The Sufficiency of Grace?

I understand that when Christ was Crucified, he did not win a merely trifling grace, nor did he win a perfectly proportionate grace, he won a superabundance of Grace.

In that sense, Christ won grace sufficient to save the whole World.

But in what sense can we REALLY say that **he gives **sufficient grace **to all **to be saved, when in reality all are not saved?

Sufficiency is having all that is needed to accomplish an action.

And the will cannot respond without prevenient grace which must be intrinsically efficacious, for the will is in bondage to sin. Grace frees and elevates the will.

So, if you need a Grace to make “sufficient” grace efficacious, how is sufficient grace sufficient? It is an insufficient grace, and a redundant and pointless grace in that case.

Which would mean that although Christ won grace for all men to be saved, he only gives it to some. Otherwise we would have to believe in universal salvation.

So all men have the ability to be saved: There is no group of people God could not save.

But he does not will to save all. This must be obvious or else there would not be any hell.

Help me understand how a powerless grace is sufficient, when sufficiency is defined as having all that is necessary for the accomplishment of any action?

  1. “There is a grace which is truly sufficent and yet remains inefficacious(gratia vere et mere sufficiens.” (De fide.)


The grace that is given is sufficient means. Don’t confuse means and agent: an agent uses sufficient means to accomplish an action, and in this case, the agent is the will, the grace is the means.

I would say yes, since no one is created only to be damned. All have the opportunity, the option of entering via the narrow gate, and all retain their free will. If Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient to cover all of mankind, then it was, by definition, imperfect. We now that this is not the case.

The grace is there for the asking. Those who do not ask; those who do not persevere are not availing themselves of all grace. The fault is ours, not that of God, or Jesus’ sacrifice. We fail when we do not evangelize those who might have turned had they heard the right word. The fault is theirs when they hear the word and do not turn. The fault is ours and theirs when we hear the word and do not keep it.

I see it whit this analogy:

Christ restored the bridge to the heaven. We are able to go trough this bridge, so Christ’s work is sufficient for the salvation for everyone. Some people reject to go through the bridge, and they can do because of their free will.

The agent is incapable of acting without the means. And the means must be intrinsically efficacious, and thus sufficient for salvation.

But not all agents attain their end.


Either they suffer from insufficient means
Or the Agent suffers from an insufficient interior motive,
Or both.

Now we are taught that all are given sufficient means.
But not all attain their end,
Therefore those agents that do not attain their end must suffer from an insufficient interior motive force.

But the interior motive force is grace!
Therefore those agents (wills) which suffer from an insufficient interior motive (efficacious grace) cannot attain to the use of means (Sufficient grace).

But if the means cannot fortify the agent interiorly, it is not sufficient! It is empty.

THerefore, how is sufficient grace “sufficient”?

Remember, “it is neither he that wills or works, but God…”

I see your point, and I think there is room for development. God wills for all to be saved the Scriptures say. But does this mean he actually wills the salvation of each and every person efficaciously? No. Or else no one would be in hell.

Pope St. Hormisdas: “What the Roman, that is the Catholic, Church follows and preserves concerning free will and the grace of God can be abundantly recognised in the various books of the blessed Augustine, and especially in those to Hilary and Prosper, but the prominent chapters are contained in the ecclesiastical archives and if these are lacking there, we establish them.” (Sicut Rationi, AD. 520)

Pope John II: “According to the enactments of my predecessors, the Roman Church follows and maintains the teaching of Augustine.” (Epistle)

Augustine explained as follows.

‘And so that which is said ‘God wills all men to be saved’ though he is unwilling that so many be saved, is said for this reason: that all who are saved, are not saved except by his will.’ (Epistle 217)

‘And what is written, that ‘he wills all men to be saved,’ while yet all men are not saved, may be understood in many ways, some of which I have mentioned in other writings of mine; but here I will say one thing: ‘he wills all men to be saved,’ is so said that all the predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of man is among them. Just as it was said to the Pharisees, ‘Ye tithe every herb;’ where the expression is only to be understood of every herb that they had, for they did not tithe every herb which was found throughout the whole earth. According to the same manner of speaking, it was said, ‘even as I also please all men in all things.’ For did he who said this please also the multitude of his persecutors? But he pleased every kind of men that assembled in the Church of Christ, whether they were already established therein, or were to be introduced into it.’ (Rebuke and Grace 44)

It seems interesting anyway, THere are Fathers who taught God does not want all to be saved. Only the Elect.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit