Pelagianism

[Lain]

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man.

How do you interpret it?

 

[Estro Felino]

How do you interpret it?

I do not interpret it.
It is pretty clear to me.

 

[Lain]

I do not interpret it.
It is pretty clear to me.

What does it clearly say to you?

 

[Lain]

It's plain as day that Pelagius was right

Why?

 

[Estro Felino]

A scheme about differences.

Augustine: Adam was the first sinner and passed on his sin to his descendants (us). Who cannot but sin and need God's grace to redeem ourselves.

Pelagius: Adam sinned because he was weak but he did not pass on his sin to us.
We can do better.


Speaking of intransigence... many Pelagians believe that even atheists can go to Heaven. Thanks to their merits.
Augustine did not think so.

 

[Estro Felino]

What does it clearly say to you?

I am not a theologian
What I can say that we all Christians believe that we are all sinners. Nobody is perfect.
This does not mean that we cannot be better and better.
How? Through Love, mercy...which are gifts of God's grace, but we have to use our free will.

 

[Nakosis]

Humans don't need to be perfect to make a workable society.

We have a much better chance if we start by accepting our limitations and designing a society that best mitigates our flaws rather than starts from the premise they can be 'fixed'.

It'd depend on what is meant by perfect I suspect.
What if what is perfect means nothing other than being able to put the golden into practice?

Do you think humans are capable of choosing to show compassion to their fellow man?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Through free will alone, or through a will prepared, disposed, and carried through in grace all the way? For I agree that it is possible to live a sinless life freely, but through and in grace alone, which is unmerited.

I suspect that he actually got a bad rap. Did he really say those things or is that how someone else interpreted what he said?
Augustine went too far the other direction, and eventually spawned,,(ugh) Calvinism.

 

[Lain]

I suspect that he actually got a bad rap. Did he really say those things or is that how someone else interpreted what he said?
Augustine went too far the other direction, and eventually spawned,,(ugh) Calvinism.

St. Augustine's opinions were very immediately tempered in the Church, Calvin then went and misinterpreted him and does disagree with him on points such as about merit.

As for what Pelagius said, I just take the words of the Fathers on it, as none of us were there and they are the main means by which we know of this heresy, in my opinion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Augustine's original sin strikes me as a corruption of the concept. We have to go back to the reason why there is even a discussion about original sin. We aren't Jews, and don't do the rituals or have the dietary restrictions of Jews. This has somehow come to be known as original sin. I doubt Augustine invented the concept, but he certainly didn't help.

I am not a member of any liturgical church. I'm talking like what I say matters, but it doesn't.

 

[Estro Felino]

as none of us were there and they are the main means by which we know of this heresy, in my opinion.

Exactly.

 

[Estro Felino]

Augustine's original sin strikes me as a corruption of the concept. We have to go back to the reason why there is even a discussion about original sin. We aren't Jews, and don't do the rituals or have the dietary restrictions of Jews. This has somehow come to be known as original sin. I doubt Augustine invented the concept, but he certainly didn't help.

So many theologians agree on what you have just said.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's plain as day that Pelagius was right, but since when has that mattered in church politics?

The same Church which persecuted Pagans.

 

[PureX]

Man's original sin, according to the story of Eden, was to falsely presume unto himself a knowledge of good and evil. And then all our other sins spring from this false presumption because, through it, we then presumed that all creation should be serving us, ... and we seek to make it do so.

Can we willingly relinquish this false pretense as an act of free will? I suppose we could. Theoretically. But I think we would find it far more difficult to do in actuality than in theory. I also suspect that mankind's desire to control all creation to his own ends is written into our DNA at this point. To the degree that we would find denying that urge within us to be a very 'unnatural' act.

 

[Wildswanderer]

St. Augustine's opinions were very immediately tempered in the Church, Calvin then went and misinterpreted him and does disagree with him on points such as about merit.

As for what Pelagius said, I just take the words of the Fathers on it, as none of us were there and they are the main means by which we know of this heresy, in my opinion.

Only we don't know if it was actually a heresy.

 

[DNB]

​

No doubt a heretic.
Seems a lot better interpretation to me.
Whatever happen to this guy?

I'm a Christian and reject the notion of Original Sin, fallen human nature, or the 5 points of Calvinism (T.U.L.I.P.).
Nowhere in the account of the Fall does God pronounce a a curse upon man that affects his propensity to either good or evil. But, on the contrary, God states that due to the disobedience of Adam & Eve, they have become like Us (God & the Angels) knowing both, and equally, good and evil. Adam gave birth to Seth after his own image (the one that God gave him). Genesis 6 declares a curse of capital punishment for any act of homicide - because man still retains the image of God. In Leviticus God demands that the Israelites 'be holy, as I am holy' (futile if not possible). The Levitical Law legislates approximately 20 capital crimes - implying that man has the ability to avoid such transgressions.

One of the over-arching principles of the Bible, is the denunciation of man disobedience and incessant sins - how farcical would such a reprimand be if it were beyond man's control to abide by the precepts of God?
If Adam's sin caused man to become corrupt, on what basis did Adam & Eve defy God's order in the first place? Were they not in a neutral state prior to the fall? Meaning, our constitution has not changed regarding sin, from theirs to ours - they were equally prone to the depravity of the flesh, just as much as we are now.
Man has free-will and this is why we are guilty - no one asks a lame man to win a race, especially upon the pain of death.

Both Pelagius and Arminius, on the rejection of man's fallen nature, were orthodoxy. Augustine, Luther and Calvin were the heretics on this matter.

 

[firedragon]

​

No doubt a heretic.
Seems a lot better interpretation to me.
Whatever happen to this guy?

The account is very interestingly written in the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Volume 11. But you can read another style of an account in the Routlege encyclopaedia of philosophy. Obviously under "P".

Thanks for bringing this up. Very very rarely has this come up in discussion.

 

[Estro Felino]

We have a much better chance if we start by accepting our limitations and designing a society that best mitigates our flaws rather than starts from the premise they can be 'fixed'.

This is resignation.
Optimism leads to improvement.

 

[Augustus]

This is resignation.
Optimism leads to improvement.

It is not pessimistic to accept reality and start from there, just realistic.

Well intentioned solutions built on faulty premises often do more harm than good.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is not pessimistic to accept reality and start from there, just realistic.

Well intentioned solutions built on faulty premises often do more harm than good.

It is faulty to believe that in God's eyes the victims and the perpetrators are equal.
All parables clearly explain that there is a separation between evil and good. The wicked and the just.

If you know a parable that explains otherwise, do show it to me.