Thank you very much on your works, especially the presentation and analysis in an in-depth manner. We are following you, thanks for this series.The Doctors of the church.
The Council of Orange, in 529 AD, finally settled the matter of the Pelagian controversy. Without naming Augustine, the canons of Orange clearly say that the Church was not going to accept his views on predestination, or the corresponding concepts of limited atonement and irresistible grace. But of course he was right on original sin, and his definition of grace as an active power of God, and that grace must always take the initiative before we can respond to it. This is why the Church's position, and that which was taken up by Aquinas, is called "semi-Augustinian." I linked my episode on Pelagianism and Augustine in the description, because that's where I talk about all this in a bit more detail. But if you want the whole story, check out my book, Reading the Church Fathers (the 2022 revised version) from Sophia Institute Press. To be clear, no one is saying Augustine is a heretic, he is still a Doctor of the Church, but Doctors can be wrong at times - being a Doctor of the Church does not mean one is infallible. But even though Augustine didn't cross the line into heresy, he walked right up to it, and when the Reformers wanted to back track, skipping over Aquinas to get back to Augustine, they picked up where Augustine left off - and then many of them, especially Calvin, did cross the line into heresy - specifically the "once saved always saved" doctrine of a guaranteed perseverance, as if one cannot lose one's salvation - that is a heresy - as well as adult-only baptism, which is ironically a form of Pelagianism. So what you have in some branches of Protestantism today is this curious combination of the worst of both Augustine and Pelagius - predestination combined with a denial of original sin and/or the denial of the grace of baptism to infants and children.
@@TheOriginalChurchSt. Aquinas taught that the elect are given the grace of perseverance and God will infallibly bring the elect to final glorification. This is clear in his teaching and in his commentators, but this doesn't negate the importance of human free will and our cooperation with grace and perseverance. Also, no one can know of their election without God giving them a special revelation, so from a human perspective nobody knows if they will persevere so we must all work to achieve final glorification. I would argue that St. Aquinas is more inline with St. Augustine than you are portraying here in your comment.
@@pipinfresh I think Aquinas is very Augustinian, but Aquinas has the nuance that Augustine lacked, so if anything, Aquinas "rescues" Augustine from himself. So I would say on the one hand that Aquinas corrects Augustine where that correction was needed, without swinging the pendulum too far towards the semi-Pelagian option. On the other hand, we also can't treat Aquinas as though he's infallible. He was wrong about a few things, too, not least was the Immaculate Conception. A couple good books to read would be "Aquinas the Augustinian," ed. by Dauphinais, David, and Levering, and "The Immaculate Conception: Why Thomas Aquinas Denied..." by Kappes.
This is great, am looking forward
Thank you ❤
Thank you very much on your works, especially the presentation and analysis in an in-depth manner. We are following you, thanks for this series.The Doctors of the church.
St. Alphonsus Ligouiri was a lawyer turned to be a church doctor.
❤
To what would you point to show that the church has rejected augustine’s understanding of predestination?
The Council of Orange, in 529 AD, finally settled the matter of the Pelagian controversy. Without naming Augustine, the canons of Orange clearly say that the Church was not going to accept his views on predestination, or the corresponding concepts of limited atonement and irresistible grace. But of course he was right on original sin, and his definition of grace as an active power of God, and that grace must always take the initiative before we can respond to it. This is why the Church's position, and that which was taken up by Aquinas, is called "semi-Augustinian." I linked my episode on Pelagianism and Augustine in the description, because that's where I talk about all this in a bit more detail. But if you want the whole story, check out my book, Reading the Church Fathers (the 2022 revised version) from Sophia Institute Press. To be clear, no one is saying Augustine is a heretic, he is still a Doctor of the Church, but Doctors can be wrong at times - being a Doctor of the Church does not mean one is infallible. But even though Augustine didn't cross the line into heresy, he walked right up to it, and when the Reformers wanted to back track, skipping over Aquinas to get back to Augustine, they picked up where Augustine left off - and then many of them, especially Calvin, did cross the line into heresy - specifically the "once saved always saved" doctrine of a guaranteed perseverance, as if one cannot lose one's salvation - that is a heresy - as well as adult-only baptism, which is ironically a form of Pelagianism. So what you have in some branches of Protestantism today is this curious combination of the worst of both Augustine and Pelagius - predestination combined with a denial of original sin and/or the denial of the grace of baptism to infants and children.
@ Thank you for taking the time to give a thorough explanation
@@desmondhutchinson6095 You're welcome! Happy to do it - thanks for asking the question!
@@TheOriginalChurchSt. Aquinas taught that the elect are given the grace of perseverance and God will infallibly bring the elect to final glorification. This is clear in his teaching and in his commentators, but this doesn't negate the importance of human free will and our cooperation with grace and perseverance. Also, no one can know of their election without God giving them a special revelation, so from a human perspective nobody knows if they will persevere so we must all work to achieve final glorification. I would argue that St. Aquinas is more inline with St. Augustine than you are portraying here in your comment.
@@pipinfresh I think Aquinas is very Augustinian, but Aquinas has the nuance that Augustine lacked, so if anything, Aquinas "rescues" Augustine from himself. So I would say on the one hand that Aquinas corrects Augustine where that correction was needed, without swinging the pendulum too far towards the semi-Pelagian option. On the other hand, we also can't treat Aquinas as though he's infallible. He was wrong about a few things, too, not least was the Immaculate Conception. A couple good books to read would be "Aquinas the Augustinian," ed. by Dauphinais, David, and Levering, and "The Immaculate Conception: Why Thomas Aquinas Denied..." by Kappes.
Is there a Church Doctor in the house? This is an emergency 🦺, our culture is dying!
We can pray for all souls, that will help a bit.