Pelagian Heresy; saved by works (not taught by the Catholic Church)

[Mannyfit75]

Let me see if I understand this correctly; you give James White more credit for quoting John Calvin correctly than you give John Calvin for the words he said himself?

Did I miss a new approach to apologetics?

I never said that John Calvin didn’t use “papist” langauge - many Protestant reformers did, and it was a term of derision; but the charge of Pelagianism from John Calvin to the Catholic Church seems very strange, since he was basically Augustinian in this regard.

Calvin is probably misquoted and misread more than any Reformer or theologian; even John Calvin wasn’t a strict 5-point Calvinist.

You could probably do a google search on it. I don’t have the Book with me now to give you references to look too.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Manny:

I am cautious about “Googleing” things and counting them as te Gospel. Secondary and tertiary sources are not as good as the primary source… no matter who is quoting it. That’s how rumor mills, gossip, and mistruths are birthed.

I think you may be thinking of the charge of Semi-Pelagianism that Calvin lodged more toward Jesuit thought than Catholicism as a whole (I might add that some Catholics have said the same thing about Jesuit schools of thought).

O+

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny:

I am cautious about “Googleing” things and counting them as te Gospel. Secondary and tertiary sources are not as good as the primary source… no matter who is quoting it. That’s how rumor mills, gossip, and mistruths are birthed.

I think you may be thinking of the charge of Semi-Pelagianism that Calvin lodged more toward Jesuit thought than Catholicism as a whole (I might add that some Catholics have said the same thing about Jesuit schools of thought).

O+

I’ll post the quote and the source where John Calvin call Catholic “papists” then you can do a little background check on it. At the moment I do not have it so I cannot give you citations. I need to open Dave Armstrong’s Book and cite the source.

 

[Syele]

Arminians get accused of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism almost as often as Catholics. I feel for ya.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Arminians get accused of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism almost as often as Catholics. I feel for ya.

They need to understand we don’t.

 

[Syele]

They need to understand we don’t.

The Arminians??? I doubt Arminians are accusing Catholics of Pelagianism…

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Arminians??? I doubt Arminians are accusing Catholics of Pelagianism…

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that certain Protestant groups accuse Catholics of Pelagianism. You said Arminians are accused as Semi-Pelaganism. My response that Arminians should not be accused of that old heresy as much as Catholics.

 

[Syele]

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that certain Protestant groups accuse Catholics of Pelagianism. You said Arminians are accused as Semi-Pelaganism. My response that Arminians should not be accused of that old heresy as much as Catholics.

Ah, I misunderstood. You are right neither group is Pelagian. I was partly clearing up… it’s not specifically Protestants (Arminians are protestants too) that accuse you of it… It would mainly be Calvinists who would think that way.

The Doctrines of Catholics and Arminians on how we are saved are so against the Calvinist TULIP that it is no wonder they mistake it for Pelagianism.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ah, I misunderstood. You are right neither group is Pelagian. I was partly clearing up… it’s not specifically Protestants (Arminians are protestants too) that accuse you of it… It would mainly be Calvinists who would think that way.

The Doctrines of Catholics and Arminians on how we are saved are so against the Calvinist TULIP that it is no wonder they mistake it for Pelagianism.

I am well aware that Arminians are Protestants. I am not suprise that other Protestants accused one another of Pelaganism heresy since many Protestants differ in their own intepretation of Scripture.

 

[Syele]

I am well aware that Arminians are Protestants. I am not suprise that other Protestants accused one another of Pelaganism heresy since many Protestants differ in their own intepretation of Scripture.

Truly, it’s mainly Calvinist vs. Arminian for most everything. There are mixtures of the two, but people who are mixtures of the two generally don’t accuse one another so much since the basic argument for them seems to stick to “God doesn’t have to be logical cause he’s God” argument. (Doesn’t make for much debating on anything.)

Saying which group you mean would just make things easier on everyone including yourself when you want to cover something like this.

 

[lak611]

Does anybody have a suggestion about a book by Calvin regarding Pelagianism. O.S. Luke, perhaps, do you have any of Calvin’s works in mind? I doubt if Calvin was Pelagian. I would like to read something of his that addresses the topic. Did he mention it in Institutes of Christian Religion?

 

[Bishopite]

In many discussion between Catholic apologists and Protestant apologists, we seem to notice Protestants accused Catholics that we are saved by works, or by our merits by works.

Very good post.

Also if I may add, the council of Orange (529)

“The Council of Orange was an outgrowth of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. This controversy had to do with degree to which a human being is responsible for his or her own salvation, and the role of the grace of God in bringing about salvation. The Pelagians held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, i.e., that there is no such thing as a sinful nature or original sin. As a result of this view, they held that a state of sinless perfection was achievable in this life. The Council of Orange dealt with the Semi-Pelagian doctrine that the human race, though fallen and possessed of a sinful nature, is still “good” enough to able to lay hold of the grace of God through an act of unredeemed human will. As you read the Canons of the Council of Orange, you will be able to see where John Calvin derived his views of the total depravity of the human race.”

But the canons of the council of Orange set Pelagius’ heterodox teachings straight as I often show Protestants who make the claim that Catholicism teaches pelagianism…

"CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe-guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it."

And then there is always the misunderstanding Protestants have about the word “merit.”

“By merit (meritum) in general is understood that property of a good work which entitles the doer to receive a reward (prœmium, merces) from him in whose service the work is done. By antonomasia, the word has come to designate also the good work itself, in so far as it deserves a reward from the person in whose service it was performed.”
newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

Only Jesus can “merit” any good in the strict sense because He is God. We “merit” in the analogous sense, however our merit is a reward and comes from the Latin word “meritum” which means reward NOT strict earning as Protestants think. We are rewarded for our good works. The council of Orange mentioned that we cooperate with God, which is ironic since Calvin derived much of his theology from that council; too bad he missed this…

The council of Orange 529

Conclusion
“According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.”

So much for monergism

 

[Yerusalyim]

I think one of our problems as Catholics is that, in general, we are poorly catechized. So, when we hear accusations by protestants, we don’t know if the church actually teaches what it’s been accussed of teaching. I remember as a young teen trying to defend salvation by works…until I figured out that we as Catholics reject such nonsense.

We need to educate ourselves better. In part I blame myself at that time, and in part I blame the REALLY WEAK religious education we had back in the early 70’s that really seemed to instruct on feel good fluff rather than instruct us in the faith.

Fully agreeing with what you say, I’m also aware that some of the dead enders who hate Catholicism will accuse us by saying the sacrements and the mass itself are works.

Another issue these folks seem to forget is that when Paul condemns works…he’s most specifically speaking about the Mosaic Law…those 613 Commandments found in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament)…specifically, that trying to gain heaven through the works of observance of these laws was fruitless. Then Paul goes on to make the point that Salvation is a free gift from God that we can not earn.

I think part of the problem with some of the Protestants accusing us of believing in salvation by works is because we reject the heresy of “once saved always saved”. To some of them this smacks of “having to be good enough”…nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I read Catholic Verses by David Armstrong and John Calvin accused "papists of the heresy of Pelagianism.

I found my way over here from Armstrong’s website. After reading Dave’s explanation, it would appear you need to read his book a little more carefully.

Also, O.S. Luke, your points about reading primary sources on Calvin are well taken. Indeed, it is not your responsibility to do the work Manny should have done.

Armstrong takes the time to assure you he did not quote Calvin out of context. Armstrong says:

"Now, note that I did not come right out and assert that Calvin accused Catholics of Pelagianism. I simply cited what he wrote about this passage in his biblical commentary (because the book was devoted to how well-known historic Protestant exegetes dealt with verses that Catholics use as prooftexts for Catholic theology).

Calvin compared Catholics to Pelagians in a particular context, and then made an argument that seems to equate Catholic soteriology with at least semi-Pelagianism (which I would fully expect him to do). My point was perfectly valid in and of its own right. Nothing was taken out of context or distorted. I criticized Calvin, but then cited a great Protestant, John Wesley, over against him."

Armstrong gleefully corrects you. What he should have done with equal zeal, was take the time also to exhort his readers, like Manny, to read his books more carefully.

Regards,
James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics

 

[Mannyfit75]

I found the verse. It’s from John Calvin Commentaries in which he states the following,

As Pelagians of old, so Papists at this day make a proud boast of this passage (the passage refer to here is Philippians 2:12-13), with the view of extolling man’s excellence… In assuch, then, as the work is ascribed to God and man in common, they assign the half to each.

I hardly find calling Catholics Papists uncharitable.

John Calvin also stated while making a commentary on 1 Cor 3:9,

While God could accomplished the work entirely to himself, he call us, puny mortal, to be as it were coadjutors, and make use of us as instruments. As to perversion of this statement by Papists, for supporting their system of free will, it is beyon silly, for Paul show here, not what men can effect by their natural powers, but what the Lord accomplished through means of them by this grace.

Dave Armstrong points out the errors in John’s remark by saying.

Calvin’s caricature is not Catholic teaching at all. Catholics do not believe men can do anything good, “by their natural powers,” nor do we deny sola gratia in the slightest. Simply cooperating with the grace is not "human generation’; it is God’s generation. The Council of Trent is very clear on this:

Canon 1 on Justification:

If anyone saith that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Chapter VIII on Justification: None of those things which precede justification—whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For if it be grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the same Apostle say, “grace is no more grace.”

All this is from The Catholic Verses by Dave Armstrong. Most of the time John Calvin accuses the Catholic Church of doing things contrary to the Bible, he often boost on calling the Church or Catholics “Papists.”

 

[O.S.Luke]

Manny… you have now changed the argument from your post #5:

The purpose of this thread is to clarify that the Catholic Church for 2,000 years have not condone the heresy of Pelagian. John Calvin accused “Papists” that the Church practices this. The Mother Church does not.

I’m not sanguine about the use of the word “papist,” however, that word hasn’t been used in common language in about 150 years, and in the day it was used (in the West), the words “papist” and “protestant” were commonly used right after the Reformation. Later Protestants were often divided in writings into “Churchmen” (Anglicans) and “Dissenters” (everyone else). “Catholic” was rarely used - and when the word WAS used, it more commonly referred to Roman rite Catholics AND Anglicans.

Even some Catholics used the word “Papist” to refer to themselves (see the writings of Father John Gother, in his work “A Papist Misrepresented and Represented, or a two-fold Character of Popery” - London, 1665). And lest you think I’m making this up, see this article at New Advent).

I hardly find calling Catholics Papists uncharitable.

I think you meant “charitable.”

Manny, did you READ Tertimquid’s post above? You are putting a few words into both Calvin AND Armstrong’s mouth regarding Pelagianism, which is the heart of this thread, is it not? That was the original argument.

O+

 

[O.S.Luke]

Armstrong takes the time to assure you he did not quote Calvin out of context. Armstrong says:

Armstrong gleefully corrects you. What he should have done with equal zeal, was take the time also to exhort his readers, like Manny, to read his books more carefully.

Regards,
James Swan

Thanks for your kind post. Blessings.

And I read your blog on this post. Excellent. One of the things that often hurts apologetics and posts like this is misinformation that comes from less-than-careful reading. An important reminder for us all.

O+

 

[O.S.Luke]

Oh my goodness… this Armstrong fellow seems to be quite the nutter in both Catholic and Protestant circles alike. I didn’t know what I was getting myself into.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

 

[lak611]

Oh my goodness… this Armstrong fellow seems to be quite the nutter in both Catholic and Protestant circles alike. I didn’t know what I was getting myself into.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

You mentioned Calvin’s works in another post. Would Institutes of the Christian Religion be the best source to read what Calvin had to say about Pelagianism?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Institutes is tough reading; in going back and rereading some, I’ve found some places where Calvin wavers. I haven’t read all of Institutes since seminary. Armstrong certainly has his opinions - I haven’t read his books. Manny has read some. TertiumQuid has probably read several.

I don’t think anyone would debate that on occasion Calvin could be found guilty of anti-Catholic rhetoric.

I think some of Augustine’s works would be essential to this topic as well. I’m not versed enough in Augustine to make specific recommendations, but I suspect some Catholic apologist around here is.

O+