tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post1121580382973954415..comments2023-05-26T10:55:27.696-04:00Comments on Jc_Freak: Reponse to Jesse Morrel's video: Beyond AugustineJc_Freak:http://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-34209510307810453032014-11-30T00:43:33.469-05:002014-11-30T00:43:33.469-05:001. Pelagius himself was never condemned. He was fa...1. Pelagius himself was never condemned. He was falsely accused of heresy by Augustine but always acquitted when he was present to defend himself. "Pelagianism" or at least Augustine's accusations against it, were condemned as heretical after Pelagius was already out of the picture.<br /><br />Pelagius himself was really more of a semi-Pelagian because, despite the false accusations, he believed in both the necessity of grace and man's free will working together. Anyone who reads Pelagius' own words will see that.<br /><br />Also, Pelagius did not teach justification by works. Just read his commentary on the Romans. <br /><br />I like these quotes from Wesley:<br /><br />“I verily believe, the real heresy of Pelagius was neither more nor less than this: The holding that Christians may, by the grace of God, (not without it; that I take to be a mere slander,) ‘go on to perfection;’ or, in other words, ‘fulfill the law of Christ.'” John Wesley<br /><br />“Who was Pelagius? By all I can pick up from ancient authors, I guess he was both a wise and a holy man.” John Wesley<br /><br />“Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him… When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit: “St. Augustine said it.” John WesleyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-68799687437601697592014-11-29T11:23:47.496-05:002014-11-29T11:23:47.496-05:00I wonder why it is so hard to tell ALL the story i...I wonder why it is so hard to tell ALL the story in such post. Please understand they were both wrong and right, I look back on some of MY writings and think HOW DID YOU THINK THAT! YES, the Catholic Church called everyone that disagreed with them Heretics. Especially if it included a challenge to their doctrine or Augustine. <br />PLEASE GET THE COMPLETE STORY.<br />This is an excerpt from the footnotes of Jesse Morrell’s upcoming book, <br /> Just because Pelagius taught free will does not mean that everyone who believes in free will is a Pelagian. The same logic would make everyone who believes in the Trinity a Pelagian, because Pelagius taught that too. But the doctrine of free will was the universal doctrine of the Christian church, long before Pelagius even existed. On the doctrine of free will, Pelagius certainly was orthodox as he agreed with all of the Early Church Fathers before Augustine on that point.<br />There were three councils that condemned Pelagianism; the Council of Ephesus in the year 431; the Council of Carthage in the year 418; and the Council of Orange in the year 529. This is because Pelagius was not invited nor present to defend himself but his opponents and adversaries stated his doctrine for him. When Pelagius was able to defend himself, the Council of Diospolis in 415 declared Pelagius orthodox. And Pope Zosimus also declared Pelagius’ orthodoxy in 417. He was always acquitted when present to clarify and defend his views. If these are our authorities to determine orthodoxy, do we accept the ones in favor of Pelagius or the ones against him?<br />In addition, the Council of Orange and the Council of Carthage were not ecumenical councils. They did not consist of Bishops from the entire church, which mean that the rulings of the Councils were not universally affirmed by the Eastern and Western churches.<br />If heresy is heresy because a council says so, or because of majority vote, Calvinism must be more heretical than Pelagianism was because there were more councils that condemned Calvinism than condemned Pelagianism. The Calvinist doctrines of predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace were condemned throughout history. Lucidus was condemned by the Council of Oral in 473, Council of Arles in 475, and Council of Orange in 529. And Gottschalk (Gotteschalcus) was condemned by the Council at Mentz in 848 and the Council of Chiersey (Quiercy) in 849. And what do Calvinists think of the Council of Constance in 1414 for John Huss, or the Council of Worms in 1521 for Martin Luther, or the Council of Trent in 1561 for the Protestants? Are these Councils not the voice of Orthodoxy as Ephesus and Carthage supposedly were?<br />In fact, the Council of Orange that condemned Pelagianism also condemned the doctrines of Calvinism. If the council is authoritative in the former case, it must be equally authoritative in the latter as well. But if it was mistaken in the latter case, maybe it was mistaken in the former as well.<br />But to determine if Pelagius really was a heretic, we should go to his actual words to see what he taught. It is a common error for Calvinists to quote from Pelagius’ opponents and accusers to express what Pelagius taught, rather than to quote from Pelagius himself. Certainly, Calvinists would not like it if people quoted from the opponents of Reformed Theology to state what Calvinism teaches. We should give Pelagius the same honesty and fairness that we would want our doctrine to be treated with.RevSREhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08459461818239291132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-86538242095010487872013-02-06T08:13:48.297-05:002013-02-06T08:13:48.297-05:00Well, Pelagius wasn't just condemned for legal...Well, Pelagius wasn't just condemned for legalism. He also denied the need for grace. It is this second factor only that Semipelagianism differed from him (supposedly. Like I said, it is possible his views were exaggerated).<br /><br />If you are thinking of Finney and his followers, I would agree with you that I would not consider them heretical. I am not sure if it is fair to call them Semipelagian, though much of the holiness movement was. But I would see them as equal to Calvinists in my estimation. Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-37304883862347386302013-02-05T17:46:17.679-05:002013-02-05T17:46:17.679-05:00Interesting, I am not keen to spend an hour watchi...Interesting, I am not keen to spend an hour watching that, but enjoyed your analysis.<br /><br />I agree that legalism should be condemned, and it is interesting that this is what Pelagius was condemned for. One can't condemn Pelagius' soteriology as heretical (it may be) if this was not the heresy ho was condemned for. Pelagius thought many true things (as all people do), these are not automatically errant because he was found heretical in one area. It probably just makes him unreliable.<br /><br />Pelagianism aside, I do not think Semi-Pelagianism should be considered heretical, I am happy for it to sit within the bounds of orthodoxy (even if incorrect). I have less concern that someone is Semi-Pelagian than I have if he is Calvinist.bethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.com