Aquinas and keeping safe from heresy.

[NB3K]

However, as this thread has strayed far from its original purpose, if you wish to respond I will move this discussion to a new thread so that it may continue (unless Jason does not mind this topic continuing in his thread)

No go on.... This adds to the discussion.... even though it has diverted from its orignal topic.

As for the council of orange. I may be wrong but I think I read somewhere that in that council they held to what they call a "Semi-Augustinianism", but that was a cloak for "Semi-Pelagianism" That the RC church after the death of Augustine always was against Augustine's doctrines of grace and predestination.

From Monergism.com

This variation on the Augustinian doctrine came to be known as Semi-Augustinianism because it
denied the doctrine of absolute or particularistic predestination and affirmed that an individual
could cooperate with God’s grace through the sacramental system where grace is found according
to Medieval Roman Catholic Teaching. Semi-Augustinianism sounds a little more acceptable
perhaps, but the truth is this:
Semi-Augustinianism in contrast to Semi-Pelagianism is less individualistic and more
ecclesiastical in its focus, but both systems deny the absolute sovereignty of God in
predestination, and give man the inherent ability to cooperate with grace synergistically.

 

[Prufrock]

Canon 19 says that we are "assisted" by the Creator. That sounds synergistic and not monergistic.

No it doesn't. Read it again. It says that man, even when he "remained in that sound state in which it was created," could not safeguard its salvation without divine assistance.

I'll believe you about the previous mention of Canon 18, but I can't seem to find it in the thread.

Finally, regarding your concluding comments, I would first say "I wonder what a 'simple online search' about Michael Servetus and Jean Calvin would reveal." Simple online searches are not always the most reliable guide - especially, when most of what people say, think or know about a topic comes directly from reading a secondary source. Very few people who care about early church councils are not Roman Catholic (or share affinities), and accordingly most secondary (or more accurately, tertiary) literature is therefore shaped by what Catholic scholars have said. It should be little surprise that tertiary literature gives wholesale acceptation to the "seemingly obvious" conclusion that the Council downplays the elements of Augustinianism which just happen to sit most uncomfortably with Rome.

 

[Notthemama1984]

No it doesn't. Read it again. It says that even when man "remained in that sound state in which it was created" could not safeguard its salvation without divine assistance.

Yes if man was left to himself he could not safeguard his salvation, but through divine assistance he is able to safeguard his salvation if he so chooses as seen below.

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.

I am not sure how you can use the terminology "assistance" and not see this as synergistic. But that is just me.

I know what you mean about tertiary literature. I am not reading goofy crazy websites.

 

[Prufrock]

Boliver, I think there is still some substantial confusion going on. First of all, what you keep referencing in Canon 19 is explicitly talking about man before the fall. Secondly, what you quote in your above post is not from Canon 19 (or any of the Canons), but the conclusion; accordingly, it cannot be used to say Canon 19 is synergistic. Thirdly, regeneration is monergistic, but many things in the Christian life are, of course, synergistic - we work out our own salvation in fear and trembling by the power of God.

I do not state that everything in the Canons of the Council of Orange is agreeable to the Reformed faith; we of course hold to a different understanding of the sacraments, church and justification than Augustine. But what I am saying is that the things to which you are latching in the Canons are not the things in conflict with Reformed, Augustinian thought.

What I'm really trying to stress here is twofold: while our teaching is hardly identical to the church's teaching in the first several centuries after the apostles, it has far, far more in common therewith than is traditionally granted; and, secondly, the Romanists do not have a monopoly on their reading of Augustinianism and its relationship to church history.

As a last note, when I say tertiary literature, I am not talking about "goofy, crazy websites," but respectable, scholarly literature which all too often too uncritically accepts the standard conclusions of secondary literature.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Boliver, I think there is still some substantial confusion going on.

Welcome to my world.

I will take a step back, reread, contemplate, and assess.

Until then I bid thee adieu