Re: Freedom of the will (was Re: Bear sacrifice)

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sun Apr 28 2002 - 22:37:05 EDT

  • Next message: MikeSatterlee@cs.com: "Re: Adam and Eve"

    Robert Schneider wrote:

    > Pelagius himself maintained that human beings always retain the
    > *possibility* to not sin;

             It's true that, given the choice of committing or not
    committing a given
    sinful external act, human beings have the possibility of not committing it.
    But that is a far cry from never sinning. The claim that anyone "born in the
    natural manner" has this possibility is empty theorizing. Moreover, the claim
    that one avoids sin even in individual cases is usually a result of a
    superficial understanding of sin which does not consider inner motive. If
    Commandments 2-10 are obeyed for reasons other than the honoring of 1 then sin
    is involved. "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom.14:23).

    > 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.

             I.e., in the later sense he was a semi-Pelagian.
    ..................................

    > 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.

             This (i.e., the idea that Paul was only referring to ceremonial aspects
    of the law) is manifestly false. In his discussion of sin in Romans 1:18-3:18
    Paul is not speaking of violations of ceremonial laws but of the moral law, &
    when he says (v.20) "For no human being will be justified by works of the law,
    since through the law comes knowledge of sin" he is then referring to the fact
    that the moral law shows us our moral deficiencies. The ceremonial
    law does not
    necessarily show us our ceremonial deficiencies, for in fact that law can be
    kept: Observant Orthodox Jews do it - & Paul did.
             There is no justification for constricting the meaning of _nomos_
    between 3:20 & 3:28. We are not justified by works of the law period. That is
    always disturbing to moralists like Pelagius but it's what Paul said.

    Shalom,

    George

    George L. Murphy
    http://web.raex..com/~gmurphy/
    "The Science-Theology Interface"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 29 2002 - 00:02:54 EDT