I like your grand narrative summaries and the analogies that you make of figures between periods. You do this in a very practical manner. Great listening to you!
Not sure if you mentioned this in previous lectures, but it's important to note that the eastern church adopted a stance different than Pelagianism and Augustinianism. It essentially affirmed human freedom but took a stance that humans were marred by the fall. This would be akin somewhat to semi pelagianism, but it developed independently of this controversy, and it also taught a different form of original sin known as ancestral sin. I believe it is much closer to the Bible than modern day Calvinistic understandings.
Thanks for the feedback. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of Christians through history have not embraced the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of predestination. Whether that leaves them closer to further from biblical teaching requires deep conscientious reflection.
I don't think the Eastern Orthodox affirm Semi-Pelagianism as it's defined, since they would agree that humanity inherited a degree of corruption through Adam, which SP denies.
Are there any traditions that allow that people could be on a continuum rather than all absolutely in one state of sin or other? I'm thinking somewhat of the Parable of the Sower where people have different levels of receptiveness to the Gospel, similarly are there any theologians that propose that some people could be Augustinian "dead" and need a lot of Grace in the form of help whereas others are more able to achieve Grace on their own merits a la Pelagiansim? It's probably because I'm looking at this from the point of view of psychological therapy - people need different levels of help to overcome different depths of problems, in order to lead them to happy and orosuctive lives.
so good to see an augustinian giving a fair assessment of arminian thought. I am very annoyed by a lot of calvinist conflating semi-pelagianism and arminism!
I am currently exploring my faith, discovering where my feet are planted.. I am 24 years old and enjoying the slow, but exciting discovery of me :) I am learning that i am not a relativist but a absolutist, rationalist not empiricist and a Armenian not the Calvinist (Protestant) - I only know the bare bones minimum on each of the categories outlined above, Now, I have just been exposed to this ( Pelagius ) Character, in which i Read, that he is summed up as an Armenian. I found this difficult as i disagreed with Pelagious. If any one reading this understands Arminianism, and Pelagious, could you please confirm or deny this connection between the two. Thank you
Your journey interests me a lot. Please allow me to ask you some questions. It may be that you don't know the answer, thats ok. I just want to discover what you believe: 1) Where do you draw the distinction between Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism? 2) Where do you draw the distinction between Semi-Pelagianism and classical Arminianism?3) What is the reason you feel yourself attracted to the idea of semi-pelagianism? I'm curios.
:) Sure friend i am happy to respond. question (1) Unfortunately i think Pelagious had a bad rep from Augustine, who i believe didnt understand Pelagious theology very well. I think Augustine reacted so aggressively against Pelagious because he thought that Pelagious was advocating that man didn't require grace in order to be saved. Furthermore Augustine was being challenged on his doctrine of original sin because indirectly pelagian was saying original sin doesnt exist. So from my understanding, i "do not" think Pelgaious actually believed what Augustine had attributed to him, and i think Pelagious did believe that grace was required in order that man is able to come to God. I just think Augustine was confused and angry. In this way i am of the position the Pelagious himself was a semi-Pelagian Now, where do i draw the line between Pelaginism and semi-Pelaginism? Well, if we are talking about the "Augustinian understanding of Pelagianism", i believe it would be understood as follows: that man does not require any grace in order for man to enter into salvation. In contrast, semi-Pelaginism holds that grace "is" required from God in order for man to have salvation, but emphasising the power of the free will in this process, sometimes to the subordination of Gods grace. As such, from my research it seems their are two groups with in semi-Pelagiansm, which differ on when grace is given. So firstly we have: Group (A) Here i believe our man Pelagious finds his home; *Grace is bestowed from birth to all people. Group (B) ; *Grace is bestowed from the moment a person chooses by their own will to desire God. The slight difference of when grace occurs has some large impacts on both groups theology; Group (A) in contrast to pelagianism argues that man most surely does require grace from God in order to accept God, either in desire or works. However by nature of their view of "when" grace is given, they do believe inevitably in resistible grace as well as rejecting Original sin. For obviously those whom choose to sin whereby given grace at birth, could have had faith in God and chose not to have sinned. - It is important to note that this group doesnt seem to specify if they believe that one can be sinless by this method, which brings into question the need of Christ, or the lack there of which i think startled Augustine. (Im not in this group) Group (B) in contrast does reject that grace is needed in the initial step of desiring God, this group hold that man is naturally designed with the capacity to desire God in himself. However they start of with a weakened will caused by sin, not to the point that it affects their ability to desire God, but enough that it causes them to be blind and lost in sin. In this way sin has become a habit for people and in that they become enslaved, which is passed down from generation to generation. Thous who go on to desire God freely however by their own free will, have their weakened wills restored over time by Gods intervention in their lives, threw grace. such as i believe is similar to the doctrine of prevenient grace? though of course unlike the arminaians, here the semi-pelagian states it is man in this first step of the process. I think this group also would not necessarily, but almost naturally favour resistible grace. Both groups however share other similarities besides the emphasis on free will position in salvation. - Both reject the doctrine of original sin - Both reject children's accountability to sin before maturity - Both groups see holy communion as symbolic or a declaration of ones decision to renounce evil, (but not the act of receiving grace) - Both groups would advocate a Wesleyan Christian perfectionism towards salvation threw grace. - Both groups would believe in resistible grace
(2) so i think the similarities between semi pelagianism and arminaimns is in the following: Both seem to advocate grace being given before the sacrament of baptism Semi-Pelagian group (B) and arminainsm seem to argue a type of previant grace, Both seems to advocate that God is not arbitrary but acts on the desires of man Both seem so believe in irresistible grace. That's all i can summarise at the moment, Very sorry for my poor grammar, i am dyslexic and it is very hard for me to articulate my understanding with written language!
He totally misrepresented Pelagius. Pelagius did not deny the necessity of grace. Pelagius Written Anathema: Synopsis: By Rev. Daniel R. Jennings, MA Around 418 Pelagius was asked by Albina, Pinianus, and Melania, wealthy Roman converts to Christianity, to provide a written condemnation of all that had been alleged against him. In response he provided the following anathema in their presence. It is unclear whether this is the complete written statement or just a fragment. It is found quoted in Augustine of Hippo’s two-part work "On The Grace Of Christ, And On Original Sin". "I anathematize the man who either thinks or says that the grace of God, whereby 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, is not necessary not only for every hour and for every moment, but also for every act of our lives: and those who endeavour to disannul it deserve everlasting punishment." Signed by Pelagius
For Arminians and Calvinists- they BOTH are under the constant worry of salvation. Arminians worry if they've lost there's. Calvinist worry constantly weather they are the elect/ predestinated or not...neither sides have a absolutely certainty they are saved....
This is simply untrue. You can seldom find a devout Methodist (Arminian) or Presbyterian (Calvinist) who is in fear of their salvation, because they both trust in the accomplished work of Christ.
faith is given to you by God. It is a gift...faith is the avenue or the instrument God uses to bring salvation( Jesus Christ and his atonement) to His people. God gives faith because of His grace and mercy, because He loves us (Ephesians 4-5). Faith comes from God in the form of a gift (Ephesians 2:8). that's not pelagianism. Pelagianism denies the cross,and Jesus if you really look at it..pelagian never mentions Jesus or the cross which is the gospel... pelegius is all self... Antichrist.
I like your grand narrative summaries and the analogies that you make of figures between periods. You do this in a very practical manner. Great listening to you!
Beautiful analogy at the end there. Thank you
Not sure if you mentioned this in previous lectures, but it's important to note that the eastern church adopted a stance different than Pelagianism and Augustinianism. It essentially affirmed human freedom but took a stance that humans were marred by the fall. This would be akin somewhat to semi pelagianism, but it developed independently of this controversy, and it also taught a different form of original sin known as ancestral sin. I believe it is much closer to the Bible than modern day Calvinistic understandings.
Thanks for the feedback. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of Christians through history have not embraced the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of predestination. Whether that leaves them closer to further from biblical teaching requires deep conscientious reflection.
More info?
I believe Karl Barth solved the issue here with his Theory of Christ being both the electing God and elected man. Thoughts?
I don't think the Eastern Orthodox affirm Semi-Pelagianism as it's defined, since they would agree that humanity inherited a degree of corruption through Adam, which SP denies.
Are there any traditions that allow that people could be on a continuum rather than all absolutely in one state of sin or other?
I'm thinking somewhat of the Parable of the Sower where people have different levels of receptiveness to the Gospel, similarly are there any theologians that propose that some people could be Augustinian "dead" and need a lot of Grace in the form of help whereas others are more able to achieve Grace on their own merits a la Pelagiansim?
It's probably because I'm looking at this from the point of view of psychological therapy - people need different levels of help to overcome different depths of problems, in order to lead them to happy and orosuctive lives.
so good to see an augustinian giving a fair assessment of arminian thought. I am very annoyed by a lot of calvinist conflating semi-pelagianism and arminism!
great teaching!
What is the title of the next lecture in this series?
More in this series will be uploaded soon.
You have Pelagianism as being 0% grace but Pelagius would have agreed people are justified by forgiveness which means it is by grace.
That's fantastic !!! That's clear. Thank you.
I am currently exploring my faith, discovering where my feet are planted.. I am 24 years old and enjoying the slow, but exciting discovery of me :) I am learning that i am not a relativist but a absolutist, rationalist not empiricist and a Armenian not the Calvinist (Protestant) - I only know the bare bones minimum on each of the categories outlined above, Now, I have just been exposed to this ( Pelagius ) Character, in which i Read, that he is summed up as an Armenian. I found this difficult as i disagreed with Pelagious. If any one reading this understands Arminianism, and Pelagious, could you please confirm or deny this connection between the two. Thank you
Are you still interested in this topic?
Very much so, in fact i think i have recently become a semi-pelagian myself!
Your journey interests me a lot.
Please allow me to ask you some questions. It may be that you don't know the answer, thats ok. I just want to discover what you believe:
1) Where do you draw the distinction between Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism?
2) Where do you draw the distinction between Semi-Pelagianism and classical Arminianism?3) What is the reason you feel yourself attracted to the idea of semi-pelagianism?
I'm curios.
:) Sure friend i am happy to respond.
question (1)
Unfortunately i think Pelagious had a bad rep from Augustine, who i believe didnt understand Pelagious theology very well. I think Augustine reacted so aggressively against Pelagious because he thought that Pelagious was advocating that man didn't require grace in order to be saved. Furthermore Augustine was being challenged on his doctrine of original sin because indirectly pelagian was saying original sin doesnt exist. So from my understanding, i "do not" think Pelgaious actually believed what Augustine had attributed to him, and i think Pelagious did believe that grace was required in order that man is able to come to God. I just think Augustine was confused and angry. In this way i am of the position the Pelagious himself was a semi-Pelagian
Now, where do i draw the line between Pelaginism and semi-Pelaginism?
Well, if we are talking about the "Augustinian understanding of Pelagianism", i believe it would be understood as follows: that man does not require any grace in order for man to enter into salvation. In contrast, semi-Pelaginism holds that grace "is" required from God in order for man to have salvation, but emphasising the power of the free will in this process, sometimes to the subordination of Gods grace. As such, from my research it seems their are two groups with in semi-Pelagiansm, which differ on when grace is given. So firstly we have:
Group (A) Here i believe our man Pelagious finds his home;
*Grace is bestowed from birth to all people.
Group (B) ;
*Grace is bestowed from the moment a person chooses by their own will to desire God.
The slight difference of when grace occurs has some large impacts on both groups theology;
Group (A) in contrast to pelagianism argues that man most surely does require grace from God in order to accept God, either in desire or works. However by nature of their view of "when" grace is given, they do believe inevitably in resistible grace as well as rejecting Original sin. For obviously those whom choose to sin whereby given grace at birth, could have had faith in God and chose not to have sinned. - It is important to note that this group doesnt seem to specify if they believe that one can be sinless by this method, which brings into question the need of Christ, or the lack there of which i think startled Augustine. (Im not in this group)
Group (B) in contrast does reject that grace is needed in the initial step of desiring God, this group hold that man is naturally designed with the capacity to desire God in himself. However they start of with a weakened will caused by sin, not to the point that it affects their ability to desire God, but enough that it causes them to be blind and lost in sin. In this way sin has become a habit for people and in that they become enslaved, which is passed down from generation to generation. Thous who go on to desire God freely however by their own free will, have their weakened wills restored over time by Gods intervention in their lives, threw grace. such as i believe is similar to the doctrine of prevenient grace? though of course unlike the arminaians, here the semi-pelagian states it is man in this first step of the process. I think this group also would not necessarily, but almost naturally favour resistible grace.
Both groups however share other similarities besides the emphasis on free will position in salvation.
- Both reject the doctrine of original sin
- Both reject children's accountability to sin before maturity
- Both groups see holy communion as symbolic or a declaration of ones decision to renounce evil, (but not the act of receiving grace)
- Both groups would advocate a Wesleyan Christian perfectionism towards salvation threw grace.
- Both groups would believe in resistible grace
(2) so i think the similarities between semi pelagianism and arminaimns is in the following:
Both seem to advocate grace being given before the sacrament of baptism
Semi-Pelagian group (B) and arminainsm seem to argue a type of previant grace,
Both seems to advocate that God is not arbitrary but acts on the desires of man
Both seem so believe in irresistible grace.
That's all i can summarise at the moment, Very sorry for my poor grammar, i am dyslexic and it is very hard for me to articulate my understanding with written language!
He totally misrepresented Pelagius. Pelagius did not deny the necessity of grace.
Pelagius Written Anathema: Synopsis: By Rev. Daniel R. Jennings, MA
Around 418 Pelagius was asked by Albina, Pinianus, and Melania, wealthy Roman converts to Christianity, to provide a written condemnation of all that had been alleged against him. In response he provided the following anathema in their presence. It is unclear whether this is the complete written statement or just a fragment. It is found quoted in Augustine of Hippo’s two-part work "On The Grace Of Christ, And On Original Sin".
"I anathematize the man who either thinks or says that the grace of God, whereby 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, is not necessary not only for every hour and for every moment, but also for every act of our lives: and those who endeavour to disannul it deserve everlasting punishment."
Signed by Pelagius
11:00 5 pts Calvin
For Arminians and Calvinists- they BOTH are under the constant worry of salvation. Arminians worry if they've lost there's. Calvinist worry constantly weather they are the elect/ predestinated or not...neither sides have a absolutely certainty they are saved....
This is simply untrue. You can seldom find a devout Methodist (Arminian) or Presbyterian (Calvinist) who is in fear of their salvation, because they both trust in the accomplished work of Christ.
“...grace THROUGH faith...” It’s a relationship. Thus, although Arminius is off a bit, he’s closer than Augustin.
Our faith always comes first; I am a semi pelagian
faith is given to you by God. It is a gift...faith is the avenue or the instrument God uses to bring salvation( Jesus Christ and his atonement) to His people. God gives faith because of His grace and mercy, because He loves us (Ephesians 4-5). Faith comes from God in the form of a gift (Ephesians 2:8).
that's not pelagianism.
Pelagianism denies the cross,and Jesus if you really look at it..pelagian never mentions Jesus or the cross which is the gospel... pelegius is all self... Antichrist.