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

[lak611]

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 would not be surprised in the least by this. I just want to read “the source” first, rather than someone’s commentary on Calvin. I’ll read Armstrong after I’ve first read Calvin.

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+

Thanks, Luke. I’ll see if somebody else has recommendations on works of Augustine.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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

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 think you meant “charitable.”

Yeah I meant that when I relaxes I made a typographical error.
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+

 

[Mannyfit75]

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+

I have read portions of it. I probably would read it down the road because I don’t like to overwhelm my mind with so many information. If the topic interest me (which it does) it will be embedded in my head. I love reading Apologetic materials. You get to learn more out of it.

 

[ScottishColleen]

I would like to make one correction that I am seeing here. Just as Protestants misunderstand what is meant by Catholics, I see Catholics doing the same. For the same reason…because there are those amoung us that do disservice to what is originally meant.

On the OSAS…this is also termed as Perserverance of the Saints. This does not mean liberty to sin. In fact, if a person “claims” to be saved, yet goes out and murders someone in cold blood, then we can only view that person has having never been truely saved to begin with…only claiming such.

From a discussion with an RCC seminary student, do not Catholics believe in the perserverance of the saints?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

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.

Yet, inevitably, the very vocabulary influenced by Paul and Protestant theology has twisted the debate into a wrestling match
over the wrong words.

St. Augustine, in condemning Pelagius – does not triumph on scriptural grounds alone which can only lead one to convict all nations of universal corruption, (with a strong implication of personal corruption – but not an absolute condemnation eg. The scriptures do not condemn absolutely all individuals, as the Immaculate conception – and the incarnation would attest.), BUT Augustine notes that his opponents – BEFORE coming to the view of Pelagius – had EXORCISMS in their baptismal rights. In other words, Augustine’s vindication is on the grounds of his opponent’s Tradition. It is in this light that Augustine interprets scripture.

Scripture itself does not provide an unambiguious proof of complete corruption of all individuals – nor could an infallible
scripture do so if the infallibility of the immaculate conception is to stand. Hence the Holy Spirit witheld the hand of St. Paul from proving the total corruption of mankind, but allowed the general corruption of mankind to stand.

The second problem is: Faith itself is a work, and St. Paul in his characteristic way wrote a sequence of legalistic sentences which have confused countess people who don’t look for the unifying principle of his statements, but exaggerate their meaning by stripping them of context.

Consider:

John 6:27
Do not work for food that goes bad,
but work for food that endures to eternal life …

28: Then they said to him, "What must we do if we are to carry out God’s work?
This is the carrying out of God’s work: you must believe…

The Araminians have the notion of “believing” as an action correct – it is something one Does.

Also note:
John 6:44: No one can come to me unless drawn by the father who sent me, and I will raise that person up…

But the necessity of Grace first is correct, as Calivin noted.
It isn’t either/or, but both and – Grace and Work.

One does not earn their salvation, but they do loose it by not working – not believing. The problem revolves around arbitrary classifaction of Faith as NOT WORK, which is wrong as attested
by the words of Jesus himself. It is the kind, or quality of the work which Paul is denouncing in Romans, the kind of work which REQUIRES compensation of salvation – is beyond the power of man.

A faithful work is saving, and meritorious, and follows on the Grace of God. It is a union – not a sequence of events.

A side note: there is clearly in Paul’s writing an effectiveness about the Law of Moses, which had a saving power of a limited degree. The extent to which Paul saw the Law as lost gift because of the sins of Israel is not explored at all in the debates.
But clearly the Law did purify one to a certain extent, as a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Christ.

 

[Zooey]

I would like to make one correction that I am seeing here. Just as Protestants misunderstand what is meant by Catholics, I see Catholics doing the same. For the same reason…because there are those amoung us that do disservice to what is originally meant.

On the OSAS…this is also termed as Perserverance of the Saints. This does not mean liberty to sin. In fact, if a person “claims” to be saved, yet goes out and murders someone in cold blood, then we can only view that person has having never been truely saved to begin with…only claiming such.

I can assure you, as a woman in a family full of many Baptists, that OSAS means for a great many, that you can go out and murder several persons in cold blood, yet be saved.
No; let me be fair to them; the discussion was not about a murderer. It was about a rapist/child molester, who drowned in a nearby lake . They are quite happy to assure all & sundry that “Howard is fine; he had accepted the Lord some months ago”.

From a discussion with an RCC seminary student, do not Catholics believe in the perserverance of the saints?

Well. I am the Friendly Neighborhood Methodist, and therefore may be corrected at any time, but I believe that the answer is “no”. Any of us, may at any time, deny our Lord. St Peter did so, & was blessedly restored. Judas betrayed him, & “would have been better off had he never been born”…which does not hold out much hope.
In any case, the whole concept of the perserverance of the saints requires a bit of translation; for most of us here, the saints are those who are in Heaven, now. It is a question of** if** we will be numbered among them, not when.
Still, I can deal with that with more aplomb than the antinomianism of some of my own blood kin…

Your point, is, by the bye, one that I have noted myself: Many times, Catholics & Protestants use the same word to mean different things, and different words to mean the same thing.
We are, as I sometimes remark, like" the United States & Great Britain: two peoples divided by a common language."

 

[ScottishColleen]

Thank you, Zooey. However, in our Faith we do not believe Judas as having ever been “saved”. A disciple, just as any other unbeliever can come to church and be discipled.

Unfortunately, the type of thinking you have experienced with Baptist relatives is common amoungst most Baptists (Reformed Baptists might be an exception). I was raised baptist and this is one of the illogical arguments that drove me out of the Baptist churches.

However, it is not what was originally intended or meant by Perserverance of the Saints.