Is Faith a Work?

[bound]

Bound, does God’s empowerment of faith act as a cause or is it a passive influence upon the will that must be voluntarily yielded to?

Hi Heavenly Pilgrim,

Well, HP, as an Arminian/Free-Will type... I would have to say that 'conditional election' describes my point of view here. I don't subscribe to 'Irresistible Grace' nor 'unconditional election'.

I believe that our God wants 'all' men to be 'saved'...

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1Ti 2:1-4)

That said, I think that Classic Arminianism and Classic Calvinism aren't too distant from one another.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: I think that Classic Arminianism and Classic Calvinism aren't too distant from one another.

HP: Interesting. In what ways?

 

[bound]

HP: Interesting. In what ways?

Well, for one, Arminianism isn't Palagianism... it requires the Grace of God to empower the Will to choice the Good. Man does not do this on his own but in synergy with the activity of the Godhead.

In this 'Total Depravity' there is a common understanding between Classic Arminianism and Calvinism that Salvation is not simply a work of man.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: Well, for one, Arminianism isn't Palagianism... it requires the Grace of God to empower the Will to choice the Good. Man does not do this on his own but in synergy with the activity of the Godhead.

HP: It is my understanding of Pelagius, that he did not in any way state or imply that man simply acts on his own, but rather Pelagius disagreed with Augustine that God needed to supply some ‘special grace/ability’ for man to respond. Pelagius simply felt man was already endowed by God naturally with the needed abilities to respond without God having to ‘do something’ (along the order of irresistible grace/regeneration antecedent to salvation in order to be able to respond) in order for man to respond.

Bound: In this 'Total Depravity' there is a common understanding between Classic Arminianism and Calvinism that Salvation is not simply a work of man.

HP: Salvation was not simply a work of man to Pelagius either, again as I understand him. He fully believed in God’s offer as needed grace, but again did NOT believe that one had to be ‘regenerated’ in order to accept God’s grace and believe.

 

[bound]

HP: It is my understanding of Pelagius, that he did not in any way state or imply that man simply acts on his own, but rather Pelagius disagreed with Augustine that God needed to supply some ‘special grace/ability’ for man to respond. Pelagius simply felt man was already endowed by God naturally with the needed abilities to respond without God having to ‘do something’ (along the order of irresistible grace/regeneration antecedent to salvation in order to be able to respond) in order for man to respond.

What is it that man has that has not be given him by God? You, my friend, think to highly of man and so did Pelagius. Whatever man has that rises him above the beasts is only his by God's Grace. You would be wise to remember that.

HP: Salvation was not simply a work of man to Pelagius either, again as I understand him. He fully believed in God’s offer as needed grace, but again did NOT believe that one had to be ‘regenerated’ in order to accept God’s grace and believe.

And what, pray tell, is 'regenerated' that Pelagius needed to disagree? No, Pelagius was rejected by the Synods and those Synods were accepted by the Councils. Personally, I need no conjecture to know he was wrong.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: What is it that man has that has not be given him by God?

HP: Man is not merely the product of God, unless you are so bold as to assert God is the author of all evil. God created man and enabled man to be a creator, a first cause of his moral intents and choices, not merely some effect driven by the causation of God. Certainly God has bestowed upon man every ability and the knowledge of God Himself, without which we would be as a stone is before sculptor. To conclude, God has certainly granted to man every ability and means to be the cause man is, but man no less is a cause, without which no moral responsibility could be exacted of man whatsoever.

Bound: You, my friend, think to highly of man and so did Pelagius. Whatever man has that rises him above the beasts is only his by God's Grace. You would be wise to remember that.

HP: Listen to the attitude reflected by your words. Where is the just cause for such a condescending remark??? I have said or done nothing to state or imply that what we do is not by God’s grace.

Bound: And what, pray tell, is 'regenerated' that Pelagius needed to disagree?

HP: With all due respect, your question is not even appear to me as coherent, yet you present it as some form of evidence against another. So much for trying to reason together.

Bound: No, Pelagius was rejected by the Synods and those Synods were accepted by the Councils. Personally, I need no conjecture to know he was wrong.

HP: Neither are you wise in accepting what some of them concluded without first fairly examining what Pelagius himself was purporting and to whose understanding anything he said was being filtered through. You might need to understand that, as I recall reading, there were no less than two Councils(?) that completely exonerated him, and it was not until Augustine stacked the deck against him the third time that he was charged with anything.

If you seriously understand so well the case made against Pelagius, state your case against him. Show us where he ever denied the grace of our Lord or whatever it is you seem to have understand so clearly.

 

[bound]

HP: Man is not merely the product of God, unless you are so bold as to assert God is the author of all evil. God created man and enabled man to be a creator, a first cause of his moral intents and choices, not merely some effect driven by the causation of God. Certainly God has bestowed upon man every ability and the knowledge of God Himself, without which we would be as a stone is before sculptor. To conclude, God has certainly granted to man every ability and means to be the cause man is, but man no less is a cause, without which no moral responsibility could be exacted of man whatsoever.
HP: Listen to the attitude reflected by your words. Where is the just cause for such a condescending remark??? I have said or done nothing to state or imply that what we do is not by God’s grace.

First off, evil is not a 'product' of anyone but the lack of the good extended to all creation by God and ultimately lost through our own 'free-will' and continued to be lacking through our continued misuse of the good that God has extend. So there is no 'evil product', period.

Gifts can be misused. Don't blame the givers but the user thereof.

HP: With all due respect, your question is not even appear to me as coherent, yet you present it as some form of evidence against another. So much for trying to reason together.

So, let me then but it another way for you...

for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.' "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. (Act 17:28-29)

If our very lives, our very movements and our very existence rests in God... why are you attributing these things to yourself? What is not a gift from God?

HP: Neither are you wise in accepting what some of them concluded without first fairly examining what Pelagius himself was purporting and to whose understanding anything he said was being filtered through. You might need to understand that, as I recall reading, there were no less than two Councils(?) that completely exonerated him, and it was not until Augustine stacked the deck against him the third time that he was charged with anything.

My friend, you are reading a great deal of revisionist history if you are going to suggest that Pelagius was in the right on this matter.

If you seriously understand so well the case made against Pelagius, state your case against him. Show us where he ever denied the grace of our Lord or whatever it is you seem to have understand so clearly.

In all honestly, I don't the spare time to sit around here in rehash history with you... you are free to read the Councils Anathemas yourself but it seems to me you are siding with the minority opinion on the matter.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: First off, evil is not a 'product' of anyone but the lack of the good extended to all creation by God and ultimately lost through our own 'free-will' and continued to be lacking through our continued misuse of the good that God has extend. So there is no 'evil product', period.

HP: You speak in stark contradictions. First you say that evil is a product of a “lack of good extended,” which places the cause of evil as God Himself. What utter nonsense. Evil is most certainly the product of the will of sentient beings granted the ability of being the cause of their moral intents, and not because some ‘good’ was not extended.

Then you talk of free will. Free will to do what???? If evil is caused by the ‘lack’ of something, it is unavoidable and as such free will has no bearing over ones intents whatsoever. Men under such a lack are nothing more than the product of their necessitated fate, and that by God’s design, evidently according to what you have posted here.

Bound: Gifts can be misused. Don't blame the givers but the user thereof.

HP: A ‘gift’ that is in essence the “LACK” of something?? Whatever is the cause of the malady of sin is indeed the proper seat of all blame. If it is due to some lack, then the withholder of that needed entity (or whatever you see as a lack consists of) is indeed the seat of all blame for sin.


Quote:
HP: With all due respect, your question is not even appear to me as coherent, yet you present it as some form of evidence against another. So much for trying to reason together.

Bound: So, let me then but it another way for you...

for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.' "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. (Act 17:28-29)

If our very lives, our very movements and our very existence rests in God... why are you attributing these things to yourself? What is not a gift from God?

HP: My sin and your sin is not a gift from God, just for starters. Men are not mere robots designed and controlled by God. God created men with creative powers much as He possesses, in that we are indeed the cause of our moral intents and subsequent actions. The only alternative to that ius that we are the mere necessitated products of His will, making God the direct author of all sin. What a horrible blight you seem desirous of placing upon a Holy and Just God. If there is no disconnect between the intents of God and the intents formed by man, God is the only cause and as such is the only proper seat of blame for sin.
Quote:
HP: Neither are you wise in accepting what some of them concluded without first fairly examining what Pelagius himself was purporting and to whose understanding anything he said was being filtered through. You might need to understand that, as I recall reading, there were no less than two Councils(?) that completely exonerated him, and it was not until Augustine stacked the deck against him the third time that he was charged with anything.

Bound: My friend, you are reading a great deal of revisionist history if you are going to suggest that Pelagius was in the right on this matter.

HP: Bound, you are talking far beyond what your knowledge can substantiate. It would appear to me that you do not have the foggiest what the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius was, and are completely devoid of understanding what grace meant to Augustine.

Qoute HP: If you seriously understand so well the case made against Pelagius, state your case against him. Show us where he ever denied the grace of our Lord or whatever it is you seem to have understand so clearly.

Bound: In all honestly, I don't the spare time to sit around here in rehash history with you... you are free to read the Councils Anathemas yourself but it seems to me you are siding with the minority option on the matter.

HP: Do you not have any ability to judge justly in a matter, or are you merely a stooge for a particular council, taking what one Council might have concluded without a fair examination of the facts in the case or the previous rulings of two other Councils? Councils are not evidence of truth being established or justice being served in the least. They are not nor ever have been infallible. They have been used to manipulate and serve the self interests of misguided men from their inception and nothing they arrive at can be established as truth apart from a careful examination of the actual issues involved from the perspectives they were firmly entrenched in, in light of the Word of God, first truths of reason, matters of immutable justice, matters of fact, and even personal experience to some degree.


PS: John Wesley would turn over in his grave at your stated remarks in the last post, as to evil being the product of the 'lack of something' and not the direct product of ones personal choice of ones selfish will in direct relationship to a known commandment of God. Wesley clearly stated that NOTHING is sin directly other than willful disobedience to a known commnadment of God.
__________________

 

[bound]

HP: You speak in stark contradictions. First you say that evil is a product of a “lack of good extended,” which places the cause of evil as God Himself. What utter nonsense. Evil is most certainly the product of the will of sentient beings granted the ability of being the cause of their moral intents, and not because some ‘good’ was not extended.

Then you talk of free will. Free will to do what???? If evil is caused by the ‘lack’ of something, it is unavoidable and as such free will has no bearing over ones intents whatsoever. Men under such a lack are nothing more than the product of their necessitated fate, and that by God’s design, evidently according to what you have posted here.

No, actually, nothing that I've said is a 'contradiction' at all. Evil is the lack of the Good and not 'properly' a thing. C.S. Lewis once said, 'Evil is Good done badly' and I agree with him. It is not a 'thing' or 'product' but the misuse of a good. God made 'everything' and it was 'very good'. It is our 'misuse' of that which is 'very good' that makes it 'evil'.

Again, I ask, what is man's that was not given him by God? You never answered the question.

I also said in my opening post that 'Faith is an act of the Will empowered by Grace'. That Grace is extended to 'all humanity' but it is to be understood as 'synergia' and as the sole act of man nor God. God supplies the power to do the Good, we must act to will the Good with that power.

HP: A ‘gift’ that is in essence the “LACK” of something?? Whatever is the cause of the malady of sin is indeed the proper seat of all blame. If it is due to some lack, then the withholder of that needed entity (or whatever you see as a lack consists of) is indeed the seat of all blame for sin.

So you look at the conventional understanding of the Biblical Text and draw from it, that God is to blame for sin? Is that it? So in order for you to free God from this blame, you seek to take from God any responsibility for the state of affairs.. is this correct?

HP: My sin and your sin is not a gift from God, just for starters. Men are not mere robots designed and controlled by God. God created men with creative powers much as He possesses, in that we are indeed the cause of our moral intents and subsequent actions. The only alternative to that ius that we are the mere necessitated products of His will, making God the direct author of all sin. What a horrible blight you seem desirous of placing upon a Holy and Just God. If there is no disconnect between the intents of God and the intents formed by man, God is the only cause and as such is the only proper seat of blame for sin.

Once again you attempt to attribute an essence to sin as if it is a proper thing to be in posession of... I am saying that 'sin' is not a thing... it is the lack thereof of the Good.

HP: Bound, you are talking far beyond what your knowledge can substantiate. It would appear to me that you do not have the foggiest what the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius was, and are completely devoid of understanding what grace meant to Augustine.

And you can judge another's knowledge so easily? This isn't about Augustine and Pelagius, it is about the 'orthodox' understanding of our Faith and that of a 'heterodox' understanding of our Faith.

I have also read the revisionist writings which attempt to suggest that Pelagianism was correct but I fail to see the merit to the argument.

HP: Do you not have any ability to judge justly in a matter, or are you merely a stooge for a particular council, taking what one Council might have concluded without a fair examination of the facts in the case or the previous rulings of two other Councils? Councils are not evidence of truth being established or justice being served in the least. They are not nor ever have been infallible. They have been used to manipulate and serve the self interests of misguided men from their inception and nothing they arrive at can be established as truth apart from a careful examination of the actual issues involved from the perspectives they were firmly entrenched in, in light of the Word of God, first truths of reason, matters of immutable justice, matters of fact, and even personal experience to some degree.

Councils have weights... more weight than my attempts... some are Synods and others are General. The Anathemas against Pelagius was upheld by General Councils.

Wikipedia, defines Pelagianism as such:

Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), although ironically he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because men are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon.

I personally reject the point of Pelagianism which states 'that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. In fact, humanity lacks 'any' ability to do the good without direct participation in the Divine Nature which is the source and font of 'all' Good. It is 'shared' with humanity and so it is 'never' a posession of humanity proper but of God and Him alone.

Pelagianism was attacked in the Council of Diospolis[2] and condemned in 418 at the Council of Carthage.[3] These condemnations were ratified at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

PS: John Wesley would turn over in his grave at your stated remarks in the last post, as to evil being the product of the 'lack of something' and not the direct product of ones personal choice of ones selfish will in direct relationship to a known commandment of God. Wesley clearly stated that NOTHING is sin directly other than willful disobedience to a known commandment of God.

Again, evil is not a 'product'... it is not a 'thing'... it is as C.S. Lewis once spoke... good done badly. John Wesley would agree with this because he taught that 'everyman' was extended Grace from God... but not 'everyman' is saved. So we can conclude from his teaching then that it isn't the lack of Grace per se that is the cause of evil but our lack to use said Grace for our own salvific ends.

Acts, like Willful Disobedience can demonstrate a lack to serve the Good within one's Will. We can characterize that as 'evil'... but 'evil' is not a proper thing, as I've said.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: No, actually, nothing that I've said is a 'contradiction' at all. Evil is the lack of the Good and not 'properly' a thing. C.S. Lewis once said, 'Evil is Good done badly' and I agree with him. It is not a 'thing' or 'product' but the misuse of a good. God made 'everything' and it was 'very good'. It is our 'misuse' of that which is 'very good' that makes it 'evil'.

HP: Such a definition has no support from Scripture or reason. It is a mere sophism to say that evil is the lack of a good. Evil is not ‘necessarily’ the lack of anything, but is rather the results of a direct act of the will, and that ‘something’ that evil is comprised of is a selfish choice. Certainly selfishness could be described as the lack of doing something good, but to describe selfishness in terms of a mere lack of something is sophistic argumentation at best, deception at worse. A mere rock can ‘lack’ much, but lacking much does not make something intrinsically evil. When you leave the confines of evil being the direct results of a sinful choice, you leave the realm of reason and enter a philosophic realm of mere sophisms.
In the Scriptures we see God remarking that the evil some did had not ever before even entered His mind. Are you going to suggest that God had not ever considered the lack of something ‘good?’ Bound, the evil that men did was the direct result of their own formed intents, sinful man being the direct cause of its fruition and existence. Sin is the results of a positive voluntary act of the will in direct opposition to a known commandment of God, not due to something they simply lacked.

You mentioned the quote by CS Lewis that 'Evil is Good done badly.' So if one kills another it is really just a 'good' done badly??? So if one rapes and kills a child, or tears it apart in the womb limb by limb in an abortion it is merely a ‘good’ done badly??? Have you completely left the realm of Scripture and reason? It would clearly appear to me you have. Evil is indeed a wicked product of the will of sentient beings judged by God as wickedness and sin.

 

[billwald]

>Bound: What is it that man has that has not be given him by God?

Old story:

Pastor: What a beautiful garden God has given you.

Gardener: You should have seen it when God was doing the weeding.

 

[bound]

HP: Such a definition has no support from Scripture or reason. It is a mere sophism to say that evil is the lack of a good. Evil is not ‘necessarily’ the lack of anything, but is rather the results of a direct act of the will, and that ‘something’ that evil is comprised of is a selfish choice. Certainly selfishness could be described as the lack of doing something good, but to describe selfishness in terms of a mere lack of something is sophistic argumentation at best, deception at worse. A mere rock can ‘lack’ much, but lacking much does not make something intrinsically evil. When you leave the confines of evil being the direct results of a sinful choice, you leave the realm of reason and enter a philosophic realm of mere sophisms.

Your overly narrow definition of sin would exclude 'Original Sin' as a sin proper... personally I think you know this which is why are your defining sin in the way that you are. By doing this, you make 'every' sin a direct act of the individual and thus remove the need for Salvation at all, since Damnation is simply the punishment of bad behavior. This sounds a lot like Pelagianism to me.

Do you reject the Doctrine of Original Sin? Do you reject the need to be Born-Again? Please note that what is born of flesh 'is' flesh and what is born of Spirit 'is' Spirit. To attain to the Heavenly Kingdom, we need to be born of the Spirit... not merely of the flesh. You seem to conflate the two. Our Lord did not.

In the Scriptures we see God remarking that the evil some did had not ever before even entered His mind. Are you going to suggest that God had not ever considered the lack of something ‘good?’ Bound, the evil that men did was the direct result of their own formed intents, sinful man being the direct cause of its fruition and existence. Sin is the results of a positive voluntary act of the will in direct opposition to a known commandment of God, not due to something they simply lacked.

Original Sin and our continued expulsion from the Garden is not a 'direct result of our own formed intents'... but the 'loss' of intimacy with the Divine Nature and the 'loss' of those qualities once shared with man but no longer until the Incarnation restored it.

You mentioned the quote by CS Lewis that 'Evil is Good done badly.' So if one kills another it is really just a 'good' done badly??? So if one rapes and kills a child, or tears it apart in the womb limb by limb in an abortion it is merely a ‘good’ done badly??? Have you completely left the realm of Scripture and reason? It would clearly appear to me you have. Evil is indeed a wicked product of the will of sentient beings judged by God as wickedness and sin.

Our lack of participation in the good is one of degrees... some are very far from any participation at all and we might concluded from that those who continue in such a state are truly damned.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Then you add that sin is not a ‘thing’ or product’ but the misuse of a good. I would not only disagree but say once again you contradict yourself. Are you saying that ‘the misuse of a good’ is NOT a ‘product’ of such a choice?? Again you speak in sophisms. Certainly if we did in fact ‘misuse’ a good, our misuse of that which is very good would be evil, but evil is not limited to those terms. Evil always involves doing something that is not good, but is not always the misuse of a good. God created us to be the cause of anything we do as good as well as the cause of any we do that is denoted as evil. God calls the things we do in relationship to love and truth, ‘righteousness’ (which subsequent to salvation is the PRODUCT of our will choosing voluntarily to act in accordance to Gods laws and truth,) and that which is a product of our wills that God declares in opposition to love and benevolence, selfishness, and as such sin. Righteousness and sin are both products of the will.

Bound: I also said in my opening post that 'Faith is an act of the Will empowered by Grace'. That Grace is extended to 'all humanity' but it is to be understood as 'synergia' and as the sole act of man nor God. God supplies the power to do the Good, we must act to will the Good with that power.

HP: I take what you meant to say is that it is ‘NOT’ the sole act of God nor man. I could say the same for influences to sin for that matter. Influences to sin do not always originate in his flesh, but rather can be direct influences by Satan Himself or the world. In any case, the will of man is an independent chooser that decides voluntarily without force or coercion between influences from God or evil influences if man is to be justly held morally accountable for its choices.

Bound: So you look at the conventional understanding of the Biblical Text and draw from it, that God is to blame for sin? Is that it? So in order for you to free God from this blame, you seek to take from God any responsibility for the state of affairs.. is this correct?

HP: You certainly have not presented any ‘conventional’ understanding of the Biblical text. If man sins due to the fact he is lacking something from birth, then the Creator of such an individual would be responsible for that lack. God holds man accountable, which is clear evidence that the sin committed is NOT due to something they lacked, but for failure to use that which they have been given in agreement to benevolence. Man is blamed directly by God for his state of affairs. Every man is accountable for his own sins. Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Quote:
HP: My sin and your sin is not a gift from God, just for starters. Men are not mere robots designed and controlled by God. God created men with creative powers much as He possesses, in that we are indeed the cause of our moral intents and subsequent actions. The only alternative to that ius that we are the mere necessitated products of His will, making God the direct author of all sin. What a horrible blight you seem desirous of placing upon a Holy and Just God. If there is no disconnect between the intents of God and the intents formed by man, God is the only cause and as such is the only proper seat of blame for sin.

Bound: …you attempt to attribute an essence to sin as if it is a proper thing to be in posession of... I am saying that 'sin' is not a thing... it is the lack thereof of the Good.

HP: God calls sin that which is a direct product of the will of man in opposition to benevolence. God does not call what you ‘lack’ as sin, unless the lack is a direct product of the selfish choices of your own will.

Bound: And you can judge another's knowledge so easily? This isn't about Augustine and Pelagius, it is about the 'orthodox' understanding of our Faith and that of a 'heterodox' understanding of our Faith.

HP: You are the one that brought Pelagius into the picture, not I. You did not provide any support whatsoever for your remarks. I say you simply neither understand Pelagius or the lenses by which Augustine falsely viewed him through. You also are showing an unjustified amount of confidence in the findings of the Council that finally indicted him.

Bound: I have also read the revisionist writings which attempt to suggest that Pelagius was correct but I fail to see the merit to the argument.

HP: So everyone is a ‘revisionist’ unless they agreed with the Council or Augustine or evidently your beliefs concerning them as lacking in evidence as they clearly are???? How ironic.

Bound: Councils have weights... more weight than my attempts... some are Synods and others are General. The Anathemas against Pelagius was upheld by General Councils.

HP: Upon what do you base that bit of conjecture upon that implies a Council has any more weight than is possible out of the mouth of a mere babe in Christ? Whatever happened to Sola Scriptura?? (not that I would take that position either)

Bound: Again, evil is not a 'product'... it is not a 'thing'... it is as C.S. Lewis once spoke... good done badly. John Wesley would agree with this because he taught that 'everyman' was extended Grace from God... but not 'everyman' is saved. So we can conclude from his teaching then that it isn't the lack of Grace per se that is the cause of evil but our lack to use said Grace for our own salvific ends.

HP: Oh please. What CS Lewis said runs absolutely contrary to anything Wesley taught on sin and evil.

There is not the slightest indication from Pelagius that he believed anything differently than that everyman was extended grace from God, but not everyman is saved. You really seem oblivious to the controversy that realy existed between Augustine and Pelagius. Possibly we can post more about it some time. For now it will suffice to say that by no means did Pelagius deny God’s grace period. It was Augustine that tried to hold Pelagius to ‘HIS’ definition of grace, which by the way was contrary to the Word of God.

Bound: Acts, like Willful Disobedience can demonstrate a lack to serve the Good within one's Will. We can characterize that as 'evil'... but 'evil' is not a proper thing, as I've said.

HP: Certainly willful disobedience always demonstrates a lack to serve ‘the good’ within one’s will, and as such the product of ones will in such cases is denoted as sin and evil by God. Sin and evil can certainly be denoted or thought of as a ‘thing’ in the sense of being such a ‘product’ of the will. More correctly, sin and evil are pronouncements by God of the moral character or nature of the formed intents (product) of the will, i.e., intents conformed to selfishness as opposed to benevolence.

 

[bound]

There is not the slightest indication from Pelagius that he believed anything differently than that everyman was extended grace from God, but not everyman is saved. You really seem oblivious to the controversy that realy existed between Augustine and Pelagius. Possibly we can post more about it some time. For now it will suffice to say that by no means did Pelagius deny God’s grace period. It was Augustine that tried to hold Pelagius to ‘HIS’ definition of grace, which by the way was contrary to the Word of God.

This is all that I felt was worth my time. I thought it was serve to address this and the rest would shake out eventually.

As I understand it and those who have written about Pelagianism understand it, Pelagius argued that man could have salvation through his or her own labors without divine aid.

There is no distinction between the Carnal Man or the Spiritual Man, Regeneration, Election, a Covenant, Reborn or Born Again, or anything else that would constitute a 'new creation' in the life of Fallen Man.

This makes a complete mockery of the Fall and in so doing the Resurrection. The Fall is reduced to a 'bad example' and Our Lord is reduced to a 'good example'... and so the divine attributes are thought to be inborn within Man himself as his own qualities not the participation of the Divine Nature. This isn't Christianity but Humanism.

What source are you using to know the thoughts of Pelagius? I am relying on sources from Cambridge University Press.

 

[bound]

Then you add that sin is not a ‘thing’ or product’ but the misuse of a good. I would not only disagree but say once again you contradict yourself. Are you saying that ‘the misuse of a good’ is NOT a ‘product’ of such a choice?? Again you speak in sophisms. Certainly if we did in fact ‘misuse’ a good, our misuse of that which is very good would be evil, but evil is not limited to those terms. Evil always involves doing something that is not good, but is not always the misuse of a good. God created us to be the cause of anything we do as good as well as the cause of any we do that is denoted as evil. God calls the things we do in relationship to love and truth, ‘righteousness’ (which subsequent to salvation is the PRODUCT of our will choosing voluntarily to act in accordance to Gods laws and truth,) and that which is a product of our wills that God declares in opposition to love and benevolence, selfishness, and as such sin. Righteousness and sin are both products of the will.

I would continue to speak in sophisms and suggest that a better analogy for sin is more like a disease... one in which we caught from our Parents and that causes Death, both Spiritual and Physical.

Our Lord brings to mankind the cure. God is not against us but sent us the cure in His Only Begotten Son. God is on our side but sin and our attachment to is against us.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: As I understand it and those who have written about Pelagianism understand it, Pelagius argued that man could have salvation through his or her own labors without divine aid.

HP: Nothing could be further from the truth. That is no less than a false accusation without the least shred of truth to it. I am not blaming your misconception on you personally, but rather I blame it on those that you have read that have obviously have misrepresented the truth.

More later.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bound: I would continue to speak in sophisms and suggest that a better analogy for sin is more like a disease... one in which we caught from our Parents and that causes Death, both Spiritual and Physical.

Our Lord brings to mankind the cure. God is not against us but sent us the cure in His Only Begotten Son. God is on our side but sin and our attachment to is against us.

HP: No, you do make an analogy but you are not creating a sophism, for your comment does not even have a ring of truth to it. God is angry at the sinner. The sinner is painted as a willing rebel, not one a sinner due to some necessitated trait. God is going to punish all that fail to repent in an eternal hell. God is also Just. Your idea of sin as you stated above makes God out to be some kind of evil tyrant, punishing men for something absolutely unavoidable. If sin is a disease, no one could justly be blamed for catching it having no possible way to avoid it and that from birth. Sin is blameworthy. Sin is wicked rebellion, not some necessitated and unavoidable malady.
Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.