What text in augustine, exactly what is this saying?

[Big_Dummy]

from footnote 181,

This is one of the rare instances in which a textual variant in Augustine’s text affects a basic issue in the interpretation of his doctrine. All but one of the major old editions, up to and including Migne, here read: Nec utique deus injuste noluit salvos fiere eum possent salvi esse SI VELLENT (if they willed it). This would mean the attribution of a decisive role in human salvation to the human will and would thus stand out in bold relief from his general stress in the rest of the Enchiridion and elsewhere on the primacy and even irresistibility of grace. The Jansenist edition of Augustine, by Arnauld in 1648, read SI VELLET (if He willed it) and the reading became the subject of acrimonious controversy between the Jansenists and the Molinists.
The Maurist edition reads si vellet , on the strength of much additional MS. evidence that had not been available up to that time. In modern times, the si vellet reading has come to have the overwhelming support of the critical editors, although Rivière still reads si vellent

godrules.net/library/augustine/280augustine34.htm

 

[John7]

do you mean, how to translate this?

Nec utique deus injuste noluit salvos fiere eum possent salvi esse si vellent/vellet

if this is what you’re asking for then

1 Nec utique
2 deus injuste
3 noluit
4 salvos fiere eum
5 possent salvi esse si vellet/vellent

1 Nor of course
2 God unjustly
3 he would not
4 him come to be saved
(I can’t quite understand these 4 first lines/can’t put them together)

5 they could be saved if he wanted to (si vellet) ‘he’ > God]
5 they could be saved if they wanted to (si vellent)

I hope someone else can translate this

 

[Todd_Easton]

The numbering of the footnotes on your site seems to be off.

Here is another site where the numbering of the footnotes seems better, where the quoted explanation matches to footnote #201 and refers to this sentence in Augustine’s Enchiridion, chapter xxiv, paragraph 95:
Now, obviously, God did not act unjustly in not willing their
salvation, even though they could have been saved, if he willed it so.

 

[Big_Dummy]

thanks, now exactly what does that mean? is it speaking of free will vs predestination?

 

[steve_b]

thanks, now exactly what does that mean? is it speaking of free will vs predestination?

One shouldn’t make an argument out of a footnote (#201). That would be taking text out of context.

In paragraph 94, which starts the context, Augustine says

no one is set free save by unmerited mercy and no one is damned save by a merited condemnation

Augustine finishes his thought by saying (emphasisi mine)

He (God) either allows it to happen or he actually causes it to happen.

ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion.chapter24.html

God respects free will He gives creatures. Therefore, as Augustine says, NO ONE is saved without unmeritrd mercy (grace) no one is condemned without meriting condemnation. IOW no double predestination, i.e. no one is condemned capriciously. If someone is condemned they did something to deserve it,