Law of Identity

[Katholish]

I believe that God cannot sin, one of many things He cannot do, nor can He believe that 2+2=5…Pelagius was vindicated by the Church as proven by the church reversing her position on Augustuine’s hard determinism and reverting back to a position that some call semi-Pelagian. this post was not to create an argument but to hear some feedback from those on the board who are trained in epistemology, logic and metaphysics not the layperson. If God can do anything in the absolute sense; this would entail His being able to turn Himself into the Devil and this would violate the law of identity as well.

We agree that God cannot sin, and we agree that God cannot make a contradiction. What we disagree on is whether or not these facts imply a limitation in power. I argue, as does the entire Christian tradition (not just the Catholic Church), that it does not. A contradiction is not a thing, and hence the impossibility of making one does not imply a limitation in power. Power, is only concerned with making or doing THINGS. Sin is not a thing, but is defined as the choosing a lesser good over that of a due good. That is not a power! God cannot make a square-circle because it is not a THING, it is a nothing. You cannot even have a proper idea of a contradition let alone actually create one in reality.

Pelagius was never vindicated by the Church. You would have an easier time arguing what Nestorius was vindicated by the definition of the hypostatic union, but of course that wouldn’t be correct either.

The Catholic Church most certainly never adopted a semi-Pelagian position, which argued that man merits his initial act of conversion. This was condemned by the Church, and always has been held as such. In contrast, the Church teaches that initial grace is completely unmerited, but that our cooperation with that prevenient Grace is meritorious. Cooperation is the key component though, which all forms of Pelagianism would deny.

Pelagius believed in free will, Augustine did not, Pelagius believed that man was chosen by God based on God foreseeing an individuals future faith and hence conversion, Augustine like Calvin believe man has no free will. Pelagius was tired of seeing Augustine and other priests with concubines and whores and called for reform; Augustine blamed everything on his sinful nature which doesn’t exist but is an artifact from his Manichean days.

Actually Augustine most certainly did believe in Free Will. If you deny thing, I would suggest you read his work On the Free Choice of the Will. I found it quite the excellent exposition. Pelagius held that Grace was not strictly necessary for Salvation and that men could in a sense could fully merit their own reward.

Are you seriously accusing St. Augustine of living a licentious life after his conversion to the Faith? What possible evidence could you have for such a wild accusation (one not held by any historian of note)?

As for his heresy, if Pelagius is a heretic then the Eastern Church and all of Protestantism is heretical as well; are you ready to go back to those days?

Well, Protestantism is unquestionably heretical, and the Eastern Orthodox condemn Pelagius along with the West, so how exactly would they be heretical?

The law of identity states that P implies P or something is only identical with itself. I can’t know the world through anyone’s vantage point but my own. I can’t know what or how my brother see’s when we both look out the same window. God could not know what it is to be human unless He became man as He did in the incarnation this is why Hebrews tells us that Christ having became man can now intercede for us as our high priest in heaven. This is one of the purposes or consequences of the incarnation. God is God and even He cannot know with certainty what it is to be a human no more than He could turn Himself into the devil. Just because we may be able to conceive of something doesn’t imply it’s possibility. God cannot know of a square circle for this would imply that God knows an untruth which is illogical and I believe that on a fundamental level, logic is based on God’s mind and how He thinks and I don’t believe that He knows of any contradictions to be true; yet some people can conceive of God knowing of a square circle.

This is totally incorrect. You are equating the terms knowledge and experience, which are not at all identical. God could not experience what it is to be man without experiencing what it is to be man (the tautology I accused you of already), but God can KNOW what it is to be man without experiencing it. God’s knolwedge is not gathered through experience as ours is. God’s Omniscience is a logical result of His Eternity (being outside of time), and he knows all things without experiencing any of them. God did not gain knowledge by means of the Incarnation. That would be utterly illogical since God is immutable and eternal.

 

[JDaniel]

I believe that God cannot sin, one of many things He cannot do, nor can He believe that 2+2=5…Pelagius was vindicated by the Church as proven by the church reversing her position on Augustuine’s hard determinism and reverting back to a position that some call semi-Pelagian. this post was not to create an argument but to hear some feedback from those on the board who are trained in epistemology, logic and metaphysics not the layperson. If God can do anything in the absolute sense; this would entail His being able to turn Himself into the Devil and this would violate the law of identity as well.

Pelagius believed in free will, Augustine did not, Pelagius believed that man was chosen by God based on God foreseeing an individuals future faith and hence conversion, Augustine like Calvin believe man has no free will. Pelagius was tired of seeing Augustine and other priests with concubines and whores and called for reform; Augustine blamed everything on his sinful nature which doesn’t exist but is an artifact from his Manichean days.

In this sense Pelagius was in agreement with the Early Fathers especially Crystosom. Pelagius was bootstrapped by Augustine and Jerome and Zosimus didn’t want to condemn the teachings of Pelagius but had no choice once Augustine spun the argument into one of infant baptism versus free will.

As for his heresy, if Pelagius is a heretic then the Eastern Church and all of Protestantism is heretical as well; are you ready to go back to those days?

Thegrons:

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forum.

First things first: you have not done your homework. The heresy of Pelagianism has to do with Pelagius’ stand on Adam, the Fall and Redemption. And, the heresy still stands.

The fundamental heresy has to do with grace which of necessity soon involved their denial of original sin. That is what St. Augustine wrote so extensively about. Even the Protestant leaders of the sixteenth century did not deny the doctrine of original sin. Rather, they exaggerated it! So, whoever you’ve been reading is lying to you.

“The Council of Trent sums up under one canon the Catholic teaching about the immediate effects produced in Adam, by his sin, to wit, that he lost the sanctity and justice in which he had been established, that he incurred the wrath and indignation of God, and thereby death, likewise captivity under the power of the devil, and that both as to soul and body, he was changed for the worse.” (Session V, can. I.) It is clear that Adam lost his holiness and justice as this is at the root of Catholic teaching on the Redemption. Throughout St. Paul, we are told that Christ is the second Adam and that he died for us to regain what the first Adam had lost.

On the one hand you speak of talking about subjects Philosophic, but, on the other you bring in erroneous Theology. What is your game? You are being at the least disingenuous, in this forum, or at worst you are being outright deceitful. But, one thing’s for sure: you are not here to discuss philosophy.

Anyway, God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

1. Law of Identity
2. Law of non-contradiction
3. Law of the excluded middle

The law of identity states that P implies P or something is only identical with itself. I can’t know the world through anyone’s vantage point but my own. I can’t know what or how my brother see’s when we both look out the same window. God could not know what it is to be human unless He became man as He did in the incarnation this is why Hebrews tells us that Christ having became man can now intercede for us as our high priest in heaven. This is one of the purposes or consequences of the incarnation. God is God and even He cannot know with certainty what it is to be a human no more than He could turn Himself into the devil. Just because we may be able to conceive of something doesn’t imply it’s possibility. God cannot know of a square circle for this would imply that God knows an untruth which is illogical and I believe that on a fundamental level, logic is based on God’s mind and how He thinks and I don’t believe that He knows of any contradictions to be true; yet some people can conceive of God knowing of a square circle.

This is becoming beyond absurd. Next you’re going to tell me/us that God is too heavy to lift himself up. Are you serious? Please point out the Scripture you refer to when speaking of the passage in Hebrews.

God bless,
jd

 

[fhansen]

:yawn:

aww, man…now you’re making me sleepy-how’m I’m supposta keep up with my Catholicism 101 studies?