Common Statement joined to the JDDJ and signed the same day specifies:
“The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations of the Council of Trent, and the condemnations of the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.”[41]
The original canons of Trent Session VI remain doctrinally binding for the Catholic Church. The JDDJ established a differentiated consensus on the doctrine as presented in the JDDJ — without modifying the original canons or removing the real remaining divergences.
The JDDJ was subsequently ratified by the Methodists (Seoul, 18 July 2006), the Reformed (WCRC, Wittenberg, 5 July 2017), and affirmed by the Anglicans (Augsburg, July 2017) — totaling ~300 million Protestants in differentiated consensus with Rome on justification[42].
Objection 7 — “Irresistible grace is necessary: if God wills to save a man, He necessarily saves him; otherwise God would be less powerful than His creature”
Answer: The objection confuses omnipotence with constraint. Saint Thomas Aquinas dissolves it in four steps (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 112, a. 3; q. 113, a. 3)[43]:
(1) Divine omnipotence includes creating free creatures. A God who could not create truly free beings would be less powerful than a God who can. Yet Scripture (Sir 15:14; Deut 30:19) attests the creation of man “with his own counsel.”
(2) Efficacious grace is not constraining but persuading. The divine motion adapts to the nature it moves: to natural causes it communicates necessity; to free causes it communicates the freedom of the very operation. This is Thomas's classic thesis (Summa Theologiae I, q. 19, a. 8): God “moves necessary causes necessarily and free causes freely”[44].
(3) God can will man's free act as free. The divine decree does not precede the free act in the sense of a prior physical cause; it eternally encompasses in its proper object precisely a free act. This is the classic Thomist solution to the paradox — exactly opposite to Calvinist determinism, which turns the decree into a necessitating cause.
(4) Damning refusal is a deficient cause, not an efficient one, on God's side. For damnation, God is not the efficient cause (otherwise there would be positive predestination to damnation, condemned at Quierzy 853 and Trent Session VI canon 17): He permits man's free refusal and justly punishes it. This is the Catholic doctrine of divine permission.
Calvinist “irresistible” grace actually renders God less powerful, not more, for it prevents Him from creating a truly free creature. Catholic grace, which “equips and calls” (JDDJ § 15) while respecting freedom, better expresses divine omnipotence — that of a God who can make friends and not only puppets.
“He who created you without you will not justify you without you. He made you without your knowledge; He justifies you when you will it.” — Saint Augustine, Sermon 169, XI, 13 (c. 416)[45]
The Contemporary Ecumenical Assessment
The JDDJ § 15 Consensus
At the heart of the contemporary ecumenical consensus, JDDJ § 15 establishes a theologically neutral formula acceptable to both traditions: “by grace alone, in faith” — which maintains both sola gratia (common ground) and nuances sola fide by adding the enabling work of the Holy Spirit.
Vatican II — Lumen Gentium 40-42
The Second Vatican Council, in the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium (21 November 1964), recalls the Catholic doctrine of universal sanctification:
“The Lord Jesus, divine Teacher and Model of all perfection, preached holiness of life to each and every one of His disciples of every condition […] It is therefore quite clear that all the faithful of whatever state or rank are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity, by which, even in earthly society itself, a more human manner of living is promoted.” — Lumen Gentium 40 (21 November 1964)[46]
Holiness is thus both a gratuitous gift of God (prevenient grace) and a task to be freely received (cooperation). This is the Augustinian-Tridentine formula taken up by Vatican II.
The Six Contemporary Magisterial Declarations
Contemporary Catholic-Protestant ecumenism on grace rests on six major texts:
- Unitatis Redintegratio (Vatican II, 21 Nov. 1964) — recognition of Protestants as “separated brethren”
- JDDJ (Augsburg, 31 October 1999) — Catholic Church + LWF
- JDDJ ratified by the Methodists (Seoul, 18 July 2006) — WMC
- JDDJ ratified by the Reformed (Wittenberg, 5 July 2017) — WCRC
- JDDJ affirmed by the Anglicans (Augsburg, July 2017) — worldwide Anglican Communion
- Joint Declaration of Lund (Sweden, 31 October 2016) — Francis + Younan, first official papal participation in a Reformation commemoration
To Go Further
- Sola Scriptura — Scripture Alone — the formal principle of authority
- Sola Fide — Justification by Faith Alone — the material principle of reception
- Martin Luther — De servo arbitrio (1525)
- John Calvin — Institutio II, 2-5 and III, 21-24
- The Council of Trent — Session VI (1547)
- Answers to Protestantism — hub page
Notes and References
Martin Luther, De servo arbitrio (On the Enslaved Will), December 1525. Critical text: D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimarer Ausgabe, WA), vol. 18, Hermann Böhlau Nachfolger, Weimar, 1908, pp. 600-787. French edition: Du serf arbitre, translated by Georges Lagarrigue, in Œuvres V, Labor et Fides, Geneva, 1958. Luther replies directly to Erasmus of Rotterdam's De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio, published at Basel in September 1524 (critical edition: Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, Recognita et adnotatione critica, IX-1, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969).
1 9 10Erasmus of Rotterdam, De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio, Basel, Johann Froben, September 1524. Critical edition: Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, series IX-1, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1969, pp. 1-89, ISBN 978-0-7204-8201-7. French translation: Pierre Mesnard, Le libre arbitre, in Œuvres choisies, La Pléiade, Gallimard, Paris, 1991. Erasmus defends there that the human free will, wounded by sin, nevertheless cooperates with grace — a position he strives to present as late-Augustinian (De gratia et libero arbitrio, c. 426).
2John Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis, definitive Latin edition of 1559 (Geneva, Robert Estienne, 5 vol.). Definitive French edition of 1560. Reference text: Joannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. Baum, Cunitz and Reuss, Corpus Reformatorum vols. 29-31, Brunswick and Berlin, 1863-1900. Modern French edition: Jean-Daniel Benoît (ed.), Institution de la religion chrétienne, 5 vols., Vrin, Paris, 1957-1963. On free will: Book II, ch. 2-5. On double predestination: Book III, ch. 21-24.
3 11Synod of Dort (Dordrechtanae Synodi), Canones Synodi Dordrechtanae, promulgated 6 May 1619, in 59 articles structured in five chapters answering the five articles of the Arminian Remonstrants (1610). Critical edition: Donald Sinnema, Christian Moser and Herman J. Selderhuis (eds.), Acta of the Synod of Dordt, 9 vols., Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 2015-2022. The TULIP acronym is a later creation (19th-20th-century Anglo-Saxon), absent from the original Dutch canons; see Kenneth J. Stewart, Ten Myths About Calvinism, IVP Academic, 2011, ch. 6.
4 15Council of Carthage, 1 May 418, under Saint Aurelius of Carthage. Nine canons against Pelagianism: Denzinger §§ 222-230. Confirmed by Pope Zosimus in the Epistola tractoria (418), then by Pope Celestine I in the Indiculus de gratia Dei (c. 435, Denzinger §§ 238-249). Critical edition: Concilia Africae A. 345 – A. 525, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 149, Brepols, Turnhout, 1974, pp. 67-78.
5 29Council of Orange II, 3 July 529. Papal confirmation by Boniface II in 531 (letter Per filium nostrum to Caesarius of Arles). The council's 25 canons plus its conclusion fix the anti-semi-Pelagian Catholic doctrine. Reference Latin text: Heinrich Denzinger and Peter Hünermann, Enchiridion symbolorum, 44th edition, Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2014, §§ 370-397, ISBN 978-3-451-37804-1. Critical edition: Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, Brepols, Turnhout, 2006. On Caesarius of Arles: William E. Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
6 17Council of Trent, Session VI, Decretum de iustificatione, canon 4, 13 January 1547. Latin text in Denzinger-Hünermann § 1554: « Si quis dixerit, liberum hominis arbitrium a Deo motum et excitatum, nihil cooperari assentiendo Deo excitanti atque vocanti, quo ad obtinendam iustificationis gratiam se disponat ac praeparet, neque posse dissentire, si velit, sed velut inanime quoddam nihil omnino agere, mereque passive se habere: anathema sit. »
7 18Martin Luther, letter to Wolfgang Capito, Strasbourg, 1537, in Luther's Works (American Edition), vol. 50 Letters III, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1975, p. 173. Luther declares there that he sees no reason to reprint his writings in an edition of his works, with the exception of De servo arbitrio (1525) and the Catechism (1529).
8John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, chapter 3, § 5, French edition of 1560; critical edition by Jean-Daniel Benoît (Vrin, Paris, 1957), vol. 2, pp. 56-57. Latin text: Institutio II, 3, 5, in Corpus Reformatorum vol. 30, col. 218-219.
12John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, chapter 21, § 5, French edition of 1560; critical edition by Jean-Daniel Benoît (Vrin, Paris, 1960), vol. 3, pp. 401-402. Latin text: Institutio III, 21, 5, in Corpus Reformatorum vol. 30, col. 683-684.
13John Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis III, 23, 7: « Decretum quidem horribile, fateor. Inficiari tamen nemo poterit, quin praesciverit Deus quem exitum esset habiturus homo. » ("It is a horrible decree, I confess. But no one will be able to deny that God foreknew what outcome man would have.") Latin text in Corpus Reformatorum vol. 30, col. 705. This formula became the classic marker of strict Calvinism — see François Wendel, Calvin: sources et évolution de sa pensée religieuse, Labor et Fides, Geneva, 1985, pp. 207-215.
14Saint Augustine, De gratia et libero arbitrio ad Valentinum et cum illo monachos Hadrumetinos liber unus, chapter XVII, §§ 33-34, written in 426-427 and addressed to the monks of Hadrumetum (present-day Sousse, Tunisia) who had misinterpreted his doctrine of grace. Reference Latin text: Patrologia Latina 44, col. 881-912 (J.-P. Migne, Paris, 1865). French translation: Œuvres de saint Augustin, "Bibliothèque augustinienne" series no. 24, Études Augustiniennes, Paris, 1962. The formula “Cum coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua” is at VI, 15; the gratia operans / cooperans distinction at XVII, 33 — quoted word for word by CCC § 2001.
16 26 27 38Council of Trent, Session VI, Decretum de iustificatione, canon 5, 13 January 1547. Denzinger § 1555: « Si quis liberum hominis arbitrium post Adae peccatum amissum et exstinctum esse dixerit, aut rem esse de solo titulo, immo titulum sine re, figmentum denique a Satana invectum in Ecclesiam : anathema sit. »
19Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 1996, typical Latin edition Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1997. French edition: Mame/Plon, Paris, 1998, ISBN 978-2-227-43526-9. Refers to John 1:12-18, 17:3, Romans 8:14-17 and 2 Peter 1:3-4.
20Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 1998, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997. Refers to John 1:12; 1 John 5:9-10 and CCC §§ 51-53 on God's benevolent plan.
21Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2001, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997. The internal quotation from Augustine (De gratia et libero arbitrio XVII, 33 — PL 44, 901) is rendered word for word in the typical Latin text of the Catechism — proof of an unbroken doctrinal continuity from Augustine to John Paul II.
22Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2002, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997. This formulation directly takes up Trent Session VI ch. 5-6 (Denzinger §§ 1525-1526) on the free character of cooperation with prevenient grace.
23Saint Augustine, Confessions, Book X, chapter 29, § 40, written between 397 and 401 at Hippo. Reference Latin text: Sources Chrétiennes no. 14, Confessions (critical text by Pierre de Labriolle), Cerf, Paris, 1953. Modern French translation: Lucien Jerphagnon, Augustin — Confessions, La Cité de Dieu, Les œuvres, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, Gallimard, Paris, 2000. On the anecdote of Pelagius scandalized by this prayer, see Augustine himself, De dono perseverantiae XX, 53 (PL 45).
24Saint Augustine, De dono perseverantiae XX, 53, c. 428-429. Written at the request of Prosper of Aquitaine and Hilary of Marseille to answer the Provençal semi-Pelagians. Patrologia Latina 45, col. 993-1034. The scene of Pelagius scandalized by the prayer of the Confessions is recounted in XX, 53 (PL 45, col. 1026).
25Council of Trent, Session VI, Decretum de iustificatione, chapter 16 « De fructu iustificationis », 13 January 1547. Denzinger-Hünermann § 1548. Latin text: « Cum is ipse Christus Iesus tamquam caput in membra […] virtutem iugiter influat, quae virtus bona eorum opera semper antecedit, comitatur et subsequitur. […] Adeo ut nihil ipsis iustificatis amplius deesse credendum sit, quominus plene illis quidem operibus, quae in Deo sunt facta, divinae legi pro huius vitae statu satisfecisse, et vitam aeternam suo etiam tempore (si tamen in gratia decesserint) consequendam vere promeruisse censeantur. » Trent directly integrates the Augustinian formula at Denzinger § 1582 (canon 32): « Cum coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronat quam munera sua. »
28Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, De gratia et libero arbitrio, c. 1128. Critical Latin edition: Jean Leclercq and Henri Rochais (eds.), Sancti Bernardi Opera III, Tractatus et opuscula, Editiones Cistercienses, Rome, 1963, pp. 165-203. French translation: Œuvres complètes XXI, Sources Chrétiennes no. 393, Éditions du Cerf, Paris, 1993. The formula « Tolle liberum arbitrium et non erit quod salvetur ; tolle gratiam, non erit unde salvetur » ("Take away free will and there will be nothing left that can be saved; take away grace and there will be nothing left that saves") is at I, 2; the formula « totum quidem hoc, et totum illud » at XIV, 47.
30Synod of Quierzy-sur-Oise, 853, under Hincmar of Reims. Four chapters remaining magisterial: Denzinger §§ 621-624. Critical edition: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Capitularia regum Francorum II, pp. 285-288. The condemnation of Gottschalk's double predestination was confirmed by the Council of Valence III (855, Denzinger §§ 625-633), which proposes a more Augustinian middle formulation, then by that of Toucy (860).
31Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 109, « De necessitate gratiae », articles 1-10, c. 1271. Leonine Edition, vol. 7, Rome, 1892, pp. 296-321. On the absolute necessity of grace for every act ordered to salvation: a. 5 (without grace, one can know God by natural reason but not be justified) and a. 9 (even justified, one needs divine help to persevere in the good). Cf. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, De gratia. Commentarius in Summam theologicam S. Thomae Iª-IIae q. 109-114, Marietti, Turin, 1947.
32Saint Pius V, bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus, 1 October 1567, against Michel de Bay (Baius). Denzinger-Hünermann §§ 1901-1980 (79 condemned propositions). Latin text in Bullarium Romanum, vol. 7, Turin, 1862, pp. 568-573. Reference study: François-Xavier Jansen, Baïus et le baïanisme, Louvain, 1927. The bull does not specify for each proposition the exact theological qualification — seven global qualifications (heretical, erroneous, scandalous, etc.) are possible, which fueled the later Jansenist controversy.
33Innocent X, bull Cum occasione, 31 May 1653, against the five propositions drawn from Cornelius Jansenius's Augustinus (Louvain, 1640). Denzinger-Hünermann §§ 2001-2007. Official Latin text in Bullarium Romanum, vol. 15, Turin, 1868, pp. 720-722. Confirmed and clarified by Alexander VII in the bull Ad sacram beati Petri sedem (16 October 1656, against the Jansenist fact/law distinction) and in the adhesion formulary Regiminis apostolici (15 February 1665).
34Clement XI, apostolic constitution Unigenitus Dei Filius, 8 September 1713, against 101 propositions drawn from Pasquier Quesnel's Réflexions morales sur le Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1693, 4 vols.). Denzinger-Hünermann §§ 2400-2502. Official Latin text in Bullarium Romanum, vol. 21, Turin, 1871, pp. 567-578. This bull triggered in France the crisis of the "appellants" and "acceptants" that lasted the entire 18th century. Historical study: Bruno Neveu, L'erreur et son juge: remarques sur les censures doctrinales à l'époque moderne, Bibliopolis, Naples, 1993.
35Congregatio de Auxiliis Divinae Gratiae, instituted by Clement VIII in 1597 and closed by Paul V on 28 August 1607 (closing decree read in Consistory on 5 September 1607). Reference studies: Jacob Schmutz, La querelle des possibles : recherches philosophiques et textuelles sur la métaphysique jésuite espagnole, 1540-1767, doctoral thesis, EHESS-FUSL, 2003; Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Predestination, B. Herder, Saint Louis, 1939, ch. 3. On the opposed positions: Domingo Báñez, Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae S. Thomae Aquinatis, Salamanca, 1584; Luis de Molina, Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia, praedestinatione et reprobatione, Lisbon, 1588 (critical edition by Friedrich Stegmüller, Berlin, 1935).
36Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 3rd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, 632 pp., ISBN 978-0-521-53389-8. Reference work in English. McGrath, ordained in the Church of England, was professor of historical theology at Oxford (Wycliffe Hall) and later director of the Wycliffe Institute. The Lutheran theological innovation of imputed righteousness (aliena iustitia) is analyzed in chapters 12-13.
37Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 114, a. 2, « Utrum aliquis sine gratia possit mereri vitam aeternam », c. 1271. Critical edition: Sancti Thomae Aquinatis opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P.M. edita, Leonine Edition, vol. 7, Rome, 1892, pp. 348-349. Reference French translation: Somme théologique, Éditions du Cerf, Paris, 1984, vol. 2, pp. 720-721. See also q. 109, a. 5 and q. 112, a. 1.
39Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, Augsburg, 31 October 1999. Official French text on the Holy See website. § 15 was ratified in its entirety by the Methodists (Seoul, 18 July 2006), the Reformed (WCRC, St. Mary's Church, Wittenberg, 5 July 2017), and affirmed by the worldwide Anglican Communion (Augsburg, July 2017).
40JDDJ, Official Common Statement, § 1, joined to the JDDJ and signed the same day (31 October 1999). This statement is necessary for the validity of the JDDJ: it is the formal commitment of both Churches to the text. Official text on the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity website.
41Multilateral extensions of the JDDJ: (1) World Methodist Council, Methodist Statement of Association with the JDDJ, signed at Seoul on 18 July 2006, official text on vatican.va. (2) World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC), Wittenberg Witness, association statement signed at St. Mary's Church, Wittenberg, 5 July 2017. (3) Anglican Consultative Council, Anglican-Methodist-Lutheran-Reformed-Roman Catholic Statement on Justification, Augsburg, July 2017. Cumulative estimate of 300 million: ~1.28 billion Catholics + ~80 million Lutherans (LWF) + ~80 million Methodists (WMC) + ~100 million Reformed (WCRC) + ~85 million Anglicans = about 300 million Protestants in differentiated consensus with Rome on justification (excluding Catholics).
42Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 112, a. 3, « Utrum ex necessitate detur gratia se ad eam praeparanti », and q. 113, a. 3, « Utrum ad iustificationem impii requiratur motus liberi arbitrii », c. 1271. Leonine Edition, vol. 7, Rome, 1892, pp. 326-331. Thomas affirms there that the justified soul necessarily cooperates in its justification by a free act of the will moved by grace — the position Trent Session VI canon 4 takes up against Luther.
43Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 19, a. 8, « Utrum voluntas Dei rebus volitis necessitatem imponat », c. 1267. Leonine Edition, vol. 4, Rome, 1888, pp. 246-247: « Cum igitur voluntas divina sit efficacissima, non solum sequitur quod fiant ea quae Deus vult fieri, sed quod eo modo fiant quo Deus ea fieri vult. […] Quaedam vero contingenter; ut sit ordo in rebus, ad complementum universi. » French translation: Somme théologique, Éditions du Cerf, Paris, 1984, vol. 1, p. 224.
44Saint Augustine, Sermo 169, « De verbis Apostoli, Philippenses 3 », chapter XI, § 13, preached at Hippo c. 416. Patrologia Latina 38, col. 916-926. Recent critical edition: Sermones 151-183, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 41Bb, Brepols, Turnhout, 2008. Latin text: « Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustificat sine te. Fecit nescientem, iustificat volentem. » ("He who made you without you does not justify you without you. He made you without your knowledge; He justifies you when you will it.") The short formula « Qui creavit te sine te, non te salvabit sine te » is paraphrased from this source by the spiritual tradition.
45Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, dogmatic constitution on the Church, 21 November 1964, chapter V “The Universal Call to Holiness in the Church”, § 40. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965), pp. 5-71. Reference French edition: Concile œcuménique Vatican II : constitutions, décrets, déclarations, messages, Centurion, Paris, 1967, pp. 79-81. On the Trent-Vatican II doctrinal continuity on grace: see Cardinal Charles Journet, L'Église du Verbe incarné, vol. III, Desclée de Brouwer, Paris, 1969, pp. 217-242.
46