Pelagianism

[mustbenothing]

(BullnaChinaShop) 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.

(Me) Read my explanation of the terms "sufficient" and "necessary" above. Hopefully they will help explain what I mean a little better :)

[Anna]

(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.

mustbenothing,

I've been away for a bit, so haven't been posting very frequently.

You hypothesize that if Augustine had lived during the 1500's, he might have been a reformer.

This is an example of a quantum leap in logic.

St. Augustine would have to reject the authority of the Church which Christ instituted in order to embrace Sola Fide. Since he is a canonized Catholic Saint, he didn't defy Church Teaching in his day, and doubtful would have had he lived in any other time frame.

To even suggest such a thing seems rather ridiculous to me.

Pax Christi. <><

[Cure of Ars]

mustbenothing,

Catholics believe that grace is necessary and sufficient. The theology just does not fit into categories that your tradition has set up. The dichotomy that you can not get past is between God’s grace a our free will. It reminds me of talking with Mormons about the trinity. The just can’t grasp three persons in one God. It does not fit into the tradition of the categories that they have set up. Lets address this issue later. I want to talk about the main question of the post, of whether Catholics are semi- Pelagian or not.

So let my sum up your argument to see if I understand you. Catholics are semi- Pelagian because Catholics believe in free will. Is this your basic argument?

Will you concede that Catholics are not semi-Pelagian if I can show that St. Augustine believed in free will?

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) 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.

(Anna) I've been away for a bit, so haven't been posting very frequently.

You hypothesize that if Augustine had lived during the 1500's, he might have been a reformer.

This is an example of a quantum leap in logic.

St. Augustine would have to reject the authority of the Church which Christ instituted in order to embrace Sola Fide. Since he is a canonized Catholic Saint, he didn't defy Church Teaching in his day, and doubtful would have had he lived in any other time frame.

To even suggest such a thing seems rather ridiculous to me.

(Me) The Reformers affirmed Augustine's views on nature and grace, while the Roman Catholics rejected them. The Roman Catholics affirmed Augustine's ecclesiological views, while the Reformers rejected them.

I don't think I said that Augustine would have been a Reformer, although I think that his staunch commitment to his view of nature and grace probably would have made him do so. What I said is that I think it's very difficult to judge what Augustine's view on Sola Fide would have been because of his time.

To give an extreme example, I don't see any evidence that Moses supported Trinitarianism. However, I would imagine that, had he lived in the third century, he would have been a Trinitarian. During Moses's time, the question of Trinitarianism versus Arianism was not present -- these doctrines were not nearly as refined as they became during the first few centuries AD. Likewise, the debate in Augustine's time was over nature and grace, not justification. Therefore, I don't think it's right for us to say much here.

[DjGuardian]

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.

man i know i jumped into this forum to late...yea Pelagian denied Original Sin...there are movements in the Protestant Church especially that believe this...if not outrightly, then it ends up being thier presuposition when you look at some of thier views...Word of Faith and Prosperity Churches as well as most if not all Armenian Churches. typically the easiest way to test is through their view of "free will". If someone says that "they chose God becuase they want to and God cannot intrude and make them believe", then this is in essence denying original sin as man is no long dead in sin and slaves to sin desiring only that which their sinful nature desires. Obviously Isaiah and most anything by Paul and much more clearly show the seperation between God and man and man as spiritually dead and evil in their nature to the core. Only by grace from God can this be changed in a man much like Lazerus was brought to life by Christ...even without him asking to be...Christ did it out of His own desire.

i'm going to have to read on and on on these posts to see what's going on, on this thread...but i had to at least throw a post in...mabey more later as i read on.

[mustbenothing]

(Cure of Ars) Catholics believe that grace is necessary and sufficient. The theology just does not fit into categories that your tradition has set up.

(Me) The definitions I used for "necessary" and "sufficient" are common in all modern academic disciplines. I know that they can be counter-intuitive.

(Cure of Ars) The dichotomy that you can not get past is between God’s grace a our free will. It reminds me of talking with Mormons about the trinity. The just can’t grasp three persons in one God. It does not fit into the tradition of the categories that they have set up. Lets address this issue later. I want to talk about the main question of the post, of whether Catholics are semi- Pelagian or not.

So let my sum up your argument to see if I understand you. Catholics are semi- Pelagian because Catholics believe in free will. Is this your basic argument?

(Me) "Free will" needs to be expounded. Those in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition also believe in free will, just not incompatibilistic free will. To give you an example: Roman Catholics require that grace can always be resisted if our wills are truly free, while those in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition of Freedom and Foreknowledge (and soteriology) believe that God's effectual calling of the elect is irresistible.

(Cure of Ars) Will you concede that Catholics are not semi-Pelagian if I can show that St. Augustine believed in free will?

(Me) There are two key points you're going to have to establish here:

1. There is the Early Augustine and the Late Augustine. The Early Augustine is very different from the Late Augustine (no Roman Catholic authority is going to disagree on this point). So, you're going to have to point to the works of the Late Augustine in order to establish this claim.

2. You've got to establish that Augustine affirmed libertarian or incompatibilistic free will. I have read all his Anti-Pelagian writings, and realize that he repeatedly affirms "free will." Of course, so did Calvin and Edwards! However, this is because Calvin and Edwards believed in a kind of free will that would now be classified as consistent with something called compatibilism -- more or less, I think that Augustine, with Calvin and Edwards, believed that we are free when we are able to do what we want to do.

Here is an excerpt from a paper I wrote. Below the excerpt are the footnotes in which I documented this view from the source material.

St. Augustine

Augustine, the famous teaching Bishop of Hippo, led the fight against Pelagianism, and later Semipelagianism. He believed that, though man was created morally pure, Adam chose to sin of his own free will, corrupting man’s state . This passed both sin and death from Adam unto all men . Adam’s sin counted for all, so that none would be without sin . In addition for the guilt of original sin, Augustine finds the Fall to have made us “wholly depraved.” Not only does this mean that a man cannot be without sin on his own , but that no one can even turn unto good on his own .

To Augustine, God’s grace brings about our turning to Him . Even the Law cannot fight our depravity; rather, it entered for sin’s increase . Thus, “His grace works within us our illumination and justification.” This grace is given freely, and not at all on the basis of merit . While we know that this grace is in no way based upon us, and that the reason is not unjust, the reason is ultimately hidden from us . God inclines the hearts of men to either good, by His power, or evil, by their depravity, according to His will . Yet we must not think that God’s merciful work in us destroys our free will , for, though the basis of the dispensation of His grace is unknown, and not according to our merits, He still works in us as creatures of reason and will . Our good lives, and therefore eternal life, are thus by God’s grace alone . Though this involves our own acts and works, it be not our merits, for it is God crowns gifts which come from Him alone, and in no way from us . Augustine’s position may, therefore, be described as holding that man is spiritually dead and needs resurrection.

“Man’s nature, indeed, was created at first faultless and without any sin; but that nature of man in which every one is born from Adam, now wants the Physician, because it is not sound… the flaw, which darkens and weakens all those natural goods, so that it has need of illumination and healing, it has not contracted from its blameless Creator – but from that original sin, which it committed by free will.” (Ibid., Ch. 3)

“Sin and death together… had passed by natural descent from one upon all men.” (Merits, Book I, Ch. 9)

“They are not without sin, either that which they have derived from their birth, or that which they have added from their own misconduct. ‘For all have sinned’ – whether in Adam or in themselves – ‘and come short of the glory of God.’” (Nature, Ch. 4)

“We attain from God even a good will… who can hesitate to affirm that, when the will loves not righteousness in any way at all, it is not only a bad, but even a wholly depraved whill?” (Merits, Book II. Ch. 30)

“Without the grace of God a man cannot be without sin.” (Nature, Ch. 11)

“Henceforth it became difficult to be obedient unto righteousness; and unless this defect were overcome by assisting grace, no one would turn to holiness; nor unless it were healed by efficient grace would any one enjoy the peace of righteousness.” (Merits, Book II. Ch. 33)

“Our turning to God is not possible, except He rouses and helps us… it comes from His mercy, not their merit, that God wills to impart this to some, but from His truth that He wills not to impart it to others.” (Ibid., Book II. Ch. 31)

“Sin could not be taken away even by the law, which entered that sin might the more abound.” (Ibid., Book I, Ch. 12)

Ibid., Book I, Ch. 10

“This grace, however, of Christ, without which neither infants nor adults can be saved, is not rendered for any merits, but is given gratis.” (Nature, Ch. 4)

“Nothing delivers us but the grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. The reason why this grace comes upon one man and not on another may be hidden, but it cannot be unjust.” (Merits, Book I, Ch. 29)

“God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills whithersoever He wills, whether to good deeds according to His mercy, or to evil after their own deserts.” (A Treatise on Grace and Free Will, Ch. 43) This work will be hereafter called “Grace.”

“It is not, however, to be for a moment supposed, because he said, ‘It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His own good pleasure,’ that free will is taken away.” (Ibid., Ch. 21)

“God does not work our salvation in us as if he were working in insensate stones, or in creatures in whom nature has placed neither reason nor will. Why, however, He helps one man, but not another… he reserves to Himself.” (Merits, Book II. Ch. 6)

“As your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God.” (Grace, Ch. 20)

“If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.” (A Treatise on Grace and Free Will, Ch. 15)

Edited August 8, 2003 by mustbenothing

[DjGuardian]

(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.

Amen Pres....for man to have an action in his own salvation or grace is to make himself like unto God. no work of man can overthrow God's will or be required for His will to take place. Such would be to deny His Supreme Authority and Sovereignty and His Lordship.

Eph 2:8-10 is a good read on this. Man has NO part in salvation. It is a Gift from God that we do not deserve and do nothing to receive, but it is after that we have received that we act upon that faith which God has imparted in us.

A great example of this is Abram. When left up to him, he messed up and broke the contract God had placed with him. So God still wanted to have His will be fulfilled so had to issue a new covenant/contract. but becuse Abram had brokent he contract, in a sense he was dead and could not be issued another contract in his state (like Adam). So God gave Abram and Sarai new life and with it new names as they became Abraham and Sarah (the RAH in Hebrew means "the breath of life". This was used in Genesis with the formation of Adam and Eve). God then could make a new contract...a unilateral coventant as it is called, because this new contract required nothing of Abraham in order for it to be fulfilled...God did it and it was a gift to Abraham and Sarah...God placed a child in Sarah's womb...so is our salvation in Christ...Christ does it and it happens...by Him alone...salvation is a Unilateral Coventant that God has declared to His Children whom He has called forth.

[DjGuardian]

ok i've read most of the posts...and i have to say...color me inpressed and i know i am in the right place....when the people from Phatmass said that their message boards are bangin'...they weren't lying....i will read on as i have the opportunity and add my thoughts if i feel lead....this is great stuff and church history is my weakness...apologetics and philosophy are my strengths.

thank you and Praise God for you all

[Cure of Ars]

To give you an example: Roman Catholics require that grace can always be resisted if our wills are truly free,

Again you do not understand Catholic doctrine. Catholic Church teaches that the some are predestined to preserver and it quotes the Bible in this regard.

CCC 2012. "'We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him . .. For those whom he fore knew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.'[Rom 8:28-30 .]"

while those in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition of Freedom and Foreknowledge (and soteriology) believe that God's effectual calling of the elect is irresistible.

For Augustin this does not apply to all Christians because, “many are called but few are chosen” (Matt 22:14)

1.There is the Early Augustine and the Late Augustine. The Early Augustine is very different from the Late Augustine (no Roman Catholic authority is going to disagree on this point). So, you're going to have to point to the works of the Late Augustine in order to establish this claim.

I will only quote works from the last five years of his life except for one and I do not know when he wrote this quote. He died in 430. I also hope that you will show how this view of free will changed latter in his life.

2.  You've got to establish that Augustine affirmed libertarian or incompatibilistic free will. I have read all his Anti-Pelagian writings, and realize that he repeatedly affirms "free will." Of course, so did Calvin and Edwards! However, this is because Calvin and Edwards believed in a kind of free will that would now be classified as consistent with something called compatibilism -- more or less, I think that Augustine, with Calvin and Edwards, believed that we are free when we are able to do what we want to do.

So Calvin believed in free will that is a part of grace if the will is in line with God’s? So Calvin belief is semi- Pelagian when someone is doing God’s will? Why not?

Here some of the quotes I have. You will have to explain if they are “incompatibilistic free will” because at this point I don’t really understand the concept. I trust that you will be honest.

But if someone already regenerate and justified should, of his own will, relapse into his evil life, certainly that man cannot say: 'I have not received'; because he lost the grace he received from God and by his own free choice went to evil. (Admonition and Grace 6,9) (A.D. ?)

We are, therefore, in no way compelled, if we retain the foreknowledge of God, to discard our choice of will, or, if we retain choice of will, to deny - which were shocking - God's foreknowledge of future events. Rather, we embrace both . . . Man, therefore, does not sin because God foreknew that he would sin. (The City of God V,10) ( A.D. 426)

It is to be confessed, therefore, that we have free choice to do both evil and good; but in doing evil every one is free from righteousness and a servant of sin, while in doing good no one can be free, unless he have been made free by Him who said, "If the Son shall make you free, then you shall be free indeed." Neither is it thus, that when any one has been made free from the dominion of sin, he no longer needs the help of his Deliverer; but rather thus, that hearing from Him, "Without me ye can do nothing," he himself also says to Him, "Be thou my helper! Forsake me not." (A TREATISE ON REBUKE AND GRACE, Chapter 2) (A.D. 426 OR 427)

If, then, these things be so, we still rebuke those, and reasonably rebuke them, who, although they were living well, have not persevered therein; because they have of their own will been changed from a good to an evil life, and on that account are worthy of rebuke; and if rebuke should be of no avail to them, and they should persevere in their ruined life until death, they are also worthy of divine condemnation for ever. (A TREATISE ON REBUKE AND GRACE, Chapter 11)

Thus also He made man with free will; and although ignorant of his future fall, yet therefore happy, because he thought it was in his own power both not to die and not to become miserable. And if he had willed by his own free will to continue in this state of uprightness and freedom from sin, assuredly without any experience of death and of unhappiness he would have received by the merit of that continuance the fulness of blessing with which the holy angels also are blessed; that is, the impossibility of falling any more, and the knowledge of this with absolute certainty. (A TREATISE ON REBUKE AND GRACE, CHAP. 28)

But since there are some persons who so defend God's grace as to deny man's free will, or who suppose that free will is denied when grace is defended, I have determined to write somewhat on this point to your Love, my brother Valentinus, and the rest of you, who are serving God together under the impulse of a mutual love. (GRACE AND FREE WILL CHAP. 1) (426 OR A.D. 427)

Therefore, brethren, you ought by free will not do evil but do good…(GRACE AND FREE WILL CHAP. 1)

It is certain that in willing anything, it is we that do the willing, but it is He that enables us to will what is good . . . It is certain that in doing anything, it is we that act but it is He that enables us to act, by His bestowing efficacious powers upon our will. (Against Julian) (c.428-430)

[Cure of Ars]

mustbenothing,

One more thing, for compatibilism free will to be a loop hole in regards to Augustin on free will you need to show that he held to this concept. If not, you are just projecting a concept back that he did not hold and it does not apply.

Edited August 8, 2003 by Cure of Ars

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) To give you an example: Roman Catholics require that grace can always be resisted if our wills are truly free,

(Cure of Ars) Again you do not understand Catholic doctrine. Catholic Church teaches that the some are predestined to preserver and it quotes the Bible in this regard.

CCC 2012. "'We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him . .. For those whom he fore knew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.'[Rom 8:28-30 .]"

(Me) Whether Molinist or Thomist, all Roman Catholics affirm resistible grace. However, that does not mean that God cannot throw so much grace at us that we will eventually not resist. I would also imagine that your interpretation of this catechism cite is misled, as I've seen someone on this board quote a prominent apologist with an interpretation of this passage opposite your own. He more or less said that this refers only to people before the time of Paul's writing, so predestination would be based upon foreknowledge of facts regarding resistance, cooperation, and perseverance. If such a position is taken, it is obvious that resistible grace could still be true, for God foreknew the fact that we would not resist grace, and acted accordingly.

(Previous) while those in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition of Freedom and Foreknowledge (and soteriology) believe that God's effectual calling of the elect is irresistible.

(Cure of Ars) For Augustin this does not apply to all Christians because, “many are called but few are chosen” (Matt 22:14)

(Me) I don't see how a Biblical cite would establish Augustine's position at all, which I outlined above with direct quotations.

Matthew 22:14 refers to an outward call to come to the banquet, not the inward, effectual call that Augustine said was given to all and only the elect.

(Previous) 1.There is the Early Augustine and the Late Augustine. The Early Augustine is very different from the Late Augustine (no Roman Catholic authority is going to disagree on this point). So, you're going to have to point to the works of the Late Augustine in order to establish this claim.

(Cure of Ars) I will only quote works from the last five years of his life except for one and I do not know when he wrote this quote. He died in 430. I also hope that you will show how this view of free will changed latter in his life.

(Me) Okay.

(Previous) 2. You've got to establish that Augustine affirmed libertarian or incompatibilistic free will. I have read all his Anti-Pelagian writings, and realize that he repeatedly affirms "free will." Of course, so did Calvin and Edwards! However, this is because Calvin and Edwards believed in a kind of free will that would now be classified as consistent with something called compatibilism -- more or less, I think that Augustine, with Calvin and Edwards, believed that we are free when we are able to do what we want to do.

(Cure of Ars) So Calvin believed in free will that is a part of grace if the will is in line with God’s? So Calvin belief is semi- Pelagian when someone is doing God’s will? Why not?

(Me) The key to the semi-Pelagian tradition is a denial of man's total inability and the sufficiency of grace. Both Calvin and Augustine saw our "free will" as being to do whatever we want to do, but our wills are naturally in bondage to sin, and thus we do not have "free will" in another sense (as binding negates freedom). Therefore, they saw our wills as being freed from bondage to sin by the Spirit, given hearts of flesh in place of our hearts of stone, and continuing on to do good works.

(Cure of Ars) Here some of the quotes I have. You will have to explain if they are “incompatibilistic free will” because at this point I don’t really understand the concept. I trust that you will be honest.

But if someone already regenerate and justified should, of his own will, relapse into his evil life, certainly that man cannot say: 'I have not received'; because he lost the grace he received from God and by his own free choice went to evil. (Admonition and Grace 6,9) (A.D. ?)

(Me) The translation I have calls it Rebuke and Grace, and I'm fairly sure that everything you quoted is from chapter 9. Here is a more adequate context:

If, however, being already regenerate and justified, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, “I have not received,” because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God, that he had received. And if, stung with compunction by rebuke, he wholesomely bewails, and returns to similar good works, or even better, certainly here most manifestly appears the advantage of rebuke. But yet for rebuke by the agency of man to avail, whether it be of love or not, depends only upon God.

Augustine is talking about backsliding -- something that Reformed theologians certainly treated seriously. He says that men may backslide, but then return to good works. Notice the last sentence: he places the man's return completely in God's hands. Man's free will is not a factor that overrides it.

Compatibilism holds that God may determine a choice and it still be free; incompatibilism holds the opposite. Therefore, as Augustine here says that God's determination is the only reason that this choice will occur "by the agency of man," he must be offering an account that places God's determination as compatible with man's free choice.

(Cure of Ars) We are, therefore, in no way compelled, if we retain the foreknowledge of God, to discard our choice of will, or, if we retain choice of will, to deny - which were shocking - God's foreknowledge of future events. Rather, we embrace both . . . Man, therefore, does not sin because God foreknew that he would sin. (The City of God V,10) ( A.D. 426)

(Me) I honestly don't see how this is relevant. Am I just missing part of the meaning?

(Cure of Ars) It is to be confessed, therefore, that we have free choice to do both evil and good; but in doing evil every one is free from righteousness and a servant of sin, while in doing good no one can be free, unless he have been made free by Him who said, "If the Son shall make you free, then you shall be free inDouche." Neither is it thus, that when any one has been made free from the dominion of sin, he no longer needs the help of his Deliverer; but rather thus, that hearing from Him, "Without me ye can do nothing," he himself also says to Him, "Be thou my helper! Forsake me not." (A TREATISE ON REBUKE AND GRACE, Chapter 2) (A.D. 426 OR 427)

(Me) This favors compatibilism. Let me explain it like this: everyone agrees that free choices require the ability to choose otherwise, but disagree on what that means (incompatiblists see it as requiring moral ability, while compatibilists see it as requiring physical ability, more or less). Compatibilists see freedom as compatible with some kind of determination, while incompatibilists see the two as incompatible. So, compatibilists hold that the will can be so bound to sin that it is incapable of choosing good, just as described here. Incompatibilists would say that, if we are incapable of choosing good, we are not free (this is why, for instance, incompatibilists tend to say that we have the "preparation of grace" or "prevenient grace" that grants us moral ability, therefore making our wills free); Augustine did, however. Therefore, this favors compatibilism.

(Cure of Ars) If, then, these things be so, we still rebuke those, and reasonably rebuke them, who, although they were living well, have not persevered therein; because they have of their own will been changed from a good to an evil life, and on that account are worthy of rebuke; and if rebuke should be of no avail to them, and they should persevere in their ruined life until death, they are also worthy of divine condemnation for ever. (A TREATISE ON REBUKE AND GRACE, Chapter 11)

(Me) Read chapter 10 ("All Perseverance is God’s Gift") for some context. Then, my early discussion regarding chapter 9 shoudl be sufficient.

(Cure of Ars) Thus also He made man with free will; and although ignorant of his future fall, yet therefore happy, because he thought it was in his own power both not to die and not to become miserable. And if he had willed by his own free will to continue in this state of uprightness and freedom from sin, assuredly without any experience of death and of unhappiness he would have received by the merit of that continuance the fulness of blessing with which the holy angels also are blessed; that is, the impossibility of falling any more, and the knowledge of this with absolute certainty. (A TREATISE ON REBUKE AND GRACE, CHAP. 28)

(Me) Reformed theologians (who are the primary Christian compatibilists) have always held to a similar doctrine of the Covenant of Works delivered to Adam.

Notice also that he would have "the impossibility of falling any more," meaning that he would be incapable of falling even though he would have free will -- something with which incompatibilists might disagree.

(Cure of Ars) But since there are some persons who so defend God's grace as to deny man's free will, or who suppose that free will is denied when grace is defended, I have determined to write somewhat on this point to your Love, my brother Valentinus, and the rest of you, who are serving God together under the impulse of a mutual love. (GRACE AND FREE WILL CHAP. 1) (426 OR A.D. 427)

(Me) inDouche! Christian compatibilism is driven by an Augustinian doctrine of grace, which incompatibilism thinks that Augustinian grace would take away our free will. Incompatibilism thinks that if God unilaterally and irresistibly converts us, we did not freely choose to convert.

(Cure of Ars) Therefore, brethren, you ought by free will not do evil but do good…(GRACE AND FREE WILL CHAP. 1)

(Me) Yes, absolutely.

(Cure of Ars) It is certain that in willing anything, it is we that do the willing, but it is He that enables us to will what is good . . . It is certain that in doing anything, it is we that act but it is He that enables us to act, by His bestowing efficacious powers upon our will. (Against Julian) (c.428-430)

(Me) inDouche!

[mustbenothing]

(Cure of Ars) One more thing, for compatibilism free will to be a loop hole in regards to Augustin on free will you need to show that he held to this concept. If not, you are just projecting a concept back that he did not hold and it does not apply.

(Me) Here are a few reasons to think that Augustine would fall in the compatibilist tradition:

1. His doctrines of nature and grace are the foundational driving forces behind compatibilism

2. Some of the quotes you provided above imply it

3. The fact that he taught unconditional election and free will hints at it (though I certainly realize the Thomistic alternative)

4. Here is a typical quote from Augustine:

"Unless, therefore, we obtain not simply determination of will, which is freely turned in this direction and that, and has its place amongst those natural goods which a bad man may use badly; but also a good will, which has its place among those goods of which it is impossible to make a bad use -- unless the impossibility is given to us from God, I know not how to defend what is said: 'What hast thous that thou dids't not receive?' For if we have from God a certain free will, which may still be either good or bad; but the good will comes from ourselves; then that which comes from ourselves is better than that which comes from Him. But inasmuch as it is the height of absurdity to say this, they ought to acknowledge that we attain from God even a good will" (A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sin, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.30)

The "determination of will" is our free will, but the will can be good or bad. This is classically compatibilistic. If you're fairly interested, see G. O'Daly's "Predestination and Freedom in Augustine's Ethics," in The Philosophy in Christianity, ed. G. Vesey. I really don't think any scholar is going to adequately claim that Augustine was too different from Edwards.

[Cure of Ars]

I am quoting the colored section from here. I thought that you would find this interesting. It seems to me that the only way that you will acknowledge that Augustine believed in free will is if I found a quote that said, “I Augustine believe in incompatibilistic free will”. But I think it is unlikely that I find this statement since it is a later concept projected back in to Augustine.

From: Christ and the Soul: Augustine on Grace, Salvation, and Pelagianism by James J. O'Donnell. O'Donnell is a Professor of Classics (whether he is Catholic or Protestant I don't know), who runs the Augustine of Hippo website. Jaroslav Pelikan said of him, in his review of Gary Wills' biography of Augustine: ". . . James J. O'Donnell, the prodigy of current Augustinian studies, who has produced not only the definitive three-volume critical edition of the Confessiones but also the celebrated Augustine Web Site . . .":

Free Will

Readers with little taste for paradox find many frustrations in Augustine. Those frustrations are about to come to a peak. For the fallen human intellect to understand the workings of divine salvation is, for Augustine, a task destined to glorious failure. Failure, because such understanding will be incomplete, but glorious, because the more intensely that failure is realized, the closer the

knowing person comes to God.

To begin with, as always for Augustine, there is God. To God, all that transpires is intelligible and reasonable. God is omniscient, but also omnipotent. All that is, is of God; creation is encompassed by God and dwarfed by him. Appearances are only complicated shadows cast by simple realities we will never fully comprehend. Human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, possess the faculty of reason, and in theory nothing should prevent them from sharing divine knowledge.

But in practice something does interfere. Sin leads to ignorance and misunderstanding, and in this life grace itself leads only to partial and incomplete restoration of the intellect. But human beings pretend otherwise. They perceive small fragments of the reasonableness of divine creation and think they know the whole story. They grasp a piece of the truth and identify it with the whole. Then attention is drawn to a crucial theological puzzle, a system of logic fails to resolve all the issues that are raised, and scapegoats are sought. Men blame the system, blame the puzzle, blame God himself, but never blame themselves.

The problems raised by Augustine's theology of sin and grace and its limitations were thrust upon with most painful force in the last decade of his life, when some monks in Africa and Gaul, concerned that the value of their own self-denying way of life was undermined by what they saw as defeatist quietism, began propagating ideas that have received in modern times the inaccurate name of "semi-Pelagianism" . . . . The conclusion they reached was that God's grace is a reward for well-intentioned initial efforts by human beings. In other words, some limited role for human merit remains at the root of the theology of salvation. What matters about this opposition is not so much its conclusions as the line of reasoning that led to the dispute.

The monks observed that a thoroughgoing system of divine grace leads to logical difficulties. If grace is absolutely sovereign and human merit entirely nonexistent, does not freedom of the will disappear? Worse, does it not mean that it is God who chooses, not only who will go to heaven, but also who will go to hell? Cannot those who go to hell rightly blame the negligence and cruelty of a God who denied them the free gift given to others just as undeserving? Can God be just if such whimsy reigns? Is God really merciful?

A related question attacks the problem neatly: Is grace resistible? This would seem to suggest an attractive escape route, for if grace is resistible, then those who are damned are responsible for their own damnation. But if the answer to this question is affirmative, we must ask if that means that grace is also acceptable, that is, if it is in the power of human beings to reject it, is it not also in their power to accept it? And has not merit returned to the system? If it is not in our power to accept grace, but only to reject it, the justice and mercy of God remain in question, for God must foreordain which people will be allowed to resist and which will be compelled to accept--and divine whimsy, a terrifying notion, re-enters.

Augustine does not have a simple, comprehensive solution acceptable to all for these dilemmas. His principle, as in the question of original sin, is to cling to what he knows for certain, to attempt to provide explanations for difficulties, but then to stand with what he knows by faith even when logical difficulties remain. Here as always, revelation and experience are everything for Augustine; the arguments of the dialecticians have no authority.

With those warnings, we can turn with trepidation to the Augustinian solution. Augustine believes in predestination, but only in single predestination. God actively chooses certain individuals to be the recipients of his grace, confers it on them in a way that altogether overpowers their own will to sin, and leaves them utterly transformed, to live a life of blessedness. But God does not choose beforehand to send others to hell. God wills that all men be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2.4), even as he takes actions that save only certain individuals. Those who are damned, are damned by their own actions.

On these points, Augustine will not be shaken. His opponents (and a fair number of would-be friends) through the centuries will insist that this solution is indistinguishable from double predestination. It will be claimed that this view is pessimistic and proclaims a tyrannical and arbitrary God. Psychology will be invoked to explain the growing gloom of the aging Augustine.

Before we judge Augustine, however, we should attempt to understand him. He knew his answer could only be half a solution. Evil and its sources were still wrapped in mystery for him as the manifestation of non-being in the world of being. Augustine can only attempt to explain the workings of God and his goodness, which are clear and intelligible. To understand the condition of the evil creatures who will not win eternal blessedness is painfully difficult. All this makes hard doctrine.

If the divine deliberation by which some are saved and some are damned is a mystery, however, something less obscure can be said about the condition of the will of the redeemed creature. We must consider for a moment the nature of the faculty of will itself.

In practical terms, it is scarcely too strong to say that the will is the personality. The will is the part of the soul that chooses and acts. All choices are choices of will, and all acts are acts of appetite, hence acts of love, either the divinely inspired love Augustine calls caritas, or the sinful selfish love he calls cupiditas. Personal, conscious existence is not somewhere outside the instrumental faculty

we call will, rationally deliberating how to employ that faculty to achieve its ends. Instead, existence, knowledge, and will are an indissociable whole, and all deliberation and choice is of the will--of love. Given this psychology, it is then logical to argue that the power of sin over the individual must be considered when freedom is assessed. The will is always free of external control. There is no such thing as a compelled act for Augustine, one that goes "against the will." Even when

we are "compelled" to do something, it is only that the conditions in which the will freely operates are altered.

So freedom of the will from external constraint is always absolute. Its freedom becomes impaired when it begins to choose the wrong kind of love and so to bind itself to inferior choices in a self-perpetuating, self-damning process. When divine grace intervenes, it liberates the individual from the bondage of wrong past choices. Precisely how this happens is a little unclear to Augustine, but it is clear that God, without ever tampering with the interior working of the will itself, can still

direct its choices by altering, in perfect omniscience, the circumstances that affect the will.

The whole process of grace is seen by God, eternally knowing all things, as a single unity, but it appears to men as a series, sometimes a lifelong series, of events no one of which necessarily entails any further event. Thus when human beings speak of grace, they speak imperfectly. God's grace cannot be said to be working in the life of an individual even when that individual is destined, at a later date, to rebel, fall into sin, and choose damnation. Augustine describes this process best in another late treatise, The Gift of Perseverance. From a human point of view, the divine grace that effects salvation is best described as Initial Grace plus the Grace of Perseverance. From the divine point of view, it is better to say that unless the Grace of Perseverance is present, the Initial Grace is not finally grace at all but only some lesser gift . . .

Practically, therefore, the life of the Christian is lived on the horns of a dilemma. Grace must be firmly believed to be omnipotent; without grace nothing good can be done. All that is good in the soul must come from God, while all that is bad is of one's own doing. And yet all this appears to the individual as a matter of individual choices of that frustratingly free will. The faithful Christian, therefore, is one who believes utterly in God but who responds to the exigencies of daily life by living as though everything, salvation included, depends on his own actions. God is all-powerful and predestining, but the will is free, and the one who believes and hopes in God must act as though for himself, but act out of a completely disinterested, selfless love--caritas, not cupiditas . . .

One further irony must be faced. The dilemmas of predestination create an urgent sense of frustration by the absence of clear, logically compelling answers. Believers wonder at the ineptitude of the theologians, while skeptics take the failure of the Christians to settle the problem as evidence of the incoherence of the creed. The irony is that both positions are correct, but neither is complete. For what is most significant is precisely that insistence of the human mind on being given a straight answer. The human mind, here and now, naturally expects all problems to have solutions. Men expect, even demand, to make sense of the world. But that quality of the human mind is, to Augustine, a proud and Pelagian trait. The intellect does not willingly yield its control over action. Rebellion and skepticism are more characteristic, as is evident from (and explained by, Augustine would say) the story of Adam and Eve.

The Pelagian position on Christianity is finally a pagan one. God creates the world and issues his commands. Men are to learn the commands, obey them, and so win salvation. The situation is simple, requiring merely that the rules be clear and intelligible and devoid of paradox and confusion. The entire Augustinian system is radically opposed to this. That God appears to us as a master of paradox tells him something about mankind, but nothing about God. Faith, which is what grace

instills in the heart, is the assertion that God is God, despite the paradoxes that make him seem arbitrary, unjust, or mysterious. For Augustine, God was always God, he was himself always a sinner, and paradox and mystery were the price he had to pay.

Edited September 1, 2003 by Cure of Ars

[mustbenothing]

(Cure of Ars) I am quoting the colored section from here. I thought that you would find this interesting. It seems to me that the only way that you will acknowledge that Augustine believed in free will is if I found a quote that said, “I Augustine believe in incompatibilistic free will”. But I think it is unlikely that I find this statement since it is a later concept projected back in to Augustine.

(Me) Umm... all the things you quoted proved that he rejected incompatibilism. I would be more than willing to accept a statement like "free will is always morally capable of choosing good or evil, even if it is quite prone to evil," which would be classically incompatibilistic. Everything you quoted is classically compatibilistic.

Everything in the article serves only to further my thesis. Compatibilists define freedom just as the article says Augustine emphasized: "So freedom of the will from external constraint is always absolute." We see the freedom of the will as freedom from external constraint.

Also, I think this person either misunderstands Augustine's view of reprobation (double predestination), what Calvinistic double predestination really is, or means "Hyper-Calvinism" by "double predestination."

[Cure of Ars]

mustbenothing do you have a web site or article that clearly explains compatibilism very simply. I honestly don't understand this concept. Or does this explain it.

Compatibilism is when there is free will but in some situations God’s grace is so irresistible that it can no longer be said that the act is of one’s free will.

Incompatibilism is when no matter what free will remains.

Do I understand I have a feeling that I don’t.

Do Baptists believe in compatibilism?

The main argument that I am really concerned about is the charge of semi-pelagian because I think it is unfair. Was the Catholic Church that rejected Semi-pelagian at the council of Orange Semi-pelagian according to your definition?