Why do people ultimatively go to hell?

[Southern]

Heavenly Pilgrim,

I intended for the last post to really be my last, but I wanted to clarify what I believe a point that you are misunderstanding from my postion.
you stated:

We are not trying to establish if ones posterity does not in fact, in some cases at least, reap consequences for their fathers sins or the ignorance or careless actions of their father or others, but if in fact God imputes ‘sin’ and its corresponding eternal penalty to ones posterity for no other reason than imputed guilt. That is not established in the least with the illustration alluded to.

It was not my intention, nor do I believe it was the intention of the one I quoted to prove that God judging people through a representative is ALWAYS 'eternal' in nature. I was simply trying to prove the general principle that God juldges people through a representative in throughout the entirety of scripture, which these verses clearly showed.

However, the scriptures that were under discussion (Romans 5) is in fact speaking about things of an 'eternal' nature (made righteous, condemnation, etc.). And Would you not acknowledge that in the case of Christ, God does impute the work of someone else (a representative) to our behalf? That does in fact have 'ETERNAL' consequences.

The point is that the representative principle is woven throughout the entire fabric of scripture as I have shown, both the temporal and eternal. So hopefully as the careful reader looks back through your response that will see this fallacy in dismissing the verses simply because they are not dealing with things of an 'eternal' nature.

Romans 5 clearly teaches this representative principle in the work of Adam (and its results) with the work of Christ (and its results) on their resepective posterity.

May God bless you Pilgrim, and may we look forward to an eternal rest this Lord's Day. :wavey:

 

[BobRyan]

You are incorrect. Rev 20:11-15, Rev 21:8, and other passages clearly indicate that sin is the reason that people go to hell.

Their lack of faith in Christ is what leaves them in their sin, rather than in Christ's righteousness whcih would take them to heaven.

Sure it is. He is held accountable because he disobeyed.

Because the sin was eating teh fruit. She died as a result of sin, not as a result of belief. Adam and Eve are a one-time deal that is usually not good to prove anything universal.

Pastor Larry is rignt on the money.

Look at Dan 7 and the great judgment scene in heaven - the books are opened and judgment takes place with the result that "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" vs 22 - but what of those that are "not saint" I don't think the verdict is "in favor".

In Rev 20 the books are opened and the dead are judged out of those things written there "whether they be good or evil".

In Rom 6 "the wages of SIN is death"

In the Gospel "everyone who says to his brother - you are a fool - is guilty enough to go into hell fire".

In Matt 23 Christ lists the sins of the Jewish leaders and then concludes "how shall you escape the sentence of hell".

In all of scripture the idea of owing the "debt of sin" FOR SIN - and the NEED to have your SUBSTITUTE pay the exact debt OWED "the Certificate of Debt" that is defined by God's Law - the certificate in the form of a ticket a writing of debt-owed - written in the books - that you must pay in suffering and torment - real suffering and torment in the real lake of fire and brimstone - the REAL second death.

God says in Romans 11 "He is able to graft them in AGAIN if they do not CONTINUE in their UNBELIEF" but he never says the DEBT for unbelief is this amount of suffering.

In Luke 12:48-52 we see that "From the one who KNEW much and did deeds worthy of suffering (in hell) shall receive MANY lashes - MUCH shall be required of him -- but the one who did NOT KNOW much and also did deeds worthy of suffering - few".

It is axiomatic - SIN-demands-suffering the second death. So we all NEED a substitute - we all NEED a Savior. This is the Gospel message.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Southern:

Quote:
HP: We are not trying to establish if ones posterity does not in fact, in some cases at least, reap consequences for their fathers sins or the ignorance or careless actions of their father or others, but if in fact God imputes ‘sin’ and its corresponding eternal penalty to ones posterity for no other reason than imputed guilt. That is not established in the least with the illustration alluded to.





It was not my intention, nor do I believe it was the intention of the one I quoted to prove that God judging people through a representative is ALWAYS 'eternal' in nature.

HP: Neither have you given us one solitary example, nor established any such principle, that such a connection exists. When you use examples that are not necessarily moral in nature, and try to apply them to a moral issue such as sin and eternal punishment, you are asking to be misinterpreted.

Southern: I was simply trying to prove the general principle that God juldges people through a representative in throughout the entirety of scripture, which these verses clearly showed.

However, the scriptures that were under discussion (Romans 5) is in fact speaking about things of an 'eternal' nature (made righteous, condemnation, etc.). And Would you not acknowledge that in the case of Christ, God does impute the work of someone else (a representative) to our behalf? That does in fact have 'ETERNAL' consequences.

HP: Did you not agree that the will of man MUST be involved in agreement with any notion of imputed righteousness? Why would you now try and suggest otherwise as the multiple illustrations you set forth via Hodge clearly suggest, in that guilt is imputed apart from any action of the individual themselves, and that in the same way guilt is granted via a substitute, sin is imputed also?

You make my point that the examples given by Hodge are NOT to be considered as being of like nature to the imputed righteousness of Christ. In one, the will is involved and the other no such willful intent is noted or even suggested. One moral choices are involved and eternal rewards are granted, and the other no such eternal punishment is remotely mentioned let alone assessed.

Southern: The point is that the representative principle is woven throughout the entire fabric of scripture as I have shown, both the temporal and eternal.

HP: Again you try and show a principle by comparing eggs and oranges, one involving the will, and one not, one moral and one not, one involving eteranl punishemnts or rewards, one not. I certainly hope the reader examines carefully the misapplication of differing thoughts that are not even of the same nature, i.e., moral.

Southern: So hopefully as the careful reader looks back through your response that will see this fallacy in dismissing the verses simply because they are not dealing with things of an 'eternal' nature.

HP: I am glad to see that you acknowledge this fact. That is why there is no such principle involved as you are trying to assume by begging the question and assuming without proof that there is such a principle involved in the assumed connection.

Southern: Romans 5 clearly teaches this representative principle in the work of Adam (and its results) with the work of Christ (and its results) on their resepective posterity.

HP: I would like for you to explain the texts in Duet. and the thrust of the entire chapter in Ezek. for the readers, and explain how they support this connection of imputed sin and subsequent guilt you say exists in Romans 5.

May God bless you as well my friend!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: Because the sin was eating teh fruit. She died as a result of sin, not as a result of belief. Adam and Eve are a one-time deal that is usually not good to prove anything universal.

HP: This last sentence is where I see Pastor Larry in error. We sin just like Adam and Eve as explained by the Apostle James. It is a universal pattern.

 

[Jarthur001]

HP: Have I missed your promised post today with those freshly imprinted words of Pelagius? Still waiting.

Yes...i did say that. Well I gave you links where you can order his works, his letters and his book on romans.

But there are other words we can read by Pelagius. Some i'm sure you have already read. Lets start with Synod Of Lydda To Investigate Pelagius' Teachings, 415 AD. Others please forgive me as I post this. This is rather long, but freewillers would love to read this stuff to see what one of the great freewill leads said. This will be many post. Unjoy...

********
Synopsis: In 415 a second ecclesiastical trial was held against Pelagius, this time being instigated by two deposed
Western bishops, Heros of Arles and Lazarus of Aix. The records are lost with only fragments of it remaining and
what follows was taken from Augustine of Hippo's "On The Proceedings Of Pelagius". The Synod was presided over
by Eulogius, bishop of Caesarea and metropolitan and was attended by thirteen other bishops: John of Jerusalem,
Ammonianus, Eutonius, two Porphyrys, Fidus, Zomnus, Zoboennus, Nymphidius, Chromatius, Jovinus, Eleutherius,
and Clematius. The two accusers were absent from the hearing owing to the illness of one of them, but a document
was handed in containing the principal charges. In the end Pelagius was acknowledged as being Orthodox in
doctrine and in full communion with the church.

Synod: [Pelagius writes in a certain book of his that] ‘No man can be without sin unless he has acquired a knowledge
of the law.’

Synod: Did you, Pelagius, express yourself thus?

Pelagius: I certainly used the words, but not in the sense in which they understand them. I did not say that a man is
unable to sin who has acquired a knowledge of the law; but that he is by the knowledge of the law assisted towards
not sinning, even as it is written, ‘He hath given them a law for help’.

Synod: The words which have been spoken by Pelagius are not different from the Church.

Synod: Let another section be read. [It was then read from his book that] ‘all men are ruled by their own will.’

Pelagius: This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when
sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will.

Synod: Nor again is this opposed to the doctrine of the Church.

Synod: [Pelagius has written in his book that] ‘In the day of judgment no forbearance will be shown to the ungodly and
the sinners, but they will be consumed in eternal fires.’ [To this Synod this statement seems to be worded in such a
way as to imply that all sinners whatever were to be punished with an eternal punishment, without excepting even
those who hold Christ as their foundation, although ‘they build thereupon wood, hay, stubble,’ concerning whom the
apostle writes: ‘If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he shall himself be saved, yet so as by fire.’]

Pelagius: I made this assertion in accordance with the Gospel, in which it is written concerning sinners, ‘These shall
go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.’ [He] who believes differently is an Origenist.

Synod: [What you are saying then is] not opposed to the Church.

Synod: [Pelagius has written in his book that] ‘evil does not enter our thoughts [if we are Christians].’

Pelagius: We made no such statement. What we did say was, that ‘the Christian ought to be careful not to have evil
thoughts.’

Synod: [What you are saying then is not opposed to the teachings of the Church.]

Synod: [Pelagius has written in his book that] ‘The kingdom of heaven was promised even in the Old Testament.’

Pelagius: This can be proved by the Scriptures: but heretics, in order to disparage the Old Testament, deny this. I,
however, simply followed the authority of the Scriptures when I said this; for in the prophet Daniel it is written: 'The
saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most High.'

Synod: Neither is this opposed to the Church's faith.

Synod: [Pelagius has written in his book that] ‘A man is able, if he likes, to be without sin’ [and in a letter to a certain
widow he wrote flatteringly that] ‘In thee piety may find a dwelling-place, such as she finds nowhere else; in thee
righteousness, though a stranger, can find a home; truth, which no one any longer recognizes, can discover an abode
and a friend in thee; and the law of God, which almost everybody despises, may be honoured by thee alone.’
[Elsewhere in this same letter he wrote] ‘O how happy and blessed art thou, when that righteousness which we must
believe to flourish only in heaven has found a shelter on earth only in thy heart!’ [In another work addressed to this
same woman Pelagius, after reciting the Lord’s prayer and then proceeding to teach her in what manner saints ought
to pray, says] ‘He worthily raises his hands to God, and with a good conscience does he pour out his prayer, who is
able to say, “Thou, O Lord, knowest how holy, and harmless, and pure from all injury and iniquity and violence, are
the hands which I stretch out to Thee; how righteous, and pure, and free from all deceit, are the lips with which I offer
to Thee my supplication, that Thou wouldst have mercy upon me.”’

Pelagius: We asserted that a man could be without sin, and could keep God's commandments if he wished; for this
capacity has been given to him by God. But we never said that any man could be found who at no time whatever, from
infancy to old age, had committed sin: but that if any person were converted from his sins, he could by his own labour
and God's grace be without sin; and yet not even thus would he be incapable of change ever afterwards. As for the
other statements which they have made against us, they are not to be found in our books, nor have we at any time
said such things.

Synod: You have denied having ever written such words; are you therefore ready to anathematize those who do hold
these opinions?

Pelagius: I anathematize them as fools, not as heretics, for there is no dogma.

Synod: Since now Pelagius has with his own mouth anathematized this vague statement as foolish verbiage, justly
declaring in his reply, 'That a man is able with God's assistance and grace to be without sin,' let him now proceed to
answer the other heads of accusation against him.

Synod: [Your disciple Coelestius has been charged with making the following statements:] “Adam was created mortal,
and would have died whether he had sinned or not sinned”, “that Adam's sin injured only himself and not the human
race”, “that the law no less than the gospel leads us to the kingdom”, “that there were sinless men previous to the
coming of Christ”, “that new-born infants are in the same condition as Adam was before the fall”, [and] “that the whole
human race does not, on the one hand, die through Adam's death or transgression, nor, on the other hand, does the
whole human race rise again through the resurrection of Christ.”

Pelagius: Concerning a man's being able indeed to be without sin, we have spoken already; concerning the fact,
however, that before the Lord's coming there were persons without sin, we say now that, previous to Christ's advent,
some men lived holy and righteous lives, according to the teaching of the sacred Scriptures. The rest were not said by
me, as even their testimony goes to show, and for them, I do not feel that I am responsible. But for the satisfaction of
the holy synod, I anathematize those who either now hold, or have ever held, these opinions.

More coming in part 2...

 

[Jarthur001]

I should add, this is all public domain

Synod Of Lydda part 2....
•••••••••••••


Synod: With regard to these charges aforesaid, Pelagius has in our presence given us sufficient and proper
satisfaction, by anathematizing the opinions which were not his.

Synod: [It is reported that you teach] That the Church here is without spot or wrinkle.

Pelagius: It has been asserted by me,-- but in such a sense that the Church is by the layer cleansed from every spot
and wrinkle, and in this purity the Lord wishes her to continue.

Synod: Of this also we approve.

Synod: [We would now like to examine certain passages from a book that your disciple Coelestius has written. In the
first chapter of his book he has written that] “we do more than is commanded us in the law and the gospel.”

Pelagius: This they have set down as my statement. What we said, however, was in keeping with the apostle's
assertion concerning virginity, of which Paul writes: 'I have no commandment of the Lord.'

Synod: This also the Church receives.

Synod: [In the third chapter of his book Coelestius has written that] “God's grace and assistance is not given for
single actions, but is imparted in the freedom of the will, or in the law and in doctrine…God's grace is given in
proportion to our deserts; because, were He to give it to sinful persons, He would seem to be unrighteous…[From
these words I infer that] therefore grace itself has been placed in my will, according as I have been either worthy or
unworthy of it. For if we do all things by grace, then whenever we are overcome by sin, it is not we who are overcome,
but God's grace, which wanted by all means to help us, but was not able…If, when we conquer sin, it is by the grace of
God; then it is He who is in fault whenever we are conquered by sin, because He was either altogether unable or
unwilling to keep us safe."

Pelagius: Whether these are really the opinions of Coelestius or not, is the concern of those who say that they are.
For my own part, indeed, I never entertained such views; on the contrary, I anathematize every one who does
entertain them.

Synod: This holy synod accepts you for your condemnation of these impious words.

Synod: [In the fifth chapter of Coelestius’ book it is written that] "every individual has the ability to possess all powers
and graces,” thus taking away that 'diversity of graces’, which the apostle teaches.

Pelagius: We have certainly said so much; but yet they have laid against us a malignant and blundering charge. We
do not take away the diversity of graces; but we declare that God gives to the person, who has proved himself worthy
to receive them, all graces, even as He conferred them on the Apostle Paul.

Synod: You accordingly do yourself hold the doctrine of the Church touching the gift of the graces, which are
collectively possessed by the apostle.

Several Bishops: [Bishop John, what proceedings have taken place before yourself concerning Pelagius previous to
this trial?]

Bishop John: On the occasion in question (a conference held at Jerusalem at the end of July in the year 415, as
described by Orosius in his Apology), when they (others at the Synod) were importunate and exclaimed, 'He is a
heretic, because he says, It is true that a man is able, if he only will, to live without sin;' I censured the statement
[about being able to live without sin in our own strength], and reminded them besides, that even the Apostle Paul,
after so many labours--not indeed in his own strength, but by the grace of God—said, ‘I laboured more abundantly
than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me;' and again: 'It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;' and again: 'Except the Lord build the house, they labour but in vain who
build it.' And we quoted several other like passages out of the Holy Scriptures. When, however, they did not receive
the quotations which we made out of the Holy Scriptures, but continued their murmuring noise, Pelagius said, 'This is
what I also believe; let him be anathema, who declares that a man is able, without God's help, to arrive at the
perfection of all virtues.' [John possibly made at this point some negative remarks in reference to Heros and Lazarus
(the two deposed bishops who had brought charges up against Pelagius) and Orosius, a Spanish disciple of
Augustine who was Augustine’s representative at the previous Synod held under Bishop John. Orosius left this Synod
prematurely due to conflicts with John. Whatever these statements were-Augustine does not record them-he does
note that the other bishops who were present did not feel led to rebuke John over the content of them.]

Synod: [In the sixth chapter of Coelestius' work there is laid down this position:] "Men cannot be called sons of God,
unless they have become entirely free from all sin." [In the seventh chapter he makes this statement:] "Forgetfulness
and ignorance have no connection with sin, as they do not happen through the will, but through necessity;" [In his
tenth Chapter he says:] "Our will is free, if it needs the help of God; inasmuch as every one in the possession of his
proper will has either something to do or to abstain from doing." [In the twelfth he says:] "Our victory comes not from
God's help, but from our own free will." [Coelestius drew this conclusion in the following terms:] "The victory is ours,
seeing that we took up arms of our Own will; just as, on the other hand, being conquered is our own, since it was of
our own will that we neglected to arm ourselves."…[Coelestius has noted that in the epistle of the blessed Apostle
Peter we read that we might be] "partakers of the divine nature" [and he has made the following argument from this
passage:] "Now if our spirit or soul is Unable to be without sin, then even God is subject to sin, since this part of Him,
that is to say, the soul, is exposed to sin." [In his thirteenth chapter he says:] "That pardon is not given to penitents
according to the grace and mercy of God, but according to their own merits and effort, since through repentance they
have been worthy of mercy."

Synod: What says the monk Pelagius to all these heads of opinion which have been read in his presence? For this
holy synod condemns the whole, as does also God's Holy Catholic Church."

Pelagius: I say again, that these opinions, even according to their own testimony, are not mine; nor for them, as I
have already said, ought I to be held responsible. The opinions which I have confessed to be my own, I maintain are
sound; those, however, which I have said are not my own, I reject according to the judgment of this holy synod,
pronouncing anathema on every man who opposes and gainsays the doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church. For I
believe in the Trinity of the one substance, and I hold all things in accordance with the teaching of the Holy Catholic
Church. If indeed any man entertains opinions different from her, let him be anathema.

Synod: Now since we have received satisfaction on the points which have come before us touching the monk
Pelagius, who has been present; since, too, he gives his consent to the pious doctrines, and even anathematizes
everything that is contrary to the Church's faith, we confess him to belong to the communion of the Catholic Church.

 

[Jarthur001]

COELESTIUS' TRIAL AT CARTHAGE, 411 OR 412AD


Synopsis: In 411 or 412AD Coelestius was put on trial in Carthage for his doctrinal views. There are only two
fragments of the council preserved in Augustine of Hippo’s two part work “On The Grace Of Christ, and On Original
Sin”, Book 2:2-3 and in Marius Mercator’s “Commonitorium super Nomine Coelestii”. Deacon Paulinus prepared a
written list of accusations against Coelestius and handed it to Aurelius, the president of the synod. (See Mercator’s
“Subnotationes in Verba Juliani” for a slightly different version of Paulinus’ accusations.) Augustine’s fragments
provide a partial transcript of Coelestius’ questioning regarding points two and three.

Deacon Paulinus Of Milan’s Points Of Accusation Handed To Bishop Aurelius

1. Adam would have died, even if he had not sinned.
2. The sin of Adam injured himself alone, and not all mankind.
3. New-born children are in the same condition in which Adam was before the Fall.
4. It is not true that because of the death and sin of Adam all mankind die; neither is it true that because of Christ’s
resurrection all men rise again.
5. The Law leads to heaven as well as the Gospel.
6. Even before the coming of Christ there were men who were entirely without sin.

Transcripts Of The Synod

Fragment One: Discussion Of Point Two

Bishop Aurelius: 'Let what follows be recited.'

Anonymous Reciter(s): 'That the sin of Adam was injurious to him alone, and not to the human race.'

Coelestius: ' I said that I was in doubt about the transmission of sin, but so as to yield assent to any man whom God
has gifted with the grace of knowledge; for I have heard different opinions from those who have been even appointed
presbyters in the Catholic Church.'

Deacon Paulinus: 'Tell us their names.'

Coelestius: 'The holy presbyter Rufinus, who lived at Rome with the holy Pammachius. I have heard him declare that
there is no transmission of sin.'

Deacon Paulinus: 'Is there any one else?'

Coelestius: 'I have heard more say the same.'

Deacon Paulinus: 'Tell us their names.'

Coelestius: 'Is not one priest enough for you?'

Fragment Two: Discussion Of Point Three

Bishop Aurelius: 'Let the rest of the accusation be read.'

Anonymous Reciter(s): 'That infants at their birth are in the same state that Adam was before the transgression…’
[they continued reading to the very end of the brief accusation which had been previously put in.]

Bishop Aurelius: 'Have you, Coelestius, taught at any time, as the deacon Paulinus has stated, that infants are at
their birth in the same state that Adam was before his transgression?'

Coelestius: 'Let him explain what he meant when he said, "before the transgression."'

Deacon Paulinus: 'Do you on your side deny that you ever taught this doctrine? It must be one of two things: he
must either say that he never so taught, or else he must now condemn the opinion.'

Coelestius: 'I have already said, Let him explain the words he mentioned, "before the transgression."'

Deacon Paulinus: ' You must deny ever having taught this.'

Bishop Aurelius: 'I ask, What conclusion I have on my part to draw from this man's obstinacy; my affirmation is, that
although Adam, as created in Paradise, is said to have been made immortal at first, he afterwards became corruptible
through transgressing the commandment. Do you say this, brother Paulinus?'

Deacon Paulinus: 'I do, my lord.'

Bishop Aurelius: 'As regards the condition of infants before baptism at the present day, the deacon Paulinus wishes
to be informed whether it is such as Adam's was before the transgression; and whether it derives the guilt of
transgression from the same origin of sin from which it is born?'

Deacon Paulinus: 'Let him deny whether he taught this, or not.'

Coelestius: 'As touching the transmission of sin, I have already asserted, that I have heard many persons of
acknowledged position in the catholic Church deny it altogether; and on the other hand, others affirm it: it may be
fairly deemed a matter for inquiry, but not a heresy. I have always maintained that infants require baptism, and ought
to be baptized. What else does he want?'"

 

[Jarthur001]

Now moving to the Pelagius Letters


Letter To a Presbyter

Synopsis: This letter, of which only a fragment remains detailed the experience of the Synod held in 415 AD in
Diospolis at which Pelagius’ doctrinal beliefs were examined.

“By the sentence of fourteen bishops our statement was received with approbation, in which we affirmed that ‘a man
is able to be without sin, and easily to keep the commandments of God, if he wishes.’ This sentence has filled the
mouths of the gainsayers with confusion, and has separated asunder the entire set which was conspiring together for
evil.” (From Augustine of Hippo’s On The Proceedings Of Pelagius, Ch. 54)

Letter To Augustine of Hippo

Synopsis: These fragments were apparently from a document that Pelagius sent to Augustine to describe the
proceedings of the Synod held in 415. They were delivered by a mutual friend named Charis, a citizen of Hippo but a
deacon in the Eastern Church

“That Adam was created mortal, and that he would have died whether he had sinned or not sinned. That Adam’s sin
injured only himself, and not the human race. That the law, no less than the gospel, leads us to the kingdom. That
new-born infants are in the same condition that Adam was before he fell. That, on the one hand, the entire human
race does not die owing to Adam’s death and transgression; nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise
again through the resurrection of Christ. That infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life. That rich men,
even if they are baptized, unless they renounce and give up all, have, whatever good they may seem to have done,
nothing of it reckoned to them; neither shall they possess the kingdom of heaven.”

“All these statements have not been made by me, even on their own testimony, nor do I hold myself responsible for
them.”

“I say again, that these opinions, even according to their own testimony, are not mine; nor, as I have already said, am
I to be held responsible for them. The opinions which I have confessed to be my own, I maintain are sound and
correct; those, however, which I have said are not my own, I reject according to the judgment of the holy Church,
pronouncing anathema on every man that opposes and gainsays the doctrines of the holy and catholic Church; and
likewise on those who by inventing false opinions have excited odium against us.” (From Augustine of Hippo’s On The
Proceedings Of Pelagius, Ch. 57-58)

Letter To Pope Innocent I

Synopsis: Around 417 Pelagius sent this letter with a written statement of faith to Pope Innocent I maintaining that
he was orthodox in his faith. The letter only survives in fragments which were collected and quoted by Augustine of
Hippo in his two part work "On The Grace Of Christ, And On Original Sin", though the statement of faith is still extant.
Innocent died before receiving the letter and his successor Zosimus after reading Pelagius' correspondence and
meeting personally with his disciple Coelestius, sent an encyclical letter to Augustine and other North African bishops
"censuring them for not having investigated the matter more thoroughly, and for having aspired, in foolish,
overcurious controversies, to know more than the Holy Scriptures. At the same time he bore emphatic testimony to
the orthodoxy of Pelagius and Coelestius, and described their chief opponents, Heros and Lazarus, as worthless
characters, whom he had visited with excommunication and deposition. They in Rome, he says, could hardly refrain
from tears, that such men, who so often mentioned the gratia Dei and the adjutorium divinum, should have been
condemned as heretics. Finally he entreated the bishops to submit themselves to the authority of the Roman see
(Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, Ch. 9, Sec. 149)."

"there are certain subjects about which some men are trying to vilify me. One of these is, that I refuse to infants the
sacrament of baptism, and promise the kingdom of heaven to some, independently of Christ's redemption. Another of
them is, that I so speak of man's ability to avoid sin as to exclude God's help, and so strongly confides in free will that
I repudiate the help of divine grace."

"See how this epistle will clear me before your Blessedness; for in it we clearly and simply declare, that we possess a
free will which is unimpaired for sinning and for not sinning; and this free will is in all good works always assisted by
divine help."

"Now this power of free will we declare to reside generally in all alike--in Christians, in Jews, and in Gentiles. In all men
free will exists equally by nature, but in Christians alone is it assisted by grace."

"We confess free will in such a sense that we declare ourselves to be always in need of the help of God."

"Let them read the epistle which we wrote about twelve years ago to that holy man Bishop Paulinus: its subject
throughout in some three hundred lines is the confession of God's grace and assistance alone, and our own inability
to do any good thing at all without God."

"Let them also read my epistle to the holy Bishop Constantius, wherein I have--briefly no doubt, but yet plainly--
conjoined the grace and help of God with man's free will."

"Let them read moreover what I wrote, when I was in the East, to Christ's holy virgin Demetrias, and they will find that
we so commend the nature of man as always to add the help of God's grace."

"Let them also read my recent little treatise which we were obliged to publish a short while ago in defense of free will,
and let them acknowledge how unfair is their determination to disparage us for a denial of grace, when we throughout
almost the whole work acknowledge fully and sincerely both free will and grace."

"[I have been] defamed by certain persons for [supposedly] refusing the sacrament of baptism to infants, and
promising the kingdom of heaven irrespective of Christ's redemption. [I have] never heard even an impious heretic
say this about infants. Who indeed is so unacquainted with Gospel lessons, as not only to attempt to make such an
affirmation, but even to be able to lightly say it or even let it enter his thought? And then who is so impious as to wish
to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven, by forbidding them to be baptized and to be born again in Christ?"

"[The Gospel is very clear that] whosoever is not born again of water and the Spirit cannot enter into the kingdom of
heaven. Who indeed is so impious as to have the heart to refuse the common redemption of the human race to an
infant of any age whatever? Can any one forbid a second birth to an eternal and certain life, to him who has been
born to this present uncertain life?"

 

[Jarthur001]

PELAGIUS ....On Nature part 1

Synopsis: This book was written by Pelagius and given to two of his disciples, Timasius and Jacobus, who later
compared it with some of the writings of Augustine and discovered discrepancies. They then forwarded a copy to
Augustine and he replied with a treatise entitled On Nature and Grace from which these fragments come. The
purpose of Pelagius’ work, according to Augustine, was to substantiate the possibility, not the reality, that a man could
have lived without sin from his birth to his death. Nowhere did Pelagius claim to have been one of these people or that
those who did sin could receive forgiveness from any other source than the grace of God. No exact title appears to
exist for the work and it has been aptly entitled On Nature as this is a central theme of the work and Augustine, in his
polemic against it chose the name On Nature and Grace perhaps because he felt that Pelagius was emphasizing
nature too much and grace too little. A word of caution must be expressed as these fragments are coming down to us
from the pen of an enemy of Pelagius (Augustine) who in the introductory paragraph to his work against it admits that
“The book which you sent to me, my beloved sons, Timasius and Jacobus, I have read through hastily.” I now submit
to you for the first time that I am aware of the fragments of On Nature.

"It is one thing to inquire whether a thing can be, which has respect to its possibility only; and another thing,
whether or not it is."
"We are treating of possibility only; and to pass from this to something else, except in the case of some certain
fact, we deem to be a very serious and extraordinary process."
"I once more repeat my position: I say that it is possible for a man to be without sin. What do you say? That it is
impossible for a man to be without sin? But I do not say that there is a man without sin; nor do you say, that
there is not a man without sin. Our contention is about what is possible, and not possible; not about what is, and
is not."
"‘No man indeed is clean from pollution’; and, ‘There is no man that sinneth not’; and, ‘There is not a just man
upon the earth’; and, ‘There is none that doeth good’. There are these and similar passages in Scripture but
they testify to the point of not being, not of not being able; for by testimonies of this sort it is shown what kind of
persons certain men were at such and such a time, not that they were unable to be something else. Whence
they are justly found to be blameworthy. If, however, they had been of such a character, simply because they
were unable to be anything else, they are free from blame."
"He is not condemned; because the statement that all sinned in Adam, was not made because of the sin which
is derived from one's birth, but because of imitation of him."
"'A man,' you will say, 'may possibly be [without sin]; but it is by the grace of God.' I thank you for your kindness,
because you are not merely content to withdraw your opposition to my statement, which you just now opposed,
or barely to acknowledge it; but you actually go so far as to approve it. For to say, 'A man may possibly, but by
this or by that,' is in fact nothing else than not only to assent to its possibility, but also to show the mode and
condition of its possibility. Nobody, therefore, gives a better assent to the possibility of anything than the man
who allows the condition thereof; because, without the thing itself, it is not possible for a condition to be."
"But, you will say, 'you here seem to reject the grace of God, inasmuch as you do not even mention it."'
"Now, is it I that reject grace, who by acknowledging the thing must needs also confess the means by which it
may be effected, or you, who by denying the thing do undoubtedly also deny whatever may be the means
through which the thing is accomplished?"
"Whether he confesses it to be by grace, or by aid, or by mercy, whatever that be by which a man can be
without sin,-every one acknowledges the thing itself."
"If I were to say, man is able to dispute; a bird is able to fly; a hare is able to run; without mentioning at the same
time the instruments by which these acts can be accomplished-that is, the tongue, the wings, and the legs;
should I then have denied the conditions of the various offices, when I acknowledged the very offices
themselves?"
"[Certain persons allege] that some sins are light by their very frequency, their constant irruption making it
impossible that they should be all of them avoided. [It was] proper that they should be censured even as light
offences, if they cannot possibly be wholly avoided."
"[It was proposed to me] are you even yourself without sin? [To this I answered] it is rather to be imputed to my
own negligence that I am not without sin [as opposed to personal weakness]."
"[I have been told in refutation to my beliefs] that it is nowhere written in so many words, [that] ‘A man can be
without sin’." [We need to keep in mind] that the question here is not in what precise words each doctrinal
statement is made."
"[The Apostle James writes] ‘But the tongue can no man tame.’ [We need to keep in mind as we interpret this
that it must be interpreted] as if it were written by way of reproach; as much as to say: Can no man then, tame
the tongue? As if in a reproachful tone, which would say: You are able to tame wild beasts; cannot you tame the
tongue? As if it were an easier thing to tame the tongue than to subjugate wild beasts."
"[Concerning sings of ignorance] a man ought to be very careful to avoid ignorance; and that ignorance is
blame-worthy for this reason, because it is through his own neglect that a man is ignorant of that which he
certainly must have known if he had only applied diligence."
"sins which have been committed do notwithstanding require to be divinely expiated, and that the Lord must be
entreated because of them [that is, for the purpose, of course, of obtaining pardon] because that which has
been done cannot be undone [by the] power of nature and will of man."
"We have first of all to discuss the position which is maintained, that our nature has been weakened and
changed by sin. I think that before all other things we have to inquire what sin is, - some substance, or wholly a
name without substance, whereby is expressed not a thing, not an existence, not some sort of a body, but the
doing of a wrongful deed. I suppose that this is the case; and if so how could that which lacks all substance
have possibly weakened or changed human nature?"
"this sickness [of sin] ought not to have been contracted by [our forefather Adam committing] sins, lest the
punishment of sin should amount to this, that more sins should be committed."
"Why seek Him [for infants?]? They are whole (i.e. not affected with an inescapable controlling sinful nature to
which they are powerless because of Adam’s sin) for whom you seek the Physician. Not even was the first man
condemned to die for any such reason [as having an uncontrollable nature], for he did not sin afterwards."
"As to his (Adam’s) posterity also not only are they not more infirm than he, but they actually fulfilled more
commandments than he ever did, since he neglected to fulfill one."
"The very matter of sin is its punishment, if the sinner is so much weakened that he commits more sins."
"Sin ought not so to have been punished, that the sinner, through his punishment, should commit even more
sins."
"[I have actually heard that it was taught that] man was so formed as to be able to pass from righteousness to
sin, and yet not able to return from sin to righteousness."
"the Lord was able to die without sin."
"no evil is the cause of anything good."
"[The logical conclusion of assuming that men of necessity must sin is that] sin was necessary in order that
there might be a cause for God's mercy."
"God, no doubt, applies His mercy even to this office, whenever it is necessary because man after sin requires
help in this way, not because God wished there should be a cause for such necessity. But just in the same way
it is the duty of a physician to be ready to cure a man who is already wounded; although he ought not to wish
for a man who is sound to be wounded."
"[There are those who say that] it was really necessary to man, in order to take from him all occasion for pride
and boasting, that he should be unable to exist without sin. [This doesn’t make sense. It is] the height of
absurdity and folly, that there should have been sin in order that sin might not be; inasmuch as pride is itself, of
course, a sin."
"But God is able to heal all things."
"What shall I say more than this [in response to the argument that sin can be cured by sin], that we may believe
that fires are quenched by fires, if we may believe that sins are cured by sins?"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JArthur, you must have a memory as an elephant to have all that so fresh in your mind.

What issue(s) do you find to be your greatest concern or in the greatest error? Do you agree with what Pelagius stated concerning why people go to hell, or do you see anything he stated as related to that?

 

[Jarthur001]

PELAGIUS ....On Nature part 2

"But how shall we separate pride itself from sin? To sin is quite as much to be proud, as to be proud is to sin;
for only ask what every sin is, and see whether you can find any sin without the designation of pride."
"Every sin if I mistake not, is a contempt of God, and every contempt of God is pride. For what is so proud as to
despise God? All sin, then, is also pride, even as Scripture says, Pride is the beginning of all sin."
"Then again, how can one be subjected to God for the guilt of that sin, which he knows is not his own? For his
own it is not, if it is necessary. Or, if it is his own, it is voluntary: and if it is voluntary, it can be avoided."
"[Certain persons advanced against me that I was teaching] that man is placed on an equality with God, if he is
described as being without sin [but this is not the case]."
"[I resist those who have said to me that] ‘What you assert seems indeed to be reasonable, but it is an arrogant
thing to allege that any man can be without sin.’ [If what I am alleging is true then it cannot be said to be
arrogant.] On what side must humility (the opposite of arrogance) be placed? No doubt on the side of
falsehood, if you prove arrogance to exist on the side of truth."
"How must we suppose that those holy men quitted this life, with sin, or without sin?"
"[Following is a list of those] who not only lived without [recorded] sin, but are described as having led holy lives,
- Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah,
Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin
Mary was espoused, John, Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of
Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her we must needs allow that her piety
had no sin in it."
"But perhaps they will ask me: Could not the Scripture have mentioned sins of all of these? This might be
rightly asked of those whom Scripture mentions neither as good nor as bad; but of those whose holiness it
commemorates, it would also without doubt have commemorated the sins likewise, if it had perceived that they
had sinned in anything."
"But, granted that it has sometimes abstained, in a numerous crowd, from narrating the sins of all; still, in the
very beginning of the world, when there were only four persons in existence, what reason have we to give why it
chose not to mention the sins of all? Was it in consideration of the vast multitude, which had not yet come into
existence? Or because, having mentioned only the sins of those who had transgressed, it was unable to record
any of him who had not yet committed sin? It is certain that in the earliest age Adam and Eve, and Cain and
Abel their sons, are mentioned as being the only four persons then in being. Eve sinned, - the Scripture
distinctly says so much; Adam also transgressed, as the same Scripture does not fail to inform us; whilst it
affords us an equally clear testimony that Cain also sinned: and of all these it not only mentions the sins, but
also indicates the character of their sins. Now if Abel had likewise sinned, Scripture would without doubt have
said so. But it has not said so, therefore he committed no sin; nay, it even shows him to have been righteous.
What we read, therefore, let us believe; and what we do not read, let us deem it wicked to add."
"What we read, therefore, let us believe; and what we do not read, let us deem it wicked to add; and let it suffice
to have said this of all cases."
"[My opponents have presented to me the words of the Apostle when he writes] ‘All have sinned.’ [What we
need to understand is that] the apostle was manifestly speaking of the then existing generation, that is, the
Jews and the Gentiles."
[In regards to the passage which states ‘By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death
passed upon all men; in which all have sinned. As by the offence of one, upon all men [came a bringing] to
condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One, upon all men [came a bringing] unto justification of life
(Rom. 10:3-4).’ I teach that] there can be no doubt that not all men are sanctified by the righteousness of
Christ, but only those who are willing to obey Him, and have been cleansed in the washing of His baptism [thus
there can be no doubt that not all men are sinners, but only those who are willing to disobey him.]"
"Well, be it so, I agree; he testifies to the fact that all were sinners. He says, indeed, what they have been, not
that they might not have been something else. Wherefore if all then could be proved to be sinners, it would not
by any means prejudice our own definite position, in insisting not so much on what men are, as on what they
are able to be."
"[We must accept] that God is as good as just, and made man such that he was quite able to live without the
evil of sin, if only he had been willing."
"That proceeds not from a man's will which he can do by nature."
"As far as the present question is concerned, it is not pertinent to inquire whether there have been or now are
any men in this life without sin, but whether they had or have the ability to be such persons."
"But you will tell me this is what disturbs a great many, - that you do not maintain that it is by the grace of God
that a man is able to be without sin. What blindness of ignorance, what sluggishness of an uninstructed mind,
which supposes that that is maintained and held to be without God's grace which it only hears ought to be
attributed to God!"
"Now, when it is said that the very ability is not at all of man's will, but of the Author of nature, - that is, God, -
how can that possibly be understood to be without the grace of God which is deemed especially to belong to
God? That this may become still plainer, we must enter on a somewhat fuller discussion of the point. Now we
affirm that the possibility of anything lies not so much in the ability of a man's will as in the necessity of nature.
Take for instance, my ability to speak. That I am able to speak is not my own; but that I do speak is my own, -
that is, of my own will. And because the act of my speaking is my own, I have the power of alternative action, -
that is to say, both to speak and to refrain from speaking. But because my ability to speak is not my own, that is,
is not of my own determination and will, it is of necessity that I am always able to speak; and though I wished not
to be able to speak, I am unable, nevertheless, to be unable to speak, unless perhaps I were to deprive myself
of that member whereby the function of speaking is to be performed."
"Whatever is fettered by natural necessity is deprived of determination of will and deliberation. We may
perceive the same thing to be true of hearing, smelling, and seeing, - that to hear, and to smell, and to see is of
our own power, while the ability to hear, and to smell, and to see is not of our own power, but lies in a natural
necessity."

 

[Jarthur001]

PELAGIUS ....On Nature part 3

"[Allow me to use an illustration to explain my point.] In like manner, touching the possibility of our not sinning,
we must understand that it is of us not to sin, but yet that the ability to avoid sin is not of us. [However if we
accept this then we are constrained to say that] inasmuch as not to sin is ours, we are able to sin and to avoid
sin. [However, if we take the opposite side we will say that] inasmuch as, however, it is not of us to be able to
avoid sin; even if we were to wish not to be able to avoid sin, it is not in our power to be unable to avoid sin." [I
think that this illustration will show the logical conclusions of both sides.]
"No will can take away that which is proved to be inseparably implanted in nature."
"[Some have asked me] ‘Why do you affirm that man without the help of God's grace is able to avoid sin?’ [To
this I answer] ‘The actual capacity of not sinning lies not so much in the power of will as in the necessity of
nature. Whatever is placed in the necessity of nature undoubtedly appertains to the Author of nature, that is,
God. How then can that be regarded as spoken without the grace of God which is shown to belong in an
especial manner to God?’"
"[It must be understood of the nature of man] that it has an inseparable capacity [to do the right thing.]"
"But you will tell me that, according to the apostle, the flesh is contrary to us (Gal 5:17). How can it be that in the
case of any baptized person the flesh is contrary to him, when according to the same apostle he is understood
not to be in the flesh? For he says, `But ye are not in the flesh.'"
"[We see from these numerous passages of the Apostle Paul] that the flesh is often mentioned by him in such a
manner as proves him to mean not the substance, but the works of the flesh."
"Who made man's spirit? God, without a doubt. Who created the flesh? The same God, I suppose. Is the God
good who created both? Nobody doubts it. Are not both good, since the good Creator made them? It must be
confessed that they are. If, therefore, both the spirit is good, and the flesh is good, as made by the good
Creator, how can it be that the two good things should be contrary to one another?"
"See what a man will say, who is unwilling to cry out with the apostle, "‘Who shall deliver me from the body of
this death? The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.’"
"[The Apostle says in Romans ‘Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God, through
Jesus Christ our Lord.’] But why should I so exclaim, who am already baptized in Christ? It is for them to cry out
thus who have not yet received so great a benefit, whose words the apostle in a figure transferred to himself, -
if indeed even they say so much."
"As we remarked, the passage in which occur the words, `The flesh lusteth against the Spirit,' must needs have
reference not to the substance, but to the works of the flesh."
"[Some oppose what we are saying because the plain truth is that] the devil opposes us. We must resist him,
and he will flee. `Resist the devil,' says the blessed apostle, `and he will flee from you.' From which it may be
observed, what his harming amounts to against those whom he tees; or what power he is to be understood as
possessing, when he prevails only against those who do not resist him."
"[Some indeed will ask] ‘And who would be unwilling to be without sin, if it were put in the power of a man?’ [To
this I answer] that by this very question they acknowledge that the thing is not impossible; because so much as
this, many, if not all men, certainly desire."
"[Let us now turn our attention to other Christian writers who agree with what I am proposing. Lactantius has
said] ‘It behooved for the Master and Teacher of virtue to become most like to man, that by conquering sin He
might show that man is able to conquer sin.’"
"[Again Lactantius says] ‘And again, that by subduing the desires of the flesh He might teach us that it is not of
necessity that one sins, but of set purpose and will.’"
"[Hilary has said that] It is only when we shall be perfect in spirit and changed in our immortal state, which
blessedness has been appointed only for the pure in heart, that we shall see that which is immortal in God."
"[Again Hilary has said] ‘This Job had so effectually read these Scriptures, that was because he worshipped
God purely with a mind unmixed with offences: now such worship of God is the proper work of righteousness."
"[Hilary, likewise, while expounding that passage of the psalm in which it is written, ‘Thou hast despised all those
who turn aside from Thy commandments,’ says:] ‘If God were to despise sinners, He would despise indeed all
men, because no man is without sin; but it is those who turn away from Him, whom they call apostates, that He
despises."
"[Ambrose of Milan has said] ‘Inasmuch as the Church has been gathered out of the world, that is, out of sinful
men, how can it be unpolluted when composed of such polluted material, except that, in the first place, it be
washed of sins by the grace of Christ, and then, in the next place, abstain from sins through its nature of
avoiding sin?’"
"[Remember that John Chrysostom has said] ‘that sin is not a substance, but a wicked act. And because it is
not natural, therefore the law was given against it, and because it proceeds from the liberty of our will."
"[Remember what Xystus, bishop of Rome and martyr, has once said] ‘God has conferred upon men liberty of
their own will, in order that by purity and sinlessness of life they may become like unto God?’ [and] ‘A pure mind
is a holy temple for God, and a heart clean and without sin is His best altar.’ [Xystus has also said] ‘A man of
chastity and without sin has receded power from God to be a son of God.’"
"[Jerome has written] `Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.' These are they whom no
consciousness of sin reproves. The pure man is seen by his purity of heart; the temple of God cannot be
defiled.’ [He has also said] ‘God created us with free will; we are drawn by necessity neither to virtue nor to
vice; otherwise, where there is necessity there is no crown."
"Bishop Augustine also in his books on Free Will has these words: `Whatever the cause itself of volition is, if it is
impossible to resist it, submission to it is not sinful; if, however, it may be resisted, let it not be submitted to, and
there will be no sin. Does it, perchance, deceive the unwary man? Let him then beware that he be not
deceived. Is the deception, however, so potent that it is not possible to guard against it? If such is the case,
then there are no sins. For who sins in a case where precaution is quite impossible? Sin, however, is
committed; precaution therefore is possible.'"

 

[Jarthur001]

Pelagius on Defense Of The Freedom Of The Will

*********

Synopsis: This book was written by Pelagius and explains his beliefs regarding the free-will that God has given to mankind. It was a short treatise composed of four books. These fragments are taken from Augustine's two book work entitled "On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin". Unfortunately for those wishing to fully understand Pelagius' views Augustine is not a faithful quoter when it comes to his archenemy's writings. Augustine will quote him in one place, then repeat the quote later in a different way, each time wording it in such a way that best suits his
argument. We are left to wonder if he has done this with all of the quotations that he has made from Pelagius' writings, perhaps exaggerating his statements to present them in an extreme light that the original author never meant. This would explain why two ecclesiastical synods, two popes, at least thirty-two bishops and several influential Christians could not find anything wrong with Pelagius' doctrinal stances.

"Now we have implanted in us by God a capacity for either part. It resembles, as I may say, a fruitful and fecund root which yields and produces diversely according to the will of man, and which is capable, at the planter's own choice, of either shedding a beautiful bloom of virtues, or of bristling with the thorny thickets of vices." (from
Book 1)

"We distinguish three things, arranging them in a certain graduated order. We put in the first place 'ability;' in the second, 'volition;' and in the third, 'actuality.' The 'ability' we place in our nature, the 'volition' in our will, and the 'actuality' in the effect. The first, that is, the 'ability,' properly belongs to God, who has bestowed it on His creature; the other two, that is, the 'volition' and the 'actuality,' must be referred to man, because they flow forth from the fountain of the will. For his willing, therefore, and doing a good work, the praise belongs to man; or rather both to man, and to God who has bestowed on him the 'capacity' for his will and work, and who evermore by the help of His grace assists even this capacity. That a man is able to will and effect any good work, comes from God alone. So that this one faculty can exist, even when the other two have no being; but these latter cannot exist without that former one. I am therefore free not to have either a good volition or action; but I am by no means able not to have the capacity of good. This capacity is inherent in me, whether I will or no; nor does nature at any time receive in this point freedom for itself. Now the meaning of all this will be rendered clearer by an example or two. That we are able to see with our eyes is not of us; but it is our own that we make a good or a bad use of our eyes. So again (that I may, by applying a general case in illustration, embrace all), that we are able to do, say, think, any good thing, comes from Him who has endowed us with this 'ability,' and who also assists this 'ability;' but that we really do a good thing, or speak a good word, or think a good thought, proceeds from our own selves, because we are also able to turn all these into evil. Accordingly,--and this is a point which needs frequent repetition, because of your calumniation of us,--whenever we say that a man can live without sin, we also give praise to God by our acknowledgment of the capacity which we have received from Him, who has bestowed such 'ability' upon us; and there is here no occasion for praising the human agent, since it is God's matter alone that is for the moment treated of; for the question is not about 'willing,' or 'effecting,' but
simply and solely about that which may possibly be." (from Book 3)

"We are supposed by very ignorant persons to do wrong in this matter to divine grace, because we say that it by no means perfects sanctity in us without our will,--as if God could have imposed any command on His grace, without also supplying the help of His grace to those on whom he imposed His commands, so that men might more easily accomplish through grace what they are required to do by their free will. And this grace we for our part do not, as you suppose, allow to consist merely in the law, but also in the help of God. God helps us by His teaching and revelation, whilst He opens the eyes of our heart; whilst He points out to us the future, that we may
not be absorbed in the present; whilst He discovers to us the snares of the devil; whilst He enlightens us with the manifold and ineffable gift of heavenly grace. Does the man who says all this appear to you to be a denier of grace? Does he not acknowledge both man's free will and God's grace?""How will this stand consistently with the apostle's words, 'It is God that worketh in you both to will and to
perfect'? He works in us to will what is good, to will what is holy, when He rouses us from our devotion to earthly desires, and from our love of the present only, after the manner of brute animals, by the magnitude of the future glory and the promise of its rewards; when by revealing wisdom to us He stirs up our sluggish will to a
longing after God; when (what you are not afraid to deny in another passage) he persuades us to everything which is good."

“[James tells us ‘Submit yourselves unto God; but resist the devil, and be will flee from you.’] He shows us [here] how we ought to resist the devil, if we submit ourselves indeed to God and by doing His will merit His divine grace, and by the help of the Holy Ghost more easily withstand the evil spirit."

"The man who hastens to the Lord, and desires to be directed by Him, that is, who makes his own will depend upon God's, who moreover cleaves so closely to the Lord as to become (as the apostle says) 'one spirit' with Him, does all this by nothing else than by his freedom of will."

"Whosoever makes a right use of this [freedom of the will] does so entirely surrender himself to God, and does so completely mortify his own will, that he is able to say with the apostle, 'Nevertheless it is already of I that live, but Christ liveth in me;' and 'He placeth his heart in the hand of God, so that He turneth it whithersoever He
willeth.'"

"That we are able to do good is of God, but that we actually do it is of ourselves."

"That we are able to make a good use of speech comes from God; but that we do actually make this good use of speech proceeds from ourselves."

"That we are able to think a good thought comes from God, but that we actually think a good thought proceeds from ourselves."

"[When we talk about grace in the New Testament we are talking about a] grace [that] is bestowed in order that what God commands may be the more easily fulfilled. [This “grace” should be understood to be the gift of the Holy Spirit who was not given as an indwelling presence under the Old Testament dispensation.]"

"But while we have within us a free will so strong and so steadfast against sinning, which our Maker has implanted in human nature generally, still, by His unspeakable goodness, we are further defended by His own daily help." (from Book 1)

"[Grace is sent by God] in order that men may more easily accomplish by grace that which they are commanded to do by free will."

"We hold likewise one baptism, which we aver ought to be administered to infants in the same sacramental formula as it is to adults."

[There is a fictional discussion in Book 3 between Pelagius and an opponent.]

[Opponent: I insist that these words of the apostle, ‘For what I would, that do I not’ and ‘I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind’ intimate that man cannot live without sin.]

"[Pelagius:] Now that which you wish us to understand of the apostle himself, all Church writers assert that he spoke in the person of the sinner, and of one who was still under the law,--such a man as was, by reason of a very long custom of vice, held bound, as it were, by a certain necessity of sinning, and who, although he
desired good with his will, in practice indeed was hurried headlong into evil. In the person, however, of one man the apostle designates the people who still sinned under the ancient law. This nation he declares was to be delivered from this evil of custom through Christ, who first of all remits all sins in baptism to those who believe in
Him, and then urges them by an imitation of Himself to perfect holiness, and by the example of His own virtues overcomes the evil custom of their sins."

"The blessed Bishop Ambrose in whose writings the Roman faith shines forth with especial brightness, and whom the Latins have always regarded as the very flower and glory of their authors, and who has never found a foe bold enough to censure his faith or the purity of his understanding of the Scriptures." (from Book3)

"Everything good, and everything evil, on account of which we are either laudable or blameworthy, is not born with us but done by us: for we are born not fully developed, but with a capacity for either conduct; and we are procreated as without virtue, so also without vice; and previous to the action of our own proper will, that alone Is
in man which God has formed." (from Book 1)

 

[Jarthur001]

JArthur, you must have a memory as an elephant to have all that so fresh in your mind.

What issue(s) do you find to be your greatest concern or in the greatest error? Do you agree with what Pelagius stated concerning why people go to hell, or do you see anything he stated as related to that?

Cute...But you would not take my words. You joked that no one could read your hero, for all of his writings were placed in the fire to burn. I'll not post all that I have, but this should keep you happy for a while. After we talk about this, we can move to other things.

As to error....Are you kidding me? Freewill was not damaged in the fall is what his number one teaching was. Please remember most of Pelagius writings were to show that He believed in GRACE. This is why he works it in when he can. The reason, ...for the 1st 10 years of his teachings in rome, he never used the word grace. So..many said he did not hold to grace. This is when the books came out...trying to prove grace ...just not the grace of the Bible.

 

[jne1611]

If God demands obedience...and doesn't give the ability to obey...that is not justice. ARe you trying to tell me that man can be more just than God?

That is a classic example of human reasoning. Would you send someone to hell forever? No. Would you wipe out even children in the flood. No. God did & God does. God said He would visit the iniquities of the fathers on the third & fourth generations! And they were not even born yet! You cant hold God to human emotion or actions. You could ask the question "If I cant put someone in hell forever, Then how could God? Am I more just than God?" The same excuses raised by E. G. White & others who could not take the reality of an everlasting burning hell. The whole controversy in a nut - shell about the Sovereignty of God centers in on the foundation of holding God to man's standards instead of being content to let Him be God All Mighty!

 

[Jarthur001]

That is a classic example of human reasoning. Would you send someone to hell forever? No. Would you wipe out even children in the flood. No. God did & God does. God said He would visit the iniquities of the fathers on the third & fourth generations! And they were not even born yet! You cant hold God to human emotion or actions. You could ask the question "If I cant put someone in hell forever, Then how could God? Am I more just than God?" The same excuses raised by E. G. White & others who could not take the reality of an everlasting burning hell. The whole controversy in a nut - shell about the Sovereignty of God centers in on the foundation of holding God to man's standards instead of being content to let Him be God All Mighty!

WOW...powerful post. I guess our ways are not Gods ways. Still our great God is a just God for He is God.

 

[jne1611]

WOW...powerful post. I guess our ways are not Gods ways. Still our great God is a just God for He is God.

Amen to that!

 

[Brother Bob]

Here come da judge!! :laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[jne1611]

Here come da judge!! :laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

Welcome.:applause:

 

[jne1611]

Bob. Is that a picture of you in your avatar?