Augustinism and Pelagianism

[simpleas]

I recently came across an historical presentation on Augustinism and Pelagianism original source, which reads very interesting. ( link below)

What interests me most is what Pelagius says about O.S, that infants are not born with it, they are born just as Adam was before sin.
I know we are taught that we are born with O.S and it is wiped away at baptism. But we can choose good or evil once we become the age of reason.
On page 141 (I can’t copy and paste)
Augustine refers to Adam as having the freedom to sin or refain from sin, but that he didn’t have the grace to never will to be evil. I have learnt that we don’t take all what Augustine said as doctrine, but as we accept his theory of O.S we can know by what he says also is how he thought on such matters.

I have come across reference that Augustine may have mis-read pauls teaching on sin :

In Romans 5, Paul addresses the matter of sin. In verse 12 he states, “Therefore . . . sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” (NRSV). Later in the chapter, Paul juxtaposes the sin of Adam with the righteousness of Christ: “Just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). In contrast to his contemporary theologians, Augustine drew from his reading of these scriptures that sin was passed biologically from Adam to all his descendants through the sexual act itself, thus equating sexual desire with sin. But why should he have reached this interpretation when marital sexual relations in Jewish society at the time of Christ and Paul were considered honorable and good?

What really made me think on, is :

Paul certainly recognized the lack of a spiritual relationship and saw sin resulting in death (Romans 6:15–18). He saw the world alienated from its Creator (Ephesians 2:12; 4:18), a condition that could be corrected only by the intervention of God. But Paul also saw an opportunity for humanity to be restored to a right relationship with God after losing access to Him in the Garden of Eden. However, this could happen only by becoming a “new creation” in God’s hands. Rather than describing the human condition as “fallen,” Paul may well have thought of the situation as a failure to “rise” to what God had offered. He describes those who reject the truth once they have had a relationship with God as having fallen away (Galatians 5:4, NRSV).

I know we can not deny 1500 or years of doctrine, I’ve read from Polycarp and Justin Martyr,Irenaeus ,Tertullian, Origen,Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, to Augustine to educate myself on O.S theory. (and still educating!)
We took Augustines view, fair enough, but how did the influence of one man’s view become accepted by the church over any other?

Sorry for the long post!

 

[simpleas]

NOTE

Sorry forgot to add the link to the book! (to many hours reading on the computer!)

books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jgs3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=was+there+a+theory+of+original+sin+before+augustines+theory&source=bl&ots=Xz1-mriYJ_&sig=ZZNT59h040l5plNZH4hUiG7BZzc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rrEhU6a7AoaN7AbczIGICQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=was%20there%20a%20theory%20of%20original%20sin%20before%20augustines%20theory&f=false

Thanks

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas! Thanks for posting this thought-provoking thread.

I recently came across an historical presentation on Augustinism and Pelagianism original source, which reads very interesting. ( link below)

What interests me most is what Pelagius says about O.S, that infants are not born with it, they are born just as Adam was before sin.
I know we are taught that we are born with O.S and it is wiped away at baptism. But we can choose good or evil once we become the age of reason.
On page 141 (I can’t copy and paste)
Augustine refers to Adam as having the freedom to sin or refain from sin, but that he didn’t have the grace to never will to be evil. I have learnt that we don’t take all what Augustine said as doctrine, but as we accept his theory of O.S we can know by what he says also is how he thought on such matters.

I have come across reference that Augustine may have mis-read pauls teaching on sin :

In Romans 5, Paul addresses the matter of sin. In verse 12 he states, “Therefore . . . sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” (NRSV). Later in the chapter, Paul juxtaposes the sin of Adam with the righteousness of Christ: “Just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). In contrast to his contemporary theologians, Augustine drew from his reading of these scriptures that sin was passed biologically from Adam to all his descendants through the sexual act itself, thus equating sexual desire with sin. But why should he have reached this interpretation when marital sexual relations in Jewish society at the time of Christ and Paul were considered honorable and good?

The way I see it, Augustine resented his past sexual sins, and consequently resented his own natural sex drive, which is very understandable. As far as “passing sin through the sexual act itself”, it does make some scientific sense, does it not?

After all, Augustine could not have been talking about behaviors, because behaviors are a matter of choice, not destiny. What he must have been referring to is the capacity to sin, which is truly passed down through our genetics. All of us are capable of sin.

That said, I also like Pelagius’ implication that a child is born a loved, beautiful, “good” creature, that there is nothing “stained” about the child. Is the capacity to sin a “stain”, or is it merely a function of free will, ignorance, and our God-given appetites? Our answer to that question depends on how we feel when we think of our humanity.

What really made me think on, is :

Paul certainly recognized the lack of a spiritual relationship and saw sin resulting in death (Romans 6:15–18). He saw the world alienated from its Creator (Ephesians 2:12; 4:18), a condition that could be corrected only by the intervention of God. But Paul also saw an opportunity for humanity to be restored to a right relationship with God after losing access to Him in the Garden of Eden. However, this could happen only by becoming a “new creation” in God’s hands. Rather than describing the human condition as “fallen,” Paul may well have thought of the situation as a failure to “rise” to what God had offered. He describes those who reject the truth once they have had a relationship with God as having fallen away (Galatians 5:4, NRSV).

I know we can not deny 1500 or years of doctrine, I’ve read from Polycarp and Justin Martyr,Irenaeus ,Tertullian, Origen,Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, to Augustine to educate myself on O.S theory. (and still educating!)
We took Augustines view, fair enough, but how did the influence of one man’s view become accepted by the church over any other?

Sorry for the long post!

To me, Augustine’s view was the dualistic view, even though he rejected dualism. Dualism is the first-half-of-life mindset, and as such it makes sense, at least some time in our lives, to everyone does it not? Pelagius’ implication that all people are born without any negative aspect is more of a “second half” idea, and it seems to me that there is plenty of room in “Orthodox Theology” for both aspects of the journey, as you may see in the thread I posted in Spirituality.

Yes, some of the detail of Augustine’s views may seem a bit backward in our modern context, but he was a great thinker, and he did a lot to stabilize orthodoxy. Humanity learns new things, and we continue to come to a better understanding of truth. Revelation unfolds.

Don’t worry about long posts, Simpleas. Most thoughtful discussions need more than a few words to lay out.

 

[simpleas]

Thanks for your thoughts Onesheep.

Discovering teaching on the dualistic mind has brought more thought about O.S to the front of my mind.
I read Augustine’s theory of O.S was to provide an answer to should babies be baptised, or left until the age of reason, when they could understand the difference between right and wrong, and also understand Jesus. Prior to the early third century it wasn’t doctine, but if it was interperted correctly in the Gospels, why were babies not being baptised until the third century.

This I read :

This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect”

A child is born with the state of O.S, but has not yet committed any sin.

I know like you say, revelation unfolds, it was in the 1960’s when the church taught that unbaptised babies wouldn’t go to hell, and thank God for that!

I’ve read little bits on Augustine, I’m not concerned about what he did as a young man, but thinking on how life effects the way we see the world, and so what one person regards as a way of thinking, most everyone else wouldn’t.

If what I read about Augustine’s view is true, that Adam lacked some Grace when tempted, it was inevitable that he would fall. I mean God knew he would anyway, God gave him a rational mind and freewill, Adam chose to abuse his freedom.
Man could only have remain in Original Holiness and justice because he wanted to, so thinking on if Adam hadn’t sinned, his children would have needed to do the same. But because I can only think in the world we live in (which isn’t all bad!) I can’t see that Adam or his children would have been able to resist temption to do what was opposite to Gods will.
So humans would have fell at some point. In order to know something is wrong we have to learn.

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks for your thoughts Onesheep.

Discovering teaching on the dualistic mind has brought more thought about O.S to the front of my mind.
I read Augustine’s theory of O.S was to provide an answer to should babies be baptised, or left until the age of reason, when they could understand the difference between right and wrong, and also understand Jesus. Prior to the early third century it wasn’t doctine, but if it was interperted correctly in the Gospels, why were babies not being baptised until the third century.

This I read :

This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect”

A child is born with the state of O.S, but has not yet committed any sin.

I know like you say, revelation unfolds, it was in the 1960’s when the church taught that unbaptised babies wouldn’t go to hell, and thank God for that!

I am quite certain that many, many Catholic still believe that unbaptized babies go to hell, or at least may go there.

I’ve read little bits on Augustine, I’m not concerned about what he did as a young man, but thinking on how life effects the way we see the world, and so what one person regards as a way of thinking, most everyone else wouldn’t.

If what I read about Augustine’s view is true, that Adam lacked some Grace when tempted, it was inevitable that he would fall. I mean God knew he would anyway, God gave him a rational mind and freewill, Adam chose to abuse his freedom.
Man could only have remain in Original Holiness and justice because he wanted to, so thinking on if Adam hadn’t sinned, his children would have needed to do the same. But because I can only think in the world we live in (which isn’t all bad!) I can’t see that Adam or his children would have been able to resist temption to do what was opposite to Gods will.

We resist temptation when we are fully aware of the reality of the consequences. If the serpent represents doubt, then doubt is the problem. Authority wants to be believed, and when people doubt it is a threat to authority, which may be some of the motive behind the story of Adam and Eve. Experience erases all doubt. I could tell you that mixing cement and water causes a reaction that leads to heat generation, but you could easily doubt me. I could show this happening several times, and then you would know. Adam and Eve did not have this level of knowing the consequence of their actions, so they were ignorant. Is doubt evil? Well, some may say yes. Not me.

Remember, though, I do not take the story of A&E literally.

So humans would have fell at some point. In order to know something is wrong we have to learn.

That goes back to the question. Did we fall? Did we come from some “higher” state?
If believing that we came from a “higher” state motivates a person to repent, to reject sin, and to live a moral life, then that is great! However, there may come a time when empathy, not the conscience, guides one’s behavior, and one no longer wants or needs to fight the “enemy within”. We reconcile with our appetites and capacities. At that time, the idea of a “fall” has no purpose.

Yes, in order to know something is wrong we have to learn. Every day is a matter of falling, as we make errors and learn from them. So, “falling up” is a lifting thing. Is this what you are thinking?

 

[simpleas]

I am quite certain that many, many Catholic still believe that unbaptized babies go to hell, or at least may go there.

We resist temptation when we are fully aware of the reality of the consequences. If the serpent represents doubt, then doubt is the problem. Authority wants to be believed, and when people doubt it is a threat to authority, which may be some of the motive behind the story of Adam and Eve. Experience erases all doubt. I could tell you that mixing cement and water causes a reaction that leads to heat generation, but you could easily doubt me. I could show this happening several times, and then you would know. Adam and Eve did not have this level of knowing the consequence of their actions, so they were ignorant. Is doubt evil? Well, some may say yes. Not me.

Remember, though, I do not take the story of A&E literally.

That goes back to the question. Did we fall? Did we come from some “higher” state?
If believing that we came from a “higher” state motivates a person to repent, to reject sin, and to live a moral life, then that is great! However, there may come a time when empathy, not the conscience, guides one’s behavior, and one no longer wants or needs to fight the “enemy within”. We reconcile with our appetites and capacities. At that time, the idea of a “fall” has no purpose.

Yes, in order to know something is wrong we have to learn. Every day is a matter of falling, as we make errors and learn from them. So, “falling up” is a lifting thing. Is this what you are thinking?

Really, todays catholic’s would believe unbaptized babies would go to hell…wow.

Yes but you believe we are born with O.S don’t you? That we are wounded?

Did we fall…I’m not sure… Like you said we fall everyday and we have to learn from our mistake, but if A&E didn’t fall the way we are taught, then we can not be born in that fallen state? Can we?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Colorful Saint.

Augustine City of God page-380

Chapter 13

As soon as our first parents had transgressed the commandment divine grace forsook them, and they were confronted with their own wickedness, thus they took fig leaves which was possibly the first that came to hand in their troubled state of mind, and they covered their shame, for though their members remained the same they had shame now and they had none before. They experienced a new motion of the flesh, which had become disobedient to them, in strict retribution of their own disobedience to God. For the soul reveling in its own liberty, and scorning to serve God, was self deprived of the command it had formally maintained over the body. And because it willfully had deserted its superior Lord, it no longer held its own inferior servant, neither could its hold the flesh subject as it would always had been able to do had it remained subject to God. Then the flesh began to lust against the spirit in which strife we are born, deriving from the first transgression a seed of death and bearing in our members, and in our vitiated nature, the contest, or the victory over death.

Chapter 14

For God the author of nature, not vice, created man upright, being of his own will corrupted and justly condemned, begot condemned and corrupted children. For we all were in that one man, who fell into sin by the women who was made from him before the sin. For not yet was the particular form created and distributed to us, in which we as individuals were to live, but already the seminal nature was therefrom which we were to be propagated; and this being vitiated by sin, and bound by the chains of death, and justly condemned, man could not be born of man in any other state. And thus from the bad use of free will, there originated the whole train of evil, with its concatenation of miseries, convoys the human race from its deprived origin, as from a corrupt root. on to the destruction of the second death, which has no end, and those only being accepted are freed by the grace of God.

 

[Amandil]

Really, todays catholic’s would believe unbaptized babies would go to hell…wow.

Yes but you believe we are born with O.S don’t you? That we are wounded?

Did we fall…I’m not sure… Like you said we fall everyday and we have to learn from our mistake, but if A&E didn’t fall the way we are taught, then we can not be born in that fallen state? Can we?

To put it positively we’d say that we cannot be certain of their salvation as we would with a baby which was baptized, instead we rather commit their souls to the mercy of Christ and pray that they be saved.

 

[simpleas]

To put it positively we’d say that we cannot be certain of their salvation as we would with a baby which was baptized, instead we rather commit their souls to the mercy of Christ and pray that they be saved.

So for example, a baby is born, and within a few minutes dies. The child hasn’t been saved by baptism, so isn’t at fault for that, nor any sin, but could still go into hell. Of course, the God I have my trust in would never do such a thing.

I have heard of a situation were parents of a boy did not have him baptised, because at the time they believed in allowing their son to choose to be baptised. Unfortunatley the boy became ill and passed away, he was only 12 years old. His mother was then frantic that she didn’t have him baptised and now he may have gone to hell.
I still do not think God would do that to a child, nor anyone of good will.

 

[Amandil]

So for example, a baby is born, and within a few minutes dies. The child hasn’t been saved by baptism, so isn’t at fault for that, nor any sin, but could still go into hell. Of course, the God I have my trust in would never do such a thing.

He may, or He may not. We don’t know.

We think of an infant child, any infant child, as in and of itself as wholly innocent.

But instead of that child dying in infancy what if it lived a full life? What kind of person, what kind of soul would it be? Would it have chosen God? Would it have rejected God? Would it have been a doctor, or even a saint? Or would it have been a mass murderer?

We simply don’t know what kind of soul it is or would have been. God does.

So whatever kind of soul it is, we pray for God’s mercy upon it, while at the same time in faith respecting God’s judgment, because that soul, just like all of us, is still by its very nature possessed of free will and must at some point in its existence have either chosen for God or against Him.

That, I believe, is Augustine’s point. God’s grace is not irresistible, but we all possess sufficient grace, even that infant soul, to make that choice.

We commend all souls to the grace and mercy of God ,and that’s all we can do.

I have heard of a situation were parents of a boy did not have him baptised, because at the time they believed in allowing their son to choose to be baptised. Unfortunatley the boy became ill and passed away, he was only 12 years old. His mother was then frantic that she didn’t have him baptised and now he may have gone to hell.
I still do not think God would do that to a child, nor anyone of good will.

I would not want to think that either. But the fact is that we do not know. We can have a level of certitude that God would of course be merciful based upon the circumstances and the decisions of the parents(I don’t think that God would deny baptism by desire to that child who had every intention of being baptized knowing that it was required).

IMO the mother shouldn’t beat herself up in frantic grief and fear but instead be assured in faith that God accomplished her desire.

And I don’t think that Augustine would disagree with that assessment either.

 

[OneSheep]

Really, todays catholic’s would believe unbaptized babies would go to hell…wow.

Yes, as you can see, there is a variety of opinion. I like this statement:

“Of course, the God I have my trust in would never do such a thing.”

I not only agree with you, but I like the ownership aspect. Your view of God is based on your relationship with the divine. There are some verses that directly address the “maybe/maybe not” aspect of our salvation. There is psalm 49 “palm of his hand” and the gospel verse about the hairs of our head counted.

However, there is room in scripture to doubt God’s love for us, (that is, doubt that God loves us unconditionally) which GlendaB pointed out in her thread in the philosophy forum. This doubt, I think, helps motivate some people to remain vigilant, to behave morally and remain dedicated to their faith. As you know, though, I see the “conditionally loving” voice as coming from our God-given conscience, not from Our Abba.

Yes but you believe we are born with O.S don’t you? That we are wounded?
Did we fall…I’m not sure… Like you said we fall everyday and we have to learn from our mistake, but if A&E didn’t fall the way we are taught, then we can not be born in that fallen state? Can we?

“Wounded” and “fallen” imply that we were in a better state before. Like I said, in my own relationship with God and myself, I do not find a reason to see it that way. We are how God made us, and He did great job! We have some appetites and capacities to deal with that are useful, but can be enslaving. We have the guidance from the Son to help us deal with those. Why not have a creation story where the human starts from being less empathetic and compassionate to being ever more so, through revelation from the divine? That works for me now, but the “fallen” story made more sense when I needed the carrot/stick to guide my behaviors.

Does it help your own relationship with yourself and God and others to think of us as being wounded? If so, that is the best place to come from.

To me, all of this has to be given examples in order to be understood. For example, what do you see as evidence today of a woundedness? We can look at the options of perspective .

 

[OneSheep]

He may, or He may not. We don’t know.

IMO the mother shouldn’t beat herself up in frantic grief and fear but instead be assured in faith that God accomplished her desire.

Hi Amandil. Do you see the difficulty here? The “may/may not” God is not one of assurance.

People could tell me over and over that God loves and forgives us unconditionally, but I could not believe them from their words alone.

To me, the path to assurance is the path of forgiveness. When I took the steps to forgive every single person that I held anything against, then I knew that God would do no less. I have no “maybe” in my own perspective about salvation, because there is no way that I can believe that God forgives less than I do.

What I am saying is that there is a place for the “bottom lines” of both Pelagius and Augustine in our journeys. Our Church is certainly great enough to encompass the spirit of both perspectives.

 

[simpleas]

He may, or He may not. We don’t know.

We think of an infant child, any infant child, as in and of itself as wholly innocent.

But instead of that child dying in infancy what if it lived a full life? What kind of person, what kind of soul would it be? Would it have chosen God? Would it have rejected God? Would it have been a doctor, or even a saint? Or would it have been a mass murderer?

We simply don’t know what kind of soul it is or would have been. God does.

So whatever kind of soul it is, we pray for God’s mercy upon it, while at the same time in faith respecting God’s judgment, because that soul, just like all of us, is still by its very nature possessed of free will and must at some point in its existence have either chosen for God or against Him.

That, I believe, is Augustine’s point. God’s grace is not irresistible, but we all possess sufficient grace, even that infant soul, to make that choice.

We commend all souls to the grace and mercy of God ,and that’s all we can do.

I would not want to think that either. But the fact is that we do not know. We can have a level of certitude that God would of course be merciful based upon the circumstances and the decisions of the parents(I don’t think that God would deny baptism by desire to that child who had every intention of being baptized knowing that it was required).

IMO the mother shouldn’t beat herself up in frantic grief and fear but instead be assured in faith that God accomplished her desire.

And I don’t think that Augustine would disagree with that assessment either.

Thanks.
I wasn’t really referring to what soul or who the child maybe, I refer to a teaching that seems almost fear mongering in a way, that if a child is not baptised before death, they would not enter heaven. Its all related to original sin. I agree we pray for souls, I pray all the time for deceased relatives and friends.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, as you can see, there is a variety of opinion. I like this statement:

“Of course, the God I have my trust in would never do such a thing.”

I not only agree with you, but I like the ownership aspect. Your view of God is based on your relationship with the divine. There are some verses that directly address the “maybe/maybe not” aspect of our salvation. There is psalm 49 “palm of his hand” and the gospel verse about the hairs of our head counted.

However, there is room in scripture to doubt God’s love for us, (that is, doubt that God loves us unconditionally) which GlendaB pointed out in her thread in the philosophy forum. This doubt, I think, helps motivate some people to remain vigilant, to behave morally and remain dedicated to their faith. As you know, though, I see the “conditionally loving” voice as coming from our God-given conscience, not from Our Abba.

“Wounded” and “fallen” imply that we were in a better state before. Like I said, in my own relationship with God and myself, I do not find a reason to see it that way. We are how God made us, and He did great job! We have some appetites and capacities to deal with that are useful, but can be enslaving. We have the guidance from the Son to help us deal with those. Why not have a creation story where the human starts from being less empathetic and compassionate to being ever more so, through revelation from the divine? That works for me now, but the “fallen” story made more sense when I needed the carrot/stick to guide my behaviors.

Does it help your own relationship with yourself and God and others to think of us as being wounded? If so, that is the best place to come from.

To me, all of this has to be given examples in order to be understood. For example, what do you see as evidence today of a woundedness? We can look at the options of perspective .

Thanks.

Yeah, on tuesday evening we had a video showing of The Bible series, maybe you have seen it? Was very big in the USA I was told. Anyway we saw up to Abraham, and next week its Moses.
After the priest wanted to tell us somethings about what the Jews believed, and he mentioned how we used to speak of “the wrath of God” the whole thought about if things were going well then God was looking on them with favor and If things were going wrong then God was angry at them.
I think some people still think like this, but more in a way of blaming God for letting something happen, the whole if there is a God why does such and such happen. One person in the group said she doesn’t like the old testament much. loves the new, and that the God in the old doesn’t sound like the Christ she knows, I can’t remember what she was refering to but she said God doesn’t change, so how can he be like that in the old testament and different in the new, to which the priest replied, God doesn’t change, but we do…

Ok, I think I get what you say (if not correct me) You don’t now believe you were born in a fallen state, because you take ownership of your own mistakes and consquences?
But you say you are a sinner…

You know, before I came on CAF I never really had made the connection between O.S, Jesus and myself…I knew I was a sinner, but I never saw others as wounded or certain people as more a sinner than myself. I just always believed in Gods love,and prayed I would always be with him no matter what.

 

[Amandil]

Hi Amandil. Do you see the difficulty here? The “may/may not” God is not one of assurance.

It’s no difficulty at all.

The only thing we can be assured of is God’s love. We cannot have assurance that any other person is saved, or condemned, all we can do is pray and hope that our prayers are in accord with God’s will.

People could tell me over and over that God loves and forgives us unconditionally, but I could not believe them from their words alone.

There’s a disconnect here in this statement.

God, by definition cannot lie. So when God is said to love and forgive unconditionally, we can have full assurance that it is true.

But the problem lies in the misconception that the interaction between us and God is not automatic just by virtue of this fact that God loves us and forgives us unconditionally. God cannot love us unless we allow Him to love us. Nor can God forgive us unless we ask to be forgiven.

God is a genuine lover, not a spiritual rapist. He will not force himself on us against our will or our ability to accept His love, and He knows us better than we know ourselves therefore he knows precisely what our dispositions are and how much of His love we are truly ready and willing to receive; and whether that love, in whatever measure, will be for our genuine good(to lead us more towards Him) or not.

The same goes for His mercy and forgiveness. He doesn’t force forgiveness onto us, we must ask for it, which requires humility(recognition of our sinfulness before Him). And to even ask requires repentance. Which again presupposes an interaction between God and us.

To me, the path to assurance is the path of forgiveness. When I took the steps to forgive every single person that I held anything against, then I knew that God would do no less. I have no “maybe” in my own perspective about salvation, because there is no way that I can believe that God forgives less than I do.

We can never presume to be forgiven by others, we have to ask for it and thus demonstrate our repentance because such a demonstration is evidence of our humility, that we recognized the fact that we made offense.

The same goes for God. If instead we turn assurance of forgiveness into a presumption of forgiveness, we are giving offense to God. The assurance we ought to have, and can have, is that God is always ready to forgive us based on the fact that He loves us. We should never presume that God forgives us based simply on His love for us, because not only is that a refusal of humility, it is also our refusal to love God in return.

What I am saying is that there is a place for the “bottom lines” of both Pelagius and Augustine in our journeys. Our Church is certainly great enough to encompass the spirit of both perspectives.

Frankly no. Pelagianism is utterly incompatible with Christianity because he taught that we can save ourselves by our good deeds. He denied the justifying and sanctifying grace of the sacraments. It’s not a “perspective”, its heretical.

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks.

Yeah, on tuesday evening we had a video showing of The Bible series, maybe you have seen it? Was very big in the USA I was told. Anyway we saw up to Abraham, and next week its Moses.
After the priest wanted to tell us somethings about what the Jews believed, and he mentioned how we used to speak of “the wrath of God” the whole thought about if things were going well then God was looking on them with favor and If things were going wrong then God was angry at them.

Cool. I like what your priest teaches. Also, the Jews perceived that if they felt guilty, then God had not forgiven them. This is the “torture” referred to in the story of the unforgiving servant.

Ok, I think I get what you say (if not correct me) You don’t now believe you were born in a fallen state, because you take ownership of your own mistakes and consquences?
But you say you are a sinner…

Yes, I sin. If “sinner” means that I am “less” in some way, then that is not the case. I am a sinner because some of my behaviors can be hurtful.
.
I will correct you a little. I don’t see a fallen state, and that is a separate issue of taking ownerhip of my own mistakes and consequences. I don’t see anything “stained” about the human, nothing negative. We are a wonderful creation.

You know, before I came on CAF I never really had made the connection between O.S, Jesus and myself…I knew I as a sinner, but I never saw others as wounded or certain people as more a sinner than myself. I just always believed in Gods love,and prayed I would always be with him no matter what.

We are all sinners. That is a beautiful prayer of commitment.

 

[OneSheep]

It’s no difficulty at all.

The only thing we can be assured of is God’s love. We cannot have assurance that any other person is saved, or condemned, all we can do is pray and hope that our prayers are in accord with God’s will.

If we can have the assurance that someone else is saved if all we know is that God may or may not save them? That may work for you, it does not work for me. That is okay.

There’s a disconnect here in this statement.

God, by definition cannot lie. So when God is said to love and forgive unconditionally, we can have full assurance that it is true.

But the problem lies in the misconception that the interaction between us and God is not automatic just by virtue of this fact that God loves us and forgives us unconditionally. God cannot love us unless we allow Him to love us. Nor can God forgive us unless we ask to be forgiven.

So, are you saying that God loves us on the condition that we allow Him to love us, and that God forgives us on the condition that we ask to be forgiven?

Do you have children? Do you only forgive them if they ask to be forgiven? Do you only love them if they allow such love?

Are you perhaps saying that a person has a choice to reject the love and forgiveness offered, even though such is offered without condition?

We can never presume to be forgiven by others, we have to ask for it and thus demonstrate our repentance because such a demonstration is evidence of our humility, that we recognized the fact that we made offense.

The same goes for God. If instead we turn assurance of forgiveness into a presumption of forgiveness, we are giving offense to God. The assurance we ought to have, and can have, is that God is always ready to forgive us based on the fact that He loves us. We should never presume that God forgives us based simply on His love for us, because not only is that a refusal of humility, it is also our refusal to love God in return.

It was in my catechesis that I learned that God always forgives, always. The God I know in my prayer life forgives unconditionally, and does not take offense, period. You know God differently. That is okay. There is plenty of room in the Church for both of our journeys!

Frankly no. Pelagianism is utterly incompatible with Christianity because he taught that we can save ourselves by our good deeds. He denied the justifying and sanctifying grace of the sacraments. It’s not a “perspective”, its heretical.

I was referring to the “bottom line” aspect of Pelagius, that we are not born with a stain on our souls. If you are referring to the afterlife, our Church does not teach that only people who receive the sacraments go there.

I think that all people at least some time in their life perceive that our souls are “stained” in some way. It is a part of our journey. To me, it is not essential that we remain with such perspective in order to walk with Christ. To you, perhaps, it is essential. That is okay too.

 

[OneSheep]

We must remember one very important occurrence.

Jesus loved, and forgave, the crowd at the foot of the cross. The crowd was not there, milling about, reaching up to Jesus asking for love and forgiveness, but He forgave them anyway.

 

[Amandil]

If we can have the assurance that someone else is saved if all we know is that God may or may not save them? That may work for you, it does not work for me. That is okay.

I never said that it was “assurance”, I said that it was a hope.

And religious truth in regards to what the Church teaches isn’t dependent upon what “works” or “doesn’t work” for you. It’s not based upon what’s practical, its based upon divine revelation.

Neither is the truth subjective. So, no, it’s not “ok”.

God set up a determinate system by which we enter into the His covenant.

So, are you saying that God loves us on the condition that we allow Him to love us, and that God forgives us on the condition that we ask to be forgiven?

Yes. That’s called free will.

Do you have children? Do you only forgive them if they ask to be forgiven? Do you only love them if they allow such love?

1)(Sigh)…What do you think sin is? What does it mean to sin? Do you think that its just the breaking of some arbitrary rule? Or something more?

Answer that first and then I’ll make my second point.

Are you perhaps saying that a person has a choice to reject the love and forgiveness offered, even though such is offered without condition?

If someone gives you a gift, a birthday gift for example, and you refuse to take it, to open it, but instead just leave it on the table utterly indifferent to it; the gift was in fact offered, but the fact remains that you did not receive it.

And I guarantee that the person who gave you the gift without condition and who saw how you treated it was offended.

It was in my catechesis that I learned that God always forgives, always. The God I know in my prayer life forgives unconditionally, and does not take offense, period.

He doesn’t take offense, not in the way you or I might. But that still doesn’t make your point.

And you are at the point of seeming to argue for universal salvation. I hope that’s not true.

I was referring to the “bottom line” aspect of Pelagius, that we are not born with a stain on our souls.

For correction, we are born with a stain on our souls, that stain is called original sin(CCC402-406)

Pelagianism was expressly condemned by the Council of Carthage in 418 and the summations were ratified at the Council of Orange in 529.

If you deny the fact of original sin, you deny what Adam did in the Fall. And if you deny what Adam did in the Fall, you deny the protoevangelium pronounced by God after the Fall(that He will send a Savior).

Thus by denying Original Sin you deny what Jesus Christ became man to do, to save us from sin.

There are real consequences to adopting such beliefs, One Sheep. That’s why it is necessary to trusts the Church’s judgment on these matters an not rely simply on your own subjective opinion.

If you are referring to the afterlife, our Church does not teach that only people who receive the sacraments go there.

Everyone goes to the “afterlife”, that’s not the issue. The issue is what part of the afterlife they go to, eternal beatitude in heaven with God, or eternal deprivation from God in hell.

I think that all people at least some time in their life perceive that our souls are “stained” in some way. It is a part of our journey. To me, it is not essential that we remain with such perspective in order to walk with Christ. To you, perhaps, it is essential. That is okay too.

Where do you get this stuff from?

 

[Amandil]

We must remember one very important occurrence.

Jesus loved, and forgave, the crowd at the foot of the cross. The crowd was not there, milling about, reaching up to Jesus asking for love and forgiveness, but He forgave them anyway.

That’s not a guarantee that they received forgiveness. Again, this goes back to the fact that you must consciously receive the gift offered.

Forgiveness is not a passive act.