Thomist theory of grace and predestination

Started by Quaremerepulisti, November 22, 2016, 09:27:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Clarence Creedwater

Personally, I still think what Quare wrote here in January of 2015 still is the case:

"Predestination is one of a few obstacles I have to accepting the truth claims of Catholicism."

By the way, what are the other obstacles?

"Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
        - St. Francis de Sales, "The Catholic Controversy"

"When you start messin' with dat "truth" stuff, yer playin' with fire alright."
        - Kingfish (from Amos & Andy)

james03

All Grace is efficacious and accomplishes its purpose.  If God sends an external Grace where I happen upon a Holy Book that puts the fear of sin before my intellect then the fear of sin will be considered by my intellect.  If I repent, then this Grace is the First Cause and AN efficient cause, but my free will decision to repent is also AN efficient cause, and secondary.

Same circumstances, a sinner decides to remain in his sin.  The Grace is identical, the fear of sin is considered by his intellect, but he freely chooses to stay in his sin.

The Grace is identical, the Free Will choose is different BECAUSE it is a Free Will choose.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Non Nobis

Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 23, 2016, 07:07:37 PM
Quote from: John Lamb on November 23, 2016, 12:28:59 PM
Quote
Yet if we ask God for our conversion He will infallibly convert us.  I speak from personal experience, for this was the exact prayer I made while still leading a very wicked life.

But this event can be explained in diverse ways. Is it that God gave you the grace of conversion because He foreknew the prayer for conversion that you would make, or is it that God had preordained that He would first move your heart to make that pray for conversion, and then supply you with the corresponding grace? Did God convert you because you prayed, or did you pray because God converted you? Which is the Prime Mover in this act?

This is the main reason I favour the Thomistic account: all is from God as Prime Mover. All the praise belongs ultimately to Him. Grace isn't a reward God gives to us as a spectator of our good actions; God's grace is the very cause of our doing good actions in the first place. Otherwise, how is it "grace"? It is merely the just reward due to our merit. You weren't rewarded with conversion because you prayed; rather, you prayed because God had predestined you to a reward.: For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.
I believe that Quare would agree that "without Me you can do nothing"; so even the desire to convert must come from God. But God, if He sincerely wills all to be saved, will send to all at the least the desire to pray, as St. Alphonsus held. If the Thomists are correct, then He will only grant this grace to the predestined and as to the rest, He will leave them as they are; otherwise some that are not predestined to Heaven would pray and obtain conversion and end up being saved.

As I would understand this, God gives sufficient grace to all men so that they can desire to pray. I think this would be a kind of external sufficient grace including in particular natural knowledge of God and the conscience.  I think this  is enough to tell them that they can pray and SHOULD pray, but I think some men turn away (resist the sufficient grace) even before they can get to "desire".

I think that God's help is needed even to desire.  I'm not sure if it takes grace to desire to pray, but it takes some kind of help - I believe Thomists might call this general concurrence. Desiring to do a good thing is a good thing, and God is the primary cause of all good things. (It seem to me that desiring to pray is itself praying; reaching out the heart to God.)

All men can pray; it is false to say that because God's help is needed, therefore not all can do it.  If a man resists the sufficient grace to pray, then it is the man who freely resists.  If a man prays, then it is still the man who freely prays. God's help/grace is what gives life to the willing of the prayer.  In a sense (not meant irreverently) God can't help it that He is necessary, the Prime Mover, of every good willing.  Some seem to say, "if He were good He would make it unnecessary and let man do it on his own", but that is just absurd.

I am not sure of myself here, but I think that  permitting sin is like preventing it.  God could prevent all sin because He could cause the opposing good (working by grace in a man's will).  But He chooses not to prevent some particular sins.  He made choices of both good done and evil-not-prevented in His plan for Redemption.  We can see some reasons there, even for the likely reprobation of Judas due to HIS not-prevented sins (or permitted sin).  We should know that all His non-prevention/permission of sin is for a greater good, such as the good of the Incarnation and Redemption. Providence covers both the good caused and the evil not prevented; I think there is a PLAN. Things don't just work out as they happen to work out.

Prayer is answered, but not any one prayer is always answered in the desired way.  Prayer for final perseverance does not guarantee that we will persevere in the end.  People do pray for conversion who are not then converted. God's grace is needed for prayer and for conversion to God and for final perseverance. "God can't help it" that His grace is needed for good, and when He does not prevent evil (by not giving the grace) it is for a greater good, as is perhaps most easily seen in the Redemption.
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

John Lamb

#33
Quote from: james03 on November 26, 2016, 02:52:56 PM
All Grace is efficacious and accomplishes its purpose.  If God sends an external Grace where I happen upon a Holy Book that puts the fear of sin before my intellect then the fear of sin will be considered by my intellect.  If I repent, then this Grace is the First Cause and AN efficient cause, but my free will decision to repent is also AN efficient cause, and secondary.

Same circumstances, a sinner decides to remain in his sin.  The Grace is identical, the fear of sin is considered by his intellect, but he freely chooses to stay in his sin.

The Grace is identical, the Free Will choose is different BECAUSE it is a Free Will choose.

This is Molinism, which says that efficacious grace is extrinsically efficacious - that is, it depends upon the Free Will whether or not it is efficacious - as opposed to Thomism, which says that efficacious grace is intrinsically efficacious - that is, the Free Will will always and infallibly co-operate with efficacious grace, because God infallibly wills it so.

Just like Molinism, you say that grace is not either efficacious or inefficacious until the Free Will of man determines it; whereas in Thomism, efficacious and merely sufficient grace are really two distinct orders of grace, because the former always and intrinsically moves the Free Will to co-operate with God, whereas the latter does not.

The problem with your view is what I said earlier: you are making man more responsible for his salvation than he is; whether or not a man is saved depends first and foremost upon his Free Will, whereas in scripture God is the first cause of our salvation. The clear sense of sacred scripture, and of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, is that if God wills to save someone, He will infallibly move their will such that they will certainly be saved. He does not wait until man chooses Him before He saves the man; rather, He first chooses the man, and then moves the man to co-operate.
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul

Michael Wilson

Non Nobis stated:
QuoteAs I would understand this, God gives sufficient grace to all men so that they can desire to pray. I think this would be a kind of external sufficient grace including in particular natural knowledge of God and the conscience.  I think this  is enough to tell them that they can pray and SHOULD pray, but I think some men turn away (resist the sufficient grace) even before they can get to "desire".
I qualify by stating that God gives all the desire and ability to pray; I believe God inspires all men to pray, because without prayer we cannot be saved.  Those who assent to His inspiration and do pray are heard by God: "Ask and ye shall receive"; (Zacharias 1.13)"Turn to Me and I will turn to you"; (I Corinthians 12:3)
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, saith Anathema to Jesus. And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost.
Non Nobis:
Quote
I think that God's help is needed even to desire.  I'm not sure if it takes grace to desire to pray, but it takes some kind of help - I believe Thomists might call this general concurrence. Desiring to do a good thing is a good thing, and God is the primary cause of all good things. (It seem to me that desiring to pray is itself praying; reaching out the heart to God.)
Yes, even our smallest thoughts and actions are not possible without God's help:  "Without me you can do nothing"
Quote
All men can pray; it is false to say that because God's help is needed, therefore not all can do it.  If a man resists the sufficient grace to pray, then it is the man who freely resists.  If a man prays, then it is still the man who freely prays. God's help/grace is what gives life to the willing of the prayer.  In a sense (not meant irreverently) God can't help it that He is necessary, the Prime Mover, of every good willing.  Some seem to say, "if He were good He would make it unnecessary and let man do it on his own", but that is just absurd.
I agree; but doesn't the Thomist position on predestination APM preclude some from receiving God's help to pray?
Non Nobis:
Quote
I am not sure of myself here, but I think that  permitting sin is like preventing it.  God could prevent all sin because He could cause the opposing good (working by grace in a man's will).  But He chooses not to prevent some particular sins.  He made choices of both good done and evil-not-prevented in His plan for Redemption.  We can see some reasons there, even for the likely reprobation of Judas due to HIS not-prevented sins (or permitted sin).  We should know that all His non-prevention/permission of sin is for a greater good, such as the good of the Incarnation and Redemption. Providence covers both the good caused and the evil not prevented; I think there is a PLAN. Things don't just work out as they happen to work out.
I would object that for God to sincerely desire the salvation of Judas or any man, He would at least give that man the means to obtain grace to avoid sinning and losing his soul; i.e. At least the inspiration to pray; if the person would reject this inspiration, that would be the sinner's fault and not God's; but if God only gives the sinner the "power'' to pray, but not the ability to actually pray, then it is God's fault and not the sinner's if he is lost.
Non Nobis:
Quote
Prayer is answered, but not any one prayer is always answered in the desired way.  Prayer for final perseverance does not guarantee that we will persevere in the end.  People do pray for conversion who are not then converted. God's grace is needed for prayer and for conversion to God and for final perseverance. "God can't help it" that His grace is needed for good, and when He does not prevent evil (by not giving the grace) it is for a greater good, as is perhaps most easily seen in the Redemption.
Not all prayers are heard, because men do not ask correctly or for the right things; but I believe God does give each person the inspiration to pray and the ability to do so; In other words He never fails to do what is His part, it is men by their sins that fail to correspond to God's grace; not God's grace that fails men.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Michael Wilson

John Lamb:
Quote    M.W.:..... the Thomists' position that God damns souls and Angels from all eternity with no previous consideration of their possible future acceptance or rejection of His grace APM (Ante Prevista Merita) in order to show forth His justice;

J.Lamb:
You are confusing negative and positive reprobation. God does not damn souls before foreseen demerits, He merely permits souls to demerit (negative reprobation), and then after they have demerited, He damns them (positive reprobation). So it's not true that God "damns souls from all eternity with no previous consideration". He only positively damns souls after they have rejected Him.
How does it not amount to the same thing? If God did not give the fallen Angels or the foreknown the grace to save their souls, they would infallibly fall into Hell. In the AMP predestination theory, God does not furnish these with those graces necessary for salvation, and they are necessarily lost.
Here is the part of the article from the Cath. Ency.
Quote
    .... that is, to assume that, though not positively predestined to hell, yet they are absolutely predestined not to go to heaven (cf. above, I, B). While it was easy for the Thomists to bring this view into logical harmony with their præmotio physica, the few Molinists were put to straits to harmonize negative reprobation with their scientia media. In order to disguise the harshness and cruelty of such a Divine decree....Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of negative reprobation, it cannot be harmonized with the dogmatically certain universality and sincerity of God's salvific will. For the absolute predestination of the blessed is at the same time the absolute will of God "not to elect" a priori the rest of mankind (Suarez), or which comes to the same, "to exclude them from heaven" (Gonet), in other words, not to save them.....Lessius rightly says that it would be indifferent to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be certain. The reason for this is that in the present economy exclusion from heaven means for adults practically the same thing as damnation. A middle state, a merely natural happiness, does not exist.
John,
do you really think that God predestined some of the Angels and men to be excluded from Heaven i.e. Damnation, without considering even giving them a real opportunity to save their souls?  I just have a great deal of trouble not only accepting such a theory, but even seeing how Catholics can accept such a theory.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Non Nobis

Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 27, 2016, 02:29:54 PM
...
do you really think that God predestined some of the Angels and men to be excluded from Heaven i.e. Damnation, without considering even giving them a real opportunity to save their souls?  I just have a great deal of trouble not only accepting such a theory, but even seeing how Catholics can accept such a theory.

A man goes to hell because of his own free final impenitence. God (as I understand this) could have chosen to PREVENT final impenitence (working by His grace).  But if God chose to NOT prevent it (to permit it), then in fact the final impenitence will happen; but how does this make it God's fault? The sinner had a real opportunity, and threw it away.  If he took the opportunity, he would only be doing it with God's grace, but he still had an opportunity either way.

Planning what final impenitence is not prevented/is permitted does amount to predestination, but it does not take away man's fault. 

God reprobates some in His plans to permit/not prevent some from ultimately rejecting it His goodness, as a part of His providential design (they will be damned); but it is their fault.  It is simply untrue that permission entailing sin takes away the fault of sin.

God predestines the elect in His plans to give grace and so NOT permit their final rejection of His goodness, again as a part of His providential design (they will be saved).  "Not permit their rejection of His goodness" is really "works in their will to accept His goodness".  It is simply untrue that this takes away their free will, or their ability to supernaturally merit a reward.

I think a big part of the problem with accepting predestination of the elect is seeing/accepting that God can move man's will by grace without violating its freedom. This is a mystery, but I don't see how God being the cause of all good, and being all powerful over ALL things can be supported if we deny this.

Why these men and not those? ...I think this is finally a part of God's inscrutable Wisdom and will not delve into it here. But whatever His choices, I don't see that anyone is being done an injustice, or is not given an opportunity. What is true is that no man can escape the plan of His providence.

If God has any providential design at all, is all good and the source of all good, is all powerful, and CHOOSES where to permit final impenitence (when He could prevent it), then I don't see how there could not be predestination. 
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

Michael Wilson

#37
Non Nobis,
QuoteA man goes to hell because of his own free final impenitence. God (as I understand this) could have chosen to PREVENT final impenitence (working by His grace).  But if God chose to NOT prevent it (to permit it), then in fact the final impenitence will happen; but how does this make it God's fault? The sinner had a real opportunity, and threw it away.  If he took the opportunity, he would only be doing it with God's grace, but he still had an opportunity either way.
Planning what final impenitence is not prevented/is permitted does amount to predestination, but it does not take away man's fault.
As I understand the Thomistic position on grace, 'sufficient grace' gives man the "potential" to act, but not the act itself. If God does not give him and additional grace, the soul (or the angel) will reject the grace and will fall. How is this then not the fault of God? 

My impression is that the Thomists are all about the sovereignt of God and man's absolute dependence on Him except when it comes to the salvation of a soul; then they insist that men respond to sufficient grace without God's help.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: John Lamb on November 27, 2016, 02:43:45 AM
This is Molinism, which says that efficacious grace is extrinsically efficacious - that is, it depends upon the Free Will whether or not it is efficacious - as opposed to Thomism, which says that efficacious grace is intrinsically efficacious - that is, the Free Will will always and infallibly co-operate with efficacious grace, because God infallibly wills it so.

Just like Molinism, you say that grace is not either efficacious or inefficacious until the Free Will of man determines it; whereas in Thomism, efficacious and merely sufficient grace are really two distinct orders of grace, because the former always and intrinsically moves the Free Will to co-operate with God, whereas the latter does not.

And both explanations are obviously wrong, despite the fervor with which they are argued by theologians and philosophers.  They both involve a clear contradiction of a certain principle.  In science, we realize that when something like this happens it's time to look for a new model or a new theory, and not demand that a falsified one be accepted merely because of the renown of the person who proposed it.

That God supernaturally works the willing and the doing is certain.  Contra Molinism, God can't be waiting for an additional act of will from us.

But that nothing is lacking from God is equally certain.  Contra Thomism, God doesn't refuse to grant the (metaphysically necessary) grace of non-resistance to sufficient grace and then punish one for resisting.  Put more forcefully, God doesn't predetermine conditions which make sin metaphysically certain and its avoidance metaphysically impossible, and then punish the sin.

So what does this mean?  It means resistance or non-resistance isn't an act of the will properly so-called.  It's a willingness to will, or an only hypothetical act of will.  Grace is certainly efficacious of itself, moving the will, working the willing and the doing.  Yet (in accordance with Trent) it isn't irresistible.

QuoteThe clear sense of sacred scripture, and of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, is that if God wills to save someone, He will infallibly move their will such that they will certainly be saved. He does not wait until man chooses Him before He saves the man; rather, He first chooses the man, and then moves the man to co-operate.

This isn't the clear sense of sacred scripture.  It is not how it was interpreted by all the Eastern Fathers and the Fathers before St. Augustine.  And I'll point out that the Church has rejected the view that something can be accepted simply because it is found somewhere in St. Augustine.


Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: Non Nobis on November 28, 2016, 01:48:51 AM
A man goes to hell because of his own free final impenitence. God (as I understand this) could have chosen to PREVENT final impenitence (working by His grace).  But if God chose to NOT prevent it (to permit it), then in fact the final impenitence will happen; but how does this make it God's fault?

Under Thomism, God's will to permit entails the final impenitence and is metaphysically prior to it.  Thus, God is setting pre-conditions under which final repentance is metaphysically impossible.  The Thomist response that final repentance is actually possible "in the divided sense", abstracting from the pre-conditions God set up, is risible and would get an "F" if tried by a freshman philosophy student.

QuoteGod reprobates some in His plans to permit/not prevent some from ultimately rejecting it His goodness, as a part of His providential design (they will be damned); but it is their fault.  It is simply untrue that permission entailing sin takes away the fault of sin.

It is simply true under Thomism, since their doing otherwise than sinning is metaphysically impossible.

Which is a reason to reject Thomism, as God's permission cannot in fact entail the sin, but only makes the sin possible.

QuoteI think a big part of the problem with accepting predestination of the elect is seeing/accepting that God can move man's will by grace without violating its freedom. This is a mystery, but I don't see how God being the cause of all good, and being all powerful over ALL things can be supported if we deny this.

Because men can be willing or not be willing to have their wills so moved.

QuoteWhy these men and not those? ...I think this is finally a part of God's inscrutable Wisdom and will not delve into it here. But whatever His choices, I don't see that anyone is being done an injustice, or is not given an opportunity. What is true is that no man can escape the plan of His providence.

You don't have an "opportunity" if God has already willed to permit you dying impenitent.  Things cannot happen otherwise than that.


An aspiring Thomist

Quare, what exactly do you mean by hypothetical act of willing?

Michael Wilson

Quare stated:
QuoteSo what does this mean?  It means resistance or non-resistance isn't an act of the will properly so-called.  It's a willingness to will, or an only hypothetical act of will.  Grace is certainly efficacious of itself, moving the will, working the willing and the doing.  Yet (in accordance with Trent) it isn't irresistible.
Could you flesh this out a little more? I can see where non-resistance isn't an act of the will, since essentially nothing has happened; but resistance to grace appears to be a definite act of the will.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on November 28, 2016, 04:31:06 PM
Quare, what exactly do you mean by hypothetical act of willing?

It's a statement that if conditions X should obtain, then I will will Y.  This isn't an actual act of willing Y, since conditions X aren't present.  But it is a willingness to will Y, unlike the contrary that Y will not be willed, conditions X or no.

So, for instance, I can say that, if tempted, I will pray to God for help and rely on His help alone and not on my own feeble strength, and then afterwards give all credit to Him for overcoming the temptation.  This statement is not, in itself, an act of virtue in overcoming temptation and avoiding sin.  It is, however, a hypothetical act of virtue and thus, when tempted this is what is going to happen through God's grace, however with God working the actual willing and doing.

Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 28, 2016, 04:41:10 PM
Could you flesh this out a little more? I can see where non-resistance isn't an act of the will, since essentially nothing has happened; but resistance to grace appears to be a definite act of the will.

To answer this I need a little more detail.  Is "resistance to grace" considered separately from the sin committed thereby?  If not, of course sin is a definite act of the will, but resistance to grace isn't anything separate.  If it is considered separately, what exactly is willed (e.g. what apparent good) when grace is resisted?

Non Nobis

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 28, 2016, 08:58:49 PM
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on November 28, 2016, 04:31:06 PM
Quare, what exactly do you mean by hypothetical act of willing?

It's a statement that if conditions X should obtain, then I will will Y.  This isn't an actual act of willing Y, since conditions X aren't present.  But it is a willingness to will Y, unlike the contrary that Y will not be willed, conditions X or no.

So, for instance, I can say that, if tempted, I will pray to God for help and rely on His help alone and not on my own feeble strength, and then afterwards give all credit to Him for overcoming the temptation.  This statement is not, in itself, an act of virtue in overcoming temptation and avoiding sin.  It is, however, a hypothetical act of virtue and thus, when tempted this is what is going to happen through God's grace, however with God working the actual willing and doing.
...

But willingness to will, praying to have grace, is itself a good thing and so must be caused by God.

Praying here is for the WILL (and grace) to overcome temptation and avoid sin.  This is praying for something good that one doesn't have.  But praying itself is a prior good, and doing it requires God's help (whether it is supernatural grace or general help).
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

Michael Wilson

Quare asked:
Quoteo answer this I need a little more detail.  Is "resistance to grace" considered separately from the sin committed thereby?  If not, of course sin is a definite act of the will, but resistance to grace isn't anything separate.  If it is considered separately, what exactly is willed (e.g. what apparent good) when grace is resisted?
I was thinking of the woman who appeared to her friend after she died (whether true or not is not important), and told her that she was in Hell, and then went through her life to the final act of her life: she and her husband were taking a drive in the countryside on a Sunday; she hadn't assisted at Mass that morning, as she hadn't practiced her faith in years; as they were driving by a Church, she suddenly received an inspiration: "You could stop and make a visit"; she reacted: "No, I wont, I'm finished with all of that for good"; shortly after, the couple were in an accident and they were killed; she died impenintent and ended up in Hell.
Was her rejection of that suggestion an act of the will?
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers