No, the Church condemned Pelagianism in AD 418 at the Council of Carthage. This is what Pelagianism is:
- Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
- Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
- Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
- The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
- The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
- Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.
This is what the Church instead teaches:
(Pelagius and Pelagianism)
- Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
- New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
- Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
- The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
- Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
- Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
- The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
- The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
Please point out where in my posts you find the Pelagian views rather than orthodox Catholic views.
...(Rom 9:11). If it is on the call, and not on works that God’s election is determined, then it cannot be said that God predestinated them based on their works or foreseen future works
when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,) not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. (Romans 9:11-12)
First, the example of Jacob and Esau is here not to teach predestination apart from works, but to teach that predestination is apart from ethnicity or primogeniture. Second, the "works" that St. Paul is referring to are not future works that Jacob, later known as Israel, will have, but rather his non-existent works as a baby. So your syllogism falls apart.
Acts 13:48
[46] Then Paul and Barnabas said boldly: To you it behoved us first to speak the word of God: but because you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles. [47] For so the Lord hath commanded us: I have set thee to be the light of the Gentiles; that thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth. [48] And the Gentiles hearing it, were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to life everlasting, believed. (Acts 13)
As you can see by reading the Holy Bible yourself, the episode confirms the Catholic teaching, that some reject the word and others receive it gladly. The Protestant stubborn rejection of the words of the Gospel that they don't like: rejection of Christ's teaching on the Eucharist, on the blessings of voluntary poverty and celibacy, on the decisive role of good works for salvation or reprobation, -- come to mind immediately. Obviously, one has to be predestined to receive the Word and join the elect; verse 48 says it plainly, -- but the passage say nothing about predestination of these Gentile being independent of their works prior or in the future of their conversion.
Rom 4:4
[3]...Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. [4] Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. [5] But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God. [...] [9] This blessedness then, doth it remain in the circumcision only, or in the uncircumcision also? For we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice. [10] How then was it reputed? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. (Romans 4)
Read: the point St. Paul is making is not about salvation being apart from works but that circumcision is not salvific. In another place St. Paul clearly shown that it is the heroic works of Abraham and other Hebrew saints that mattered in their justification:
[8] By faith he that is called Abraham, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. [9] By faith he abode in the land, dwelling in cottages, with Isaac and Jacob, the co-heirs of the same promise. [10] For he looked for a city that hath foundations; whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11).
Compare also:
[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? (James 2)
Somehow it did not occur to either St. Paul nor to St. James that by obeying God Abraham "would force God’s hand, as a payment for work that has been done". But it is occurring to you. Shouldn't you check your views with the Holy Scripture every once in a while? By the way, it is exactly right that work done for a payment is not salvific; it is precisely good works done out of love for God and fellow man that save:
[6] Who will render to every man according to his works. [7] To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: [8] But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. [9] Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. [10] But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 2)
what is left for God to work in us if we have already worked charity and purity by our own power?
Why, the works that we do are works God is working in us. Yet it is us who has to do these works, in fear and trembling. When we, Catholics choose a difficult task we first pray, and then we set out to work, and in so doing we see God's hand giving us strength:
"[11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. [12] Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. [13] For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. [14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Philippians 2)
Note that work here is that "good works" of the Gospel, not works of the law that does nothing to save us (Romans 3:28) and not works done for reward that does nothing to save us (Matthew 6:2, Romans 4:4).
If they are not predestinated to salvation, what is left except damnation?
The error of Calvinism is not in observing this simple syllogism, but in creating a caricature of a god who hates the reprobate or even hastens his damnation, sort of like Gamecock imagined Jesus setting traps to the unfaithful so that they stumble. Understand that predestination is more than foreknowledge, as God surely foreknows the reprobation also; predestination means "working in you" so that the elect obtain their justification by works.
This is the same as saying that the word “set” has no business being in the sentence [1 Peter 2:8]
"Set" means what it says: that Christ is the cornerstone on which everyone is set, irrespective of what they do with that fact.
“Please point out where in my posts you find the Pelagian views rather than orthodox Catholic views.”
From Augustine, quoting his Pelagian enemies, making your arguments:
“’Therefore,’ says the Pelagian, ‘He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of His in which He foreknew that they would be such. Therefore He elected them,’ says he, ‘before they existed, predestinating them to be children whom He foreknew to be holy and immaculate. Certainly He did not make them so; nor did He foresee that He would make them so, but that they would be so.’” (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Ch. 36)
We say, on the contrary, that it is by grace that we are made holy and immaculate, that we receive faith, and are preserved to eternal life. And this effectually and unconditionally, or as Augustine puts it:
“But of such as these [the Elect] none perishes, because of “all that the Father has given Him, He will lose none.” (John 6:39). Whoever, therefore, is of these does not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, “They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us.” (John 2:19). (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Ch. 33)
“First, the example of Jacob and Esau is here not to teach predestination apart from works, but to teach that predestination is apart from ethnicity or primogeniture.”
At this point you’re not really answering my arguments, or, rather, Augustine’s arguments, and you certainly aren’t using the text to make your arguments, which would render these silly assertions of yours false from the beginning. For example, how can you say that Paul is merely concerned about proving that God values your merits regardless of your genealogy, when Paul immediately says “not of works, but on him that calls?” What does it mean “not of works,” and “on him that calls,” if it doesn’t mean that we are saved by God who has mercy on us and chose us before the foundations of the world? If it really is “on our works,” then it cannot be by “he who calls,” since the call would then be universal and would be based on him who “works” and obeys the call. You also made the silly assertion about “not of works,” because he had no works as a baby. But how can that be if God is foreknowing their future works in the first place to predestinate the one to heaven, and the other to damnation? (I don’t know how you can live in such an incoherent world.) And again, “It is not of him that wills, nor him that runs, but God who has mercy.” If it really is by him who wills, and him who runs, then it cannot be by God’s mercy, since the mercy of God, without the man working or willing, is not sufficient to save anyone. So it follows that it is not by “God who wills, or God who runs, but man who obeys.” The verse, then, would have no meaning, since it can be worded in the exact opposite way, thus contradicting the sense of the Apostle. You completely ignore our argument, and then make an assertion just repeating your Pelagian views of Predestination.
I will add, however, one more thing. The purpose of Paul in this chapter is not merely to differentiate, say, between the Jews and Gentiles. Paul begins the discourse for the purpose of dividing Israel from Israel, or the children of the promise (and of God) from the children of the flesh. In other words, it is a spiritual division, between those who are the children of God, who are called according to His purpose, predestinated before the world began without regard to their merits (2 Ti 1:9), and those who are the children of the flesh:
“That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.”
(Rom 9:8-9)
Now what is the point of a “promise” if God is performing nothing on Jacob that he isn’t also doing on Esau? And why does it say everywhere in scripture that we are predestinated without regard for our works, “but according to His own purpose and grace,” if we are saved not by His purpose and grace but by our meriting and cooperating with grace? It is rather more logical to conclude that we are elected to believe, and to perform good works, or, as Augustine explains it,
“For the Lord Himself also sufficiently explains this calling when He says, “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” (John 15:16) For if they had been elected because they had believed, they themselves would certainly have first chosen Him by believing in Him, so that they should deserve to be elected. But He takes away this supposition altogether when He says, “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” And yet they themselves, beyond a doubt, chose Him when they believed on Him. Whence it is not for any other reason that He says, “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” than because they did not choose Him that He should choose them, but He chose them that they might choose Him; because His mercy preceded them according to grace, not according to debt. Therefore He chose them out of the world while He was wearing flesh, but as those who were already chosen in Himself before the foundation of the world. This is the changeless truth concerning predestination and grace. For what is it that the apostle says, “As He has chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world?” (Ephesians 1:4) And assuredly, if this were said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that when He says, “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;” when God should rather have foreknown this very thing, that they themselves would have chosen Him, so that they might deserve to be chosen by Him. Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world with that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do; but they were elected out of the world with that calling whereby God fulfilled that which He predestinated. For whom He predestinated, them He also called, with that calling, to wit, which is according to the purpose. (Rom 8:30)” (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Ch. 34)
And a little further in the same section,
“I ask, who can hear the Lord saying, ‘You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,’ and can dare to say that men believe in order to be elected, when they are rather elected to believe; lest against the judgment of truth they be found to have first chosen Christ to whom Christ says, ‘You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you?’ (John 15:16).” (Ibid)
“As you can see by reading the Holy Bible yourself, the episode confirms the Catholic teaching, that some reject the word and others receive it gladly.”
This is just another example of you making an assertion, as if you didn’t even read the text. Since it says quite clearly, which you don’t even attempt to explain, that those who believed, did so as the result of being ordained. “And those who were ordained to eternal life believed,” quoth Luke, who did not say that those who believed were ordained to eternal life. It is a matter of cause and effect, which, if not true, Luke then only proposes to cause confusion with vain words. The same theme is carried on throughout the scriptures. For example, in Christ’s explanation for those who did not believe:
“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. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”(Joh 6:64-65)
Certainly there is no room for mere foreknowledge leading to election here. The only thing foreknown is God’s own work in the hearts of those who would believe, and in His choosing not to work in others.
“...on the blessings of voluntary poverty and celibacy,”
If only you would embrace both, so that you would not be able to trouble the saints via the internet with your frivolous comments, and also not bring forward any more Annalexes who might be tempted to take after your debate methods!
“Read: the point St. Paul is making is not about salvation being apart from works but that circumcision is not salvific.”
Yet you do not even explain the meaning of the verse, since if only circumcision is condemned, then that means that grace is given as a reward for debt for other works of the law. Yet Paul does not differentiate between specific works, but gives the glory of salvation wholly to God’s grace, which cannot be true if other types of works other than circumcision are actually what saves a man. Either grace is given gratuitously, or the verse makes no sense at all.
You then quote from James 2, Hebrews and Romans 2, but I notice you did not include this verse in the latter:
“For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;”(Rom 2:11-12)
The purpose of Paul here isn’t to say that anyone is getting into heaven based on their merits. It is only to demonstrate that God is no respecter of persons in judgment, which condemns both Jews and Gentiles who find themselves sinners with or without law.
And again, from the next chapter:
“What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.”
(Rom 3:9-11)
Now when did Paul prove that the Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, and that no one is righteous? He proved it in chapter 1, which was against the Gentiles, and chapter 2, which was against the Jews, since they all fell short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23), and therefore cannot meet God’s requirements under the law that they are under. (Though, thank God, we are not under law, but under grace! For, otherwise, no one would be free from sin (Rom 6:14).)
Now how can Paul say that there is “no one righteous,” and “no one who seeks after God,” if there are people who will be justified by being righteous seekers of God? The obvious reply is that no one does righteousness or seeks after God of themselves, since it is the work of another upon them that makes them so.
Indeed, your whole argument is frivolous, because the second reply that comes to mind to your comments is that, all those whom God has elected to salvation, perform righteous deeds and have faith. (Though, as in James 2, the distinction between the “belief” of devils and of the faith of saints is really the quality of the faith and the works which proceed from the regenerated Christian, since the same Apostle says that committing even just one sin puts you under the guilt of the whole law (James 2:9). Therefore, he speaks of quality, and not of quantity when he speaks of the faith and works that true Christians possess.) Thus it is true, that all those who are righteous will be rewarded, and all those who do evil will be condemned. But then it is also true, that no man is righteous or seeks after God of themselves, since it is God who works in them both to will and to do (Php 2:13). Or as Augustine explains it,
“All our good merits are only wrought in us by grace, and -when God crowns our merits, he crowns nothing but his own gifts.” (Augustine, Letter 194)
“Have just men, then, no merits? Certainly they have, because they are righteous. But they were not made righteous by merits. For they are made righteous when they are justified, but as the apostle says, they are justified freely by his grace.” (Ibid)
Thus we say that no man is saved by his merits, but is saved by that grace which makes them new men internally, which, though not sinless, who then shew forth that they are the children of God by their outward deeds.
“When we, Catholics choose a difficult task we first pray, and then we set out to work, and in so doing we see God’s hand giving us strength:”
The obvious reply is, first of all, that “no man can come unto me unless it is given to them by the Father.” And again, “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” (1Co 12:3). And again, “there is no one righteous, no not one. There is no one who understandeth, or seeketh after God.” Therefore you cannot first pray, and set out to work, and then expect the help of God thereafter. God must renew your heart by the Spirit, give to you faith, and cause you to walk in His statutes, because, of yourself, you have no desire to seek after Him or obey Him. In other words, not only must God help you after you have set out to work, but God is the initiator of your work in the first place. You have no spark of goodness in you, and therefore, all that is good in you, is wrought by God, and not by yourself.
“”Set” means what it says: that Christ is the cornerstone on which everyone is set, irrespective of what they do with that fact.”
Except “set” says no such thing, since it is talking about their disobedience and their stumbling, and not about being set to Christianity, which, presumably, if they were so set, they wouldn’t be heathens.