Pelagius himself maintained that human beings always retain the
*possibility* to not sin; he never claimed that human beings can by their
own actions merit eternal life, and he would reject the notion that the
first implies the second. He does tie creation and redemption together in
that the gift of free will is a grace given in creation and the gift of
justification is another grace given in baptism, whereby the sins of those
baptised are freely forgiven. It is the same (creating, now redeeming) Word
of God who cleanses the soul at baptism, that is also the very Word whose
teaching and example (both also grace) help the soul to recognize the
possibility of freely choosing the good and accept the guidance to do so.
Pelagius differs fundamentally from the Augustinian tradition not only
in his doctinre of grace, but also in his doctrine of faith. For Augustine
grace is an irresistable gift, an infused power one receives willy-nilly,
and so is faith. For Pelagius, grace cannot be thought to impose itself on
man's will, for that would be a violation of the will; nor is faith imposed,
but rather it arises from man's free response to the good news of salvation.
There is little about the Holy Spirit in Pelagius' fragmentary writings, but
(Evans) "so far as it goes it parallels in a striking way his language about
grace. The Spirit shows us the will of God and makes plain the future glory
so that we may desire heavenly things and not earthly." So, the Spirit is
involved in the illumination of the power of the will to choose freely the
good.
Pelagius also held that we humans are justified by both faith and works.
Righteousness is unthinkable without obedience to the moral precepts of
Christ and the Apostles. When Paul said that we are "justified by faith
apart from the works of the law," Pelagius interpreted Paul to refer to the
ceremonial aspects of the law, not the works of righteousness spelled out in
the law. In Evan's words, "The whole of the Christian life that is
stretched out between baptism and the judgment is one in which Christians
avail themselves of the grace of teaching and example; always exercising
that freedom of choice which has been made effectual by grace, they obey the
precepts of the gospel and so merit the rewards of the final kingdom of
heaven."
While one might speak in a semi-Pelagian manner that free will and grace
work together, Pelagius is likely to say, that's not nuanced enough: free
will is a gift of grace; and the will once restored to knowedge of its
*possibility* to choose the good freely that was its gracious gift from the
Creator, and responding to the other graces given by the Redeemer
(justification, teaching and example), is now able to follow the path of
righteousness to a Judgment that invites the believer ("Come, ye good and
faithful servant") into the presence of God in eternal life.
Grace and peace,
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: "george murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Freedom of the will (was Re: Bear sacrifice)
> It's important to distinguish between
> 1) the idea that the will of sinful human beings is "bound" as
far as
> ability to have genuine faith in God and,
> 2) a kind of Laplacian determinism that says that we don't really
have
> any choice whether to eat at Burger King or Wendy's.
> 1) does not require 2). The "bondage of the will" which keeps
people
> from accepting Christ without the distinctive action of the Holy Spirit is
a
> consequence of sin, not a result of fate or the mechanical character of
the
> world.
> & the problem with Pelagians & semi-Pelagians is not their
affirmation
> of "free will" contra 2) but their insistence on maintaining some amount
of
> human contribution to salvation.
>
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
>
>
>
> Robert Schneider wrote:
>
> > Hi, if you all will "bear" with me, I'll continue to stay off the
original
> > subject ("Bear sacrifice") and do what I love to do, zero in on a
statement
> > in an earlier post and question it. This time it is Adrian's assertion
> > (below) that Augustine "stongly affirmed free will." I think that may
have
> > been true in his treatise on free will against the Manichaeans, but by
the
> > time he was wading in against Pelagius, I think he took a different
tack.
> > In the latter writings he took the position that the individual will is
> > oriented either toward good or evil, and if the latter it is so
oriented by
> > the grace of God. Robert Evans (_Pelagius: Inquiries and
Reappraisals_, p.
> > 89) sums up Augustine's change in these words:
> >
> > "What we observe here is an instance of Augustine's shifting away
from
> > an image of man as an autonomous chooser among moral
> > possibilities to an image of man as inescapably turned either toward
or
> > away from God and as turned toward God only through the power of the
divine
> > grace. The first image was relevant to his anti-Manichaean
polemic.
> > It is one of Augustine's weaknesses as a theologian that these
images
> > are never satisfactorily related to one another."
> >
> > In fact, in the treatise against the Manichaeans, Augustine took a
position
> > on the human will that is quite congruent with Pelagius' position that
> > "freedom of the will" means that the will is free to choose either good
or
> > evil. Against Pelagius Augustine took the position stated in my first
> > paragraph. Pelagius reminded Augustine of his earlier position, which
was
> > not something the latter wanted to be reminded of.
> >
> > Finally, I want to say that I think the notion of double
predestination
> > is there in Augustine, and was picked up by Acquinas. Calvin took the
> > notion to its logical consequence.
> >
> > Bob Schneider
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Adrian Teo" <ateo@whitworth.edu>
> > To: "'george murphy'" <gmurphy@raex.com>
> > Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 2:46 PM
> > Subject: RE: Bear sacrifice
> >
> > > Hello George,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: george murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:22 AM
> > > > To: Adrian Teo
> > > > Cc: 'Robert Schneider'; asa@calvin.edu
> > > > Subject: Re: Bear sacrifice
> > > > Luther's best known statement about the fallibility
> > > > of councils comes
> > > > from the Leipzig debate
> > > > of 1519, & he was referring especially to the Council of
> > > > Constance a century
> > > > earlier where Jan Hus was condemned. Among the articles that
> > > > that council had
> > > > condemned & which Luther had in mind was "The universal Holy
> > > > Church is one, as
> > > > the number of the elect is one", which is from Augustine.
> > >
> > > The actual article that was condemned states:
> > > 1. There is only one holy universal church, which is the total
number of
> > > those predestined to salvation. It therefore follows that the
universal
> > holy
> > > church is only one, inasmuch as there is only one number of all
those who
> > > are predestined to salvation.
> > >
> > > It was this "strong" notion of predestination that was condemned
(because
> > it
> > > would mean taht God predestined certain people to damnation), which
IMO,
> > is
> > > quite different from that of Augustine, who also strongly affirmed
free
> > > will.
> > >
> > > > Luther's positive attitude toward I Nicea, I
> > > > Constantinople, Ephesus & Chalcedon is shown in his
> > > > considerably later essay
> > > > "On the Councils and the Church" (LW 41). He does not indeed
> > > > say that they
> > > > were infallible but simply that their doctrinal decisions
> > > > were correct because
> > > > they were in accord with scripture.
> > >
> > > With all due respect, knowing that you are Lutheran, does this
statement
> > not
> > > seem to suggest that Luther is acting as the final arbiter of what
is in
> > > accord with scripture and what isn't? I ask this question in the
most
> > > respectful manner, and I pray that you will not misundertand me and
feel
> > > offended.
> > >
> > > > It is also worth noting that III Constantinople
> > > > condemned Pope Honorius
> > > > as a heretic, so it is not easy to maintain the infallibility
> > > > of both popes and
> > > > councils.
> > >
> > > Pope St. Leo II was the one who condemned Pope Honorius I. But it
was for
> > > *negligence of duty* in the face of the heresy of Sergius. Honorius
had
> > not
> > > spoken ex cathedra, so infallibility had not been involved.
> > >
> > > Blessings,
> > >
> > > Adrian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 27 2002 - 15:00:25 EDT