Pelagianism

[hyperdulia again]

Mustbenothing said the Church accepts pelagianism, well I don't know who he has been reading, but being the nerd I am, I went and woke up my private theologian he said that Pelagianism denied that original sin was inherited from Adam. Any Catholic with even the most rudimentary Catechesis can tell you that the catholic church still believes rather strongly in original sin. This heresy is still condemned by the Catholic Church and will aalways be condemned by Her, know why? BECAUSE, Holy Mother Church does not change Her mind once She decides something, She is the infallible and inerrant Bride of Christ.

On that note I am going to bed.

Edited July 28, 2003 by hyperdulia again

[Paladin D]

Who the? Heck, Catholics (including I) believe we can loose our Grace through Mortal Sin. Most Protestants don't believe that.

How can we be avoiding original sin?

[cmotherofpirl]

Catholic pocket dictionary:

PELAGIANISM. Heretical teaching on grace of Pelagius (355-425), the English or Irish lay monk who first propagated his views in Rome in the time of Pope Anastasius (reigned 399-401). He was scandalized at St. Augustine's teaching on the need for grace to remain chaste, arguing that this imperiled man's use of his own free will. Pelagius wrote and spoke extensively and was several times condemned by Church councils during his lifetime, notably the Councils of Carthage and Mileve in 416, confirmed the following year by Pope Innocent I. Pelagius deceived the next Pope, Zozimus, who at first exonerated the heretic, but soon (418) retracted his decision. Pelagianism is a cluster of doctrinal errors, some of which have plagued the Church ever since. Its principal tenets are: 1. Adam would have died even if he had not sinned; 2. Adam's fall injured only himself and at worst affected his posterity by giving them a bad example; 3. newborn children are in the same condition as Adam before he fell; 4. mankind will not die because of Adam's sin or rise on the Last Day because of Christ's redemption 5. the law of ancient Israel no less than the Gospel offers equal opportunity to reach heaven. As Pelagianism later developed, it totally denied the supernatural order and the necessity of grace for salvation.

[mustbenothing]

(hyperdulia again) Mustbenothing said the Church accepts pelagianism, well I don't know who he has been reading, but being the nerd I am, I went and woke up my private theologian he said that Pelagianism denied that original sin was inherited from Adam.

(Me) I didn't say that Rome teaches Pelagianism. I said that she affirms a formal shift back to semi-Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism denied the sufficiency of grace, and the Council of Trent did as well. The Council of Trent required that grace could always be resisted -- in other words, man's willingness must be added to grace in order to make it sufficient for salvation to obtain, rather than simply grace alone.

[hyperdulia again]

And that's truth. What evidence have you to say that we will be saved aginst our will?

[ironmonk]

must, you are wrong.

______________________________________

What is semi-Pelagianism? Recently a Protestant apologist said that the Catholic position on grace is a textbook case of semi-Pelagianism. And is there something called just plain Pelagianism?

The apologist does not know what he is talking about. Some conservative Protestants accuse Catholics of semi-Pelagianism, but most don't know what the term means. (Ask them to define it the next time you hear them make this accusation.)

Semi-Pelagianism was a theological movement common in France in the fifth and early sixth centuries. It was an attempted compromise between Augustine's teachings on grace and those of the heretical monk Pelagius.

Pelagius said the human will freely commits good or evil and that grace is needed only to help the will do what it already can do on its own. He said that we do not inherit original sin, physical death, or spiritual death from Adam. We learn to sin only by following the bad example of our parents and others.

Finally, Pelagius said that Christ does not bring us new life; he merely helps us by the good example he set for us on the cross, and by following his example we gain grace and are saved.

Semi-Pelagianism was nowhere near this extreme, but it still denied important points of the faith. Its basic claims were: (1) the beginning of faith (though not faith itself or its increase) could be accomplished by the human will alone, unaided by grace; (2) in a loose sense, the sanctifying grace man receives from God can be merited by natural human effort, unaided by actual grace; (3) once a man has been justified, he does not need additional grace from God in order to persevere until the end of life.

All of these propositions, together with those of full-blown Pelagianism, were condemned in 529 at the second Council of Orange (can. 5, 10, and 18) and again in 1546 by the Council of Trent (<Decree on Justification>, chs. 5, 6, 8, and 13). It is thus impossible to say that Catholic views on grace and free will are semi-Pelagian, for the Church explicitly condemns the errors of the semi-Pelagians.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary, in the Truth of the Catholic Church,

ironmonk

[mustbenothing]

(ironmonk) The apologist does not know what he is talking about. Some conservative Protestants accuse Catholics of semi-Pelagianism, but most don't know what the term means. (Ask them to define it the next time you hear them make this accusation.)

(Me) I wrote a 20 page paper defending Augustinianism against it for one of my upper-division philosophy classes at a highly ranked institution. My professor commented, "Impressive!!!!" I am not ignorant of it.

The basic disagreement between the Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, and Augustianians was on nature and grace.

The Pelagians held that man was spiritually fine, so all he needed to do was work to earn heaven. "Grace," then, was nothing more than the natural liberty God had bestowed upon each man. This is man-centered monergism, meaning that man does all the work.

The Semi-Pelagians held that man was spiritually sick, so he needed some help (grace), but could partly help himself. Grace, then, was a necessary condition for salvation, but was not a sufficient condition for salvation, as something of man's will had to be added unto it. This is synergism, meaning that God does most of the work, and man does some of it.

The Augustinians held that man was spiritually dead, so he needed absolute help -- resurrection from the dead. Grace, then, was necessary for salvation, and was the only agent in salvation (with nothing required of man's free will), as man man dead and unable to provide anything. This is God-centered monergism, meaning that God does all the work.

Clearly Roman Catholicism rejects the Augustinian tradition, and stands as a type of Semi-Pelagianism.

[Cure of Ars]

Clearly Roman Catholicism rejects the Augustinian tradition, and stands as a type of Semi-Pelagianism.

If it is so clear why do you not back up your statement with evidence. The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace alone. Nothing that we do apart from grace can get us any closer to God. Here is my evidence:

The Encyclopedia Britannica (1985 ed., vol. 10, p.625) states:

The result of Semi-Pelagianism, however, was the denial of the necessity of God's unmerited, supernatural, gracious empowering of man's will for saving action . . . From [529] . . . Semi-Pelagianism was recognized as a heresy in the Roman Catholic Church.

Second Council of Orange (529 A.D.)

If anyone asserts that we can, by our natural powers, think as we ought, or choose any good pertaining to the salvation of eternal life . . . without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . . he is misled by a heretical spirit . . . [goes on to cite Jn 15:5, 2 Cor 3:5]

Council of Trent (1545-63): Chapter V, Decree on Justification:

. . . Man . . . is not able, by his own free-will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.

And Canon I on Justification:

If anyone saith that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

The problem is you are misinformed about what the Catholic Church teaches. We are saved by grace alone. This is not a type of Semi-Pelagianism.

Edited July 31, 2003 by Cure of Ars

[mustbenothing]

(Cure of Ars) If it is so clear why do you not back up your statement with evidence. The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace alone. Nothing that we do apart from grace can get us any closer to God.

(Me) Your last statement is affirmed by the Catholic Church, I agree. However, (no, I am not calling you a Pelagian), even Pelagius could affirm that statement! Pelagius believed that "grace" was God's gift of free will:

“In order to avoid sin and to fulfill righteousness, human nature can be sufficient, seeing that it has been created with free will; and that God’s grace lies in the fact that we have been so created as to be able to do this by the will, and in the further fact that God has given to us the assistance of His law and commandments, and also in that He forgives their past sins when men turn to Him… in these things alone is God’s grace to be regarded as consisting, not in the help He gives to us for each of our actions… seeing that a man can be without sin, and keep God’s commandments easily if he wishes.” (St. Augustine, A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius, Ch. 61)

So, even according to Pelagius, there is a necessity of grace. Granted, Pelagius' definition of grace is so different from orthodox Christianity that it doesn't really establish the necessity of grace. However, when regarding Semi-Pelagianism, the question regards the sufficiency of grace. In other words, I agree completely that the Catholic Church believes that we need grace to be saved. However, if we are saved by grace alone, it follows that grace plus nothing is a sufficient condition for salvation to obtain. However, this is specifically denied. The following quotations are from the Council of Trent's sixth session:

CHAPTER V.

On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient [Page 33]grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.

On Justification

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

It follows, then, that Trent formally declared that justification requires both God's grace and man's assent. Therefore, grace alone is insufficient -- to it must be added something of man's will.

[dUSt]

mustbenothing,

If I may, I'd like to borrow some of your language...

We are saved by Grace alone, but not by Grace that is alone.

:rolleyes:

[mustbenothing]

Impressive

However, the Council of Trent said that sinners "convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace," as quoted above. If one converts oneself by grace plus something of one's will, then salvation is not by grace alone. With justification by faith alone, however, it is only faith that does any action in justification itself -- works are simply a certain product of that faith. The Council of Trent specifically denies that man's cooperation and assent is simply a certain product of the grace given -- rather, man's cooperation and assent is required for the grace to be effective.

[Cure of Ars]

Impressive

However, the Council of Trent said that sinners "convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace," as quoted above.  If one converts oneself by grace plus something of one's will, then salvation is not by grace alone.  With justification by faith alone, however, it is only faith that does any action in justification itself -- works are simply a certain product of that faith.  The Council of Trent specifically denies that man's cooperation and assent is simply a certain product of the grace given -- rather, man's cooperation and assent is required for the grace to be effective.

Mustbenothing your quote is not honest and taken out of context. Here is what is says.

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God. (DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION CHAPTER V)

Now it does not say "grace plus something of one's will". It says “the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ”. Prevenient means going before. So our act of free will to say yes to Jesus comes completely from grace although this grace includes our actions. To say that Catholics are semi-Pelagian, because we believe that our free chosen actions when conformed to God’s will only stem from grace, would also mean that Augustine was semi-Pelagian. St. Augustine wrote

What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works every one of our good merits in us, and as God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts?

{ Ep. 194,5,19; in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974 (orig. 1952), p.265}

I always find it funny when Protestants try to make St. Augustine a protestant. He was a Catholic Bishop and is a Catholic saint. He believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, purgatory, baptismal regeneration, authoritative Tradition, relics, and prayers for the dead. Even Luther knew he did not believe in faith alone. Here is what he said;

“Augustine has sometimes erred and is not to be trusted. Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in the true faith, as well as the other fathers…But when the door was opened for me in Paul, so that I understood what justification by faith is, it was all over with Augustine” (Luthers Works 54, 49)

“It was Augustine’s view that the Law…if the Holy Spirit assists, the works of the Law do justify…I reply by saying “No” (Luther’s Works 54, 10)

Here again is the Churchs teaching on Justification from the council of Trent.

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

CHAPTER V - . . . the beginning of the said justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God through Jesus Christ . . . without any merits existing on their parts . . . yet is he not able, by his own free-will, without the grace of God, to move himself into justice in His sight . . .

CHAPTER VIII - . . . none of those things which precede justification -- whether faith or works -- merit the grace itself of justification. For if it be a grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Edited August 3, 2003 by Cure of Ars

[hyperdulia again]

*heartily pats cure on the back*

[BullnaChinaShop]

It follows, then, that Trent formally declared that justification requires both God's grace and man's assent.  Therefore, grace alone is insufficient -- to it must be added something of man's will.

I may be misunderstanding you but it sounds to me like grace is sufficient so long as man with his God given free will does not close himself off to it. God is always there ready to give us all the grace we need but if we choose to reject God through mortal sins then we close the flow of grace to ourselves of our own accord. It seems to me that if "man's assent" was not needed then our free will would have been over-riden.

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) Impressive

However, the Council of Trent said that sinners "convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace," as quoted above. If one converts oneself by grace plus something of one's will, then salvation is not by grace alone. With justification by faith alone, however, it is only faith that does any action in justification itself -- works are simply a certain product of that faith. The Council of Trent specifically denies that man's cooperation and assent is simply a certain product of the grace given -- rather, man's cooperation and assent is required for the grace to be effective.

(Cure of Ars) Mustbenothing your quote is not honest and taken out of context. Here is what is says.

(Me) I had included the context in the post before it, so I wasn't trying to be dishonest at all. Please don't insinuate that I am lying when I'm really trying my best to be honest here.

(Cure of Ars) The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God. (DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION CHAPTER V)

Now it does not say "grace plus something of one's will". It says “the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ”. Prevenient means going before. So our act of free will to say yes to Jesus comes completely from grace although this grace includes our actions. To say that Catholics are semi-Pelagian, because we believe that our free chosen actions when conformed to God’s will only stem from grace, would also mean that Augustine was semi-Pelagian. St. Augustine wrote

What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works every one of our good merits in us, and as God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts?

{ Ep. 194,5,19; in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974 (orig. 1952), p.265}

(Me) The difference is that, when Augustine refers to our works as being because of God's grace, he means that they are irresistibly because of God's grace. As I showed above, however, Trent requires our wills to cooperate, meaning that God's grace is necessary, but we are able to resist, and we must not resist if God's grace is going to be effective.

I think that many of you are confusing necessity and sufficiency. A necessary condition is something that must obtain in order for something else to obtain. For instance, it is necessary for me to have a ball in my hand if I'm going to throw that ball. A sufficient condition, however, is one in which if the sufficient condition obtains, that for which it is a sufficient condition will certainly obtain. This can be confusing because we tend to use the word "sufficient" in a different sense in normal vocabulary.

For instance, all orthodox Christians believe that Christ's work on the cross was sufficient for all the sins of the world. However, no orthodox Christians believe that Christ's work on the cross was a sufficient condition to save all people. By the definition of the technical term "sufficient condition," if Christ's work was a sufficient condition to save all people, and Christ performed His work on the cross, then we can say, with certainty, that all people are saved.

Relating this back to the ball analogy: having a ball in my mind is necessary for me to throw a ball, but it is not a sufficient condition for me to throw a ball. For, certainly I can just hold the ball in my hand rather than throwing it.

Likewise, I agree wholeheartedly that Trent saw grace as a necessary condition for salvation. However, it did not see grace as a sufficient condition for salvation. For, Trent requires man's will to work along with grace -- Trent requires man's cooperation to make grace effective. That is why Trent could hold that effectively equal grace may be given to two different people, but one saved and the other not. That is because one resisted, and one cooperated.

(The late) Augustine, on the other hand, held grace to be both necessary and sufficient (Pelagius held that it was not even necessary; the Semi-Pelagians held that it was not sufficient). He held that God's effectual calling was irresistible, meaning that God's grace was a sufficient condition for salvation. In every case where God's special, saving grace was present, the sinner converted, and would ultimately be saved. Thus, as Augustine held grace to be a sufficient condition for salvation to obtain, he held salvation by grace alone.

As a caveat: there will probably be confusion on the word "grace" here. There are many ways in which the Scripture refers to God's grace. Those in the Augustinian tradition -- the late Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and myself, for instance -- hold that the Scripture often refers to God's special, irresistible, special, distinguishing grace. We still believe, however, that God offers common grace to all men.

(Cure of Ars) I always find it funny when Protestants try to make St. Augustine a protestant. He was a Catholic Bishop and is a Catholic saint. He believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, purgatory, baptismal regeneration, authoritative Tradition, relics, and prayers for the dead. Even Luther knew he did not believe in faith alone. Here is what he said;

(Me) Since this issue isn't really important, I won't go into detail (I just edited out the detail), but I will say that I've read Augustine's discussion of justification, and I'm not convinced that he would reject Sola Fide. His notion of the word "justification" was not nearly as refined as those of the Reformers. The debate in his time was over nature and grace, not justification -- therefore, his position on that issue was not nearly as intricate as those of the Reformers.

Edited August 6, 2003 by mustbenothing