Prevenient Grace - Catholic View

[Dave G]

In other words, the same person can do the Salutary Act or not do it. It’s in their Free Will..

I believe that "free will" is basically an illusion created in men's minds because of our desire to have things the way that we selfishly want them, to the exclusion of the way God wants them.

In other words, our will as men is so corrupt and alienated from God that it has come to the point that we will never choose God's ways no matter how attractive any offer is, because He requires that we repent and turn away from the sin that we love ( Romans 1:32, John 3:19-20 ).
We also are not willing to come to Him that we might have life ( John 5:40 ), so we end up hating Him for commanding our repentance.

If you don’t go by that then you’ll end up “Dividing” everything in Scripture between the Elect and non-elect which is what Calvinists do.

I divide everything in Scripture between elect and non-elect as well.

To me, the "whosoever believes" is divided between someone who believes from a heart that God has miraculously changed the disposition of, and one who only believes for a time and then falls away ( Matthew 13:18-23 ).
They are also characterized by the terms of Matthew 13:36-43 in that the "wheat", who are the saved and who will not only persevere in their faith which was a gift from God ( Ephesians 2:8 ) authored and finished by His Son ( Hebrews 12:2 ) and is the evidence of their being made alive in Him ( Hebrews 11:1 ), differ from the "tares" who only profess Christ with the lips but in works deny Him ( Titus 1:16 ).

 

[Dave G]

You say your “Will” is transformed which I can accept but when you sin after this transformation, Calvin is saying it’s because God didn’t give you Grace AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. In other words, when you are transformed, the Grace is not permanent (it’s transient).

I disagree with Calvin in that, when a saved, born again person sins, it's because they yielded to the flesh instead of the Spirit that indwells them.
Christians can and do quench the Spirit ( 1 Thessalonians 5:19 ).

So even though the grace is permanent, the Christian's walk is characterized by "walking in the flesh" and "walking" in the Spirit ( Galatians 5:16 ).
But their slavery to sin is broken ( Romans 6:1-14 ) and they are now debtors to the Spirit and not the flesh that keeps tempting them to stumble into sin.

To put it more succinctly in accordance with your quote above,
The grace is permanent, not transient.

Even though the Christian sins, their trespasses are all covered by Christ's sacrifice for them on the cross ( Colossians 2:13-14 );
Even though they stumble in and out of sin ( until they learn to "walk" in the Spirit ), God's gracious act of making them born again has solved the problem of wanting to permanently walk in it.
So in that particular instance of sin, I would state that God's grace through power of His Spirit was simply not "accessed" by the person who is indwelt by it.

That is my current understanding of it ( subject to change as I study it out more ).

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Yeshua1,
I believe it’s true we are not saved by Faith alone. This is what Prevenient Grace is all about. The Gift of Faith is a Prevenient Grace (See post #1). They are necessary but Charity has to be in your soul as well. Charity is Sanctifying Grace (Gal 5:6). I really think if you understood correctly what we believe you wouldn’t think it’s that bad. Grace runs all the way through our salvation process. If you read at least my first post most of the way through ( maybe down to where I speculate about Total Depravity) and try to see the Big Picture, then it will start making sense. I know it is way different from your view but if you try I think it will start making sense. Maybe draw on a piece of paper “1 Cor 12” on the left side and “1 Cor 13” on the right and list all the Gifts (Graces) I name in my post on each side. Basically the Gifts would be on the left and the Sacraments and infused virtues on the right. That will help you in understanding. It will at least help you to understand your view better. I can’t tell you how much I’ve learned from reading Luther and Calvin. I disagreed with some of what they said but it helped in understanding mine better. I find that you have to try real hard to understand a different view. It’s almost like learning a different language but you want to understand it correctly before you critique. There are certain things I felt I understood correctly and some things I don’t. That’s really why I’m on here. I love reading what you and the Arminians have to say about Soteriology. Thanks for being on here and sharing your Faith and letting me be on here. May God bless!

The Bible states that we are right now fully Justified in the beloved, but Rome states that cannot know for sure, for it not enough meritorious grace, will go to purgatory!

 

[Yeshua1]

I disagree with Calvin in that, when a saved, born again person sins, it's because they yielded to the flesh instead of the Spirit that indwells them.
Christians can and do quench the Spirit ( 1 Thessalonians 5:19 ).

So even though the grace is permanent, the Christian's walk is characterized by "walking in the flesh" and "walking" in the Spirit ( Galatians 5:16 ).
But their slavery to sin is broken ( Romans 6:1-14 ) and they are now debtors to the Spirit and not the flesh that keeps tempting them to stumble into sin.

To put it more succinctly in accordance with your quote above,
The grace is permanent, not transient.

Even though the Christian sins, their trespasses are all covered by Christ's sacrifice for them on the cross ( Colossians 2:13-14 );
Even though they stumble in and out of sin ( until they learn to "walk" in the Spirit ), God's gracious act of making them born again has solved the problem of wanting to permanently walk in it.
So in that particular instance of sin, I would state that God's grace through power of His Spirit was simply not "accessed" by the person who is indwelt by it.

That is my current understanding of it ( subject to change as I study it out more ).

the saved now have a real choice, obey and yield to the Holy Spirit, or submit to the flesh, while lost can only submit to flesh!

 

[Dave G]

Going back a some in your posts, I'd like to comment a bit:

Calvinists divide Romans 1 into two distinct camps. Traditionalists say everything is combined and accomplished in the preaching of the Gospel. I’m sure Traditionalists believe in Grace all the way through but maybe the steps just need to be shown theologically.

"Traditionalists" ( I have no idea where the term originated, because as far as I am aware, it did not exist prior to roughly 10-15 years ago ), also now known as "Provisionists", differ greatly from "Calvinists" in the way they believe that salvation is accomplished.
In other words, they believe in an operative grace which results in a cooperative grace, which then results in an operative grace at the end.

Contrast this with "Five Point Calvinists" who believe in an operative grace throughout.

Based on what I see in the above, Catholics appear to divide "Calvinists" into two camps...
while "Traditionalists" see themselves as basically one camp, with "Arminians" / Wesleyans" and "Molinists" in another and "Calvinists" in a third.
"Wesleyans" / "Arminians" tend to do the same thing that Catholics do and divide essentially along the same lines, calling "Traditionalists" = "Calvinists", and agreeing with "Molinists" and Catholics, for the most part.

To me, it's a matter of perspective.
The camps that believe that salvation can be lost or forfeited, accuse the camps that do not of being "Calvinists" and the camps that believe that it cannot, accuse the ones who do of being "Arminians".

 

[Dave G]

@LaGrange :
Now I'd like to offer a breakdown from my own perspective...

Traditionalists basically say that everything is combined and accomplished in the preaching of the Gospel, in that the Gospel message itself is the power of God.
Those who believe it "get saved" because of their belief of it, while those who do not believe have the opportunity to rectify that unbelief all the way up until the end of their lives.
They differ on whether or not a person who believes for a time and then later and falls away, really was saved...
Some say they were, some say they were not;
"OSAS" or "Once Saved, Always Saved" is generally believed, while others call it "Eternal Security".
This is what I once believed for about 25 years.

Most non-Traditionalist "Calvinists" say that the preaching of the Gospel is the means by which the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of His elect, in order to bring them to the knowledge of their salvation...
But the Gospel itself actually has no power unless the Holy Spirit uses the word of God in the process of "calling" ( or spiritually summoning ) one of His elect.

Those that end up believing on Christ and confessing Him, are of two types...

"Wheat", who believe because they are saved and who endure to the end in their faith despite sometimes terrible trials;
and "tares" who fall away during trials and temptations because they were never saved, stop continuing in the word and in their seeming spiritual growth, and lose even what they appeared to have had.
This is what I now believe after years of private study.

 

[Dave G]

@LaGrange :
One more post... and my apologies for the wall of information, but I was well-known in college for my ability to make an essay out of even the smallest subject;


"Wesleyans", Modern "Arminians" ( as opposed to "Classic Arminians", of which there are few ) and "Molinists" ( as far as I am aware ) all basically teach and preach a salvation that is accomplished by cooperation with God's grace.
"Traditionalists" also do this, but to a much smaller degree.

These all hold to some form of Prevenient Grace.

In the end, the camp that all the rest agree overwhelmingly and call "Calvinists", preach and teach that salvation and the gift of eternal life are not appropriated or accepted by men, but rather bestowed upon men through no conscious effort of their own.
Some have gone so far as to call this "Pure Grace" theology.

In this camp, no one preaches or teaches Prevenient Grace;

Rather, they hold that God's grace that results in salvation is a gift given only to His elect ( "wheat" ), and those not His children from the foundation of the world ( "tares" who confess Christ with the lips, but who actually still love this world and its ways, as well as non-confessing unbelievers ) are only given what is termed as "common grace" in that God makes the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust ( Matthew 5:45 ).


I hope that you find this of some help.
May God bless you in many ways and with many good and perfect gifts.

 

[LaGrange]

I believe that "free will" is basically an illusion created in men's minds because of our desire to have things the way that we selfishly want them, to the exclusion of the way God wants them.

In other words, our will as men is so corrupt and alienated from God that it has come to the point that we will never choose God's ways no matter how attractive any offer is, because He requires that we repent and turn away from the sin that we love ( Romans 1:32, John 3:19-20 ).
We also are not willing to come to Him that we might have life ( John 5:40 ), so we end up hating Him for commanding our repentance.

I divide everything in Scripture between elect and non-elect as well.

To me, the "whosoever believes" is divided between someone who believes from a heart that God has miraculously changed the disposition of, and one who only believes for a time and then falls away ( Matthew 13:18-23 ).
They are also characterized by the terms of Matthew 13:36-43 in that the "wheat", who are the saved and who will not only persevere in their faith which was a gift from God ( Ephesians 2:8 ) authored and finished by His Son ( Hebrews 12:2 ) and is the evidence of their being made alive in Him ( Hebrews 11:1 ), differ from the "tares" who only profess Christ with the lips but in works deny Him ( Titus 1:16 ).

Hi Dave G,
You know, Dave, we believe God is going to divide those who believe from the heart and those who don’t believe too “At the End” but what I honestly think Calvinists are doing is “Dividing at the beginning”. I realized this when I was exegeting Rom 9:22. I realized Calvinists exegete Rom 9 as God “Deciding from Heaven” before we are conceived. We see Rom 9 as God being the Potter on earth molding us during our lives. For example, with the Parable of the Sower, we don’t know which ground we are going to end up being. The ground can change. God gives all men Grace to be saved but some resist. With the Sower, we ALL receive the seed. That’s what the parable is saying. It’s true God already knows who is going to make and who isn’t but we still believe He provides all the Grace so we can make it. We don’t know. It is a mystery. We believe Matt 5:40 proves “Sufficient Grace” which means we can “resist”. Not all grace is Efficacious (Irresistible) as in John 6:37. Scripture says some didn’t “Remain” with Christ (Jer 23:33, Matt 22:13). If you didn’t remain it must mean you did remain and was with God a some point.

 

[LaGrange]

@LaGrange :
Now I'd like to offer a breakdown from my own perspective...

Traditionalists basically say that everything is combined and accomplished in the preaching of the Gospel, in that the Gospel message itself is the power of God.
Those who believe it "get saved" because of their belief of it, while those who do not believe have the opportunity to rectify that unbelief all the way up until the end of their lives.
They differ on whether or not a person who believes for a time and then later and falls away, really was saved...
Some say they were, some say they were not;
"OSAS" or "Once Saved, Always Saved" is generally believed, while others call it "Eternal Security".
This is what I once believed for about 25 years.

Most non-Traditionalist "Calvinists" say that the preaching of the Gospel is the means by which the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of His elect, in order to bring them to the knowledge of their salvation...
But the Gospel itself actually has no power unless the Holy Spirit uses the word of God in the process of "calling" ( or spiritually summoning ) one of His elect.

Those that end up believing on Christ and confessing Him, are of two types...

"Wheat", who believe because they are saved and who endure to the end in their faith despite sometimes terrible trials;
and "tares" who fall away during trials and temptations because they were never saved, stop continuing in the word and in their seeming spiritual growth, and lose even what they appeared to have had.
This is what I now believe after years of private study.

Hi Dave G,

I believe that "free will" is basically an illusion created in men's minds because of our desire to have things the way that we selfishly want them, to the exclusion of the way God wants them.

In other words, our will as men is so corrupt and alienated from God that it has come to the point that we will never choose God's ways no matter how attractive any offer is, because He requires that we repent and turn away from the sin that we love ( Romans 1:32, John 3:19-20 ).
We also are not willing to come to Him that we might have life ( John 5:40 ), so we end up hating Him for commanding our repentance.

I divide everything in Scripture between elect and non-elect as well.

To me, the "whosoever believes" is divided between someone who believes from a heart that God has miraculously changed the disposition of, and one who only believes for a time and then falls away ( Matthew 13:18-23 ).
They are also characterized by the terms of Matthew 13:36-43 in that the "wheat", who are the saved and who will not only persevere in their faith which was a gift from God ( Ephesians 2:8 ) authored and finished by His Son ( Hebrews 12:2 ) and is the evidence of their being made alive in Him ( Hebrews 11:1 ), differ from the "tares" who only profess Christ with the lips but in works deny Him ( Titus 1:16 ).

@LaGrange :
Now I'd like to offer a breakdown from my own perspective...

Traditionalists basically say that everything is combined and accomplished in the preaching of the Gospel, in that the Gospel message itself is the power of God.
Those who believe it "get saved" because of their belief of it, while those who do not believe have the opportunity to rectify that unbelief all the way up until the end of their lives.
They differ on whether or not a person who believes for a time and then later and falls away, really was saved...
Some say they were, some say they were not;
"OSAS" or "Once Saved, Always Saved" is generally believed, while others call it "Eternal Security".
This is what I once believed for about 25 years.

Most non-Traditionalist "Calvinists" say that the preaching of the Gospel is the means by which the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of His elect, in order to bring them to the knowledge of their salvation...
But the Gospel itself actually has no power unless the Holy Spirit uses the word of God in the process of "calling" ( or spiritually summoning ) one of His elect.

Those that end up believing on Christ and confessing Him, are of two types...

"Wheat", who believe because they are saved and who endure to the end in their faith despite sometimes terrible trials;
and "tares" who fall away during trials and temptations because they were never saved, stop continuing in the word and in their seeming spiritual growth, and lose even what they appeared to have had.
This is what I now believe after years of private study.

Hi Dave G,
Its’s some good information and good thinking you are sharing with me and I want to thank you. Your paragraph that starts “Most non-traditionalist “Calvinists” I agree with. I think what Traditionalists, Arminians and Catholics would disagree with is that Calvinists say God predestines the Non-elect from heaven before we are conceived. We do believe God predestines the Elect from heaven but even then, we have to go through the process and WE DON’T KNOW we are one of the Elect. Each person who is one of the Elect can change back and forth during their lives.

 

[LaGrange]

The Bible states that we are right now fully Justified in the beloved, but Rome states that cannot know for sure, for it not enough meritorious grace, will go to purgatory!

Hi Yeshua1,
We believe we can have “Confidence” (1 John 5:13-14) we are going to heaven but cannot have “Absolute Assurance”. Really Purgatory doesn’t have anything to do with going to heaven or hell because Purgatory is a temporary state and abode (place). I don’t want to defend Purgatory right now but I could. I want to try and stay on grace as much as possible and especially Prevenient Grace. Thanks for your responses!

 

[LaGrange]

@LaGrange :
One more post... and my apologies for the wall of information, but I was well-known in college for my ability to make an essay out of even the smallest subject;


"Wesleyans", Modern "Arminians" ( as opposed to "Classic Arminians", of which there are few ) and "Molinists" ( as far as I am aware ) all basically teach and preach a salvation that is accomplished by cooperation with God's grace.
"Traditionalists" also do this, but to a much smaller degree.

These all hold to some form of Prevenient Grace.

In the end, the camp that all the rest agree overwhelmingly and call "Calvinists", preach and teach that salvation and the gift of eternal life are not appropriated or accepted by men, but rather bestowed upon men through no conscious effort of their own.
Some have gone so far as to call this "Pure Grace" theology.

In this camp, no one preaches or teaches Prevenient Grace;

Rather, they hold that God's grace that results in salvation is a gift given only to His elect ( "wheat" ), and those not His children from the foundation of the world ( "tares" who confess Christ with the lips, but who actually still love this world and its ways, as well as non-confessing unbelievers ) are only given what is termed as "common grace" in that God makes the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust ( Matthew 5:45 ).


I hope that you find this of some help.
May God bless you in many ways and with many good and perfect gifts.

Hi Dave G,
I love all the info! Don’t worry about your posts being too long. Lol It helps me understand more. I understand generally the different groups but not much further than that “Execpt” for the Calvinists. I seemed to have gravitated to Calvinism. It intrigued me when I first realized they didn’t believe in Supernatural Free Will. Also, I was very interested in Luther so I understand him to a higher degree.

Here’s a little history. Let me explain the groups in the Catholic Church. Yes we have groups too! Lol There are really 4 Groups or different views of Predestination: Augustinian, Congruism, Molinism and Thomism (Banez). The 2 Main Views are Molinism and Thomism. Now I have to explain that there are many different names for these 2 Views:

1. Molinist View, Jesuit View
2. Thomistic View, Dominican View, Banezian View

The Molinists refer to the other view as the Banezian View or Dominican View because Fr Molina claimed his view was also rooted in St. Thomas Aquinas. I follow the Banezian View. I’ve heard that the predominant view in the Catholic Church Today is the Molinist View but I was influenced by Fr Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, my favorite theologian, who follows Fr Domingo Banez’ View. The Dominican View is the one that goes all the way back to the early church in my opinion. Fr Garrigou-LaGrange is the most “Pure” Thomist and I like the most pure form of what I believe to be the Faith handed down and that’s why I follow him. I like to say that if you took St. Thomas and put him in the 20th century you would have Fr Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange. He didn’t try to update Aquinas with the times like the others did. He fought Modernism.

After the Protestant Reformation, the Jesuit Fr Louis Molina tried to reconcile somewhat Catholic Predestination with the Protestant reformers. He came out with his “Concordia” in 1582. This set off a firestorm among the Dominicans. Their leader was Fr Domingo Banez. They began attacking each to the point that the Jesuits and Dominicans were fighting in public. The Pope called them to Rome and had these 2 debate In front of him so he could decide. This famous debate took place in the 1590’s in Rome. It ended with a standoff because the pope died. Since the church was reeling from the Protestant Revolt, the new Pope said they could not debate the issue. That’s why we still have both views today. They do apparently fall into the parameters of the doctrine of the church.

Hope that helps!

 

[LaGrange]

Going back a some in your posts, I'd like to comment a bit:

"Traditionalists" ( I have no idea where the term originated, because as far as I am aware, it did not exist prior to roughly 10-15 years ago ), also now known as "Provisionists", differ greatly from "Calvinists" in the way they believe that salvation is accomplished.
In other words, they believe in an operative grace which results in a cooperative grace, which then results in an operative grace at the end.

Contrast this with "Five Point Calvinists" who believe in an operative grace throughout.

Based on what I see in the above, Catholics appear to divide "Calvinists" into two camps...
while "Traditionalists" see themselves as basically one camp, with "Arminians" / Wesleyans" and "Molinists" in another and "Calvinists" in a third.
"Wesleyans" / "Arminians" tend to do the same thing that Catholics do and divide essentially along the same lines, calling "Traditionalists" = "Calvinists", and agreeing with "Molinists" and Catholics, for the most part.

To me, it's a matter of perspective.
The camps that believe that salvation can be lost or forfeited, accuse the camps that do not of being "Calvinists" and the camps that believe that it cannot, accuse the ones who do of being "Arminians".

Hi Dave G,
You’re giving me more good info! I have to say that in this case I agree more with the Traditionalists. We believe in Operative AND Cooperative Grace too. Calvinists believe only in Operative Grace. St Augustine believe in Both (On Nature and Grace, Ch 33 (17). No, I see Calvinists on one side and basically everybody else on the other as far as the Theology goes. The last thing you said about the different camps accusing each other makes me think that each camp has some Calvinism in it and some Traditionalism in it and some Arminianism in it. Some emphasize one view more than another. That’s what I see from the outside. This makes it very difficult to keep everything straight. When I criticize I am usually criticizing Luther or Calvin because this the “Unmixed” pure Theology.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Yeshua1,
We believe we can have “Confidence” (1 John 5:13-14) we are going to heaven but cannot have “Absolute Assurance”. Really Purgatory doesn’t have anything to do with going to heaven or hell because Purgatory is a temporary state and abode (place). I don’t want to defend Purgatory right now but I could. I want to try and stay on grace as much as possible and especially Prevenient Grace. Thanks for your responses!

what sins then does the blood of Jesus not atone for, and why would we need ANY additional sacramental grace in order to be saved?

 

[LaGrange]

what sins then does the blood of Jesus not atone for, and why would we need ANY additional sacramental grace in order to be saved?

Hi Yeshua1,
Instead of talking about the blood, I’ll take a different approach: If you are judged by God at the time of your death (Heb 9:27) how can you be judged before that time? That’s the way we would look at it. Calvinism seems to place the time of this judgement before we are conceived and OSAS Group places this judgement at the point of Justification. Good question!

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Yeshua1,
Instead of talking about the blood, I’ll take a different approach: If you are judged by God at the time of your death (Heb 9:27) how can you be judged before that time? That’s the way we would look at it. Calvinism seems to place the time of this judgement before we are conceived and OSAS Group places this judgement at the point of Justification. Good question!

Those of us now in Christ have had the judgement already made and we have been found not guilty!

 

[LaGrange]

Hi Everyone,

St. Augustine - Prevenient Grace

I thought I needed to say a couple of things about St. Augustine. I know many of you would know Leighton Flowers, who is a Traditionalist Baptist and probably also know the Reformed Baptist, James White. Are those titles alright? Anyway, if you do, you know they debate back and forth all the time. I enjoy watching them and I’ve learned a lot. Leighton Flowers, in a couple of his Youtube Videos, had a guest named Ken Wilson on. Ken is a very learned man who graduated from Oxford and did his doctoral dissertation on St. Augustine. I read some of his book. He’s very insightful and is very knowledgeable but he said something that I noticed many people from ALL the different Protestant Camps say - both sides. They say St. Augustine believed in Free Will and later didn’t believe in Free Will and “Retracted” it. When I first saw this I thought: “Wait a minute. We believe in a Supernatural Free Will and we made St. Augustine a Doctor of the Church. We refer to him as the “Doctor of Grace”. This is the highest honor except for sainthood and we Canonized him a Saint too so what gives?” This made me do some research. Some in Protestant Camps on both sides say St. Augustine retracted Supernatural Free Will in his book near the end of his life in a work titled “Retractions”. If he did, it would be peculiar because he wrote a book the same to year titled “Treatise on Grace and Free Will” (427ad) in which he defended Free Will. Retractationes also came out in 427ad. Notice: First of all, the book is titled “Retractationes” and not “Retractions”. The 2 words are not the same. The Latin word “Retractationes” first comes from the Latin word “Tractus” which means “a drawing out” so it means “Drawing out again”. Ultimately it means the same as today you might say that it’s a “Supplement” to the original books . The book is to further explain things that he felt he didn’t explain as well as he thought he should have. He didn’t “Retract” hardly anything as I understand it, he “Clarified” things. One thing he didn’t “Retract” is Supernatural Free Will. He “Clarified” it or “Reaffirmed” it.

Here’s a little information I found from my research

Title: The Foundation of Augustinanism-Calvinism
By Ken Wilson

The following seems to be Ken Wilson’s main arguments that St. Augustine no longer believed in a Supernatural Free Will (Man’s Will with God’s Grace in it) and moved to Determinism.

P 59 (Ken Wilson’s Book)

Ken Wilson quotes St. Augustine (This is St. Augustine speaking): “Later in this book, the second question deals with the passage where the Apostle says: “Not she [Sara] only, but Rebecca also who conceived by one man Isaac our father,” up to where he says: “Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us a posterity, we should have become as Sodom, and should have been like Gomorrah.” In the solution of this question, I, indeed, labored in defense of the free choice of the human will; but the grace of God conquered, and finally I was able to understand, with full clarity, the meaning of the Apostle: “For who singles thee out? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received it, why dost thou boast as if thou hadst not received it?” (Retractations, To Simplician, Book 2)

Ken Wilson: Augustine admitted he had abandoned the centuries-old Christian doctrine of human free choice.[114] "In the solution of this question I struggled in behalf of free choice of the will, but the grace of God won out." (Retr. 2.1). "When I began my books on Free Choice [3.68]… I still doubted the condemnation of infants not born again [baptized]" (pers.30) and "before this heresy [Pelagianism] arose, they did not have the necessity to deal with this question, so difficult of solution. They would have undoubtedly have done so if they had been compelled to respond to such men." (pers.2.4; pred.44).” (P 59 - Ken Wilson’s Book)

I’m only commenting on the first part and not on Infant Baptism here

My Comment: I disagree. I noticed Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange quoted 1 Cor 4:7, in his book on Predestination, more than any other verse! Matter of fact, if you read a little further and see what else St. Augustine said, you’ll see just the opposite so I think it’s a misunderstanding:

St. Augustine (a little further in this same book): “In the second book, the other questions are treated and are solved to the best of our ability, howsoever insignificant; all are taken from the part of Scripture which is called “of Kings.” The first of these is: On what is written: “And the spirit of the Lord came upon Saul,”(1 Sam 10:10) although, in another place, this is said: “And an evil spirit of the Lord … upon Saul.”(1 Sam 16:14) When I was explaining this, I said: “Although what he wills is in the power of every man, nevertheless, what he can do is not in the power of every man.”16 This was said, then, because we do not say that a thing is in our power unless, when we will, it is done; for this reason, willing itself is first and foremost. For without an interval of time, the will itself is present instantly when we will;17 but we also receive from above the power to live rightly when “the will is prepared by the Lord.”(Retractations, To Simplician, Book 2)

My Comment continued: What St. Augustine is saying is that when Saul had the “Spirit of the Lord come upon him” and then had “an evil spirit come upon him”, in each instance, St. Augustine is saying:

Propositions:
Man has the power to Will
Man does not have the power to Will what he can do
(meaning what he should do which is to live rightly)
Man’s Will receives the “Power” to live rightly when “Prepared” by the Lord

Notice: Man’s Will is “Prepared” (Preparatory Graces - 1 Cor 12 Grace). This means man’s Will Receives the “Power” from above. Man’s Will is made “Free” (enabled) to be able to make a choice. So it’s not Replacing the Will like Calvin taught but building up of the SAME Will with God’s Grace in it to the point where the same man can choose to live justly with each choice but,
still be able not to live justly with each choice if he wants to. Man, with the same Will, had some good left in it after the Fall so, with Grace added, it has the Power to make a real choice. So what St. Augustine said that Ken Wilson quoted was saying that Grace “Precedes” our ability to make a choice. This is what 1 Cor 4:7 means. God goes first - Preparation.

Infant Baptism

Off the top of my head, I would say Infant Baptism doesn’t have to do directly with Prevenient Grace because it is “Sanctifying Grace” ( 1 Cor 13 Grace). Prevenient Grace that is present leading up to an infant Baptism is in the parents and Godparents. The parents and godparents had to use their Supernatural Free Will to bring the infant to the point of Baptism. The “Gift of Faith”(1 Cor 12 Grace) is in the parents and Godparents. Once the infant is Baptized, it receives an “Infused Virtue of Faith” ( 1 Cor 13:13).


Dualism

Ken Wilson said St. Augustine had been a Manichaean before converting to Christianity and retained some of his Manichaean tendencies. He said the Manichaeans were Dualists and said the Calvinists were too and Ken thought St. Augustine was where the Calvinists got it from. I definitely disagree with that. Calvin grew up in Northern France but Southern France had the Albigensians who were Cathars. The Cathars were Neo-Manichaeans, therefore, they were Dualists. Maybe Calvin was influenced by one of them in the north. The Catholic Dominican Order was created to defeat the Albigensian Heresy that centered around the town of Albi, near Toulouse, in southern France. The Albigensians were a branch of the Cathars and Dualists.

All this I hadn’t heard before so I’m thankful to Ken for that.

 

[LaGrange]

Those of us now in Christ have had the judgement already made and we have been found not guilty!

Hi Yeshua1,
We would say the key words are those “In Christ”. We believe those “In Christ” can change (Rom 8:1). There are a few “If’s” in Rom 8.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Yeshua1,
We would say the key words are those “In Christ”. We believe those “In Christ” can change (Rom 8:1). There are a few “If’s” in Rom 8.

Sealed until the day of redemption!

 

[LaGrange]

Sealed until the day of redemption!

Hi Yeshua1,
The verse means (Eph 4:30) is that you can fall away after Baptism. The parallel verse is Acts 7:51 which says you can “Resist” the Holy Ghost. We call this “Sufficient Grace” instead of “Efficacious Grace”. Not all grace is Irresistible. “Sealed unto the day of Redemption” means you were sealed (Stamped) at Baptism as a pledge (promise) of future glory (STh., III q.63 a.3 ad 1). I see this “Promise” in Eph 1:13-14 (Baptism). It’s like a down payment or a beginning. I know, to you, it looks like it means it’s a done deal but that’s not what it means.

 

[LaGrange]

Hi Everyone,
For your information, I am going to be off until the new year except to answer any posts. In January I will be out of town for a couple of weeks but don’t worry I’ll be back! You made me feel welcome. Half the time I want to continue my studies and, maybe the other half, post on here. Not sure yet how that will work. So I will be on here later. I’m thinking about working on a Post about the most controversial part of Prevenient Grace - Cooperative Grace. At least, that will be one of them. So I need time to work on those. I’ve enjoyed being on here and I want to thank you for your kindness. I am fully aware that we Catholics are the enemy, so to speak, (Lol) but I think if you put up with us you will get a more FULL picture of the controversy concerning Calvinism vs Arminianism (and Traditionalism) and the Reformation. I think we have been too quiet in all this and left a big void. There is another side. So Merry Christmas to you all and may God Bless every one of you. You truly are in my prayers. God bless!