Arguments for and against pre-action capacity repeatedly turn on three premises:
1. If power is an accident, does that accident persist or recur in similar instances?
2. Is power being described as a productive cause or as a condition?
3. Does valid religious obligation require the particular power concurrent with action, or the soundness of faculties and means?
A conclusion must be read in light of its premises. An argument based on the non-persistence of accidents does not automatically convince someone with a different ontology of accidents. Likewise, the existence of an obligation does not prove that the specific concurrent power already existed.
These distinctions stop arguments addressing different meanings from being mistaken for direct contradictions.