Grace is the prime mover in the sanctification process; our assent - our 'Fiat' - is only a secondary cause... By receiving the Life of God through the Sacraments, we partake of His omnipotence through Hope; of His omniscience through Faith; and of His Love through Charity. The degree to which we do so is potentially infinite but, in practical terms, depends on how far we have strayed away from Him. Acts of virtue performed under the influence of the Holy Spirit is credited to us by God's mercy and results in a greater participation in His nature. But this sanctification process cannot get underway unless we first shed our pride and allow God to work through us. Thus, the main objective of any good Christian should be to crucify his or her pride. Thank you very much for posting this video and addressing this most important of questions: a good understanding of Grace is crucial - no pun intended - to our sanctification!
Yes, exactly. The only small point I would make is that the language of "credited to us by God's mercy", while traditional, today sounds overly transactional. I would say instead "by the mercy of God, which is the action of the Holy Spirit upon us, gives us a greater..."
Thank you for your video. @ Minute 34 you showed a list of Agustine's works. What are Pelegiue's works you used to convey his position? In his[Pelegius] letter to Pope Innocent 1, he says "25. Free will we do so own, as to say that we always stand in need of God’s help; and that as well they are in an error who say with Manichaeus that a man cannot avoid sin, as they who affirm with Jovinian that a man cannot sin; for both of these take away the freedom of the will. But we say that a man always is in a state that he may sin, or may not sin, so as to own ourselves always to be of a free will." So Peleigus by his own words says 1) that we are free, but always in need of grace. 2) that man is in a state or has the nature of being able to sin and able to not sin. That is what it means to have "free" will, the ability to sin or not sin. This is the same idea C.S. Lewis champions. Pelagius rejects the idea that men are bound in a nature that is wholly good or bound in a nature that is wholly bad. He affirms that we need grace. likewise in his[ Pelegius] Letter to Demetrius he says "1. Whenever I have to speak on the subject of moral instruction and the conduct of a holy life, it is my practice first to demonstrate the power and quality of human nature and to show what it is capable of achieving, and then to go on to encourage the mind of my listener to consider the idea of different kinds of virtues, in case it may be of little or no profit to him to be summoned to pursue ends which he has perhaps assumed hitherto to be beyond his reach..." and "2. First, then, you ought to measure the good of human nature by reference to its creator, I mean God, of course: if it is he who, as the report goes, has made all the works of and within the world good, exceeding good, how much more excellent do you suppose that he has made man himself, on whose account he has clearly made everything else? And before actually making man, he deter¬mines to fashion him in his own image and likeness and shows what kind of creature he intends to make him..." Pelegius seems to say that yes we all sin, and all need grace and a savior for that sin, but our nature is due to the imago dei, and it is capable of doing good or doing wrong. it is capable of following God's commands. Though men all fail to live out those commands perfectly, it still remains to our nature the capacity to do them. just not the actual of perfecting them. God's grace is for the failure to be perfect, not the inability to do good. Grace is gifted to us because we missed the mark, not because we are corrupted entirely in our nature. Grace secures our salvation from the judgement due to our wrong actions, not from our inable and bound nature. 17.1 "Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the frailty of our nature as an objection to the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing. 17, 1. The words which follow are: ‘That you may be blameless and innocent’ - that is, with reference to the fully perfect life....For if even those who by long habit of sinning have somehow buried the good of nature are able to be restored by repentance and, by changing their chosen way of life, to wipe out one habit by another and leave the ranks of the worst for those of the best, how much more able are you to overcome evil habits which have never succeeded in overcoming you, since for you it is not so much a matter of driving vices out as of keeping them away! "
Hi, thanks for your comment (some time ago). What I was exploring here was an idea that Augustine, and then the church as a whole, saw as infringing on the proper understanding of the faith. This was called Pelagianism. Such a perspective springs from the writings of Pelagius, but his own position is not really at stake here, only the way that it was responded to. So, what I was using was Augustine, not Pelagius. My purpose was not a historical exploration but a doctrinal one: why Plagiarism (regardless of whether this was held by Pelagius) is not a proper understanding of humanity.
But your video was mostly about Pelegius and what he said/thought/taught... It wasn't just about "Pelegianism" as some sort of theological system of error some thought. But even if it was, it seems very strange to take Augustine's position on human nature at face value...
Pelegianism (as the theological system of thought you presented- unbound from Pelegius himself) may well indeed be contrary to grace in regard to salvation. I agree we can't save ourselves. But that doesn't mean Pelegianisms view of Humana nature is wrong or worse then Augustine's. Salvation can be a thing debated, so too can human nature be a thing debated.
I'm not really sure what you are getting at here. What was said in the past is continually relevant today, with the proper adjustments for the current historical situation.
Grace is the prime mover in the sanctification process; our assent - our 'Fiat' - is only a secondary cause...
By receiving the Life of God through the Sacraments, we partake of His omnipotence through Hope; of His omniscience through Faith; and of His Love through Charity.
The degree to which we do so is potentially infinite but, in practical terms, depends on how far we have strayed away from Him.
Acts of virtue performed under the influence of the Holy Spirit is credited to us by God's mercy and results in a greater participation in His nature.
But this sanctification process cannot get underway unless we first shed our pride and allow God to work through us.
Thus, the main objective of any good Christian should be to crucify his or her pride.
Thank you very much for posting this video and addressing this most important of questions: a good understanding of Grace is crucial - no pun intended - to our sanctification!
Yes, exactly. The only small point I would make is that the language of "credited to us by God's mercy", while traditional, today sounds overly transactional. I would say instead "by the mercy of God, which is the action of the Holy Spirit upon us, gives us a greater..."
Thank you for your video. @ Minute 34 you showed a list of Agustine's works. What are Pelegiue's works you used to convey his position?
In his[Pelegius] letter to Pope Innocent 1, he says "25. Free will we do so own, as to say that we always stand in need of God’s help; and that as well they are in an error who say with Manichaeus that a man cannot avoid sin, as they who affirm with Jovinian that a man cannot sin; for both of these take away the freedom of the will. But we say that a man always is in a state that he may sin, or may not sin, so as to own ourselves always to be of a free will." So Peleigus by his own words says 1) that we are free, but always in need of grace. 2) that man is in a state or has the nature of being able to sin and able to not sin. That is what it means to have "free" will, the ability to sin or not sin. This is the same idea C.S. Lewis champions. Pelagius rejects the idea that men are bound in a nature that is wholly good or bound in a nature that is wholly bad. He affirms that we need grace.
likewise in his[ Pelegius] Letter to Demetrius he says "1. Whenever I have to speak on the subject of moral instruction and the conduct of a holy life, it is my practice first to demonstrate the power and quality of human nature and to show what it is capable of achieving, and then to go on to encourage the mind of my listener to consider the idea of different kinds of virtues, in case it may be of little or no profit to him to be summoned to pursue ends which he has perhaps assumed hitherto to be beyond his reach..." and "2. First, then, you ought to measure the good of human nature by reference to its creator, I mean God, of course: if it is he who, as the report goes, has made all the works of and within the world good, exceeding good, how much more excellent do you suppose that he has made man himself, on whose account he has clearly made everything else? And before actually making man, he deter¬mines to fashion him in his own image and likeness and shows what kind of creature he intends to make him..."
Pelegius seems to say that yes we all sin, and all need grace and a savior for that sin, but our nature is due to the imago dei, and it is capable of doing good or doing wrong. it is capable of following God's commands. Though men all fail to live out those commands perfectly, it still remains to our nature the capacity to do them. just not the actual of perfecting them. God's grace is for the failure to be perfect, not the inability to do good. Grace is gifted to us because we missed the mark, not because we are corrupted entirely in our nature. Grace secures our salvation from the judgement due to our wrong actions, not from our inable and bound nature.
17.1 "Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the frailty of our nature as an objection to the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing. 17, 1. The words which follow are: ‘That you may be blameless and innocent’ - that is, with reference to the fully perfect life....For if even those who by long habit of sinning have somehow buried the good of nature are able to be restored by repentance and, by changing their chosen way of life, to wipe out one habit by another and leave the ranks of the worst for those of the best, how much more able are you to overcome evil habits which have never succeeded in overcoming you, since for you it is not so much a matter of driving vices out as of keeping them away! "
Hi, thanks for your comment (some time ago). What I was exploring here was an idea that Augustine, and then the church as a whole, saw as infringing on the proper understanding of the faith. This was called Pelagianism. Such a perspective springs from the writings of Pelagius, but his own position is not really at stake here, only the way that it was responded to. So, what I was using was Augustine, not Pelagius. My purpose was not a historical exploration but a doctrinal one: why Plagiarism (regardless of whether this was held by Pelagius) is not a proper understanding of humanity.
But your video was mostly about Pelegius and what he said/thought/taught... It wasn't just about "Pelegianism" as some sort of theological system of error some thought. But even if it was, it seems very strange to take Augustine's position on human nature at face value...
Pelegianism (as the theological system of thought you presented- unbound from Pelegius himself) may well indeed be contrary to grace in regard to salvation.
I agree we can't save ourselves.
But that doesn't mean Pelegianisms view of Humana nature is wrong or worse then Augustine's. Salvation can be a thing debated, so too can human nature be a thing debated.
The same the same. We have gone beyond something that came before. But have you? Has anyone when it comes to God?
I'm not really sure what you are getting at here. What was said in the past is continually relevant today, with the proper adjustments for the current historical situation.