Is the distinction between actual and sanctifying grace useful in refuting the 'L' in Calvinism's TULIP?
A viewer asks whether the distinction between actual grace and sanctifying grace is useful for refuting the 'L' (limited atonement) in the Calvinist TULIP.
Answer
Not directly, but I would say TULIP has no room for the distinction between actual and sanctifying grace. Actual grace is called actual because it prompts you to act; in Catholic theology you do nothing good by yourself, God is always the one moving you, and you can accept or reject it. There is a special actual grace called prevenient grace, taught at the Council of Trent, session six, chapters four and five: you cannot even begin to come to God unless God makes the first move, which you can reject or accept, and he does that with every man. That is why 1 Timothy 2:4 can say God desires all men to be saved. The closest thing Calvinists have is common grace, but they do not use it as a prompting given to every man toward God; it is just the leftover overflow after TULIP is administered, the crumbs off the table, to keep the world going until all the elect are born. Their concept of grace is more mechanical and legal; ours is substantive, because we believe grace is a real thing, as when holy water can metaphysically hold God's grace and baptism actually cleanses the soul, whereas in TULIP nothing really happens except that God declares it so.