Pelagianism

[mustbenothing]

(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.

(Me) The classic defense is Jonathan Edwards' The Freedom of the Will. I'll see if I can find an article online (I know of none). But, here's a quick explanation: The general kind of free will with which the compatibilist is concerned is the freedom from coercion. We can do what we desire to do. So, say that I want some ice cream, but then I desire not to get a brain freeze more, so I don't eat the ice cream. I was free to do what I wanted to do. This is perfectly compatible (hence the name) with predetermination (like the predestination of Christ's murder, as per Acts 4:27-28) or the moral inability of the will to turn unto good (see Romans 3:10-12; Romans 8:7).

Incompatibilism, on the other hand, is incompatible with predetermination, and requires that the will be free to choose otherwise in the sense that it is morally capable of choosing good or evil. Yes, most Christian incompatibilists believe that the will is naturally inclined to evil, as part of a doctrine of original sin. However, they must require that the lost man be actually capable of turning unto God of his own free will.

The Bible describes us as dead, stillborn, and incapable. Then, we are raised to life by God, resurrection unto salvation (Ephesians 2:1-5). This is according to God's election and predestination (Ephesians 1:4-5, 11). It is clear, then, that the incompatibilist position must be rejected, and the compatibilist position affirmed.

(Cure of Ars) 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.

(Me) Compatibilism would say that, even when God's grace is irresistible (that is, when He graciously takes out our hearts of stone and gives us hearts of flesh), we still freely choose. For, even though our desires have changed wholly by God's grace, we are free in that we choose what we want to choose. inDouche, the compatibilist's sense of freedom is even more valuable than the incompatibilist's, for the compatibilist says that we are granted freedom from totally depraven bondage to sin by God. That is the kind of free will I want!

Incompatibilism, on the other hand, would say that man is not free unless he is morally capable of choosing A or B.

(Cure of Ars) Do Baptists believe in compatibilism?

(Me) Not mainstream Baptists. Reformed Baptists and some of their sympathizers in the Southern Baptist Convention do.

(Cure of Ars) 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?

(Me) No, absolutely not. I think that the Roman Catholic Church rightly affirmed Augustine's position over the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians at places like Orange. However, I think that she fell into error, culminating in Trent, where she materially returned to Semi-Pelagianism. For, Semi-Pelagianism denied that man was completely and totally dead and incapable, and denied that God's grace in calling saints was irresistible. The Council of Trent also said this.

[ICTHUS]

Hmmm...having read Augustine's "De Correpcione et Gratia", I can't say as I disagree with John in that Augustine taught that we are [i]made willing[/i] by God -"compatibilism" - as he said.

[phatcatholic]

maaaan, i miss hyperdulia

where did he go?

[ICTHUS]

no idea...

[Guest JeffCR07]

I think that, while everything in this discussion has been really good, we are totally overlooking a really important teaching of the Church: Concupisense. Concupisense is the "mark" left on our soul by Original Sin, even after OS is forgiven in the Sacrament of Baptism. It is the human tendency towards sin.

While the doctrine of concupisense had not been developed in Pelagius' time, it is clear from his writings that he would not have espoused it. He argued that merely having free will means that we can choose to be saved. This is not the case, because of concupisense.

I will use an analogy:

A man is standing in a room, and their are two doors that he can enter. He is free to choose to enter whichever door he wants. However, behind the first is an endless pit and behind the second is a raging fire.

This is the effect of concupisense. Yes, we have free will, but it cannot save us. Here is where Grace comes in:

Now, God, in mercy, sees the man in the room and wills, through Grace, a third door into existence, a door that leads to paradise. Now, only because of Grace, is it possible for the man to be saved. However, he can still choose. He [i]could[/i] walk to his death by choosing one of the other two doors (read: Reject the Spirit and deny Grace) but if he chooses salvation, it is ONLY as a result of God's bestowing of Grace.

Thus, [b]contrary to Pelagius[/b] the Church teaches that free will is [b]not[/b] the necessary Grace from God that opens the door to salvation, though, once Grace has been bestowed upon us, it is by free will that we choose to use it or not.

Sorry for the length of the post, lol.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[ICTHUS]

Doesn't this deny the sufficency of grace? I.E. Grace is necessary to secure salvation for men, but not sufficent.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Not exactly, but it is getting into a semantical argument and is where, admittedly, the analogy breaks down. However, its a great question, and I'll try to answer it the best I can, though it may seem to be a roundabout answer, so bear with me.

The Church Teaches that, say, a Zulu Tribesman, can go to heaven, even though he does not know Christ or the Church. How? This is because, throughout his life, he can exert his free will, and he can do good deeds. But don't all good deeds necessarily come from God? Yes, they do. If a Zulu does a good deed, it is good because the Spirit is using his free actions as a means of accomplishing the will of God. There is salvific Grace in this fact. Thus, by living a good life, one who has never heard the Good News can be saved through Grace.

For the Zulu, Grace was attached to his exercising of his free will, though, unlike Pelagius' teaching, it is not [i]inherent in[/i] his free will.

Moreover, it proves the necessity AND sufficiency of Grace.
But how do we apply this to the analogy?

In the analogy, Grace is the creation of a third door, leading to salvation. But Grace also comes in the form of the Man [i]knowing[/i] that the door exists. God has created the way, and has given the man the ability to acknowledge it. (ie we can learn the teachings of Christ, and the Church).

What does this mean? It means that, if ever anyone chooses the 3rd door, he is doing so because, BY GRACE ALONE, he has come to know of its existence. Thus, Grace is the only means by which the action can be done, and his totally sufficient as a means of salvation.

This is because, if ever anyone chooses, through free will, to enter the door of eternal life, their choice is a manifestation of the Grace of God at work in their life.

I hope that makes sense!

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[ICTHUS]

You're assuming, in the Zulu analogy, that the tribesman is doing the good works under the influence of the Spirit, and not just with the aim of pleasing the flesh.

[Guest JeffCR07]

yea definately, I appologize if I didn't make that clear. In fact, the only way the act CAN be good is if it is from the Spirit working through him

[popestpiusx]

The Pelagian Drinking Song

Pelagius lived at Kardanoel
And taught a doctrine there
How, whether you went to heaven or to hell
It was your own affair.
It had nothing to do with the Church, my boy,
But was your own affair.

No, he didn't believe
In Adam and Eve
He put no faith therein!
His doubts began
With the Fall of Man
And he laughed at Original Sin.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
He laughed at original sin.

Then came the bishop of old Auxerre
Germanus was his name
He tore great handfuls out of his hair
And he called Pelagius shame.
And with his stout Episcopal staff
So thoroughly whacked and banged
The heretics all, both short and tall --
They rather had been hanged.

Oh he whacked them hard, and he banged them long
Upon each and all occasions
Till they bellowed in chorus, loud and strong
Their orthodox persuasions.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Their orthodox persuasions.

Now the faith is old and the Devil bold
Exceedingly bold indeed.
And the masses of doubt that are floating about
Would smother a mortal creed.
But we that sit in a sturdy youth
And still can drink strong ale
Let us put it away to infallible truth
That always shall prevail.

And thank the Lord
For the temporal sword
And howling heretics too.
And all good things
Our Christendom brings
But especially barley brew!
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Especially barley brew!

-- Hillaire Belloc

[Guest JeffCR07]

THAT is the single most phenomenally awesome, unbelievably cool, and irrevocably sweet drinking song I have EVER heard in my life...

Pius, you should get an indulgence for that, lol, like, 40 years off Purgatory

[ICTHUS]

So, would it be correct to say that Rome teaches synergism, as opposed to Monergism - that is, that both God and the person being saved co-operate in salvation, whereas in Monergism, God alone saves?

[Guest JeffCR07]

I'm not quite sure on what "name" applies. I would either try talking to a priest that knows his stuff or writing to your bishop. I know that if I were to give you my "guess" that wouldnt be doing justice to the issue.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

"Work out your salvation in fear and trembling for it is God that worketh in you."
Is you faith depending on understanding all the mysteries of God?


Have you read Job 38 and Job 42?

[Guest JeffCR07]

No, your salvation isn't dependent on "understanding all the mysteries of God." In fact, we can't, and to say that we can is a heresy in and of itself. But what we [i]can[/i] to is strive towards understanding and, when we reach our limit, offer up our failure in the form of faith and humility. Christ said "I have much to tell you, but now you cannot bear it" He sent the Spirit to bring us to understanding slowly, over time, precisely [i]because[/i] he knows that we are limited.