Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Confused how some Catholics can be labeled "Pelagians"?
rorate caeli ^ | 11th Sunday after Pentecost | Unknown priest in "full communion"

Posted on 08/04/2013 11:14:42 AM PDT by ebb tide

Confused how some Catholics can be labeled "Pelagians"?

Recently, there's been a lot of fingerpointing at traditional Catholics. Some of it is the same old, same old (insert stale Pharisees joke here). Some of it, however, is very new and very confusing.

Some Catholics have recently been identified -- more than once -- as "Pelagians."

This will undoubtedly bolster the morale of other Catholics while, yet again, making life next to impossible for the traditional-minded parish priest who is, now more than ever, being accused by his flock of putting himself "above the Church" by his devotion to reverence in the liturgy and traditional Catholic teaching.

Below, you will find a very solid retort from a Catholic priest, who is in "full communion":

11th Sunday after Pentecost “by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace in me has not been fruitless.”

Recently, there has been some mentioning of the ancient heresy called Pelagianism. I have heard this term used a number of times in recent months and it seems some confusion has surrounded its employment. So, without passing any judgment on those who are using the term, let us take some time this Sunday to look into this ancient heresy. If we do this well, we might be surprised at how relevant this matter really is today.

Pelagianism takes its name from an austere monk, most likely of Irish descent, named Pelagius. He died around 418. He should not be confused with the two Popes who shared this same name.

Pelagianism can simply be thought of as the self-help heresy. It essentially “denies the elevation of man into the supernatural state, and denies original sin. According to Pelagians the sin of Adam affected his descendants by way of bad example only” (Ott, pp. 222-3). This means that Christ’s saving work of redemption consists above all in His teaching and His example of virtue. For Pelagius, Jesus was just a great teacher as was Moses before Him. Furthermore,

“Pelagianism regarded grace as within the natural capacity of man.” According to this view man has a natural capacity to live a sinless and holy life and merit eternal bliss by exercising his free will. The Pelagians believed this natural capacity was aided by external graces given to us by God… things like the Mosaic Law, the Gospel, the example of virtue set by Our Lord and His Mother and others. This means that man can achieve even the remission of his sins by his own power, by the act of turning his will away from sin. This makes Pelagianism pure naturalism.

To re-capitulate, Pelagianism holds “(i) that the sin of our first parents was not transmitted to their posterity; [Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race, and children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.] (ii) that Christ came into the world, not to restore anything we had lost, but to set up an ideal of virtue, and so counteract the evil example of Adam; (iii) that we can, of our own natural powers, and without any internal assistance from God, [do good that is pleasing to God and thereby] merit the happiness of the Beatific Vision” (cf. Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, p. 456). (iv) the Law of Moses is just as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel. Finally, (v) Pelagians considered death to be natural to man and not a consequence of Adam’s sin. So even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died in any case.

This heretical, erroneous way of thinking and acting was countered heavily by the Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine, as well as many others like St. Jerome and ultimately condemned as heretical by several Popes and Councils, most notably the Papal approved Council of Carthage (418).

This Council taught authoritatively what we still profess today, namely: (i) Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin. (ii) New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin. [Note that the current Code of Canon Law emphasizes this must be done within a couple of weeks of birth]. (iii) Sanctifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins. (iv) The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them. (v) Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works. (vi) Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners… (cf. Dz. nos. 101-8).

This is all very interesting in light of what has been transpiring over the last half century or so. In fact, having made this little study, it is amazing to see how much Pelagianism has returned in our own day.

First, consider that today infant baptism is very often delayed and put off for months and even years with little or no concern for the infant’s eternal welfare. Many parishes and priests directly violate the Canon Law by making baptisms available to their people only once a month, whereas the Church demands that their baptism not be delayed over a week or two…and if they are in the danger of death, they are to be baptized without delay, even if a priest is not available. Why this nonchalance attitude toward baptizing infants? Because the prevailing thought today is that all children who die in infancy, baptized or not, go to heaven. De facto, they are considered to be like Adam before the fall! This is Pelagianism. No wonder there has been many efforts over the last decades to do away with the traditional teaching of the Limbo of the Infants, that place where unbaptized infants go.

On the other hand, it has been my experience that traditional minded Catholics seek very diligently to have their newborns baptized as soon as possible. Why? Because His Majesty, Our Lord Jesus Christ, taught that we must be born of water to be saved. St. Paul said in Ephesians, “were by nature children of wrath” (2:3). But we are reborn children of adoption by the waters of baptism! It has also been my experience that faithful Catholics always take the Traditional doctrine of the Limbo of the Infants very seriously. No Pelagianism here!

Second, it is bandied about recently that even atheists can do good works. Pelagius would agree because, as we heard, he held that any man, believer or not, baptized or not, can do good. “The root of this possibility of doing good - that we all have - is in creation” (Pope Francis). In other words, all that is needed to be good is found in nature. Of course, Pelagius also added that the good example of Christ, the written law and Gospel help man to this goodness as external aids. It is interesting to note how Pope John XXIII said at the start of the Vatican Council, “Nowadays… the Spouse of Christ… considers that She meets the needs of the present day by more clearly demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations...” He wanted to see the Magisterium be “predominantly pastoral in character” … “to teach more efficaciously” … “raising the torch of Catholic truth” (cf. The Second Vatican Council: the Unwritten Story, Mattei, pp. 174-5). All that is needed is to teach the truth and people will see the light and do the good.

Whether intended or not, all this leans toward Pelagianism.

From this it follows that Pelagius would not be very supportive spending much time in prayer. Why pray if we do not need grace to be good!? Surely, Pelagius would not spend much time kneeling down to pray the Rosary to gain a heavenly favor. Why have priests? Who needs the Sacraments? Sadly, over the last century and still continuing on today, we have had a religious and priests who put work ahead of prayer. There was the worker priest movement. We have seen the rise of laicism…where the laity takes over various roles of the priests. We have seen priests and religious became activists, going to many meetings and opening soup kitchens while neglecting the divine office, their holy hours and spiritual reading. Knowing this, few are surprised at the numerous scandals and loss of vocations. All this flows perfectly from Pelagianism.

Yet, St. Paul clearly stated today in the lesson, “by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace in me has not been fruitless.” Any man can do a naturally good action…saying giving a banana to a friend in need.

Yet, only when the action is done with supernatural charity infused in the soul co-operating with an actual grace given by God for that particular action can it be pleasing to God and worthy of Him. St. Paul is crystal clear on this point: “if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profits me nothing” (1Cor 13:3). This is precisely why Traditional minded Catholics strive to offer everything up… This is precisely why such faithful souls pray the Rosary so often… attend the Holy Mass as much as possible, frequently confess their sins and use Sacramentals. They are beseeching God for grace to grow in holiness. No Pelagianism here. St. Padre Pio prayed multiple Rosaries everyday, even up to 30…pleading for Our Lady’s intercession and aid in the conversion of sinners. Surely, no one would consider this great stigmatic a Pelagian for saying so many Rosaries!

Third, consider how it has been bandied about for some decades now that the Jews do not need to convert, that they have all they require in the Old Law to be saved… as if Our Lord, the Messiah, the very fulfillment of the Old Testament types and prophecies, did not come in the Flesh to establish the New and Everlasting Covenant in His own Blood. Besides most Jews do not follow the Old Law but rather the Talmud. In any case, Pelagius would love this…for, as we heard, he held the Mosaic Law is just as good for going to heaven as the Gospel. Once again, faithful Catholics believe that the Old Law has been fulfilled and completed in the New. That the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the only Sacrifice pleasing to God. No Pelagianism here.

Fourth, consider how Pelagius held that death was natural to man. He would find many in agreement with him today simply because the theory of evolution holds the same. Sad to say, most members in the Church at this time seem to think that evolution is the how things came about. Given that that Pelagius very much agreed with man asserting his will to get things done, I wonder what he would think today about man intervening in nature to force evolution to a new level… as, for example,we are doing in genetically modified foods, environmental controls, and other areas.

The Traditional Catholic, however, is repulsed by evolution, knowing that God did not create death and destruction, but rather death is the wages of sin. Furthermore, the faithful Catholic knows that the Church has given multiple teachings against the pseudo-science of evolution by Her teachings on creation. No Pelagianism here!

Fifth, the use of confession has greatly diminished over the last 40 years. Fewer and fewer souls consider sin a serious concern or a blockage to heaven. Everyone who dies now, goes to heaven. Sinners often are heard saying: “God will understand” and “I will not do it again…”. Pelagius strikes again. Man can overcome sin by himself. God will understand!

The faithful Catholic, however, knows that sin is deeply offensive to God and can only be erased by the application of the Precious Blood of Christ, most especially available in the Confession, and by making reparation through penance and amendment of life. This is why hundreds of thousands of people went to St. Jean Vianney and St. Padre Pio… so that these gifted saints would look into their souls and make sure there were no more sins that needed removal.

Finally, consider how Pelagius denied that Christ Our Lord came to restore what Adam had lost but rather He came merely to provide a good example. Thus, it seems to me that Pelagius would not be a big supporter of any movement of restoration whereas the faithful Catholic longs to see the whole world come under the social reign of Christ Our Majestic and Glorious King. Thus, they love the phrase given to us by St. Paul: “To restore all things in Christ!”

The only point that coincides between the monk Pelagius and traditional minded Catholics is the matter of discipline and austerity. I wish this were more true. Would that more Traditional Catholics were austere with themselves… and more willing to do penance and acts of reparation. Oh how they would please Our Lady who asked us over and over again for nearly 200 years… Penance! Penance! Penance! For the salvation of souls!

It is clear to me that the modern Church in her membership has become more Pelagian than ever whereas Traditional minded Catholics are seeking to hold the line against this most pestiferous return of heresy… striving not to let the precious grace of God granted them be in vain! Labels: A Vatican II Moment, Church of Vatican II Posted by Adfero at 8/04/2013 04:49:00 PM


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: evolution; francis; limbo; pelagianism; pelagians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

1 posted on 08/04/2013 11:14:43 AM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ebb tide

I have a slight disagreement with the description of Pelagians. I submit, humbly that it is not grace that is within the power of humans but rather virtue.

We can avoid sin today. We can decide to follow a path of virtue for an hour, for a day, for a week, for a month. Pelagius had a list of biblical characters that he asserted were virtuous, to include the Virgin Mary, Enoch who was translated, Elijah, John the Baptist.

Grace is the gift of G-d. Virtue is the daily task of humanity. May G-d forgive my failure to be virtuous.


2 posted on 08/04/2013 11:24:52 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

1810 Human virtues acquired by education, by deliberate acts and by a perseverance ever-renewed in repeated efforts are purified and elevated by divine grace. With God’s help, they forge character and give facility in the practice of the good. The virtuous man is happy to practice them. (CCC 1810)


3 posted on 08/04/2013 11:45:10 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker; vladimir998; ebb tide; HarleyD; All

“I have a slight disagreement with the description of Pelagians. I submit, humbly that it is not grace that is within the power of humans but rather virtue. We can avoid sin today. We can decide to follow a path of virtue for an hour, for a day, for a week, for a month. Pelagius had a list of biblical characters that he asserted were virtuous, to include the Virgin Mary, Enoch who was translated, Elijah, John the Baptist.”


This is, actually, Pelagian, or at best, semi-Pelagian, both of which were condemned by the “Doctor of Grace” this article briefly mentions; though, unfortunately, the RCC does not take the remedy the doctor offers, nor, more importantly, heeds the Apostles whom they claim to succeed.

Augustine observes, commenting on the scripture, that virtue is the product of the grace of God, with grace being the unmerited favor of God freely given. It (virtue) is not inherent in man, nor is it foreseen in man to be the reason for God’s election, but is rather the work of God predestinated (seen by Augustine as the “preparation of grace” for those unworthy sinners chosen from out of the world) before the world began, in order to make the elect holy and conformed to the image of the Son (the application of grace). Even the virtue of faith is itself the gift of God, and therefore does not proceed naturally from the rotten core of the unregenerate. As Augustine says for himself, with many scriptural proofs:

“When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. But we say, say they, that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work. But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, “We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who works all things.” Ephesians 1:11 He, therefore, works the beginning of our belief who works all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” Romans 11:29 and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calls” Romans 9:12 (although He might have said, of Him that believes); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” John 15:16 For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe.” (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Book 1, Chp. 38 — What is the View of the Pelagians, and What of the Semi-Pelagians, Concerning Predestination.)


4 posted on 08/04/2013 2:19:53 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide
Pelagianism takes its name from an austere monk, most likely of Irish descent, named Pelagius. He died around 418. He should not be confused with the two Popes who shared this same name. Pelagianism can simply be thought of as the self-help heresy. It essentially “denies the elevation of man into the supernatural state, and denies original sin. According to Pelagians the sin of Adam affected his descendants by way of bad example only” (Ott, pp. 222-3). This means that Christ’s saving work of redemption consists above all in His teaching and His example of virtue. For Pelagius, Jesus was just a great teacher as was Moses before Him. Furthermore, “Pelagianism regarded grace as within the natural capacity of man.” According to this view man has a natural capacity to live a sinless and holy life and merit eternal bliss by exercising his free will. The Pelagians believed this natural capacity was aided by external graces given to us by God… things like the Mosaic Law, the Gospel, the example of virtue set by Our Lord and His Mother and others. This means that man can achieve even the remission of his sins by his own power, by the act of turning his will away from sin. This makes Pelagianism pure naturalism.

To re-capitulate, Pelagianism holds “(i) that the sin of our first parents was not transmitted to their posterity; [Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race, and children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.] (ii) that Christ came into the world, not to restore anything we had lost, but to set up an ideal of virtue, and so counteract the evil example of Adam; (iii) that we can, of our own natural powers, and without any internal assistance from God, [do good that is pleasing to God and thereby] merit the happiness of the Beatific Vision” (cf. Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, p. 456). (iv) the Law of Moses is just as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel. Finally, (v) Pelagians considered death to be natural to man and not a consequence of Adam’s sin. So even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died in any case.

Interesting. IMO, the only people who defend Pelagius are those who seek to rehabilitate a historically heretical theology.

Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield considered Pelagianism "the rehabilitation of that heathen view of the world," and concluded with characteristic clarity, "There are fundamentally only two doctrines of salvation: that salvation is from God, and that salvation is from ourselves. The former is the doctrine of common Christianity; the latter is the doctrine of universal heathenism."
-- from the thread Pelagianism: The Religion of Natural Man

See related threads:
Pope/Traditional groups: "Pelagian current...like turning back...! They count rosaries/Don't Laugh"
Is This Good News? (RC Claim all can be saved without Jesus)
Pope Francis: self-help courses can turn Catholics into Pelagians
The Pelagian Captivity of the Church
American Pelagianism
The Gospel According to Pelagius
Putting Confidence in the Flesh: Pelagius and the Presiding Bishop
Augustine & The Pelagian Controversy by Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921)
Pelagianism: The Religion of Natural Man
Augustine and Pelagius
The Pelagian Captivity of the Church
Pelagius: To Demetrius (Rehabilitating Pelagius)
The Life of St. Morgan of Wales AKA Pelagius
The Pelagian "Boogie Man"
The Pelagian Captivity of the Church
Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Modern Pelagianism

5 posted on 08/04/2013 2:44:31 PM PDT by Alex Murphy ("Thus, my opponent's argument falls.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I get the feeling some of the hostility to Pelagius was for straw-man argument, or wicker-man, considering his origins.


6 posted on 08/04/2013 3:33:05 PM PDT by OldNewYork (Biden '13. Impeach now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Those are some pretty useful links. Thanks for posting that.


7 posted on 08/04/2013 3:42:27 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

I understand that some would condemn my poor attempts to be and do good. I do not believe that G-d is among those who would condemn someone for being and doing good.


8 posted on 08/04/2013 6:32:45 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“I understand that some would condemn my poor attempts to be and do good. I do not believe that G-d is among those who would condemn someone for being and doing good.”


God would certainly condemn even your “righteous” efforts, which though sparkling in your eyes are but filthy rags in His.

Isa_64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

The only righteousness that can be grasped is that which comes by faith, by the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ who did what we could not, the only one who ever lived a “good” life (Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11). Your works can in no way do anything for you, nor can you ever call yourself “good,” for only one is good, and that is God (Luke 18:19).

You can tickle yourself with your Pelagian vanities, but vanity is all they are in the sight of God.


9 posted on 08/04/2013 6:47:32 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

I suppose you think it would be better to be a child molestor relying on the grace of the Divine.

I don’t. We differ on that.


10 posted on 08/04/2013 7:21:35 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“I suppose you think it would be better to be a child molestor relying on the grace of the Divine.

I don’t. We differ on that.”


What we actually differ on is the source of good works in the elect, who are taken from a state of profound rebellion, and quickened by the Holy Spirit, by whom the Father conforms us into the image of His Son, working in us “both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Php 2:13, Eph 2:1-5) You believe that you are virtuous in and of yourself, and that your works please God and merit heaven, when, in reality, no works done outside of faith is pleasing to God. “For whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom 14:23).

If you really believe that you are “good,” and that this good arises from your own willing and working, and not God who works in you, then odds are you’ll burn right next to that child molester as the reward for your “good” works.


11 posted on 08/04/2013 7:32:26 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

No, you assert that the child molestor who asks for grace will be saved. You claim you will have him next to you in heaven, while I will be in hell.

I suggest that if you are kind to the cruel, then you are cruel to the kind.


12 posted on 08/04/2013 7:34:36 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

“No, you assert that the child molestor who asks for grace will be saved. You claim you will have him next to you in heaven, while I will be in hell.”


How about you try reading what I actually said instead of making false statements? Or, rather, what I endorsed?

Here, read it again, real slow:

“When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. But we say, say they, that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work. But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, “We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who works all things.” Ephesians 1:11 He, therefore, works the beginning of our belief who works all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” Romans 11:29 and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calls” Romans 9:12 (although He might have said, of Him that believes); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” John 15:16 For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe.” (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Book 1, Chp. 38 — What is the View of the Pelagians, and What of the Semi-Pelagians, Concerning Predestination.)

So, do I believe that the child molestor asked for grace to be saved? Or do I believe that God shows His favor on whom He will, and brings Him out of His sins through His effectual power, thus making a holy man out of a wretch? As Augustine puts it in another place:

“Those whom the Lord wills to be converted, He converts Himself; who not only makes willing ones out of them who were unwilling, but makes also sheep out of wolves and martyrs out of persecutors, transforming them by His all-powerful grace.” (Augustine, qtd in Calvin’s Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God, Section II)

And if that is my actual position, and if that is the position of the scripture, then “what hast thou that thou didst not receive?” (1 Co 4:7).


13 posted on 08/04/2013 7:54:07 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
If you really believe that you are “good,” and that this good arises from your own willing and working, and not God who works in you, then odds are you’ll burn right next to that child molester as the reward for your “good” works.

Your arrogance would be amusing if it weren't so insane.

Oh, I'm sorry - you don't dismiss the life of another human being and flip his soul into hell because of your own will and working to determine the truth of God and assume the power of judgement - no!

Rather, when you scorn another person and spit at their efforts to follow God's teachings, and teach that they are hell bound, why, that's God working in you, not your ego, not your own efforts. No, that's God's grace, the flow of Christ through your mind and your heart and your words and your scorn and your rejection and your caustic damning.

I spit at you.

14 posted on 08/04/2013 9:49:29 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

“Rather, when you scorn another person and spit at their efforts to follow God’s teachings, and teach that they are hell bound, why, that’s God working in you, not your ego, not your own efforts.”


Yet it’s true, because unless you believe that Jesus is the Christ and shed His blood for our sins, no matter how good you think you are, you ARE hellbound. And it is my duty to break down all your false righteousness and self-made delusions which tell you that you can get into heaven based on your own righteousness, so that you rely on Christ alone for the righteousness that can come only by faith. Spit all you like, but the scripture condemns your theology.


15 posted on 08/04/2013 10:32:17 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

How is anyone responsible for their choices?


16 posted on 08/04/2013 11:01:09 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“How is anyone responsible for their choices?”


The “responsibility” for the punishment of sin was taken up by Jesus Christ on the cross, whose perfect life and perfect sacrifice truly washed away all sin for His people. Thus, there is no place for works in salvation. Works, then, in their place, can only be worked in faith (in other words, for the glory of God, and not for ourselves, knowing that the battle is won by Christ already), and with both faith and works themselves being wrought by God.

The reprobate, on the other hand, though they do not receive it from God to believe, are yet condemned with Adam through original sin, and through their own additional sinning thereafter. Or as Augustine explains,

“Every sinner is inexcusable, either on account of his original sin and sinful nature, or else from the additional act of his own will, whether he knew that he was sinning, or knew it not; whether he had a judgment of what is right, or had it not. For ignorance itself, in those who will not understand, is undoubtedly sin; and in those who cannot understand ignorance is the punishment of sin.” (Augustine, qtd in Calvin’s Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God)

But as for why God, not merely permitting that these people should be born and left in their own sins, but actively works in the world that they, individually and personally should be born, though they are doomed to die without the vivifying grace of God, the Apostle replies to those who bark against God for it:

Rom 9:20-21 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

And as Augustine explains it, “Who created the reprobate but God? And why? Because He willed it. Why did He will it? ‘Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?’” (Ibid)


17 posted on 08/05/2013 1:33:42 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Seems you are saying that Adam is responsible and/or God is responsible for sin.

So in your own your words..

Take the child molester, how is he responsible? How can he be held responsible?


18 posted on 08/05/2013 8:15:28 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Perhaps I will be next to James who ‘by my works I show my faith.’


19 posted on 08/05/2013 9:53:25 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“Seems you are saying that Adam is responsible and/or God is responsible for sin. So in your own your words..”


I don’t know how I “seem” to say that, when I asserted with Augustine that the damned are condemned for their own sin. At best, I wasn’t clear, though your conclusion is still not founded on anything I said.

The difference between those whom God has mercy on, and those who have it not, is that in the former case God, through monergistic action, pulls them from a depraved state of mind and miraculously saves them. He puts His laws into their hearts, and causes them to walk in His precepts. Though they possess a will, it is a reformed will that, being given to them to believe, is changed so that they desire to believe in God (Jeremiah 32:39; Ezekiel 36:27; Hebrews 8:10; 10:16; John 6:64-65). This is the work of God from beginning to end. In the latter case, they are sinners already, justly condemned already by the death which passed down from Adam, (which God is fully just to condemn them with) with natures so depraved that they can do no good thing, and cannot even ascribe to themselves even the slightest of good things to themselves (Romans 3:12; 2 Corinthians 3:5). We do not teach that they do not have a will either, but that their will, not merely being prone to sin, is utterly subject to sin; and so mankind, in and of himself, is utterly worthless and incapable of coming to God aright. Not that God forces them to, but because they want to.

But if it be said that God is ultimately responsible, because He created these people, knowing full well they would be damned, and utterly ordaining that it would be so, when He chose to elect some and to pass them by, and then using them to accomplish His own purpose, as Pharaoh or Judas... well, that is a debate you have to have with God, and not me.

Pro_16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.


20 posted on 08/05/2013 12:03:00 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
No, I'm debating with you, your interpretations, theology and with the theology of Calvinist double predestination.

the damned are condemned for their own sin.

In Calvinism, the can do nothing else, right? If someone is completely incapable of doing otherwise, how do you hold them responsible at all?

they are sinners already, justly condemned already by the death which passed down from Adam

So they are condemned by something Adam did? Adam's sins?

But if it be said that God is ultimately responsible..

God is responsible for our sins? Is that what you are taught?

In this theology how is the child molester held responsible for molesting? How can you hold him responsible for anything at all?

21 posted on 08/05/2013 12:56:37 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“In this theology how is the child molester held responsible for molesting? How can you hold him responsible for anything at all?”


What can I say except what I have already said? Do you deny original sin? Why do Catholics baptize children? Do you know why they do that?


22 posted on 08/05/2013 1:04:04 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

You could answer clearly the questions I posed based on your replies. Are my statements correct according to your view?

The Church teaching on original sin is quite different than you are condemned to hell for the sins Adam committed.

This is what you believe, correct?


23 posted on 08/05/2013 1:11:32 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Ya goota understand calvinists—they don’t actually care about other people. Everyone else is just a dirty sinner, and not lucky like they are.


24 posted on 08/05/2013 1:12:03 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
And it is my duty to break down all your false righteousness and self-made delusions...

YOUR duty? I guess you're exempt from that humility thing, eh? Being so important to the plan of God, as you are.

No, the truth is that you're insane. Worse, you teach your insanity as coming from God.

I've got news - your type of megalomania is very, very well known on this planet. Go visit some mass grave sites, if you don't believe me.

I spit at you to honor the souls of those millions killed by people like you, who destroyed in the name of "saving souls." And I spit in the name of those who didn't die but who have been psychologically crippled with self-loathing after imbibing the filth and scorn and hatred you preach down at them.

Jesus summed up people like you very simply, when he said, "I know you not."

25 posted on 08/05/2013 1:18:40 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Cults like calvinism do that to people, unfortunately.


26 posted on 08/05/2013 1:21:39 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“The Church teaching on original sin is quite different than you are condemned to hell for the sins Adam committed.”


The RCC baptize children in order to remove the effects of original sin, without which there are dire consequences for the child if he should die without it. The difference is that we do not hold that baptism is the method by which grace is given, or that God can be thwarted in His decision to save a soul. We hold that it is God who gives grace freely, and only on those whom He will, thus infallibly bringing them to repentance. In the case of the reprobate, they are indeed under the curse that sprung from Adam’s sin, and so, being wicked from the very beginning, God ordains their life, not through force, but through providence and permission, to fulfill His will. Though they themselves fulfill their own will, not knowing that God so arranged it that they were really doing what God “determined before to be done.”

Act 4:27-28 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (28) For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.


27 posted on 08/05/2013 1:25:10 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

“YOUR duty? I guess you’re exempt from that humility thing, eh? Being so important to the plan of God, as you are.”


I don’t know how you come to these conclusions about spitting at me and about me or people like me killing people, since my argument is quite clearly that we are all under sin, and that there is nothing good in each of us. There is no instance of me saying I am better than the other fellow. More accurately, it is you guys insisting that there is something good in you, and me denying that there is anything good in any of us, except that which springs from God alone.

This is at the heart of the Pelagian/Augustinian controversy that we see here, as well as between the Roman Catholic Church, which is semi-Pelagian, with the Reformation of later times. And also between the Reformed churches and the Arminian. It is a question of who it is that saves. Whether it is man who saves himself, though “assisted” in some way by God, but still, essentially, asserting an internal goodness in man which enables him to respond and cooperate, though the scripture denies such ideas. Or if whether one can have anything at all except it is given to them by God, as Christ preached and the Apostles.

Is it really so hateful to imagine that “no man can come unto me, unless it is given to them by the Father,” as Christ says in John 6?


28 posted on 08/05/2013 1:30:52 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

So, you teach that you’re condemned by the sins Adam committed, no matter what, right?

Unless you are born lucky of course.

Are there any Calvinists who weren’t born lucky?


29 posted on 08/05/2013 1:34:24 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“Unless you are born lucky of course.”


That’s a pretty perverse way of describing the unmerited love of God. Does God have the right to have “mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth” or not? (Rom 9:18) Does God have the right to select for Himself His own peculiar people, as he has done since the days of Abraham, leaving out the Gentiles for centuries, and at that, leaving out Esau who had been the seed of Abraham before either he or his chosen brother had “done good or evil”?


30 posted on 08/05/2013 1:40:26 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
No how, in his reply, he didn't actually answer you.

It's one of their favorite tactics.

31 posted on 08/05/2013 1:42:40 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
More accurately, it is you guys insisting that there is something good in you, and me denying that there is anything good in any of us, except that which springs from God alone.

Is it really so hateful to imagine that “no man can come unto me, unless it is given to them by the Father,” as Christ says in John 6?

What is hateful is where YOU choose to draw the lines on what "came from God" and what didn't. Who are you to decide what aspect of a human being - and how can you even decide what the aspects are - did NOT come from God? In fact, how, exactly, can something exist that did not come from God? Wouldn't that mean that that thing was at least equal to God, if not superior, because it literally did not need God for it's own existence?

You play word games to harm people and exalt yourself. You quote scripture only to use as a basis for your hateful intepretations. You speak in generalities that can have no specific interpretations, deny people's own inner experiences of God, and beat them to death with a book - and deny you're doing anything at all, because God is working through you.

You represent no scripture. Jesus would be appalled. What happened to "love each other as I have loved you," and "go and sin no more"? How can you say that there is "no good in you" when we all came from God? You seek to erase the sacredness, the holy love, of the soul itself - unless someone grovels for your approval. How is this not the ultimate evil?

You do not represent the Bible. You represent the most hateful of all lying egos. You mock God.

32 posted on 08/05/2013 1:49:57 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

“You represent no scripture. Jesus would be appalled. What happened to “love each other as I have loved you,” and “go and sin no more”? How can you say that there is “no good in you” when we all came from God? You seek to erase the sacredness, the holy love, of the soul itself - unless someone grovels for your approval. How is this not the ultimate evil?”


But I have given the scriptures, and the dividing line you say I cannot give, is this: scripture is the rule of faith for all believers, and whatever is not the scripture is not the rule of faith. So if the scripture says that there is nothing good in you except what God worked by His own working and willing, and if all your righteousness that is not of faith, but is designed to earn your way into heaven, is actually the most wicked sin, what’s wrong if I beat you with the Biblical book? Can’t I smack you around with it all I like until you conform to it?

Do you believe that your works are earning you merits for to get into heaven, or that they come from yourself, and represent your own native goodness? Then, you are in sin, and when you die, you will be damned. Because the scripture says that salvation is such that “no one can boast.” Do you believe that you are saved by the grace of God, through faith, without the working of the law? Do you believe you wear the imputed righteousness of Christ, a holy robe that gives you all the merits you will ever need? Why, then, welcome to Christianity.


33 posted on 08/05/2013 1:58:10 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
That’s a pretty perverse way of describing the unmerited love of God

No, it is an accurate description of Calvinist double predestination. And it portrays a whimsical god more similar to those of the pagans than to Christ and the Most Holy Trinity.

34 posted on 08/05/2013 2:03:13 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Yeppers...


35 posted on 08/05/2013 2:04:15 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“No, it is an accurate description of Calvinist double predestination. And it portrays a whimsical god more similar to those of the pagans than to Christ and the Most Holy Trinity.”


Your allegedly “accurate” description has no fear of God, and ignores the warning of Paul, making you a judge of God. If I were you, take the advice of noble Augustine who said:

“What then did the Lord answer to such murmurers? Murmur not among yourselves. As if He said, I know why you are not hungry, and do not understand nor seek after this bread. Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err.” (Augustine, Tractate 26)


36 posted on 08/05/2013 2:07:49 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans; D-fendr

He’s not being a judge of God—he’s (correctly) judging calvinism—a cult.


37 posted on 08/05/2013 2:21:52 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

“He’s not being a judge of God—he’s (correctly) judging calvinism—a cult.”


Christ, the Apostles, Augustine, Luther, all of the reformers, were all members of the Christian “cult” I suppose?


38 posted on 08/05/2013 2:24:40 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

You misspelled “calvinist.”


39 posted on 08/05/2013 2:36:24 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
Your allegedly “accurate” description has no fear of God, and ignores the warning of Paul, making you a judge of God.

Horse hockey. One need not 'judge God' to see that Calvinism has constructed a capricious pagan version. Nor does fear of God entail belief in the random bolts from Thor translated into born doomed or saved, elect/reprobate.

A key difference in the pagan gods and the God of Abraham was covenant and a shared concept of justice and mercy. Calvinism goes backwards.

If I were you, take the advice of noble Augustine who said:

Augustine said it so you believe it? Arguing from authority now are you?

40 posted on 08/05/2013 7:06:46 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Sorry, meant to ping you to #40...


41 posted on 08/05/2013 7:09:40 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“Augustine said it so you believe it? Arguing from authority now are you?”


Notice that in all your arguments, you’ve not once made an appeal of any kind, save to your own sentiments. If “Calvinism,” or “Augustinianism,” or “Paulianism,” or, rather, Christianity, has no basis in the scripture, or is backwards or some other issue, then in theory you should be able to tell me what this scripture means:

Joh 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

I’ve gone back and forth with you. It’s time for you to put up or shut up on this one. Please tell me, without my saying anything for now, what is the meaning of this verse. You’re free to make use of the context, whatever you like, to make your argument. But please, explain the meaning of this verse.


42 posted on 08/05/2013 7:15:03 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans; ShadowAce

Divine foreknowledge and salvation by grace through faith.

And you get: ‘you’re either born doomed or saved, luck of the draw as far as you can know.’ Same for your kids.

My appeal is to realize where Calvinism ends up: A capricious pagan god responsible for all personal sin and each man responsible for none.

However you get there, when you get there - no matter how well you think any piece fits - you should realize you made a very wrong turn somewhere. You’ve gone backward.


43 posted on 08/05/2013 8:23:21 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

And an obvious question that still needs to be asked:

>>”explain the meaning of this verse.”

What possible difference does it make what it means? What difference does it make what you believe or teach or others learn or believe?

This is all moot in Calvinism.


44 posted on 08/05/2013 8:26:06 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“Divine foreknowledge and salvation by grace through faith.”


Looking at the verse, you’re saying that the Father had foreknowledge about whom He would give to the Son and whom He wouldn’t? To “give” is not a passive act, it is a positive one. Furthermore, Christ is saying it as an explanation to Jews who did not believe. He is telling them that they don’t believe because it was not given to them to believe. How does your 8 word sentence in any way address what it actually said? Please be more specific.

As for “why does it matter.” It’s the scripture, number one, and therefore is infallible in its teaching. Secondly, the Spirit works through the the hearing and reading of the Word of God, as those who were ordained to eternal life believed at the preaching of Paul.

Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Who knows? Maybe the Holy Spirit will use this preaching to bring you out of Catholicism?

So, again, please give a detailed explanation for the meaning of that verse. Not just a random sentence about what you wished it meant. Or, if that one is too hard, let’s try another one.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

What does this verse mean? Don’t give me just a single sentence here. Use the context, use commentaries, use whatever you gotta use. Just give me the clear meaning of this verse. OR just the other one. Or BOTH if you’re feeling good. Makes no difference to me, honestly.


45 posted on 08/05/2013 8:37:20 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
As for “why does it matter.” It’s the scripture, number one, and therefore is infallible in its teaching.

But you aren't.

The "what does it matter" question is about salvation. You don't think whether you get it right will make you elect do you? Or that not getting it right will make you a reprobate? You are already elect aren't you?

You don't think any of this here matters regarding salvation, do you? It can't possibly change who is born elect and who isn't, can it? It cannot possibly have any effect on this whatsoever. Nothing you or i or anyone else do or can do has any effect at all.

Not in Calvinism. It's all a done deal.

So, again, what is the point of you arguing with me about what a verse of Holy Scripture means?

46 posted on 08/05/2013 8:55:58 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“You don’t think any of this here matters regarding salvation, do you? It can’t possibly change who is born elect and who isn’t, can it? It cannot possibly have any effect on this whatsoever. Nothing you or i or anyone else do or can do has any effect at all.”


Of course it cannot change the secret counsel of God. But on the other hand, no one is being damned because they tried to believe and God still refused them. Look here, for instance, I’ve given you the opportunity to prove me wrong using the scripture. I’ve asked you to explain, using whatever means available, a simple verse. You haven’t, and you won’t. Who is to blame for this? You, of course. Just because the Holy Spirit decides to pass someone by (not necessarily speaking of you), and He decided to do so before the foundation of the world, doesn’t mean that you have lost your will. If you could believe without the working of the Holy Spirit, that certainly would be wonderful! Though, it’s impossible, seeing as how humanity is utterly subject to sin. The scripture is clear that unless it is given to you, you cannot believe. Unless the Holy Spirit gives it to you, you cannot believe.

1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Furthermore, man is all gone astray, they do not seek after God (see Romans 3). Though God certainly uses your sinning nature for His own purposes (speaking generally and not of you specifically), and arranges, through His providential power, to fit you for destruction, as He did Judas, you know that every time the truth is preached they are given a chance to believe, and yet, as the scripture teaches, they refuse to.

So then, God knowing this, foreseeing it, and ordaining your fate and purpose, albeit it is a dreadful one, is God unjust? If God, knowing that you are evil, and choosing to create you, knowing full well your nature, and deciding to make you a “vessel of wrath,” will you rail at God for doing what He wants with what belongs to Him? And if God foreseeing you as a sinner who would, if left alone, go straight to hell, decides to actively change the will and nature of the individual, is God unjust for not having this mercy on all?

You punted on those two verses, so let’s try another one.

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Can you tell me what THIS verse means? Or, maybe, this one:

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Pick one, you only have to pick one. And let it be longer than a single random sentence, but a strong and detailed response, on what any of these verses mean.


47 posted on 08/05/2013 9:13:27 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
Just because the Holy Spirit decides to pass someone by (not necessarily speaking of you), and He decided to do so before the foundation of the world, doesn’t mean that you have lost your will. If you could believe …though, it’s impossible, seeing as how humanity is utterly subject to sin. The scripture is clear..

I'm sorry, I still don't see the purpose here - from your point of view.

So, again, other than your amusement or some competitive game you're playing, what is the point of you arguing with me about what a verse of Holy Scripture means?

You really do not believe you're going to change whether I or anyone else, Catholic or not, has been born elect or reprobate, do you? This is, at best, sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I’ve given you the opportunity to prove me wrong using the scripture. I’ve asked you to explain, using whatever means available, a simple verse. You haven’t, and you won’t. Who is to blame for this?

God, right?

Why do care so much about winning an argument that changes absolutely nothing important for anyone - yourself included?

And if it matters not a bit, why should I play what is just a game for you?

48 posted on 08/05/2013 9:39:45 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“So, again, other than your amusement or some competitive game you’re playing, what is the point of you arguing with me about what a verse of Holy Scripture means?”


So what was wrong, exactly, with my previous reply? Just because you’re not happy with a response, doesn’t mean it’s a bad response. You’ve not explained what’s wrong with it. (Though, not explaining things seems to be your habit.) And, actually, there are many other responses I can give you, ranging from “Because I am commanded to,” to “because it robs you (speaking of the general “you,” and not you personally) of excuse on the great judgment day, since God reasoned with you, and proved that mankind can do nothing apart from His grace.”

Or as Augustine puts it,

“We most wholesomely confess that which we most rightly believe, that God, the Lord of all things, who created all things ‘very good,’ foreknew that evil would arise out of this good; and He also knew that it was more to the glory of His omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil, than not to permit evil to be at all! And He so ordained the lives of angels and of men that He might first show in them what free-will could do, and then afterwards show what the free gift of His grace and the judgment of His justice could do.” (Augustine, qtd in Calvin’s Treatise on Eternal Predestination)

So which of these do you like the best, and will make you happy? If you say “none,” well, I can’t help you there. If you can’t see my “point of view” and what motivates me to respond to you, I can’t help you there, no matter how much you tell me you are answering from my “point of view.” In the end, it is between you and God. In the end it is between you and that verse in chapter 6 of the Gospel of John, and many more just like it. The forgiveness of sins is liberally offered, and you do not know the secret will of God. If you (speaking generally again) will not convert, you only have yourself to blame. If you feel yourself not drawn, well, then go and pray to be drawn. If you feel yourself lost, well then go and pray to be found. But if you find conversion, remember it was God who made you sensible to your lack, and who so arranged everything to bring you, His sheep from before the foundation of the world, into salvation.


49 posted on 08/05/2013 9:59:02 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ebb tide; donmeaker

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 hi 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.

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

 


50 posted on 08/05/2013 10:02:23 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson