Augustinism and Pelagianism

[simpleas]

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.

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.

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.

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 think God loves us even if we push him away, if God is Love he would always love us even if we tried to reject him. Forgiveness I think can be tricky, God seems always full of forgiveness and forgives…we might not always ask for it, and even if we do, sometimes we don’t feel forgiven…

 

[Amandil]

I think God loves us even if we push him away, if God is Love he would always love us even if we tried to reject him.

You don’t seem to understand. The failure of God’s ability to love when we refuse to accept it is not a failure on God’s part but ours.

IOW, God doesn’t stop loving us, but He permits His love to be thwarted by us because of how He created us with free will. To not permit this thwarting but rather to pour out His love without regard to our wills and personal disposition would be akin to spiritual rape; it would be God forcing His immense presence onto our Being.

He refuses to do such a thing. He will wait for us to come to Him, because God is a perfect gentlemen and He has all the time in the universe.

Forgiveness I think can be tricky, God seems always full of forgiveness and forgives…we might not always ask for it, and even if we do, sometimes we don’t feel forgiven…

I don’t think its tricky at all. God’s forgiveness doesn’t depend on our subjective feelings of being forgiven. If we go to the sacrament of confession, confess our sins, receive absolution, and then do the prescribed penance, we are in fact objectively forgiven.

Any subjective feelings of doubt that we may not be forgiven, provided that we have given a valid confession, are not of God, but rather come from our own self-doubts.

 

[OneSheep]

.
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”.

So, to you, what the Church teaches falls into a specific set of verbage that is lined out in the CCC and is interpreted in exactly the way that you have been taught that they are interpreted. Is the God we know through following Jesus and forgiving all people, including ourselves, the God we know through relationship, a “divine revelation”?

I like this quote:

“A Christian,” said Pope Francis, “must proclaim Jesus Christ in such a way that He be accepted: received, not refused – and Paul knows that he has to sow the Gospel message. He knows that the proclamation of Jesus Christ is not easy, but that it does not depend on him. He must do everything possible, but the proclamation of Jesus Christ, the proclamation of the truth, depends on the Holy Spirit. Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it].

Text from page en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/08/pope_francis_at_wednesday_mass:_build_bridges,_not_walls/en1-690203
of the Vatican Radio website

So, the question is, what is truth and what is not? We hear a lot of words, and we make sense of them in accordance with our own experiences. At this time in my journey, the assertion that God only loves and forgives those who “invite it” does not make sense, because I love others whether they invite it or not. This was not always the case in my journey. Do you see where I am coming from?

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

And this determinate system limits God to a certain set of parameters? It is okay to think that too, but I prefer “With God, all things are possible.” To me, that is a loving possible, a merciful possible.

I am not arguing that you are wrong about anything. You make solid points and your position is perfectly acceptable to me, so please do not think I am trying to negate your stance. I am only exposing you (and the occasional reader) to a different way of looking at things.

My quote:

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?

Your answer:

Yes. That’s called free will.

Yes, the “free will” part is the part about our choosing to allow and ask. However, it seems to me that if we are saying that God only loves and forgives under these conditions,then we are talking about a conditionally loving God, thus the negation of the use “unconditional”.

My quote:

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?

Your answer:

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.

I don’t see the connection between your answers and my questions here. I asked questions about being a parent, and I still am interested in your answers. But I will answer your questions anyway. Rules are never arbitrary. Sin is a hurtful act against someone, it is an act contrary to our God-given conscience, which is itself formed by the Church and experience.

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.

Exactly. I have the same viewpoint here. This statement allows for an unconditionally loving and forgiving God, which is God as I know Him.

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

I look at it this way: Our loving Father had in front of Him a choice. In His omniscience, He knew quite well that when He would create humanity, man would sin, he would rape, he would cause the holocaust, he would starve people, he would do many very evil things. Despite this, he looked upon what He would create with love, and knew that His Word would transform them over time. He chose to create. Does God get offended over and over again even though He chose as He did, when He knew all that was coming?

It depends on how we see God.

 

[OneSheep]

This is a continuation of my last post, a response to Amandil.

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

A priest once told us that he thought very, very few people ever choose hell, and if they do so they do it “screaming and kicking” against God’s love the whole way. I agree with him. Is this characterization of God’s love a little too aggressive for you? That’s okay too.

I think that when people choose hell, they do so from a position of blindness and ignorance, and I cannot think of a counterexample. Can you?

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.

Augustine also said, “through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good.” So, if a “stain” exists, it is good. Perhaps we could investigate by presenting what a “stain” is, or maybe that is too much at this time.

Remember, I am not saying that Pelagius was “right” about everything, nor am I suggesting that his works should not have been condemned. I think it was a very understandable act to condemn his works at the time. However, there are aspects of Pelagianism that reflect some of our modern views of spirituality and actually Manichaeism also has some aspects worth looking at in terms of spiritual journey. I am not talking specifically about doctrinal changes, I am talking about the seeing the real aspects of people’s journeys, and both dualism and seeing a soul without stain are real perspectives on people’s journeys, both based on people’s prayer lives.

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.

These do not necessarily follow. A person can disbelieve “original sin” (as defined as some type of negativity about being human) and still believe in Our Savior. My faith does not depend on the assertion of the “fall”. To me, Jesus saves us from enslavement to our nature, our good nature.

 

[OneSheep]

I ran across this in the CCC, and as usual there are some things that I think are subject to some further clarification:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

So far so good.

Where does evil come from? “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution”, said St. Augustine,257 and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For “the mystery of lawlessness” is clarified only in the light of the “mystery of our religion”.258 The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace. 259 We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.260

This does not follow. Augustine tried very hard to figure out were evil comes from, and he said some things that were amazing in that respect. However, he gave up on some issues. It is true that we can give up on understanding things and focus on Christ’s salvation, but that does not mean that we must give up. (I know, it doesn’t say that, but there is an implication…)

There is no doubt on my part that we should all focus on Christs salvation. However, that does not mean we “must” give up on discerning why people do hurtful deeds. Such understanding is very important. Indeed, I would clarify “fixing our faith on him” by saying that Jesus calls us to forgive, and that understanding why people do hurtful things is a big part of mature forgiveness.

We know a lot more today than what people did 1700 years ago as far as why people do what they do. Revelation happens.

 

[simpleas]

You don’t seem to understand. The failure of God’s ability to love when we refuse to accept it is not a failure on God’s part but ours.

IOW, God doesn’t stop loving us, but He permits His love to be thwarted by us because of how He created us with free will. To not permit this thwarting but rather to pour out His love without regard to our wills and personal disposition would be akin to spiritual rape; it would be God forcing His immense presence onto our Being.

He refuses to do such a thing. He will wait for us to come to Him, because God is a perfect gentlemen and He has all the time in the universe.

I don’t think its tricky at all. God’s forgiveness doesn’t depend on our subjective feelings of being forgiven. If we go to the sacrament of confession, confess our sins, receive absolution, and then do the prescribed penance, we are in fact objectively forgiven.

Any subjective feelings of doubt that we may not be forgiven, provided that we have given a valid confession, are not of God, but rather come from our own self-doubts.

You said : God cannot love us unless we allow Him to love us Maybe I miss understood what you meant, because I agree like you said God doesn’t stop loving us
So God does love us even when we push him away, like the father in the prodigal son story, the father still loves his son even when the son had gone off and forgotten his father for a time.

For confession, just because a priest tells us our sins are forgiven, if we haven’t had a personal experience of God, how can we feel or know we are forgiven, We place our trust and faith in another person, but we have to seek God for our own so we know we are forgiven.

 

[grannymh]

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.

May I respectfully ask –
Where did you find the factual information that all individuals at the foot of the cross aka crowd were not reaching up to Jesus asking for forgiveness?

 

[grannymh]

.

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.

I realize that individuals have to deal with themselves; however, generally, where “is the room in Scripture to doubt God’s love for us?” Obviously, all of us, on our own, can doubt God’s love, but we are not Scripture. Therefore, I am looking for the “room in Scripture” itself. Thank you.

When reading the Old Testament, we have to be careful about the anthropomorphic writing.

 

[Richca]

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!

Hi simpleas,
The Church’s doctrine on original sin comes from Holy Scripture, especially St Paul, and Tradition. St Augustine, a great thinker, just happens to be the church father who elucidated the teaching of St Paul more than any other church father. The Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit sees in St Augustine’s doctrine on original sin, at least in its essentials, as being in accord with the teaching of St Paul and other parts of Holy Scripture and tradition.

Can you point to the text or texts where Augustine says that sexual desire is equated with sin?

Fundamentally, pelagianism is the view that we do not need God’s grace to be saved or to perform works conducive to eternal life. As another poster remarked, this view was condemned by the Church at the Council of Orange and others and is against many texts of scripture. We cannot have even a good thought meritorious of eternal life without God’s gratutious grace. The life of grace or sanctifying grace is above our nature, it is supernatural. This is why we need God’s help and grace to perform any works that can lead us to eternal life.

 

[simpleas]

This is a continuation of my last post, a response to Amandil.

A priest once told us that he thought very, very few people ever choose hell, and if they do so they do it “screaming and kicking” against God’s love the whole way. I agree with him. Is this characterization of God’s love a little too aggressive for you? That’s okay too.

I think that when people choose hell, they do so from a position of blindness and ignorance, and I cannot think of a counterexample. Can you?

Augustine also said, “through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good.” So, if a “stain” exists, it is good. Perhaps we could investigate by presenting what a “stain” is, or maybe that is too much at this time.

Remember, I am not saying that Pelagius was “right” about everything, nor am I suggesting that his works should not have been condemned. I think it was a very understandable act to condemn his works at the time. However, there are aspects of Pelagianism that reflect some of our modern views of spirituality and actually Manichaeism also has some aspects worth looking at in terms of spiritual journey. I am not talking specifically about doctrinal changes, I am talking about the seeing the real aspects of people’s journeys, and both dualism and seeing a soul without stain are real perspectives on people’s journeys, both based on people’s prayer lives.

These do not necessarily follow. A person can disbelieve “original sin” (as defined as some type of negativity about being human) and still believe in Our Savior. My faith does not depend on the assertion of the “fall”. To me, Jesus saves us from enslavement to our nature, our good nature.

This is what I’m figuring out for myself at the moment. Can a Catholic not accept O.S as in the human nature is wounded, but still believe Jesus is our saviour. I know you say Jesus saves us from enslavement to our nature, but what about our soul?
On the pro-life march yesterday, the rosary was being said and the St Michael’s prayer (which I haven’t heard for ages) was included. Hearing “save us from the fires of hell” reminded me of what we are taught, and thinking of burning in hell for eternity is a scary thought, but sounds ancient too.

 

[simpleas]

Hi simpleas,
The Church’s doctrine on original sin comes from Holy Scripture, especially St Paul, and Tradition. St Augustine, a great thinker, just happens to be the church father who elucidated the teaching of St Paul more than any other church father. The Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit sees in St Augustine’s doctrine on original sin, at least in its essentials, as being in accord with the teaching of St Paul and other parts of Holy Scripture and tradition.

Can you point to the text or texts where Augustine says that sexual desire is equated with sin?

Fundamentally, pelagianism is the view that we do not need God’s grace to be saved or to perform works conducive to eternal life. As another poster remarked, this view was condemned by the Church at the Council of Orange and others and is against many texts of scripture. We cannot have even a good thought meritorious of eternal life without God’s gratutious grace. The life of grace or sanctifying grace is above our nature, it is supernatural. This is why we need God’s help and grace to perform any works that can lead us to eternal life.

Thanks.
Post No.7 describes Augustines way of thinking. The book I linked on post 2 notes that Augustine said that Adam didn’t have the grace to do good, thats why I’ve started to think that man was always going to fall. And so could have been very much like us in nature before sin, because he had freewill to choose good or bad, just like us.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks.
Post No.7 describes Augustines way of thinking. The book I linked on post 2 notes that Augustine said that Adam didn’t have the grace to do good, thats why I’ve started to think that man was always going to fall. And so could have been very much like us in nature before sin, because he had freewill to choose good or bad, just like us.

Please note that not every paragraph that St. Augustine wrote has been automatically turned into a Catholic Doctrine. That is why it is so important to start first with Catholic doctrines. When using the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, check the footnotes for references to St. Augustine. In addition, the Catechism lists St. Augustine’s contributions starting on page 742 in the Index of Citations. Instructions for using the Index of Citations is on page 689.

A good description of Adam can be found in CCC, 1730. St. Irenaeus is listed in the footnotes.

 

[grannymh]

simpleas:
Can a Catholic not accept O.S as in the human nature is wounded, but still believe Jesus is our saviour.

In other words, what is that person really saying about the Original Sin as taught by the Catholic Church?

 

[Richca]

Thanks.
Post No.7 describes Augustines way of thinking. The book I linked on post 2 notes that Augustine said that Adam didn’t have the grace to do good, thats why I’ve started to think that man was always going to fall. And so could have been very much like us in nature before sin, because he had freewill to choose good or bad, just like us.

Augustine never said that Adam didn’t have the grace to do good before his fall. On the contrary, Augustine says that Adam and Eve were created in original holiness and justice which includes sanctifying grace. It would not be right to think of God creating the first man and woman otherwise. Adam did possess the grace to remain in good and original holiness but he chose otherwise through the exercise of his free will. Indeed, before his fall, it was easier for Adam to remain in good than for us because of the gifts of grace that God bestowed on Adam and Eve such as their control over our now rebellious flesh and lower appetites. Before his fall, Adam had complete control over the lower appetites of the body which is probably why his disobedience to God’s command was more egregious.

 

[Amandil]

So, to you, what the Church teaches falls into a specific set of verbage that is lined out in the CCC and is interpreted in exactly the way that you have been taught that they are interpreted.

Given that you know absolutely zero about me, such statements as these are predictable, as well as ridiculous and prejudicial. Way to display your “tolerance”.

Is the God we know through following Jesus and forgiving all people, including ourselves, the God we know through relationship, a “divine revelation”?

“Divine revelation” was given through the Church, through the New Covenant.

This is a rather absurd statement and obvious proof of your subjectivism(accusing their opponents of absolutism is always the tact of subjectivists.

You cannot “know” what God is or “who” God is without the Church which proclaims Him.

I like this quote:

I teach the truth as Christ did. And as Paul and the Apostles did. Because the truth doesn’t belong to me. It is not “my” truth, it is Christ’s truth.

Christ didn’t water down the truth, as you are most certainly doing, in order to make His truth more agreeable.

He told people the truth, as it really is, and they then had to choose to repent and believe, or reject Him.

So, the question is, what is truth and what is not? We hear a lot of words, and we make sense of them in accordance with our own experiences.

Again, this is absurd. You don’t “make sense” of the truth. You conform your mind to it.

At this time in my journey, the assertion that God only loves and forgives those who “invite it” does not make sense, because I love others whether they invite it or not. This was not always the case in my journey. Do you see where I am coming from?

I understand perfectly. But you apparently refuse to understand me(which just proves my point).

I never said “God only loves those who ‘invite’ it.”

I said that God’s love is limited by our response to His love.

Huge difference.

And this determinate system limits God to a certain set of parameters? It is okay to think that too, but I prefer “With God, all things are possible.” To me, that is a loving possible, a merciful possible.

Again, you’re putting words in my mouth.

I never said that “this system limits God to certain parameters.” God limits US to these parameters.

I am not arguing that you are wrong about anything. You make solid points and your position is perfectly acceptable to me, so please do not think I am trying to negate your stance. I am only exposing you (and the occasional reader) to a different way of looking at things.

Yes, those words above have nothing to do with you trying to “argue” that I’m wrong.

Yes, the “free will” part is the part about our choosing to allow and ask. However, it seems to me that if we are saying that God only loves and forgives under these conditions,then we are talking about a conditionally loving God, thus the negation of the use “unconditional”.

Absurd. You’re conflating two separate things: the Redemption and Salvation.

The Redemption is unconditional(i.e. is available to all).

Salvation is absolutely conditional(i.e. depends utterly on our free-will decision to accept the Redemption).

Its a mistake often made by protestants.

Exactly. I have the same viewpoint here. This statement allows for an unconditionally loving and forgiving God, which is God as I know Him.

Yes, I know it does. Thus the problem, again, isn’t with me, but with your misunderstanding due to your conflation of two separate things.

I look at it this way: Does God get offended over and over again even though He chose as He did, when He knew all that was coming?

God doesn’t exist in time. So no, He doesn’t get offended “over and over” in the way we do.

But I guarantee you that He practices what He preaches: He hates the sin, and loves the sinner. “Hate” necessarily implies offense.

“Hate” and “love” are not necessarily opposite things. You can in fact hate and love the same person at the exact same time.

Therefore the exact opposite of “hate” is not “love”(and vice-versa). The exact opposite of love is not hate, its indifference; which is also the exact opposite of hate as well.

Its impossible to love someone and be indifferent towards that same person at the same time. Just as its impossible to hate someone and be indifferent towards that same person at the same time.

You’re actually saying that God loves us at the same time that He is indifferent towards our sinfulness. This is simply impossible. It’s not true love, its blind love.

It depends on how we see God.

Precisely. I see God as taught by the Church, therefore I see God truthfully.

 

[fhansen]

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!

I skipped this thread at first so my apologies if I’m repeating anything but Aquinas believed that OS was transmitted by propagation while rejecting the notion that it had anything to do with fallen man’s inordinate attitude towards sex.

 

[grannymh]

I never said “God only loves those who ‘invite’ it.”

**I said that God’s love is limited by our response to His love. **

After reading your excellent post, I really feel bad that I need to pick out one sentence which I need to address.

An infinite God loves us infinitely. We are only a human creature and do not have the power to limit our Creator’s love. What I see happening on other threads is that some, not all, Catholics have lost the basics of the State of Sanctifying Grace and the State of Mortal Sin.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898 and Mortal Sin, page 889

 

[simpleas]

Please note that not every paragraph that St. Augustine wrote has been automatically turned into a Catholic Doctrine. That is why it is so important to start first with Catholic doctrines. When using the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, check the footnotes for references to St. Augustine. In addition, the Catechism lists St. Augustine’s contributions starting on page 742 in the Index of Citations. Instructions for using the Index of Citations is on page 689.

A good description of Adam can be found in CCC, 1730. St. Irenaeus is listed in the footnotes.

Thanks, yes I do now know that not every word St Augustine wrote is taught, I’m refering to his way of thinking that inspired the church fathers to listen to him regarding O.S.

I’m sorry Grannymh, I can’t find St. Augustine’s contributions starting on page 742 in the Index of Citations. Instructions for using the Index of Citations is on page 689. on the online copy, I don’t have a paperback.

 

[simpleas]

Augustine never said that Adam didn’t have the grace to do good before his fall. On the contrary, Augustine says that Adam and Eve were created in original holiness and justice which includes sanctifying grace. It would not be right to think of God creating the first man and woman otherwise. Adam did possess the grace to remain in good and original holiness but he chose otherwise through the exercise of his free will. Indeed, before his fall, it was easier for Adam to remain in good than for us because of the gifts of grace that God bestowed on Adam and Eve such as their control over our now rebellious flesh and lower appetites. Before his fall, Adam had complete control over the lower appetites of the body which is probably why his disobedience to God’s command was more egregious.

The book I was reading says that he did, as his arguement for O.S. The book maybe misleading…
Adam had complete control over his appetites, ok, but he falls…so how could he have complete control?
Adam possessed grace, so he could remain in good or using his freewill he could choose bad. Same as us, so how was Adam any different to us?

 

[grannymh]

Thanks, yes I do now know that not every word St Augustine wrote is taught, I’m refering to his way of thinking that inspired the church fathers to listen to him regarding O.S.

I’m sorry Grannymh, I can’t find St. Augustine’s contributions starting on page 742 in the Index of Citations. Instructions for using the Index of Citations is on page 689. on the online copy, I don’t have a paperback.

Someone found a link to the Index of Citations only I do not have it …
I also could not find my usual link to the Glossary.
Not all the writings of the Church Fathers have been turned into Catholic doctrines.

This is not one of my better days.