Faith Before Baptism/ how differ from what happens at Baptism

Faith Before Baptism--how differ from what happens at Baptism?

As adults if we come to be baptized we have faith before baptism. So does not the faith start before this regeneration at baptism? Or do we say it isn’t the fullness of faith? or what?

We distinguish between an act of faith, and the supernatural virtue of faith. When someone hears the gospel, and believes, that is an act of faith. What is received at baptism, by divine infusion, is the supernatural virtue of faith.

The Sixth Session of the Council of Trent is referring to the act of faith in chapter six, where it is talking about preparing for justification. There it says:

Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing (Session Six, chapter 6)

That act of faith is still preceded by, and is a cooperation with, actual grace.

Then, in chapter seven, in speaking of justification itself, the Sixth Session of Trent speaks of receiving all three virtues (faith, hope, and charity) at the same time, i.e. at one’s baptism. What is received here is not the act of faith, but the supernatural virtue of faith. Here’s what it says:

For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.

For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.

For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity.

This faith, conformably to Apostolic tradition, catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life, which without hope and charity faith cannot give. (Session Six, chapter 7, my emphasis)

comment 106 

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/is-the-catholic-church-semi-pelagian/#comments

and So does not the faith start before this regeneration at baptism? Or do we say it isn’t the fullness of faith? or what?”

In addition to Bryan’s response –
Michael Liccione and also Ray Stamper provided answers in this thread:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/faith-reason-context-conversion/#comment-10542

In addition to the possibility that an “act of faith” can occur prior to baptism, it is also possible that, by grace, through extraordinary means, the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and love can be infused into a person before that person receives _formal_ baptism. This is equivalent to what the catechism speaks of when it speaks of “baptism of desire”.

However, it is important to understand that if these virtues have been extraordinarily infused before the moment of formal baptism, then what also must exist in such a case is a desire (explicit or implicit) for baptism.

Why? Because it is impossible to have the supernatural virtue of charity while at the same time rejecting the Church and God’s plan for incorporation into the Church through baptism. In other words, having supernatural faith and love for God implies both a love for His Church, and a hope to be visibly incorporated into that same Church according to God’s plan.

Then in comment 11 found here:  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/justification-catholic-church-and-the-judaizers/#comment-5578

Faith comes by hearing, of course. But if it comes to a person in its fullness (as a virtue), it has come to them through the sacrament of baptism, even if they have not yet been baptized. The Spirit ordinarily works through the sacrament, but the Spirit is capable of outrunning the sacrament, as John outran Peter at the tomb. This ability of the Spirit to act prior to the sacrament, should not be interpreted as nullifying the sacrament or implying that the Spirit has not come through the sacrament.

Similarly, Paul expects people to receive the Holy Spirit, the seal of adoption and justification, “when they believe” (Acts 19:2). Though the people Paul is addressing were unusual in that they received the Spirit with the laying on of hands (Acts 19:6), verse 2 suggests that Paul considered it normative to receive the Spirit at the time of faith.

When Paul says “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”, he is asking them if they were confirmed when they were baptized. Their reply shows that they had not even been baptized with a Christian baptism. So St. Paul baptizes them with a Christian baptism, and then lays his hands on them, and they are confirmed (and receive the Holy Spirit). St. Paul’s question shows that when the Apostles speak about believing the gospel, they are not speaking of this believing as something merely mental; ‘believing the gospel is a phrase that implicitly (when not explicitly) includes baptism. This is what St. Paul is referring to in 1 Tim 6:12 when he says, “Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.” This was (and still is) the practice of the Church, that the catechumen makes a profession of faith immediately prior to his baptism. Faith is not merely an internal epistemic change; it is also a public profession and identification. We are inserted into the Faith through baptism.

The Galatians (Galatians 3:2) and the Ephesians (Ephesians 1:13-14) are referred to as having been justified through believing the preached gospel.

Correct, but this believing includes baptism; it is not a merely private, internal epistemic change. It is sacramentally effected in the presence of many witnesses, by Christ.

In Galatians 3:2, the context in which Paul places the faith (”hearing”) suggests that he’s referring to people being justified when they believe as they hear the gospel being preached. It’s a situation like that of Cornelius in Acts 10:44-46, in which justification is attained through believing the preached gospel, apart from baptism and all other works.

In neither the Cornelius situation nor the Acts 19 situation is faith truly separated from baptism. Faith precedes it, but the Apostles do not take this as nullifying the need for baptism. The reception of the grace of a sacrament never nullifies the need for the reception of that sacrament. Rather, it testifies to its need, which is precisely why Peter urges water to be brought for the baptism of Cornelius, and why the disciples in Acts 19 were immediately baptized when they learned about its necessity. Likewise, when St. Paul says “hearing with faith” (in Gal 3:2) he is not saying that faith does not come through baptism. The belief in Christ that comes from hearing leads directly to the sacrament of faith, i.e. baptism. If a person believes, he will, like the Ethiopian eunuch, respond by seeking baptism, in which he is united to Christ, what St. Paul refers to as coming to “belong to Christ” (Gal 5:24)

If it was a faith that occurred as the Galatians heard the preaching of the gospel, then it probably wasn’t a faith that was accompanied by baptism or other works. It could be argued that the Galatians were working in some way as they heard the gospel being preached, but that’s a less natural way of reading the passage.

You’re thinking of the faith in an entirely subjective, inward and individualistic way. But faith is public. It involves a public ‘yes’ to the gospel, and that public yes means the reception of baptism and incorporation into His Body, the Church. You’re also treating this passage as though St. Paul is spelling out all the details of what it means to come to faith in Christ. Since he doesn’t explicitly mention baptism here, therefore, you conclude that their faith didn’t include baptism. But that’s not a justified assumption. St. Paul isn’t intending here to lay out all the details of what it means to come to faith in Christ. They already knew that, and have been through it. His point here is to admonish them to remember how they received the Spirit: not through the Old Covenant, but through the New Covenant.

We don’t normally assume that people are getting baptized or doing other works as they hear the gospel being preached.

St. Paul isn’t talking about faith in this subjective, internally self-evident change-of-epistemic state manner. You’re reading the Bible as a child of the Enlightenment and the inward turn. The Galatian believers most likely received the Spirit the same way the believers did in Samaria in Acts 8, and the disciples at Ephesus did in Acts 19, through the sacrament of confirmation, by the laying on of hands by an Apostle, after having been baptized. St. Paul is essentially saying in Gal 3:2: Did you receive the Spirit through the sacraments of the Old Covenant (e.g. circumcision) or through the sacraments of the New Covenant (i.e. baptism and confirmation)?

And to use a handful of references to baptism to justify its inclusion in the large number of passages on justification in which it’s not mentioned is dubious.

Catholics aren’t limited to trying to determine the faith from Scripture. We have the living Tradition from the Apostles, the ‘view from the inside’ handed down to us faithfully within the community of faith, by which we understand what the Apostles were saying. We don’t read Scripture in an ecclesial or historical vacuum; we read it with the living memory of the community to whom it was entrusted.

I’ve argued elsewhere (see here) that baptism should be considered a work. It’s not faith, and there’s no reason to think that people normally don’t have faith until the time of baptism.

You don’t seem to realize Who is doing the baptizing. Does the believer exercise his free will in stepping into the font? Of course. But that’s not baptism. Who does the baptizing? Christ. Christ is the Baptizer. He administers all the sacraments He has instituted in His Church.

your distinction between initial justification and the later maintaining and increasing of justification is problematic. Scripture often refers to eternal life as a free gift (Romans 6:23, Revelation 21:6, etc.), and your view is akin to saying that a car is free if the bills don’t arrive until after you drive it off the lot.

The gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord is free in this sense — it comes to us from God without any merit on our part. But, we should not therefore think that working out our salvation (Phil 2:12) will require no sacrifice on our part. Jesus said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” (Luke 9:23, cf. Mt 16:24, Mk 8:34) We are fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him. (Rom 8:17) So the freedom of the gift of eternal life should not be conceived in an unqualified (or antinomian) way, but with respect to the utter graciousness of God’s offer of eternal life to us. On our part, it requires giving up everything. “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Lk 14:26)

That’s far from the most natural way to take the Biblical references to the freeness of justification and eternal life.

Assuming that simply going by “the most natural way” of reading the Bible correctly guides you to the proper understanding of the Apostolic deposit of faith is your underlying hermeneutical mistake. To understand the Bible, we need to read it in and with the persons to whom it was entrusted. In the history of the Church, we see that in many cases, the heretic’s most natural way of interpreting Scripture is to see his own heresy in it. That’s the danger of simply going by “the most natural way” of reading Scripture.

Saying that we maintain and increase justification through works is just another way of saying that we work for justification.

Such a claim presupposes the falsity of the distinction between justification and its increase, and thus begs the question. We work not for justification, but only for its increase. We can never merit justification. But once justified, we can, by the grace of God, merit eternal life, because in a state of grace (initiated by God), even one act done in agape for the God who is infinite Love merits an infinite reward, and this infinite reward is the eternal vision of God Himself.

In reality, though, a past justification attained through faith gives peace in the present (Romans 5:1)

Of course. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches.

and assurance of the future (Romans 5:9). The initial justification determines our present and future justification.

Only if we persevere. All the Scriptural warnings about persevering would be heretical if past justification guaranteed future justification.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

from comment 13 on the same link

Of course I’m not denying that living faith is first inward. If justification absolutely depended on works, then even baptized babies who die in infancy could not be saved. But we know that baptized babies who die in infancy are saved. Hence, we know that justification does not absolutely require that the living faith possessed be expressed in works, or that justification be increased.

Then http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/ comment 75

 . The Old Covenant sacraments (e.g. circumcision) did not confer grace, but were signs of faith. Because the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant (Heb. 7:22; 8:6), the New Covenant sacraments are greater than the Old Covenant sacraments, and effect what they signify. The assumption in your question is that the New Covenant sacramental economy is identical to that of the Old. And that’s just not a safe assumption (nor is it true ;-).

from http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-7/

Of course faith does come by hearing. But in Catholic doctrine the sanctifying grace through which we have the virtues of faith, hope and agape, comes to us through the sacrament of baptism. We first come to believe the good news, and have love for Christ, by hearing the gospel.²⁶ But in the sacrament of baptism, faith, hope and agape are deepened; they are made to be firmly planted dispositions in our soul. In baptism they become theologicalvirtues.²⁷ In baptism we are ingrafted into Christ (cf. Rom 6), and by becoming firmly rooted dispositions faith, hope, and agape become part of who we are, not just acts we do.²⁸

from comment  13 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/baptism-now-saves-you-some-more-prolegomena/#comment-79555

Here are some answers to your questions about the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration:

1) Do you permit extra-sacramental grace? That is, can one receive Christ and all his saving benefits upon hearing the gospel apart from baptism?

These are two different questions. The answer to the first question is yes, if by “permit” you mean “recognize”. The answer to the second question depends upon circumstances. Normally, adult catechumens believe in Christ before or while they are preparing to enter the visible communion of the Church via Baptism. These catechumens are not considered to be “unsaved”; however, Baptism confers saving benefits. In the extraordinary circumstance that such a believer in Jesus, i.e., one who is preparing for Baptism or one who would have been preparing for Baptism had he or she known of its necessity (e.g., the thief on the Cross who believed in Christ), he is considered to be saved by the grace of God through the “baptism of desire” (cf. the article on “Baptism” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, under the sub-heading, “Substitutes for the sacrament”). Some theologians have stated that one saving benefit that is not received by the “baptism of desire” is the sacramental character that is conferred by the sacrament, which, along with the sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation), renders the baptized person capable of fully participating in divine worship as member of the Body of Christ.

2) Are the regenerating affects of baptism necessarily annexed to the time of administration? The tradition with which I’m most familiar, Reformed Presbyterianism, permits extra-sacramental grace and does not inseparably tie the benefits of baptism to that moment. That is, baptism might “kick-in” later.

The Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments have their effect ex opere operato, that is, from the “work being performed” (i.e., the sacrament being administered). The word “annex” is far too weak, as expressing a secondary and / or extrinsic relationship, to adequately express the relation between the sacraments and their proper effects. However, St Thomas Aquinas, among others, teaches that “insincerity” hinders the effect of Baptism, and that that effect is produced when the insincerity ceases (Summa theologiae, III, 69, 9-10 [link]). So there is a sense in which some of the effects of Baptism “kick-in” after the administration of Baptism, though these effects are still given in Baptism, as being intrinsic to it.

3) Is the final justification at all related to the “initial” justification conferred in baptism? Or, are the two so dichotomized that there is really no relationship?

Yes, all of the sacraments are ordered to our final justification, beginning with Baptism, which lays the foundation for our new life in Christ by making us new creations in Him.
from some questions and answers found in the comment section here  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/10/a-reply-from-a-romery-person/comment-page-2/

I have a question concerning the statement made in the article:

As I have argued elsewhere, the Bible does not definitively teach that we are justified by faith-without-agape; Catholics understand justification by faith to refer to justification by faith-informed-by-agape.

end of quote.

Therefore the faith that justifies has to be a living faith or a faith-informed by agape. You also state:

But, in Catholic theology actual grace comes to us before regeneration, and actual grace first acts as operative grace (in which God moves us without us), and then by our participation actual grace acts as cooperative grace (God moving us with us), leading us to faith and baptism by which we receive sanctifying grace, and are thereby justified.

Here is my question. At baptism one receives the theological virtues of faith, love , and hope. Therefore at baptism one is given a living faith or a faith informed by agape. Is , then, the faith that comes before one is baptized and before one is regenerated (usually) a dead faith ? In other words, when operative and cooperative grace “lead us to faith and baptism” is this initial faith before we are baptized a dead faith? Is it a dead faith because we do not yet have the theological virtue of love until we receive baptism?

Secondly, if justification and living faith both come at baptism, and there is not a sequence of living faith followed by initial justification how can we say that faith justifies? How can we say that initial justification comes by faith informed by agape if they both occur at the same moment in baptism?

and

Great questions there! I’d like to take a stab at answering some of them in an orthodox manner, and then I’ll let Bryan pick up the pieces =)

In other words, when operative and cooperative grace “lead us to faith and baptism” is this initial faith before we are baptized a dead faith? Is it a dead faith because we do not yet have the theological virtue of love until we receive baptism?

In session 6, chapter 4 the Council of Trent stated that “This translation [i.e. from a original sin in Adam to the state of grace] cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration [i.e. baptism] or its desire…”

In the case of someone who has experienced conversion and desires baptism, he or she may attain the state of grace prior to the physical performance of the sacrament. So, the short answer to your question is *not necessarily*. It’s possible that the person is living a life of faith-conjoined-to-agape, but it’s also possible that the person does not possess faith-conjoined-to-agape. Now, in the physical sacrament of baptism comes the assurance of sanctifying grace and the infusion of the supernatural virtues faith, hope, and charity. St. Paul’s statements of “justified by faith” can be understood as “justified by faith-conjoined-to-agape”. Whether those justified persons have living faith prior to baptism or only afterward, we simply cannot always tell.

Secondly, if justification and living faith both come at baptism, and there is not a sequence of living faith followed by initial justification how can we say that faith justifies?

We say “faith justifies” in the sense that “faith-conjoined-to-agape justifies” which is a truth taught by the Church. Your question assumes that God cannot grant faith-conjoined-by-agape prior to baptism, which contradicts the quote above from the Council of Trent. A person has faith-conjoined-to-agape if and only if he is in a state of grace, and if he is in that state prior to physical baptism, and dies in that state, he is indeed justified (e.g. the good thief on the cross).

and

Yes, this helps—I did forget about the “desire” part in the Council of Trent. This is helpful.

I also realize that when an adult comes for baptism as it states in the CCC in 168:

In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” And the answer is: “Faith.” “What does faith offer you?” “Eternal life.”

and I now remember this!:

1249 Catechumens “are already joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ, and are quite frequently already living a life of faith, hope, and charity.”48 “With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own.”

All of which makes sense in the light of what you (John) have stated. Furthermore , I am guessing, that if a person receives faith informed by love at Baptism this instantaneously produces justification . In other words, it follows so closely at Baptism . I think I was getting caught up in the order of things.

All in all, you have made it a bit clearer in my mind, thanks

also here comment 77 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/faith-reason-context-conversion/#comment-10542

I would like to expand upon Mike’s point that the difference between the “assent” of faith and the “virtue” of faith is one of degree – which it is. Faith can exist without being virtuous. That is, its essence as faith is not destroyed by a privation of charity. The essence of faith is assent to all that God has spoken exactly because it is God who has spoken – “Who can neither deceive nor be deceived”. Now such an assent needs always be asissted by an act of God’s grace, and as such, it is a gift. However, like many gifts we receive from God, it remains a gift whether or not it is animated by charity – think of charsims of the Holy Spirit such as healing or the working of miracles, which though truly gifts derived from God’s grace (perhaps even irrevocable); when used without love become like “clanging symbols” to St Paul’s terminology. Likewise, a man may truly be gifted with “faith” and believe all of the teachings of the Catholic faith exactly because he sees it is God who has ultimately revealed them; yet, he may entirely resist God’s grace in the daily course of life and so fail to “trust” or PUT his faith in God, in the sense of giving himself into God’s care. Love, charity, agape, are different ways of describing the act of self-giving. Thus, what is lacking in such a man is a faith animated by charity – not faith per se. He has a lifeless faith rather than a living faith – but faith nonetheless. As St. James would say, his faith is dead – though not non-existent; much like the human soul without God’s indwelling grace remains truly a human soul – even though both Christ and the apostles refer to such a soul as “dead” and in need of rebirth.

Now faith’s proper aspect is to be animated by charity – to be living. The assent of faith to truths proposed by God exactly because God is the one making propositions, should naturally lead a person to seek to appropriate the lived implications of the truths proposed: the very first of which is to seek reconcilliation with God. The episode concerning St. Peter’s preaching to the crowd in the first chapters of Acts immediately after the descent of the Holy Spirit, narrates just this response. When the people, feeing compunction at his words, ask “what shall we do?”, St Peter responds, “do penance and be baptised”. Baptism, in the catholic understanding, infuses the life of God Himself within the soul. God, Who is love, takes up residence so that the soul is filled with supernatural charity – or agape. This charity, in turn, fulfills and elevates the gift of faith by which an intellectual assent of the mind and will to truths proposed by God was achieved (and which first led the soul to seek baptism), by translating such intellectual assent into a filail, trusting, self-giving of the entire person (mind, will, body, hopes, dreams, possessions – everything) into the hands of God. It is the gift of Divine indwelling love – agape – received at baptism, which elevates faith from a gift into the form of a virtue.

It is in this respect that catholics say the virtue of faith is received at baptism. It is with respect to thevirtue of faith that St. Paul repeatedly uses the phrase “obedience of faith” in the book of Romans. It is in respect to the virtue of faith (faith animated by love) that St. Paul says that Abraham was saved through faith. Abraham not only believed God with an intellectual assent (though he did this too); rather he believed God in the virtuous sense of entrusting his entire life to God’s care as the history of Abraham’s encounters with God shows. It is in respect to the virtue of faith (faith working through love) that a catholic can carefully and specifically affirm that we are saved by “faith” alone. We often hear it said that a person who fails to trust God in their day to day affairs “lacks faith”. For purposes of theological clarity, we should say that their “faith is lacking”; there is a privation of what “ought” to be – their faith is lacking the charity which should animate the self-giving trust that concerns the virtueof faith. Such lack does not entail that the gift of faith, in so far as a grace assisted assent of the intellect and will to propositional truths is concrned, has been eradicated. In this way, one can see that “faith” admits of degrees (as Mike has said) since it may be considered as a gift, or it may be considered as a gift utilized in a virtuous way: it may be considered as stagnant or active; as noun or verb. These differences of degree correspond rather significantly to naunced controversies between catholics and protestants in the area of soteriology – especially justification.

and here comment 57  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/10/a-reply-from-a-romery-person/comment-page-2/

I think part of my confusion stems from Trent session 6 chapter 7:

For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.

Here is seems to put justification before the receiving of charity when it says ,”the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts of those who are justified ” (past tense). It looks like love and or the virtue of love comes to those already justified. This is also part of what is confusing me. Perhaps they do not mean it in the way I am understanding it—perhaps it is not a sequential listing?

I find it is confusing as to which comes first– the justification or the faith informed by love ? Here in Trent it looks like the justified receive the love when it should be the faith informed by love that then is followed by justification. I think I am getting tangled! Can some one get me untangled here?

comment 58

The quotation reads:

the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts of those who are justified and inheres in them

You are reading that as:

the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts of those who are [already] justified and inheres in them

But it should be understood as:

the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts of those who are [thereby] justified and inheres in them

also from comment 70 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/faith-reason-context-conversion/

2.) The council of Trent elsewhere (I do not have the quote handy) explicitly states that “faith” is a supernatural gift which can remain in the soul even for a person who no longer possesses agape – i.e is no longer in a state of grace. Thus, it would seem that the gift of “faith” is not intrinsically tied to the sort of agape, or indwelling grace, which is received at baptism since such a gift can remain when such grace is subsequently absent. Here is St. Thomas’s explanation as to how this can be so:

Article 2. Whether lifeless faith is a gift of God?

Objection 1. It would seem that lifeless faith is not a gift of God. For it is written (Deuteronomy 32:4) that “the works of God are perfect.” Now lifeless faith is something imperfect. Therefore it is not the work of God.

On the contrary, A gloss on 1 Corinthians 13:2 says that “the faith which lacks charity is a gift of God.” Now this is lifeless faith. Therefore lifeless faith is a gift of God.

I answer that, Lifelessness is a privation. Now it must be noted that privation is sometimes essential to the species, whereas sometimes it is not, but supervenes in a thing already possessed of its proper species: thus privation of the due equilibrium of the humors is essential to the species of sickness, while darkness is not essential to a diaphanous body, but supervenes in it. Since, therefore, when we assign the cause of a thing, we intend to assign the cause of that thing as existing in its proper species, it follows that what is not the cause of privation, cannot be assigned as the cause of the thing to which that privation belongs as being essential to its species. For we cannot assign as the cause of a sickness, something which is not the cause of a disturbance in the humors: though we can assign as cause of a diaphanous body, something which is not the cause of the darkness, which is not essential to the diaphanous body.

Now the lifelessness of faith is not essential to the species of faith, since faith is said to be lifeless through lack of an extrinsic form, as stated above (Question 4, Article 4). Consequently the cause of lifeless faith is that which is the cause of faith strictly so called: and this is God, as stated above (Article 1). It follows, therefore, that lifeless faith is a gift of God.

Reply to Objection 1. Lifeless faith, though it is not simply perfect with the perfection of a virtue, is, nevertheless, perfect with a perfection that suffices for the essential notion of faith.

Hope that helps

comment 81

So, would you agree that the agape received at baptism is, like in the case of faith, a strengthening of a virtue that may already exist?

I want to head something off at the pass here. The answer to your question is “yes” in the case of every gift of grace, of which the three supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and love are the standard manifestations, with the greatest being love. But people who know all that often go on to ask still another question. If the sacraments merely confirm manifestations of grace that are already there without them–and if other visible things, people, or events can also do the same–then in what sense can baptism be necessary for salvation, and why are the sacraments in general “necessary” in the manner the Catholic Church says (cf CCC §1129)?

The answer is that we are saved only by incorporation into Christ, which means being somehow in communion with his Body, the Church. As “efficacious signs,” the sacraments of the Church are the “ordinary means” through which the grace by which we are saved is transmitted to us. Accordingly, all grace that is manifest beyond the confines of the visible Church comes to people through the Church, even if they don’t know or don’t care about the Church. And since the celebration of the sacraments is essential to the Church, it is essential even for the grace manifest beyond the visible confines of the Church.

Best,