Pelagianism

[Augustus]

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?

Of course individual humans can show compassion and follow the golden rule, but collectively they will only do so intermittently.

The problem is that people think what works on an individual level or at small scale must be scalable to a societal level. Human social dynamics at scale are fundamentally different.

"Families often hold resources in common and share and act altruistically, so communism can work at a state level"

"I can be rational and kind therefore we can create a global society based on reason and kindness"

My favourite quote on this is the clearest and most concise explanation I can imagine by John Maynard Keynes:

“Bertie [Bertrand Russell] held two ludicrously incompatible beliefs: on the one hand he believed that all the problems of the world stemmed from conducting human affairs in a most irrational way; on the other hand that the solution was simple, since all we had to do was to behave rationally.”

 

[PearlSeeker]

I think what we inherited from our forefathers is human culture (not original sin imprinted in genes). It lifts us above animals but there is also need for improvement. It has nothing to do with (im)mortality.

Some things can affect our free will (moral judgement and decisions). Rarely genes. Often environment/experience.

 

[Lain]

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

All in my opinion: How don't we know that? I'll check Denzinger's on it... From looking at it not only do several local Councils condemn it, the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431AD) also does. Based on this evidence it seems solid to me that we can know it was/is a heresy. As the OP said in post #1, "no doubt a heretic."

 

[Estro Felino]

Of course individual humans can show compassion and follow the golden rule, but collectively they will only do so intermittently.

The problem is that people think what works on an individual level or at small scale must be scalable to a societal level. Human social dynamics at scale are fundamentally different.

"Families often hold resources in common and share and act altruistically, so communism can work at a state level"

"I can be rational and kind therefore we can create a global society based on reason and kindness"

My favourite quote on this is the clearest and most concise explanation I can imagine by John Maynard Keynes:

“Bertie [Bertrand Russell] held two ludicrously incompatible beliefs: on the one hand he believed that all the problems of the world stemmed from conducting human affairs in a most irrational way; on the other hand that the solution was simple, since all we had to do was to behave rationally.”

I understood you are an atheist, right?

Augustine said that atheists cannot go to Heaven because they don't believe in God. Meaning, it is God's grace that saves us.

We Pelagians affirm that atheists can go to Heaven, if they behave christianly and harm nobody.

Which one is a saner attitude, in your opinion?

 

[Lain]

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.

I'd agree with this. We have a will and must use it. I have to ask though: are these your ideas or are you following quotations from Pelagius, and if so where are those?

None of the people I care about on these matters (for these are some Calvinists who reject free will and embrace total depravity, doctrines I believe are false) deny that we must use our free will. In my opinion free will was weakened (not destroyed) in the Fall, and is repaired through Baptism, and we must exercise it in love and mercy which are gifts of God's grace. So I am trying to find out why you call yourself a Pelagian if you agree with that, and do not deny the necessity of God's grace to do these things.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'd agree with this. We have a will and must use it. I have to ask though: are these your ideas or are you following quotations from Pelagius, and if so where are those?

None of the people I care about on these matters (for these are some Calvinists who reject free will and embrace total depravity, doctrines I believe are false) deny that we must use our free will. In my opinion free will was weakened (not destroyed) in the Fall, and is repaired through Baptism, and we must exercise it in love and mercy which are gifts of God's grace. So I am trying to find out why you call yourself a Pelagian if you agree with that, and do not deny the necessity of God's grace to do these things.

I was raised Catholic, so I am surely not a Protestant.
That said, God's grace does not imply that that we do not need our own free will to behave christianly.
We do need our own free will.
Without free will, we cannot save ourselves.

I can suggest you to read Pelagius's letter to Demetrias.
http://www.pelagius.net/demetrias.htm

 

[Lain]

I was raised Catholic, so I am surely not a Protestant.
That said, God's grace does not imply that that we do not need our own free will to behave christianly.
We do need our own free will.
Without free will, we cannot save ourselves.

I can suggest you to read Pelagius's letter to Demetrias.
http://www.pelagius.net/demetrias.htm

I didn't even know there was a site. Wow, peak, talk about being in a theological bubble. Reading now, thank you.

 

[Augustus]

I understood you are an atheist, right?

Augustine said that atheists cannot go to Heaven because they don't believe in God. Meaning, it is God's grace that saves us.

We Pelagians affirm that atheists can go to Heaven, if they behave christianly and harm nobody.

Which one is a saner attitude, in your opinion?

For Pelagius, to behave Christianly was to live a life of perfect sinlessness which he believed God had given us the power to do via free will.

I'm not sure the idea of him being the more 'liberal' one is one I share (albeit based on my limited understanding, I claim no expertise).

I don't really find Augustine all that appealing either, but when given a choice between 2 views: one which says humans can achieve perfection and another that says human nature is fundamentally flawed, I have to see the latter as saner.

When it comes to salvation, as long as it comes in the afterlife I'm not too bothered whether it is through deeds or grace (although encouraging people to do good is good). Those I fear are the people who think salvation can be achieved on Earth, but most of those are adherents of irreligious faiths: Secular Humanists, Marxists, etc.

 

[Estro Felino]

For Pelagius, to behave Christianly was to live a life of perfect sinlessness which he believed God had given us the power to do via free will.

I'm not sure the idea of him being the more 'liberal' one is one I share (albeit based on my limited understanding, I claim no expertise).

I don't really find Augustine all that appealing either, but when given a choice between 2 views: one which says humans can achieve perfection and another that says human nature is fundamentally flawed, I have to see the latter as saner.

When it comes to salvation, as long as it comes in the afterlife I'm not too bothered whether it is through deeds or grace (although encouraging people to do good is good). Those I fear are the people who think salvation can be achieved on Earth, but most of those are adherents of irreligious faiths: Secular Humanists, Marxists, etc.

That is why Pelagius has been misunderstood. Perfection does not exist.
Most atheists do not kill anybody, do not harm anybody in any way...that is what Pelagius meant by "sinless".

 

[PearlSeeker]

For Pelagius, to behave Christianly was to live a life of perfect sinlessness which he believed God had given us the power to do via free will.

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
What about this?

 

[sojourner]

Pelagius began with the premise that humanity is created good (as per Genesis) and is inherently in accordance with God’s will. Augustine began with the premise that humanity is inherently sinful due to the “fall.” I tend to side with Pelagius here, because the “fall” occurs after creation (which is good). The premise that humanity is inherently good means that goodness is our natural state — that we are in harmony with God and nature. However, through our actions we “cover up” that goodness with sin — like putting on a mask. Salvation is the work of removing the mask to reveal the true nature underneath. The Tradition of the Judeo-Christian faiths points to the ongoing nature of that work, because we understand that we are not perfect, and that we keep removing the mask and putting it back on. God’s faithfulness is revealed in that God does not condemn, but rather perseveres in loving us, just as we are.

 

[Glaurung]

I could affirm it is dangerous to affirm that sin is inevitable. Given that no person will do self-criticism. And he would do no matter what.

Sin is inevitable, both on a personal and corporate level. But that does not in any way diminish our culpability for our moral failures. No one is preordained to sin but by their willed rejection of divine grace: a willful turning away from the law of God. Catholicism teaches that we need divine help to live moral lives; not that we are so depraved as to be incapable of moral effort. Our efforts will inevitability fall short but the promise of Christianity is that divine grace will make up the difference provided that we live our lives in cooperation with that grace.

We have the power to resist evil but we cannot overcome it by will alone. Frodo was able to resist the ring all the way to Mount Doom but he could not cast it into the fire by his own power. That final destruction could only happen by the intervention of Eru.

 

[Estro Felino]

Sin is inevitable, both on a personal and corporate level. But that does not in any way diminish our culpability for our moral failures. No one is preordained to sin but by their willed rejection of divine grace: a willful turning away from the law of God. Catholicism teaches that we need divine help to live moral lives; not that we are so depraved as to be incapable of moral effort. Our efforts will inevitability fall short but the promise of Christianity is that divine grace will make up the difference provided that we live our lives in cooperation with that grace.

We have the power to resist evil but we cannot overcome it by will alone. Frodo was able to resist the ring all the way to Mount Doom but he could not cast it into the fire by his own power. That final destruction could only happen by the intervention of Eru.

Not all sins are equal.
The sins of the saints are not the same as the sins of the wicked.
I don't know what you mean by sinlessness but saints can show how holy a life can be.

 

[Glaurung]

Not all sins are equal.

Who says they are? Catholic teaching has never claimed that all sin is of equal seriousness.

I don't know what you mean by sinlessness but saints can show how holy a life can be.

And? The point is that no one can become a saint without divine help. Which is the issue. Pelagianism in a nutshell is the doctrine that man can perform salutary acts independent of divine help. That puts far too much faith in human power.

It's the doctrine that Frodo could have destroyed the ring if only he had been determined enough. But that's nonsense. Frodo's failure was inevitable from the very start for the ring's evil was beyond mortal power to overcome. Sin is likewise. We can resist it to Mount Doom, but triumph is a gift from God earned by our cooperation with his grace.

 

[Estro Felino]

And? The point is that no one can become a saint without divine help. Which is the issue.

Divine election is called Protestant theology.
What is free will in your opinion?

 

[Glaurung]

Divine election is called Protestant theology.

The predestination of the elect is de fide. It's Catholic dogma.

What is free will in your opinion?

As far as this discussion is concerned, free will is our ability to cooperate with or reject the promptings of divine grace. To perform a salutary act without divine help is as impossible as choosing fly by flapping my arms. Free will does not enable me to transcend human powers. I can't fly like a bird simply because I have the desire to do so.

That it is impossible to perform a meritorious act without the help of God is in no way a denial of free will. Any such act still requires you to choose it. All the Christian faith requires you to recognize is that those meritorious acts were empowered by divine grace which God gives freely to anyone who cooperates. To admit our dependence on God is not a denigration of humanity.

 

[Estro Felino]

The predestination of the elect is de fide. It's Catholic dogma.

Nobody is predestined to hell, as this article clarifies.
Are We Predestined By God? — St. Mary's Catholic Center


That said, Augustinian theology has really perverted Catholicism, in my humble opiniom.
That is why I am a Pelagian.

 

[Augustus]

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
What about this?

It's a statement of an ideal state of completeness isn't it?

This is different from a belief humans can achieve perfection as a realistic goal.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's a statement of an ideal state of completeness isn't it?

This is different from a belief humans can achieve perfection as a realistic goal.

Question.
Do you believe it is possible to live a life without harming others?

 

[Augustus]

Question.
Do you believe it is possible to live a life without harming others?

Not really, unless you live as a hermit from an early age.

In modern society, it is hard to avoid indirectly harming people and while we can avoid directly causing significant harm to people, we can't really avoid causing some degree of harm to some of those around us.