"Despise yourself when you are Praised"

When we are doing well in our pursuit of holiness or service to God and we hear people say, "Wow, this guy's really something!" How should we respond? Here's a nice answer from St. Augustine:

For, brethren, ye heard just now when the Gospel was read, at least if ye had for it the ear not only of the body but also of the heart. What said it? “Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them.” (Matthew 6:1) Did He mean to say this, that whatever good things we do, we should hide them from the eyes of men, and fear to be seen? If thou fearest spectators thou wilt not have imitators: thou oughtest therefore to be seen. But thou must not do it to the end thou mayest be seen. Not there should be the end of thy joy, not there the goal of thy rejoicing, that thou shouldest account thyself to have gotten the whole fruit of thy good work, when thou art seen and praised. This is nothing. Despise thyself when thou art praised, let Him be praised in thee who worketh by thee. Therefore do not for thine own praise work the good thou doest: but to the praise of Him from whom thou hast the power to do good. From thy self thou hast the ill doing, from God thou hast the well doing...

Source: Homilies on the First Epistle of John, IV, 2

-Jeph

How to Deny the Obvious

"...for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die"
(Gen. 2:17)

You know when you keep on saying you are not something people say you are, and yet you yourself are providing clear evidences that prove you are actually what other people say about you? That's how you deny the obvious. Over on the SBCvoices, Rick Patrick has posted an article defending himself and the Traditionalist document[1] from the charge of promoting semi-Pelagianism. How did Rick try to pluck himself and his company out of the mess? Simple.

1. Ignore the historical facts (i.e. the main issue that sparked the semi-Pelagian controversy)
2. Create your own definition of terms (e.g. semi-Pelagianism)
3. And say, "See? We're not what you guys think we are!"

In an attempt to prove they are not semi-Pelagians, Rick limited his definition of semi-Pelagianism within the box of its logical implications while completely ignoring the most essential ingredient that makes up the said system; namely, the tandem of affirming the fall and denial of total depravity. He defines semi-Pelagianism this way:

Semi-Pelagianism is a milder form of the heresy admitting that the sin of Adam passed on to his posterity resulting in our propensity to evil. However, it still maintains that (1) salvation begins with man, (2) this inclination on the part of man toward God is a meritorious work, and (3) this results in man cooperating with God in the salvation of his own soul.

Rick keeps on saying over and over that since they don't adhere to those three marks of a semi-Pelagian as mentioned in his definition, they should not be therefore reckoned as such. However, if one would go deep in history and examine the historical background of the dispute between St. Augustine and the SP folks, one would discover that Rick's description of semi-Pelagianism is not really what the ancient semi-Pelagians have explicitly taught! It was St. Augustine and his defenders who attached those logical implications to the SP position, but the semi-Pelagians never openly taught those ideas themselves.

For instance, Vitalis of Carthage—one of the earliest proponents, if not the originator, of semi-Pelagianism—agreed with St. Augustine's statement that a prevenient grace is necessary for man to be able to come to Christ (which means he denies that salvation ultimately begins in man), but he maintained that this "prevenient grace" refers only to the external preaching of the Gospel/law—not to any form of internal divine enablement. Vitalis argued that since fallen sinners still possess the natural capacity of will to believe in Christ (though they won't have the chance to exercise that capacity apart from hearing the Gospel[2]), no internal enablement of grace is necessary; an idea that is virtually the same with the Traditionalist position[3].

In response to Vitalis[4], St. Augustine contended that this idea is tantamount to saying that grace is given according to merits (or that salvation begins with man, in other words). Why? Because if faith is a product of human nature, and that the whole process of salvation hinges on this faith, then faith becomes the ultimate determining factor of worth in receiving salvation. The plan of redemption may have been initiated by God, but the actual internal reality of this redemption is initiated within man by his own unaided decision to believe the Gospel. This, according to St. Augustine (not Vitalis), is equal to saying that faith is a meritorious work.

My point here is that the Traditionalist's attempt to escape the obvious semi-Pelagian tendencies of the TraDoc by confining the definition of semi-Pelagianism within the box of how the early Church saw its logical implications is nothing but lame. The heart of semi-Pelagianism (and full Pelagianism) is the denial of man's inherent inability of will to perform any godly virtue (i.e. saving faith, repentance, good works, etc) as an effect of his Fall[5], and it is more than obvious that this is the same position promoted in the Traditionalist statement[3]. To make things worse, Rick further confirmed our suspicion when he wrote (emphasis mine):

Yes, in the view of Traditionalism, man is responsible–able to respond. Thus, unlike the Arminian, he needs no prevenient grace to respond to God because he is already able to do it, and unlike the Calvinist, he needs no unconditional election, since God’s election (or salvation) of his soul is conditioned upon his free and faithful acceptance of God’s grace. (source)

If this is not semi-Pelagianism, what is it?

-Jeph

----------
[1] To get some background on the debate, click here. 
[2] Rev. Joseph Milner, The History of the Church of Christ, Ch. III, p. 328
[3] Article 2 of the Traditionalist statement reads: "We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel." 
[4] St. Augustine, Letter 217
[5] Council of Orange (529), canons 3-8

St. Augustine's On the Spirit and the Letter

St. Augustine of Hippo

If you're looking for a good book which deals about the role of the divine law in Christian sanctification, I would recommend St. Augustine's On the Spirit and the Letter. Personally, this book has helped me in lot of different ways - theologically, apologetically, and spiritually - because it teaches and emphasizes plenty of biblical principles (which I will summarize later) that I find to be greatly beneficial to our spiritual warfare with the world.

The book, written by St. Augustine in 412 AD, is in many ways similar to Luther's famous treatise On the Bondage of the Will. Firstly, they are similar in occasion and purpose. Luther's On the Bondage of the Will was a response to the semi-Pelagian sentiments of Erasmus who argued that since God does not command impossibilities, the commands of the law, then, indicates that we possesses the natural ability of will to apply ourselves to the things which lead to eternal salvation, or turn away from them. In On the Spirit and the Letter, on the other hand, St. Augustine responds to the Pelagian teaching that the only grace necessary for man to live rightly is the knowledge of the law, and that man doesn't need to be helped by God from within since he has the natural capacity and free determination of the will to do that which the law prescribes (cf. Ch. 4). This heresy is derived directly from Pelagius' repeated assertion: "If I ought, I can", which is the very same argument Erasmus used against Luther. Secondly, the two books are similar with respect to the counter-arguments used by the authors to refute their theological rivals. Both Luther and St. Augustine devastatingly refuted their opponents by (1) emphasizing the bondage of man's will in Sin, (2) the insufficiency of the law to redeem us from sin, (3) the proper use and purpose of the law being to reveal sin and condemn the sinner in order that he may take refuge in God's mercy by faith, (4) the absolute necessity of God's enabling and empowering grace for the execution of any godly virtue, (5) and the unrestricted sovereignty of God in dispensing His gifts on whomever He wills.

So why not read Luther's On the Bondage of the Will rather than St. Augustine's On the Spirit and the Letter? Both books are actually commendable, but I would still prefer St. Augustine because of his lucid and gracious style in dealing with the subject he is treating. I'm not saying Luther wasn't lucid or he isn't gracious (though there are instances in his writings where he is evidently sarcastic and somewhat full of himself). It's just that I find St. Augustine's approach more reader-friendly.  

As usual, St. Augustine's deep commitment to Sola Gratia and Solus Cristus shines noticeably thorough the entire book, which makes it overall a great read. Chapter after chapter, the sincere reader will find himself drawn into God's grace in Christ more and more as St. Augustine strips the human flesh of all its alleged natural sufficiency, in accordance to the testimony of God's Word.

Perhaps the only turn-off an evangelical Christian will have on this book is the apparent misunderstanding of the author on the nature of justification. As we all know, St. Augustine didn't see justification as a one-time event wherein God declares a sinner righteous in His sight, but instead a process by which sinners are morally transformed and made righteous as they cling to God's mercy in Christ by faith (cf. Ch. 18 [XI], 45, 58). According to scholars, this misunderstanding is due to St. Augustine's misinterpretation of the Greek word "dikaioo" [a courtroom term meaning "to declare righteous in the sight of the law"] by using the Latin word "justificare" [which meant "to make righteous"] to translate it. The difference is apparent and crucial because the former indicates an issued instant verdict, while the latter a gradual change from something bad to good. Nonetheless, I suggest the discerning reader to overlook this glitch as he read the whole book, since the reason I recommend the book in the first place is that it essentially deals with the role of God's law in the Christian sanctification (though wrongly equated by St. Augustine to justification). 

Overall, I would rate On the Spirit and the Letter nine stars (over 10) because of its clarity, simplicity, lucidity, and consistent Christ-centeredness. After you read this book, you'll understand why St. Augustine was dubbed as "blessed doctor of Grace" and why both Catholics and Protestants hold him in very high esteem. May this book be as helpful to you as it has been to me.

God bless!

-Jeph

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe On God's Sovereignty In Salvation

I'm not really a fan of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe as much as I am with St. Augustine, but I've recently discovered something very interesting about this early church father after digging through some of his worksy. I found out that this old bishop of the town/city of Ruspe who lived around the 460-530 AD was apparently Augustinian in his soteriological convictions, and therefore, somewhat Calvinistic in his understanding of God's sovereignty in Salvation (and in interpreting Scripture surrounding that subject). Here's a good quote from him which shows what I'm talking about (*emphasis and Scriptural references added):

2. For here penance can profit the sinner when God does not hasten to punish the sinner, so that he may grant the forgiveness of sins to the person converted to penance. For if here could be any kind of fruitful penance for the wicked after this life, the blessed Peter would not say that God bears patiently because he does not want anyone to perish (2 Pe. 3:9), namely of those whom "he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." (Rom. 8:29) No one of these perishes. "For who opposes his will?" (Rom. 9:19) These are visited freely by the mercy of God before the end of this present life; they are moved for their salvation with a contrite and humbled heart and all by the divine gift are converted to penance to which they are divinely predestined to free grace, so that, converted, they may not perish but have life eternal. Without a doubt, these are all whom, according to the proclamation of the blessed Paul, "God wills... to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth." (1 Tim. 2:4) Because he who has done all things he wanted wants this, what he wants he always does invincibly. And so that is fulfilled in them which the unchangeable and invincible will of almighty God has, whose will, just as it cannot be changed in its plans, so neither is his power stopped or hindered in its execution; because neither is anyone able justly to censure his justice, nor can anyone stand opposed to his mercy.

 3. Whence our Savior reproves the malevolence of the unbelieving city with these words: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling." (Mat. 23:37) Christ said this to show its evil will by which it tried in vain to resist the invincible divine will, when God's good will neither could be conquered by those whom it deserts nor could not be able to accomplish anything which it wanted. That Jerusalem, insofar as it attained to its will, did not wish its children to be gathered to the Savior, but still he gathered all whom he willed. In this it wanted to resist the omnipotent but was unable to because God who, as it is written, "Whatever the Lord pleases, he does," (Psa. 135:6) converts to himself whomever he wills by a free justification, coming beforehand with his gift of superabounding grace on those whom he justly damn if he wished. Therefore, when the Apostle Peter says that God is "patient, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," (2 Pe. 3:9) let us not so understand the word "all" as stated above, as if there is no one who will not do a fitting penance, but we must understand "all" here as those to whom God gives penance in such a way that he may also give them the gift of perseverance, i.e. those who are converted by the prevenient divine mercy in such a way that by the same subsequent mercy, they will never go back to the serious sins which they have renounced. These are the ones to whom, as Paul says, "God grants... repentance that leads to the knowledge of the truth and that they may return to their senses out of the Devil's snare, where they are entrapped by him, for his will." (2 Tim. 2:25-26) Anyone who is careful to practice this penance in this life will be able to find the fruit of his penance with God.

 Source: To Euthymius, Book II, Ch. 2-3

It's nearly impossible to see Catholics who would talk that way nowadays. Semi-Pelagianism and its humanistic philosophies has so consumed the Catholic religion that there remains no room of acceptance to the pure Augustinian view on grace and freewill within its bounds. Thank God he gave us the Reformation.

~Jeph

A Response to Vivator on St. Augustine and Monergism

"The human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but
obtains freedom by grace." ~ St. Augustine of Hippo

Catholic apologist and "certified structural engineer" Vivator has a three year old post over at his blog in which he asserted that St. Augustine was not really a monergist (i.e. one who holds that God works alone in drawing sinners to faith in Christ) as widely believed among reformed folks and all honest scholars of Church History, but that he was actually a synergist (i.e. one who holds that God's drawing to faith requires man's willing cooperation). Now being an avid reader of St. Augustine, I knew from the start without any spark of doubt that Vivator has failed to accurately represent St. Augustine in his article. Hence, in the comment section of that post, I gave this reaction (emphasis added):

Certainly in some sense St. Augustine is synergistic. He taught that in order for a good work to be done, one must willingly cooperate with God’s grace. But unlike Rome’s position today, St. Augustine is always careful to explain that man’s willingness to cooperate with Grace is itself God’s gift of Grace. This prior work of Grace which makes man willing is God’s doing alone – in other words, monegistic. 

Therefore, St. Augustine’s synergism is just on the secondary level. Men must cooperate with co-operating grace in order to perform a good work (*synergism in the secondary level), but God must first and foremost operate in man’s heart to make him willing (*monergism in the prime level). (link)

Vivator responded by directing me to another post he wrote about St. Augustine's view on merits and grace, but I insisted that it doesn't contradict my last explanation over St. Augustine's seeming synergism. His next reply was interesting (emphasis mine):

As far as I know (based on what other wrote) in his later days Augustine’s view changed and became closer to what we know today as Calvinism. Thus when Reformed scholars quoted from him they use his later works. (link)

In response to my assertion that St. Augustine was also monergistic, Vivator conceded that the bishop's thoughts drifted towards a more Calvinistic direction during "his later days." To this I agree. What's interesting about this comment, though, is that it show's Vivator's complete ignorance of the fact that all the citations he used in an attempt to prove St. Augustine was a synergist were in fact taken from a book which was written by St. Augustine himself "in his later days"; the time when St. Augustine's view was supposed to have already "changed and became closer to what we know today as Calvinism"! This supports my case that St. Augustine was primarily monergistic in his soteriology, and in some way or another, also synergistic - since both ideas seem to have been held by him at the same time. I will prove this further later. Meanwhile, let's examine what Vivator exactly had in mind when he used terms "monergism" and "synergism" (emphasis added):

The key difference between Monergism and Synergism is whether we can exercise our freewill in our salvation or not. Note that Monergism believes we do have freewill but to them it is under bondage of sin – it is not really free, i.e. we cannot choose to act rightly. (link)

Alright. Now this makes me ask myself how come I haven't met any monergist who teaches that man's freewill doesn't have any role to play in salvation? For example, John Calvin himself was an ardent preacher of the God-glorifying doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, etc., yet he also contended that man's will is not wholly passive under the sovereign influence of grace (see Institutes, Book III). In particular, Calvin taught and defended justification by faith, which alone is a conspicuous proof that man's uncoerced positive willingness has a role to play for the attainment of salvation!

The truth is, monergism doesn't mean man cannot exercise his freewill in his salvation as Vivator would have his readers to believe. What monergism states is that God works alone effectively and irresistibly in quickening spiritually dead sinners so that they should freely play their proper role in salvation, that is, to believe the Gospel and repent of their sins. Vivator is clearly misrepresenting the monergist position here.

Now in support of his dishonest definition of the reformed view of monergism, Vivator cited a reformed source which says:

It would be correct to say man HAS A WILL and that his choices are VOLUNTARY (not coerced) but this does not make the choices free. Fallen man chooses sin of NECESSITY due to a corruption of nature, and this is just as much a form of bondage of the will from which we need to be set free by Christ, and a more properly biblical way of expression.

- J.W.H.

http://new.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Free-Will/Essays/

Great. Now pleace note that Hendryx's point here isn't whether man has a role to play on salvation, but he is rather discussing the condition of man's will as a fallen being. In a nutshell, what Hendrix is trying to say here is that even though totally depraved sinners can't help sinning due to their corrupt nature (necessity), their choices remain voluntary (not coerced). This, according to Hendryx, is "as much a form of bondage of the will from which we need to be set free by Christ." In other words, we are not able to make right use of our will unless we are first set free by Christ, and guess what... this is exactly what St. Augustine taught against the Pelagians of his time! For example, in response to the Pelagian objection that St. Augustine's idea of total depravity is tantamount to saying that "men are forced to sin by the necessity of their flesh" and therefore cannot be responsible for their sins, the blessed doctor of grace defended himself and wrote (all emphasis mine):

It is not, therefore, true, as some affirm that we say, and as that correspondent of yours ventures moreover to write, that "all are forced into sin," as if they were unwilling, "by the necessity of their flesh"; but if they are already of the age to use the choice of their own mind, they are both retained in sin by their own will, and by their own will are hurried along from sin to sin. For even he who persuades and deceives does not act in them, except that they may commit sin by their will, either by ignorance of the truth or by delight in iniquity, or by both evils—as well of blindness as of weakness. But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free. Nor can a man will any good thing unless he is aided by Him who cannot will evil—that is, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. "For everything which is not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:23) And thus the good will which withdraws itself from sin is faithful, because the just lives by faith. (Habakkuk 2:4) And it pertains to faith to believe in Christ. And no man can believe in Christ— that is, come to Him— unless it be given to him. (Romans 1:17) No man, therefore, can have a righteous will, unless, with no foregoing merits, he has received the true, that is, the gratuitous grace from above. (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Ch. 7)

Isn't this exactly what Hendryx wrote concerning the fallen man's will? Hendryx says sinners choose sin voluntary, but they necessarily choose sin due to their corrupt nature, and for this reason Christ's liberating power is needed. St. Augustine agrees by saying that "by their own will [sinners] are hurried from sin to sin" (voluntarily), but "this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things (necessity), for the reason that it has not been made free." St. Augustine's words couldn't have been any more clearer!

In another treatise commonly known as Enchiridon, St. Augustine advanced a similar yet more explicit view of man's total depravity (emphasis all mine):

But this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and a share in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit of their own works? God forbid. For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition? Can they do anything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. "For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true liberty, for he has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holy bondage, for he is obedient to the will of God. But whence comes this liberty to do right to the man who is in bondage and sold under sin, except he be redeemed by Him who has said, "If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed?" (Enchiridon, Ch. 30; cf. see also On Man's Perfection In Righteousness, Ch. 4 [9th Breviate])

Please observe how St. Augustine explicitly stated in favor of Calvinism that when man fell in Sin by his own freewill, he destroyed both his liberty and himself! This is essentially what Hendryx's meant in his statement above! Notice also how St. Augustine argues for a monergistic regeneration when he likened man's plight to a suicide: "For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost." Now how can a dead person bring himself to life? Of course that's impossible. So how can Vivator inject any synergistic notion of regeneration here when St. Augustine was more than clear that man's freedom to choose good, much less cooperate with God's grace, was lost in him when he sinned? I'd really really love to know how Vivator will respond to this!

Now let's turn to those statements of St. Augustine cited and used by Vivator to make him appear to be a thorough synergist. Taken from St. Augustine's book On Grace and Free Will, the first quotation reads (original emphasis by Vivator retained):

Therefore, my dearly beloved, as we have now proved by our former testimonies from Holy Scripture that there is in man a free determination of will for living rightly and acting rightly; so now let us see what are the divine testimonies concerning the grace of God, without which we are not able to do any good thing. (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 7)

 Taken also from the same book, the second and last quote reads (original emphasis by Vivator retained):

When God says, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,”[Zechariah 1:3] one of these clauses–that which invites our return to God–evidently belongs to our will; while the other, which promises His return to us, belongs to His grace. (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 10-v)

There you have it... St. Augustine denying monergism! What Vivator fails to show here, unfortunately, is the exact statement where St. Augustine actually denies that God alone operates in the heart of the sinner, apart from any cooperation on man's part, in drawing him to fait in and obedience to Christ. What we only have here are statements from the blessed doctor of grace saying that (1) man possesses freedom to live rightly - provided he is under the influence of grace [as clear from its immediate context], and that (2) our turning to God is an act of the human will. Monergism doesn't deny any of these! What monergists deny is that man, though dead in his sins and transgressions, still has a cooperating role in the illuminating, heart-softening, regenerating work of God, and this denial is clearly seen on St. Augustine's words: "For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost" (Enchiridon, Ch. 30).

So, was St. Augustine a monergist or a synergist? I would say both, but not on equal terms. Let me explain further. St. Augustine teaches that God alone efficaciously works within man to make him willing (monergism), but when man is made willing, God cooperates with him to the execution of good (synergism). His own words (all emphasis mine):

But yet, however small and imperfect his love was, it was not wholly wanting when he said to the Lord, "I will lay down my life for Your sake"; (John 13:37) for he supposed himself able to effect what he felt himself willing to do. And who was it that had begun to give him his love, however small, but He who prepares the will, and perfects by His co-operation what He initiates by His operation? Forasmuch as in beginning He works in us that we may have the will, and in perfecting works with us when we have the will. On which account the apostle says, "I am confident of this very thing, that He which has begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." (Philippians 1:6) He operates, therefore, without us, in order that we may will; but when we will, and so will that we may act, He co-operates with us. We can, however, ourselves do nothing to effect good works of piety without Him either working that we may will, or co-working when we will. Now, concerning His working that we may will, it is said: "It is God which works in you, even to will." (Philippians 2:13) While of His co-working with us, when we will and act by willing, the apostle says, "We know that in all things there is co-working for good to them that love God." What does this phrase, all things, mean, but the terrible and cruel sufferings which affect our condition? That burden, indeed, of Christ, which is heavy for our infirmity, becomes light to love. For to such did the Lord say that His burden was light, (Matthew 11:30) as Peter was when he suffered for Christ, not as he was when he denied Him. (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 33-xvii)

This proves what I've asserted above that St. Augustine's seeming synergism was only on the secondary level under the umbrella of his monergism, which is first and foremost in his soteriology. The blessed doctor affirms that man has a role to play in salvation (faith, repentance, etc.), but unless God first enables him and operates within his heart to make him willing (which Calvinists equate to spiritual regeneration), man will never perform the role he has to play. As St. Augustine puts it elsewhere in the same book: "It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act, by applying efficacious powers to our will" (cf. On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 32-xvi). This divine operation, according to St. Augustine, needs no willing cooperation on man's part because it is in the first place performed by God for the purpose of making us willing. Therefore, this gift cannot be resisted by any hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart. In his famous two-volume book On Predestination of the Saints, St. Augustine wrote (emphasis added):

...This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart. When, therefore, the Father is heard within, and teaches, so that a man comes to the Son, He takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as in the declaration of the prophet He has promised. Because He thus makes them children and vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory. (On Predestination of the Saints (Book I), Ch. 13-viii)

This is exactly what Calvinists mean when they talk about God's grace being irresistible. Not that men are drawn by God against their will, but that they are wondrously drawn by God so that they should certainly and freely choose to come to Him for Salvation. St. Augustine wrote in another treatise: "[the sinner] is drawn in wondrous ways to will, by Him who knows how to work within the very hearts of men. Not that men who are unwilling should believe, which cannot be, but that they should be made willing from being unwilling" (cf. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Ch. 37-xix).

Furthermore, St. Augustine taught (again, in favor of Calvinism) that this divine gift of conversion is not given to all but only to those particularly chosen by God in eternity past. Evidence of this is found everywhere in his lengthy treatise On Predestination of the Saints, but this is already a topic of another post.

Now back to the question: Was St. Augustine a monergist? Certainly. Was he a synergist? In some way, yes, but it should be noted that in his system monergism is always prior. Was he a thorough synergist? In Vivator's dreams, maybe.

- Jeph

Do we then by grace make void of free will?

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)

St. Augustine | Do we then by grace make void free will? God forbid! Nay, rather we establish free will. For even as the law by faith, so free will by grace, is not made void, but established (Rom. 3:31). For neither is the law fulfilled except by free will; but by the law is the knowledge of sin, by faith the acquisition of grace against sin, by grace the healing of the soul from the disease of sin, by the health of the soul freedom of will, by free will the love of righteousness, by love of righteousness the accomplishment of the law. 

Accordingly, as the law is not made void, but is established through faith, since faith procures grace whereby the law is fulfilled; so free will is not made void through grace, but is established, since grace cures the will whereby righteousness is freely loved. Now all the stages which I have here connected together in their successive links, have severally their proper voices in the sacred Scriptures. 

The law says: "Thou shall not covet" (Exo. 20:17). Faith says: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee" (Psa. 41:4). Grace says: "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" (Jn. 5:14). Health says: "O Lord my God, I cried unto Thee, and Thou hast healed me" (Psa. 130:2). Free will says: "I will freely sacrifice unto Thee" (Psa. 54:6). Love of righteousness says: "Transgressors told me pleasant tales, but not according to Thy law, O Lord" (Psa. 119:85). 

How is it then that miserable men dare to be proud, either of their free will, before they are freed, or of their own strength, if they have been freed? They do not observe that in the very mention of free will they pronounce the name of liberty. But "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17). If, therefore, they are the slaves of sin, why do they boast of free will? For by what a man is overcome, to the same is he delivered as a slave (2 Pe. 2:19). But if they have been freed, why do they vaunt themselves as if it were by their own doing, and boast, as if they had not received? Or are they free in such sort that they do not choose to have Him for their Lord who says to them: "Without me ye can do nothing" (Jn. 15:5); and "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed?" (Jn. 8:36).

~ On the Spirit and the Letter, Ch. 52 [XXX]

This is God's hand, not ours, that we depart not from Him

"What will separate us from the love
Christ has for us?" (Rom. 8:35, GW)

St. Augustine | This grace He placed “in Him in whom we have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things” (Eph. 1:11). And thus as He worketh that we come to Him, so He worketh that we do not depart. Wherefore it was said to Him by the mouth of the prophet, “Let Thy hand be upon the man of Thy right hand, and upon the Son of man whom Thou madest strong for Thyself, and we will not depart from Thee” (Psa. 80:17-18). 

This certainly is not the first Adam, in whom we departed from Him, but the second Adam, upon whom His hand is placed, so that we do not depart from Him. For Christ altogether with His members is—for the Church’s sake, which is His body—the fulness of Him. When, therefore, God’s hand is upon Him, that we depart not from God, assuredly God’s work reaches to us (for this is God’s hand); by which work of God we are caused to be abiding in Christ with God—not, as in Adam, departing from God. For “in Christ we have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” 

This, therefore, is God’s hand, not ours, that we depart not from God. That, I say, is His hand who said, “I will put my fear in their hearts, that they depart not from me” (Jer. 32:40).

~ St. Augustine of Hippo, On Perseverance of all Saints, Ch. 14

Can Anyone Be Ignorant Of The Doctrine Of "Sola Fide" And Be Saved?

St. Augustine's ordination as bishop of Hippo

My answer to the question depends on how the person rejecting Sola Fide understands his own moral standing before his Maker and the nature of the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe (and please take note of this) that if one completely relies upon the finished work of Christ alone for his Salvation, being entirely convinced of his own utter inability to merit God's favor by his own efforts because of sin, that person is undoubtedly saved whether or not he affirms the doctrine of "Sola Fide."

Some dogmatic guys may ask: "But how is it possible for a person to trust in Christ alone as His Savior while at the same time believing that good works should be added with faith as means to attaining Salvation?"

It is worth noting at this point that in the Old Testament the doctrine of justification by faith is not explicitly taught as it is in the New (1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 3:8-9; Col. 1:25-26). While hints of the doctrine can be found in the OT Scripture such as seen in Genesis 15:6 and Habakkuk 2:4 (which Paul will use centuries later in support for his teaching on justification by grace), these texts must've been somewhat vague to the ancient reader (2 Cor. 3:14-16) because of the strong emphasis of the same Scripture on law-keeping and righteousness (Deut. 27:26; Lev. 18:5). Yet, Scripture reveals to us that the saints of old were justified exactly the same way as how saints in the present covenant were justified, that is, by the grace of God through faith alone (Rom. 4; Heb. 11:13). But how could that be? Paul laid it down this way:

Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:18-22, NIV)

What can we learn from this? How was Abraham justified? Against all hope, says Paul, that Abraham in hope believed in the promise of God that he'll be a father of 'many nations.' In other words, Abraham didn't rely upon his own powers knowing the fact that he's incapable, but instead he completely put his trust in God, looking forward with confidence to the fulfillment of what has been promised to him (see also Heb. 11:13). This is how saints of old were justified, and this is how also we in the present dispensation are justified (except that we are not looking forward to the promise, but looking backwards to the fulfilled promise concerning our Savior). Abraham didn't have to know the doctrine of justification by faith; he just trusted in God and was saved.

The thief on the cross is another example of someone who is saved through faith alone without having any doctrinal seminars regarding Justification, Imputation, etc., or having memorized at least a single sentence, say, from the Westminster Confession of Faith. Again, he just trusted in Christ and was saved.

We should also take into consideration that most of the ancient fathers of the Church are not sola fideists. I would contend that the blessed fathers understood justification very differently from how the reformers did. St. Augustine of Hippo, the 'doctor of Grace', is a fine example. To him, justification is a continuous process by which the righteousness of Jesus Christ is infused (or made actual) in the life of the baptized sinner through faith. This has been the consensus of understanding among the ancient church concerning the nature of justification from about the 4th century up until the time of reformation. Yet despite this fundamental disparity of the church fathers with the reformers about how the benefits of Christ's redemptive work is applied upon a sinner, the Christian testimony of those fathers remained unquestion among most  (if not all) Christian scholars in the past and until today. Why is that? Perhaps it's due to the profound position of the fathers on man's total depravity in Sin (affirmed and reinforced in the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and Council of Orange in 529 AD) and the absolute necessity and sufficiency of Christ's redemptive work for man's salvation [though they were all wrong in their understanding as to how it is applied].

Let's turn to St. Augustine once more. In his book On the Spirit & the Letter in which the role of the law in Salvation is explained against the heresies of Pelagianism, St. Augustine contended that the primary purpose of God's law is not to serve as means for man to be saved, but to make man realize his sinful condition and unworthiness before God's holy presence "in order that by faith he may flee for refuge to His mercy, and be healed" (cf. Ch. 15 [IX]; see also To Simplican, Ch. 2). This faith, or the complete dependence upon the grace of Christ, is what leads Christians to obey the commands of God which at the end of the day will merit their entrance to the glory of eternal life. However, to avoid the impression that he is promoting works-salvation, the old Bishop of Hippo is always careful to explain that those merits are actually a product of God's grace at work in the lives of Christians, without which "they do absolutely no good thing, whether in thought, or will and affection, or in action" (cf. On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 3-ii) -- thus leaving no room whatsoever for human boasting.

Moses smashing the tablets of the law

Consequent to his views on merits and grace, St. Augustine maintained that eternal life is both a reward and a gift simultaneously (cf. Enchiridon, Ch. 67, 107). It is a reward because it will be given to the elect as a recompense to their faithful perseverance in holiness and piety; and at the same time a gift because the very willingness and ability to perform these merits are themselves works of God's effectual & exclusive grace upon them (1 Cor. 2:14; Php. 2:13). Their righteousness, therefore, is ultimately not theirs but of the Savior, so God gets all the glory. He abhorred all forms of self-reliance because it is God's grace which produces these merits unto eternal life. This separates the blessed doctor from the damnable heresy of works-salvation promoted by the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. St. Augustine may not have been an adherent of the Evangelical doctrine of Sola Fide, but his strong emphasis on the necessity of completely depending on God's mercy for forgiveness, sanctification / justification, and perseverance in holiness, makes his Christian testimony unquestionable.

Thus, while to many radical evangelicals the adherence to sola fide passes for somewhat a gauge to determine who's saved and who's not, I completely depart from that idea. IMHO, one can be saved through faith alone without being aware that he was actually saved that way as demonstrated in the examples I've presented. One is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. One is justified by believing in Jesus, with or without any acquaintance to the doctrine. It is reliance to self-efforts which primarily condemns a person to hell (Jer. 17:5), not the rejection or ignorance of Sola Fide. Correspondingly, rejection or ignorance of sola fide is not always tantamount to self-reliance. However, if one is Pelagian or semi-Pelagian (i.e. one who believes we come and turn to God on our own) and he rejects the doctrine of justification by faith, his Salvation is suspect (for the reason that Pelagians have strong tendency to rely in themselves for Salvation). Yet of course we're not in position to judge because only God searches the hearts.

Now let me hear what you guys think.

*Disclaimer: I'm not saying here that the the proclamation of the doctrine of sola fide is totally superfluous in evangelism, nor am I saying that the doctrine is completely inessential. Far from it. I'm just merely acknowledging the possibility of salvation for those who truly trust in Christ but do not adhere to or ignorant of the doctrine of justification by faith. I believe that every fundamental tenets derived from the Bible must be vigorously taught and defended against false teachings (Jude 3). Also, I fully acknowledge the danger of holding to the idea that we should work for our Salvation. Such erroneous teaching (which is prevalent to false religions) tends to lead people to trust in their own efforts in an attempt save themselves instead of having Christ as their Savior, all the way to hell. Thus, a  church that does not grasp it and teach it is heading for serious trouble. This is the reason why Christians, in evangelizing to unbelievers, should stress with clarity and conviction the problem of Sin and the inadequacy of human works to earn God's favor (Rom. 3:10, 19-20, 23; Jm. 2:10), the Salvation provided by Christ for those who believe (Rom. 3:24-25, 5:8, 19; Gal. 4:4-5), and the importance of a wholehearted reliance upon His finished work on the cross alone for Salvation (Rom. 4). I just hope I'm being clear on this point.

-Jeph

St. Augustine On The Hardening Of Pharaoh's Heart

St. Augustine of Hippo, 354-430 AD

St. Augustine of Hippo | But why do we ask such a question? The apostle himself goes on. "The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth." The apostle adds this as an example to prove what he had said above, that, "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy." As if some one had said to him, 'What is the source of this doctrine of yours?' His reply is "The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh" etc. Thus he shows that it is not of him that willeth but God that hath mercy. And he concludes with these words: "So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth." Earlier he had not stated both of these truths. He said: "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy"; but he did not say "It is not if him that is unwilling, nor of him that contemneth, but of God who causeth the hardening of the heart." 

So by putting both sides--He hath mercy o whom He will have mercy, and whom He will hardeneth--we are given to understand that the new statement agrees with the former one, viz., the hardening which God causes is an unwillingness to be merciful. We must not think that anything is imposed by God whereby a man is made worse, but only that he provides nothing whereby a man is made better. But if there be no distinction of merits, who would not break out into the objection which the apostle brings against himself? "Whou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?" God often finds fault with men because the will not believe and live righteously, as is apparent from many passages of Scripture. Hence faithful people who do the will of God are said to walk blamelessly, because Scripture finds no fault with them. But he says, "Why does he find fault? Who withstandeth his will" through "he hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will hardeneth." Let us look at what was said above and let it direct our interpretation as the Lord himself gives us aid. 

~ To Simplician–On Various Questions, Chapter 15

St. Augustine On How To Eat The Bread Of Life For Salvation

"Don't go after the food that spoils..." (Jn. 6:27)

How do we eat the Bread of Life that came down from heaven so that we shall have eternal life as Jesus Christ promised in John 6:26-33? St. Augustine answers the question:

And, consequently, he that hungers after this bread, hungers after righteousness — that righteousness however which comes down from heaven, the righteousness that God gives, not that which man works for himself. For if man were not making a righteousness for himself, the same apostle would not have said of the Jews: "For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and wishing to establish their own righteousness, they are not subject to the righteousness of God." (Romans 10:3) Of such were these who understood not the bread that comes down from heaven; because being satisfied with their own righteousness, they hungered not after the righteousness of God. What is this, God's righteousness and man's righteousness? God's righteousness here means, not that wherein God is righteous, but that which God bestows on man, that man may be righteous through God. But again, what was the righteousness of those Jews? A righteousness wrought of their own strength on which they presumed, and so declared themselves as if they were fulfillers of the law by their own virtue. But no man fulfills the law but he whom grace assists, that is, whom the bread that comes down from heaven assists. "For the fulfilling of the law," as the apostle says in brief, "is charity." (Romans 13:10) Charity, that is, love, not of money, but of God; love, not of earth nor of heaven, but of Him who made Heaven and earth. Whence can man have that love? Let us hear the same: "The love of God," says he, "is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us." (Romans 5:5) Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 26:1)

This is hardly an interpretation coming from a Roman Catholic. No Romanist today would offer the same line of understanding John 6 the way St. Augustine did. The blessed Doctor makes it clear that the Bread of Life should be eaten by believing in Christ for Salvation. Thus we do not eat Christ literally as what Rome insists we should; we receive him by faith. St. Augustine elsewhere states in the same compilation of tractates:

"They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" For He had said to them, "Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life." "What shall we do?" they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, "that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:" (Romans 3:28)

This goes out to those who insist on the literal interpretation of the eating of the Bread of Life mentioned in John 6. Well, which else it is but Rome?

-Jeph

St. Augustine's Teaching On Free-Will Grossly Misrepresented By The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

In discussing the position of St. Augustine on the condition of man's will after the fall, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia states:

...Thus, when he [Augustine] says that we have lost freedom in consequence of the sin of Adam, he is careful to explain that this lost freedom is NOT the liberty of choosing between good and evil, because without it we could not help sinning, but the perfect liberty which was calm and without struggle, and which was enjoyed by Adam in virtue of his original integrity. (epmhpasis added)

In the above quotation, man is portrayed as merely weakened, by his fall, in his natural ability and inclination of will with regards to righteousness. He didn't become totally depraved in Sin. In and of himself he can still choose good over evil but with struggle. As an implication, grace is viewed only as something like a crutch given/offered to man so he might perform his duties more easily and thus be saved. This is how many Catholics explain grace & free will today, and their online encyclopedia claims this was St. Augustine position, too.

Now I'm absolutely sure the New Advent is not being truthful to us here. The truth is that the position on free will which the New Advent would have us to believe to be advocated by St. Augustine is actually the position that was held by those whom St. Augustine had vigorously opposed during his days regarding the subject, namely the semi-Pelagians! In his treatise Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians, the blessed doctor states (emphasis mine):

...But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is NOT FREE in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free. Nor can a man will any good thing unless he is aided by Him who cannot will evil—that is, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (St. Augustine, Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. I, Ch. 7)

In another book he states:

For the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord must be apprehended—as that by which alone men are delivered from evil, and without which they do absolutely no good thing, whether in thought, or will and affection, or in action; not only in order that they may know, by the manifestation of that grace, what should be done, but moreover in order that, by its enabling, they may do with love what they know. (On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 3-ii)

And again,

For either they lie under the sin which they have inherited by original generation, and depart hence with that inherited debt which is not put away by regeneration, or by their free will have added other sins besides; their will, I say, FREE, but not freed—FREE FROM RIGHTEOUSNESS, but ENSLAVED TO SIN, by which they are tossed about by various mischievous lusts, some more evil, some less, BUT ALL EVIL; and they must be adjudged to diverse punishments, according to that very diversity. (On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 42)

This doesn't sound like St. Augustine being "careful to explain that the lost freedom is not the liberty of choosing between good and evil." It actually appears to be the contrary. The blessed father explicitly taught that the fallen sinners are free only with regards to evil things, but not to good things. They couldn't help but sin because it is in their corrupted nature to sin. In other words they are not sinners because they sin; they sin because they are sinners. It is only when God gives a depraved sinner a new nature that he is able to choose life over death, to choose light over darkness. St. Augustine puts it this way:

But what good would ye evil men  do, and how should you do those good  things, unless you were yourselves good? But who causes that men should be good save Him who said, "And I will visit them to make them good"? And who said "I will put my Spirit  within you, and will cause you to walk in my righteousness, and to observe my judgments, and do them"? Are ye thus not yet awake? Do ye not yet hear, "I will cause you to walk, I will make you to observe," lastly, "I will make you to do"? What! Are you still puffing yourselves up? We indeed walk, it is true; we observe; we do; but He makes us to walk, to observe, to do. This is the grace of God  making us good; this is His mercy preventing us. (St. Augustine, Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. IV, Ch. 15)

To put it simply, saving grace--as viewed by St. Augustine--is absolutely necessary for sinners to be able and willing to perform what is good, and not merely a crutch sinners must grab a hold (synergism) in order for them to win the "struggle" more easily. Sinners in the first place do not struggle with sin; they delight in it. Such idea that man's freedom of will (with regards to righteousness) is only weakened and not totally destroyed as a consequence of his fall was condemned by the 5th century church as aberrant and heretical. At the 113th canon of the fourth Council of Carthage (AD 419), we read:

Canon 113. It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification was given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were ordered to do through our free will; as if though grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even without grace fulfil the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spoke concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said: "Without me you can do nothing," and not "Without me you could do it but with difficulty." 

Not to mention that the pronouncement above is actually an affirmation to the Augustinian position in opposition to the heresies of semi-Pelagianism.

For Pelagius says that what is good is "more easily" fulfilled if grace assists. By which addition— that is, by adding "more easily"— he certainly signifies that he is of the opinion that, even if the aid of grace should be wanting, yet good might be accomplished, although with greater difficulty, by free will. But let me prescribe to my present opponents what they should think in this matter, without speaking of the author of this heresy himself. (St. Augustine, Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk. II, Ch. 17)

Now compare all these evidences with how the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia portrays St. Augustine's view. Notice how they falsely attribute to the doctor of grace an erroneous teaching which the blessed doctor himself rejected as heresy! I've once heard a prominent Catholic apologist arrogantly claiming that to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant. Were the NACE writers too deep in history that they deliberately misrepresented St. Augustine? Lol.

-Jeph

St. Augustine Of Hippo On Effectual Calling

The Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine of
Hippo, 354-430 AD

St. Augustine of Hippo | Accordingly, our only Master and Lord Himself, when He had said what I have above mentioned,— "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent,"— says a little afterwards in that same discourse of His, "I said unto you that you also have seen me and have not believed. All that the Father gives me shall come to me" (John 6:36). What is the meaning of "shall come to me," but, "shall believe in me"? But it is the Father's gift that this may be the case.

Moreover, a little after He says, "Murmur not among yourselves. No one can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all teachable of God. Every man that has heard of the Father, and has learned, comes unto me." What is the meaning of, "Every man that has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes unto me," except that there is none who hears from the Father, and learns, who comes not to me? For if every one who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes, certainly every one who does not come has not heard from the Father; for if he had heard and learned, he would come. For no one has heard and learned, and has not come; but every one, as the Truth declares, who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes.

Far removed from the senses of the flesh is this teaching in which the Father is heard, and teaches to come to the Son. Engaged herein is also the Son Himself, because He is His Word by which He thus teaches; and He does not do this through the ear of the flesh, but of the heart. Herein engaged, also, at the same time, is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son; and He, too, teaches, and does not teach separately, since we have learned that the workings of the Trinity are inseparable. And that is certainly the same Holy Spirit of whom the apostle says, "We, however, having the same Spirit of faith" (2 Corinthians 4:13). But this is especially attributed to the Father, for the reason that of Him is begotten the Only Begotten, and from Him proceeds the Holy Spirit, of which it would be tedious to argue more elaborately; and I think that my work in fifteen books on the Trinity which God is, has already reached you. Very far removed, I say, from the senses of the flesh is this instruction wherein God is heard and teaches. We see that many come to the Son because we see that many believe in Christ, but when and how they have heard this from the Father, and have learned, we see not. It is true that that grace is exceedingly secret, but who doubts that it is grace?

This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart. When, therefore, the Father is heard within, and teaches, so that a man comes to the Son, He takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as in the declaration of the prophet He has promised. Because He thus makes them children and vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.

~ On Predestination of the Saints (Book I), Chapter 13.