Augustinism and Pelagianism

[grannymh]

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?

I have control of my car. Therefore, I can stay at the speed limit or I can go through a red light at 80 miles per hour. The car does not control me. The same with Adam. He has control over the “control.” Therefore, he can do whatever he chooses.

Adam is different from us because in Adam was all humankind “as one body of one man.” (CCC, 404)

 

[simpleas]

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.

I don’t think Aquinas has been mentioned, I came across this link :

Church reaction[edit]

Opposition to Augustine’s ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to Pelagianism, arose rapidly.[45] After a long and bitter struggle the general principles of Augustine’s teaching were confirmed within Western Christianity by many councils, especially the Second Council of Orange in 529.[2] However, while the Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely[46] and, while Augustine’s authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian.[47] Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence[48] in the psychological sense, but this identification was challenged by the 11th-century Saint Anselm of Canterbury, who defined original sin as “privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess”, thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others, but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, chief of whom was Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence

Also this :

Augustine used Ciceronian Stoic concept of passions, to interpret St. Paul’s doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, also sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequence of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the resurrection of the dead.[31][32]

Seems everybody use’s someone elses knowledge to enhance their own, make it their own. What the early church fathers believed was altered alittle at a time, this we call revelation, isn’t it. I thought revelation was complete in Christ, but it seems something is reveal through the years even if its a tiny amount. So revelation could still be unfolding. Aren’t professional people still interpreting the scriptures even today?

 

[simpleas]

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.

No worries, I thought I wasn’t looking in the right place.

 

[TRH1292]

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.

Um. No there is not. Pelagianism is one of the most serious heresies the Church ever faced.

 

[simpleas]

I have control of my car. Therefore, I can stay at the speed limit or I can go through a red light at 80 miles per hour. The car does not control me. The same with Adam. He has control over the “control.” Therefore, he can do whatever he chooses.

Adam is different from us because in Adam was all humankind “as one body of one man.” (CCC, 404)

So Adam was superhuman in a way. He had control of the control as you say, and lost this ability when he went against Gods command. Falling into a state of less control over his needs. We inhert his fallen nature. I was thinking our first parents were just as human as us, so what we need would be the same as their need. (God, pro-creation, love etc)

If our souls are united to our bodies, aren’t our souls individually made from God, our bodies come from Adam, but we still inhert his fallen nature. Adam doesn’t create our soul, so how does it become stained?

Grannymh, I think I can hear your screams from across the pond…

 

[fhansen]

I don’t think Aquinas has been mentioned, I came across this link :

Church reaction[edit]

Opposition to Augustine’s ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to Pelagianism, arose rapidly.[45] After a long and bitter struggle the general principles of Augustine’s teaching were confirmed within Western Christianity by many councils, especially the Second Council of Orange in 529.[2] However, while the Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely[46] and, while Augustine’s authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian.[47] Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence[48] in the psychological sense, but this identification was challenged by the 11th-century Saint Anselm of Canterbury, who defined original sin as “privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess”, thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others, but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, chief of whom was Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence

Also this :

Augustine used Ciceronian Stoic concept of passions, to interpret St. Paul’s doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, also sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequence of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the resurrection of the dead.[31][32]

Seems everybody use’s someone elses knowledge to enhance their own, make it their own. What the early church fathers believed was altered alittle at a time, this we call revelation, isn’t it. I thought revelation was complete in Christ, but it seems something is reveal through the years even if its a tiny amount. So revelation could still be unfolding. Aren’t professional people still interpreting the scriptures even today?

Public revelation was given once for all via the advent of Jesus Christ; no more is necessary. However, the understanding of the revelation, of that light given to the world, is unending-as the Church grows in the knowledge of God-and in the holiness it brings with it-we gain understanding of what the message is all about IMO. The light becomes brighter to us, bringing more and more clarity.

 

[OneSheep]

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?

Yes, you may respectfully ask. It is an assumption based on several items.

1. The Gospel does not mention that the crowd had changed their minds.
2. Jesus said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do”. If the crowd was raising their arms for forgiveness, then it does not make sense that Jesus would refer to such repentance itself as something to forgive. A repentant enemy is not an enemy.
3. The act of forgiving follows the Spirit of His teachings. “Loving our enemies”, “praying for those who persecute us”, to me, go with His forgiveness of the unrepentant from the cross.

As it stands though, it is still an assumption. I am sure that your own assumptions are also understandable. Jesus wants us to repent from sin.

 

[Amandil]

grannymh:
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.

We do because He permits it. If He “loved us infinitely” before we were prepared by grace to receive it would, again, be comparable to spiritual rape. It would completely and utterly override our wills and violate our freedom to choose Him. Therefore our love for Him would not be “free” but coerced.

This effect of God limiting Himself presupposes God’s power and therefore is not an argument against it. Only because God is all-loving & all-powerful can He limit it so as to mot offend our free-will.

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

Because they’ve lost any sense of the Church and the Covenant. They think that God is utterly subjective(in them) as some sort of “conciousness” instead of the real God of the Universe, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There’s no discernment between what’s true or false.

It’s bordering on self-worship.

 

[grannymh]

So Adam was superhuman in a way. He had control of the control as you say, and lost this ability when he went against Gods command. Falling into a state of less control over his needs. We inhert his fallen nature. I was thinking our first parents were just as human as us, so what we need would be the same as their need. (God, pro-creation, love etc)

If our souls are united to our bodies, aren’t our souls individually made from God, our bodies come from Adam, but we still inhert his fallen nature. Adam doesn’t create our soul, so how does it become stained?

Grannymh, I think I can hear your screams from across the pond…

It is a matter of church-speak. Start with CCC, 364, “the human body is animated by a spiritual soul”. CCC, 365 repeats this in more difficult language – at least it was to me at the beginning. Back then, I had a “dualism” concept of soul and body. A CAF poster nailed me for that. Praise God!

CCC, 366, says what you were saying about God creating the soul. These three paragraphs explain our own human nature and they explain Adam’s human nature. Just as our body (matter at conception) needs God’s direct action of
creating a soul for us, so also did Adam’s body (matter) need God’s action of creating an individual soul. (Genesis 1:27) Adam and ourselves are similar in our human nature with the exception that in Adam was all humankind “as one body in one man.” (CCC, 404)

CCC, 363 says “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man. That refers back to the idea that in our own nature, there is an unique unification of both the spiritual and material worlds. This is not two natures, soul united to the body, but rather we have one single nature formed by the unification.

While we think of Adam being superhuman, both Adam and ourselves have the same need to seek union with our Creator. (CCC, 1730)

My suggestion is to take time to really wrap your brain around human nature. I know I needed time. Then, we can deal with our soul being stained. As a child, I could not imagine a stained soul and I still can’t imagine it even though it is an acceptable description. I personally prefer that we contracted the state of original sin. Makes me feel grown up. (CCC, 404-405)

 

[grannymh]

Yes, you may respectfully ask. It is an assumption based on several items.

1. The Gospel does not mention that the crowd had changed their minds.
2. Jesus said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do”. If the crowd was raising their arms for forgiveness, then it does not make sense that Jesus would refer to such repentance itself as something to forgive. A repentant enemy is not an enemy.
3. The act of forgiving follows the Spirit of His teachings. “Loving our enemies”, “praying for those who persecute us”, to me, go with His forgiveness of the unrepentant from the cross.

As it stands though, it is still an assumption. I am sure that your own assumptions are also understandable. Jesus wants us to repent from sin.

My assumptions find validity in Catholic teachings.

 

[Amandil]

Yes, you may respectfully ask. It is an assumption based on several items.

1. The Gospel does not mention that the crowd had changed their minds.

Which is the fallacy of arguing from silence. The absence of evidence is not the existence of evidence.

1. Jesus said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do”. If the crowd was raising their arms for forgiveness, then it does not make sense that Jesus would refer to such repentance itself as something to forgive. A repentant enemy is not an enemy.

Begs the question. You’re presupposing a logical fallacy as your first premise.

What IS recorded is that those who were at the cross continued to insult and revile Him while*He was on the cross. Even those crucified with Him reviled Him.

There’s no reason to believe other than the fact that neither the Romans, nor Jewish authorities, nor the crowd who with the Jewish authorities called for His crucifixion, thought of Him as anything else than a pretender to the throne or a blaspheemer.

1. The act of forgiving follows the Spirit of His teachings. “Loving our enemies”, “praying for those who persecute us”, to me, go with His forgiveness of the unrepentant from the cross.

The act of asking for or accepting that forgiveness is a whole other matter entirely.

As it stands though, it is still an assumption. I am sure that your own assumptions are also understandable. Jesus wants us to repent from sin.

But if someone deceives themselves and refuses to see sin as sin, and refuses to repent therefore, are they still saved if forgiveness is"unconditional"(I.e. automatic)?

 

[grannymh]

If He “loved us infinitely” before we were prepared by grace to receive it would, again, be comparable to spiritual rape. It would completely and utterly override our wills and violate our freedom to choose Him. Therefore our love for Him would not be “free” but coerced.

May I gently ask how I can consider God’s action in CCC, 366 as comparable to spiritual rape?

What would be my evidence for this comparison? And how should I view my freedom of will if it can be overridden? That sounds a tad like the principle of non-contradiction as long as we are in the Philosophy Forum.

I am also interested in knowing how I should treat an all-powerful transcendent, supernatural Pure Spirit when that Being is in His choice of limiting Himself? When God limits Himself to someone else, should I consider hiding in case the “sky starts falling down”?

Thank you for your consideration of my need to know …

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Amandil]

It is a matter of church-speak. Start with CCC, 364, “the human body is animated by a spiritual soul”. CCC, 365 repeats this in more difficult language – at least it was to me at the beginning. Back then, I had a “dualism” concept of soul and body. A CAF poster nailed me for that. Praise God!

CCC, 366, says what you were saying about God creating the soul. These three paragraphs explain our own human nature and they explain Adam’s human nature. Just as our body (matter at conception) needs God’s direct action of
creating a soul for us, so also did Adam’s body (matter) need God’s action of creating an individual soul. (Genesis 1:27) Adam and ourselves are similar in our human nature with the exception that in Adam was all humankind “as one body in one man.” (CCC, 404)

CCC, 363 says “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man. That refers back to the idea that in our own nature, there is an unique unification of both the spiritual and material worlds. This is not two natures, soul united to the body, but rather we have one single nature formed by the unification.

While we think of Adam being superhuman, both Adam and ourselves have the same need to seek union with our Creator. (CCC, 1730)

My suggestion is to take time to really wrap your brain around human nature. I know I needed time. Then, we can deal with our soul being stained. As a child, I could not imagine a stained soul and I still can’t imagine it even though it is an acceptable description. I personally prefer that we contracted the state of original sin. Makes me feel grown up. (CCC, 404-405)

Adam was not “superhuman”, he was perfectly human. He was created in a state of original justice where his passions were dominated by his intellect and will.

 

[Amandil]

May I gently ask how I can consider God’s action in CCC, 366 as comparable to spiritual rape?

The conjugal act by a married couple properly ordered presupposes the creation of new life by God.

Its not the same. The conjugal act is a willed participation in God’s will.

What would be my evidence for this comparison? And how should I view my freedom of will if it can be overridden? That sounds a tad like the principle of non-contradiction as long as we are in the Philosophy Forum.

Not at all. The law of non-contradiction by definition is senseless(I.e. Jesus walking through a wall and at the same time not walking through that same wall).

Its an “apparent” contradiction, a paradox, not necessarily an actual one.

God wouldn’t override our will because our free will is also part of His will; its how He created us.

It is necessary, in fact essential, to our essence or substance (philosophically speaking) of our nature. And God radically respects this nature to such an extraordinary degree that He limits Himself in order not to offend our nature.

He gives us every proof, reason, and all the help that we are willing to receive in order to compel us to choose Him at the same time trying to prepare us through divine providence to discern Him and thus receive His grace.

IOW, He does everything short of getting on His knees and begging all of us to repent and accept salvation. But we still have to accept it.

I am also interested in knowing how I should treat an all-powerful transcendent, supernatural Pure Spirit when that Being is in His choice of limiting Himself? When God limits Himself to someone else, should I consider hiding in case the “sky starts falling down”?

Not at all. I would be more worried if God was actually limited by something outside of Himself. That would mean that He’s not God.

God limiting Himself is not the same as God being limited by something outside of Himself.

Thank you for your consideration of my need to know …

Its not a problem at all.

If you’d like there are other books which further elaborate on this complicated issue of God’s grace and free-will.

St. Augustine’s “On Grace and Free-will” is indispensable. Peter Kreeft’s “Handbook” is a good primer but He also has another work called “The God Who Loves You” where he covers this apparent dichotomy a little more deeply.

 

[simpleas]

It is a matter of church-speak. Start with CCC, 364, “the human body is animated by a spiritual soul”. CCC, 365 repeats this in more difficult language – at least it was to me at the beginning. Back then, I had a “dualism” concept of soul and body. A CAF poster nailed me for that. Praise God!

CCC, 366, says what you were saying about God creating the soul. These three paragraphs explain our own human nature and they explain Adam’s human nature. Just as our body (matter at conception) needs God’s direct action of
creating a soul for us, so also did Adam’s body (matter) need God’s action of creating an individual soul. (Genesis 1:27) Adam and ourselves are similar in our human nature with the exception that in Adam was all humankind “as one body in one man.” (CCC, 404)

CCC, 363 says “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man. That refers back to the idea that in our own nature, there is an unique unification of both the spiritual and material worlds. This is not two natures, soul united to the body, but rather we have one single nature formed by the unification.

While we think of Adam being superhuman, both Adam and ourselves have the same need to seek union with our Creator. (CCC, 1730)

My suggestion is to take time to really wrap your brain around human nature. I know I needed time. Then, we can deal with our soul being stained. As a child, I could not imagine a stained soul and I still can’t imagine it even though it is an acceptable description. I personally prefer that we contracted the state of original sin. Makes me feel grown up. (CCC, 404-405)

Will take me a while to wrap my head around this…

The soul and the body are united to make us a human being. Like the CCC says our parents don’t give us a soul, but they make us by matter. God gives us a soul at conception.
So the soul and body are separate to begin with, until conception happens and then God immediately gives the body a soul.
Adam first made by God, then he receives a soul to make him a human being. We decend from Adam who gives us a body, but not a soul, only God gives us a soul. We still somehow are born with O.S even though we don’t get our soul from Adam.

The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man But not one body and soul of one man.

 

[simpleas]

Public revelation was given once for all via the advent of Jesus Christ; no more is necessary. However, the understanding of the revelation, of that light given to the world, is unending-as the Church grows in the knowledge of God-and in the holiness it brings with it-we gain understanding of what the message is all about IMO. The light becomes brighter to us, bringing more and more clarity.

Yes this is what I think that the church is still growing in knowledge of God, its doesn’t know ALL as its still unfolding.

 

[grannymh]

The conjugal act by a married couple properly ordered presupposes the creation of new life by God.

Its not the same. The conjugal act is a willed participation in God’s will.

Not at all. The law of non-contradiction by definition is senseless(I.e. Jesus walking through a wall and at the same time not walking through that same wall).

Its an “apparent” contradiction, a paradox, not necessarily an actual one.

God wouldn’t override our will because our free will is also part of His will; its how He created us.

It is necessary, in fact essential, to our essence or substance (philosophically speaking) of our nature. And God radically respects this nature to such an extraordinary degree that He limits Himself in order not to offend our nature.

He gives us every proof, reason, and all the help that we are willing to receive in order to compel us to choose Him at the same time trying to prepare us through divine providence to discern Him and thus receive His grace.

IOW, He does everything short of getting on His knees and begging all of us to repent and accept salvation. But we still have to accept it.

Not at all. I would be more worried if God was actually limited by something outside of Himself. That would mean that He’s not God.

God limiting Himself is not the same as God being limited by something outside of Himself.

Its not a problem at all.

If you’d like there are other books which further elaborate on this complicated issue of God’s grace and free-will.

St. Augustine’s “On Grace and Free-will” is indispensable. Peter Kreeft’s “Handbook” is a good primer but He also has another work called “The God Who Loves You” where he covers this apparent dichotomy a little more deeply.

Your response to my questions is appreciated. Thank you.

I am still thinking about the awful post 48 comment about God.
If He “loved us infinitely” before we were prepared by grace to receive it would, again, be comparable to spiritual rape. It would completely and utterly override our wills and violate our freedom to choose Him. Therefore our love for Him would not be “free” but coerced.

What I need to point out is that I asked about God’s action in CCC, 366 and not the parents actions.

God’s action in CCC, 366 is the best example of infinite love because He loved us before we became a complete human being. At conception, God’s infinite love individually and directly creates the spiritual soul which animates the conception material aka matter into a living human. It is because of the spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living person. (CCC, 364-365) In addition, in order for us to have free will to seek God, we first need the spiritual soul created by God. (CCC, 1730)

I am truly sorry that you used the image of spiritual rape as a comparable. I find that comparable as offensive to God.

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[grannymh]

Will take me a while to wrap my head around this…

The soul and the body are united to make us a human being. Like the CCC says our parents don’t give us a soul, but they make us by matter. God gives us a soul at conception.
So the soul and body are separate to begin with, until conception happens and then God immediately gives the body a soul.
Adam first made by God, then he receives a soul to make him a human being. We decend from Adam who gives us a body, but not a soul, only God gives us a soul. We still somehow are born with O.S even though we don’t get our soul from Adam.

The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man But not one body and soul of one man.

I think the problem is the substitution of words or terms that distort the actual meanings. For example. “So the soul and body are separate to begin with, until conception happens and then God immediately gives the body a soul.” is not exactly what CCC, 364-366 is teaching. Regarding Adam and body. What happens is that by propagation, there is the transmission of a human nature …( CCC, 404-405) The way that this transmission, including the contracted state of Original Sin, happens is a mystery which does not mean that it is not real.

Perhaps you should start with CCC, 355, word by word. Think about what those words mean. But be very careful of paraphrasing them. If you do substitute other words, be sure that they really mean the same thing.

I will be traveling so I am not sure when I will return to actually writing on the computer. I will be able to check PM’s quickly but that is about it.

 

[Amandil]

Your response to my questions is appreciated. Thank you.

I am still thinking about the awful post 48 comment about God.
If He “loved us infinitely” before we were prepared by grace to receive it would, again, be comparable to spiritual rape. It would completely and utterly override our wills and violate our freedom to choose Him. Therefore our love for Him would not be “free” but coerced.

What I need to point out is that I asked about God’s action in CCC, 366 and not the parents actions.

God’s action in CCC, 366 is the best example of infinite love because He loved us before we became a complete human being. At conception, God’s infinite love individually and directly creates the spiritual soul which animates the conception material aka matter into a living human. It is because of the spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living person. (CCC, 364-365) In addition, in order for us to have free will to seek God, we first need the spiritual soul created by God. (CCC, 1730)

I am truly sorry that you used the image of spiritual rape as a comparable. I find that comparable as offensive to God.

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

I simply don’t see how the two are comparable.

God’s will cooperates with the conjugal act because that’s how He designed it. Therefore again God limits Himself in regards to creation. God could snap His anthropomorphic fingers and create humans from nothing. But what would that do for fallen humanity? We wouldn’t receive the love-lessons from being parents ourselves.

We don’t pre-exist ourselves, we don’t exist as a soul prior to God’s creative action, we only exist in so far as we are in the eternal mind of God (being that eternity is outside of time). Therefore in God creating us there is no “us”, no free will to offend, at the point where He creates.

Salvation is a completely different story. “But to all who receive Him, who believe in His name, He gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of men, but of God.”(John 1:12-13)

 

[OneSheep]

My assumptions find validity in Catholic teachings.

So do mine.

Jesus forgave an unrepentant crowd, Granny. That is not contrary to Church teaching. I agree with Amandil, though, such forgiveness is to be accepted; it is not coerced. To me, however, if salvation is dependent on such acceptance, then acceptance is coerced. God as I know Him offers, and offers freely, without condition. If that is different for you, I am not here to contest your relationship. I respect your relationship with Our Father.

To me, it is only ignorance and blindness that lead to lack of acceptance on the part of the human, as we have been through this before. Still looking for that counterexample…