Some major themes that surfaced in this lecture were original/voluntary sin, grace/free will, and predestination. Firstly, regarding original/voluntary sin, Popandrea talks about how Pelagius rejected the idea of “original sin,” which then in turn supported that all humans are born with a clean slate. Pelagius continued this idea with the belief that all sin is voluntary, and that if we choose to sin we will be held responsible for these decisions. This, from what I feel, gives a sense of detachment between us and God. Pelagianism makes sin seem like a misuse of free will, whereas we see it as a testament to our fallen nature (which we inherit at birth) and need for salvation. Pelagians see take that sin upon their shoulders, since they are held responsible, while we look to Jesus so that He can ultimately relieve us of our burdens. Secondly, Popandrea discusses grace relative to free will. For Augustine, free will is passive and grace is active. Humanity’s only version of free will is the free will to sin. As sinners, we can only want to do something good, but it is not in our power to do so. We are only able to do good things through the power of grace. For Pelagius, free will is active and grace is passive. Grace is seen as the set of laws, (The Ten Commandments, the Law of Moses, etc.), where free will is the choice to follows these laws or sin. Personally, I feel like our broken nature is so crucial to our existence, and that it’s something we have inherited from generation to generation, beginning with Adam. When Jesus died on the Cross, He healed us from that broken nature. Because of this, anything we do will be tainted by sin, and it is something that we cannot change ourselves. It is only through the beginning of our sanctification on earth (which only begins here, but cannot be finished since it is a fallen world and no one can achieve perfection) that the power of grace will give us the ability to do good things in the world. But this is only the work of God through us. Lastly, Popandrea talks a lot about predestination and the elect. Augustine presents the idea that the elect are the ones who are given the grace to believe and act on that belief. While God wants everyone to be saved, not all are called to be saved. That is why some believe while others don’t. Variations in predestination within Augustinians and Pelagians arise with the Semi-Augustinian and Semi-Pelagian positions. The idea of limited atonement remains mostly with the Augustinian position. I think it’s cool to know that God has chosen you out of the entire world to save! For only by grace we are saved, because His divine grace gives us the ability to believe. It’s also sad that others will not be saved from God’s wrath. My question would be, since grace gives us the ability to believe, yet some choose not to, would the ‘decision’ not to be considered our free will/choice in the matter, or would that be our sinful nature keeping us from doing the right thing? I must say, free will and predestination are tricky subjects of comprehension!
Well for starters, I really liked this speaker. Compared to the speaker who talked on Constantine, he was a HUGE improvement! I found him very engaging and easy to follow. Within the gobbs of information that he put out there for consideration, there was one particular thing that I kept thinking about throughout the talk. How could Pelagius justify the cross from his position? The only reason God sent Christ was because we couldn't save ourselves. Shortly before Christ's crucifixion Jesus prays, "My father, if it is possible let this cup pass from me..." Mathew 26:39. Jesus was afraid. He was asking to not have to be crucified if there was any way to avoid it. If we were truly capable of being perfect, God would have relieved Jesus then and there, but seeing as we are totally incapable of being perfect, Jesus had to die on the cross. My point is, if we could be perfect, we would have no need for salvation. As I continued listening, I found the different definitions of grace between Pelagius and Augustine very interesting. Perhaps its because I've grown up with the fact that grace is not something material that I can't grasp the idea of God's law and word being his grace. It was an interesting thought... making grace material, but I don't personally agree with it. I would have used the term tools, rather than grace. One last side note that is kind of disrelated to everything I've said so far, is that you can totally see the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism in the information provided by the video. I was reminded very much of our conversation we had in Mrs. Gottlieb's class last Wednesday. I basically had that playing through my mind and now realize that these decisions made back then, really do affect the now, in so many more ways than are conceivable.
This lecture made me think a lot about what I believe in relationship to the concepts of original sin, predestination, grace, and free will. One quote I found interesting is from Pelagius: “since perfection is possible it is obligatory.” This quote means that since perfection is possible, God expects you to achieve it. What a hard view to uphold. Pelagius has this view because he believed that there is no such thing as original sin. He believed one had free will and could choose to sin or not. God’s grace was reduced to information and it was human will that was active not God’s grace. He looked at Augustine’s views on free will and grace and couldn't help but feel that the stress Augustine put on God giving you the will to choice the right choices gave humans no moral responsibility. As I think about these challenging views of grace and free will I thought about Romans 6. In verse one it says, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” Paul goes on to say that since we are dead to our sin we must to chose to walk alive with Christ. We can choose death by staying in our sins or become alive by being set free from them.
Great points Grace. I wonder if Pelagius didn't hold all of the Bible as true? Because there are many passages like the following: Galatians 5:17, Psalm 51:5, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 5:19...and I could go on for a few more lines. So, I really am curious to what he would say about that, especially considering that fact that he was a monk...and it's not like he didn't have a chance to read a copy of the Bible (Vulgate Bible AD 382). So, regarding sin nature, I really don't get his reasoning.
After watching this lecture, I was struck by the fact that political leaders influenced both the Augustinism-Pelagianism debate and the Arianism-orthodoxy debate. In attempt to close the debate over Arianism, hundreds of bishops were gathered together in AD 325, while Constantine presided over the council of Nicea. Similarly, the emperor Honorius in AD 418 became involved with the Augustinism-Pelagianism debate by banishing all Pelagians from Rome. These two emperors could have had very different reasons for getting involved--or they could have had similar ones. As emperors, it was necessary to help preserve the peace of the empire. As “Christian” emperors, they attempted to pacify their religion by, let’s just say, putting their foot down. What I found intriguing was that both emperors’ commands did not accomplish what they wanted. Constantine soon discovered that his single edict could not control a handful of bishops and people groups with varying theological differences. Honorius also discovered that even though he banished the troublemakers, Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism still existed. Anyways, I found it intriguing to see emperors attempt to solidify and pacify only what God can do in the two debates of Augustinism-Pelagianism and Arianism-orthodoxy.
Watching this lecture opened my eyes to an overload of new information. You know, it's so humbling when you learn, because it really shows how much you haven't learned yet. I mean this especially regarding Augustinian, Semi-Augustinian, Semi-Pelagian, and Pelagian views of Christianity. Honestly, before I began this semester, I had no idea how many controversies developed during this period in history. Typically, when reading history, I tend to root for whoever I agree with, but today was extremely difficult because all four views had at least one valuable thought.
Anyway, although his view is not the most comforting or accepted, I appreciated Augustine's thoughts on sin. He stated, "In some strange way, the very object that we covet becomes all the more pleasant when it is forbidden." I thought a while about his words, and my goodness, did he know what he was talking about!!! As Papandrea stated, Augustine was a monk. Think about how many things were forbidden for a monk! Restriction upon restriction. On the other hand, I believe Augustine took a few things too far. To me, it sounded like Augustine was "robotizing" humans. He spoke many words of truth, but I feel like he could have clarified a few things. I agree with Pelagius that it sounds like: "If I sin, that means God didn't give me the power."
I found this lecture to be very interesting from a theological standpoint, because I’d never realized that so many different doctrinal and theological beliefs were developed in the early church. One thing I was especially noticing during the lecture was how these different standpoints ended up causing so much division in the church. Since much of the controversy dealt with complex issues such as grace, free will, and predestination, I found it a bit surprising that people on both sides of the debate were so ardent in their belief that they had the correct view of the issue, and that the other side must be wrong. On one hand, it was good that the early church placed so much emphasis on truth, but on the other hand, a lot of disunity was created because of the conflicting viewpoints that came about. In contrast, the church today often tries to avoid controversial issues like predestination (at least in my experience), instead focusing on issues that are more universally agreed upon. Generally speaking, I would also say that most people are much more tolerant of the views of other Christians than then they were back in the time of Pope Augustine. Though this tolerance does help with the problem of a lack of unity in the church, I believe that it can often cause people to simply ignore controversial issues, rather than being determined to search for the truth. This lecture reminded me that trying to achieve a balance between a desire for truth and desire for unity has been and ongoing struggle throughout the church’s history.
one thing that really stood out to me was all the controversy on baptism and free will and the grace of God. i have always been kind of in the dark about the "clean slate", just not understanding where the idea came from, and this lecture really cleared that up. the idea that i have grown up with was, that we are all sinners and that God couldn't be with sin and we needed the perfect sacrifice and that was the point of Jesus coming and sacrificing himself on the cross in the first place(at least the watered down version), but when he said that Pelagius rejected the idea of original sin. that caught me off guard. i think that our relationship with Jesus would be much more shallow if that was the case. have you guys ever heard that Adams sin was a blessing because if he didn't sin, how could we meet Jesus and how would we know that He loves us. and I think that is so true! we cant be perfect, there is no getting around that. i also find it dumb how Pelagianism says that we could be perfect there has never and will never be a fully perfect human(Christ being the acceptation). i still don't get where they thought of that idea. i just seems crazy to me. i don't believe that babies, when they are born are in the same state as Atom and Eve.
i think it is our choice whether or not we want to accept Jesus's sacrifice for us and our choice to repent and try to leave sin. i think that Jesus is giving us the OPTION to become Christians and go to heaven, and if you chose not to that's your choice.
This lecture was very interesting, er, intriguing, er, FASCINATING to me. I had no idea Pelagius existed, or exactly what Augustine believed. After learning what they each believed, I don’t think I exactly agree with either of them. There are dangers to each view. If you go with Augustine’s view, you believe that no one can do good on their own, and that a certain number of people will be saved. (Basically the T, I, and L in TULIP, the Calvinist beliefs.) This can be a problem because Augustine then had to believe that Gd chose people to not be saved. That doesn’t seem very consistent with God’s loving and forgiving character. Granted, Augustine said God wanted to save everyone (but he doesn’t, so if cancels out the wanting to). The idea of total depravity also leads to a belief that infant baptism is necessary, which isn’t anywhere in the Bible. Pelagius believed that perfection is possible in humans, that we can be perfect without any help from God. Also, he believed that humans are born without sin. He did believe we need God’s grace, but his idea of grace was simply the information God gave us (the Bible) that we need to make good choices (without God). He did not believe in infant baptism. This is also a dangerous extreme, because if we can be perfect, why did Jesus have to die? This would totally make it unnecessary. I think I would agree with the semi-Augustinian position. I don’t think Jesus only died for some people, although God does know who will be saved, but he doesn’t force anyone to accept him. So grace is resistible. I am not exactly sure if I agree with this position though, because I am not sure what he means by the whole grace and will cooperating and grace moving first. I also don’t think babies sin. They may have a sin nature, but they don’t have the mental ability to determine what is right or wrong or to understand salvation. So I don’t believe in infant baptism, because baptism is for believers who want to make their commitment public. I suppose that makes me semi-semi-Augustinian.
A significant theme which arose quite a few times in the lecture and captured my interest was the fact that Pelagius and Augustine thought of grace differently. To be honest, I never knew the definition of grace which Pelagius held existed; in my mind, what he believed to be grace seems to be what is commonly thought of acts of God’s grace, instead of grace itself. Pelagius held that grace is external, passive, merely information, merely things which God gives us in order to do good. The Law would be an example of grace from a Pelagian viewpoint. Augustine held that grace is internal, active, a “medicine” with which to heal human nature, per say. Also, Pelagius and Augustin’s views of grace corresponded with their views of the human will, and this fact both fascinated and confused me! Pelagius, as I wrote, believed that grace is passive and the will is active. Augustine believed the opposite: the will is passive and grace is active. It’s confusing and yet intriguing to ponder.
It’s also interesting to note that Pelagius view of grace seemed unique to him and his followers alone. The Semi-Pelagian group, Semi-Augustinian group, and, obviously, Augustine himself held to the view of active, healing grace. In 529, this would be the view chosen for official Catholic Orthodoxy in the West. This is a great reminder that, even though heresies rise, the truth will prevail.
While listening to this lecture, one idea I had not heard of before was the way the lecturer classified worldviews by their optimistic or pessimistic anthropology. Such broad classifications surprised me, but I do think they are helpful in understanding the baseline for some theologies. Augustine, as the lecturer stated, had a very pessimistic anthropology: he believed that man couldn’t and wouldn’t do a single thing to lift himself out of the terrible situation in which he was lost. Pelagius, on the other hand, had an optimistic anthropology, in which he believed that that man was perfectly capable of becoming what God wanted him to be. The same idea can be used to measure many religions, but I believe Christianity is probably the most pessimistic. Few other religions believe in a God so merciful he would reach out to humanity when we had done nothing to earn him. At the same time, I think this is what bothers me so much about Pelagius’s viewpoints. The idea that man can reach perfection and please God on his own undermines God’s mercy in chasing us and his power in saving us. God chose to save us to show his power and glory, and imagining we could have done it on our own minimizes his glory. Augustine’s pessimistic anthropology is, on the other hand, a testament to God’s glory.
Fascinating lecture by an excellent speaker. It's nice to hear the concepts of predestination and election touched on again, as I felt the previous teaching I received regarding these topics was a bit lacking. I found myself personally agreeing with the semi-Augustinian more than the others, but that isn't exactly surprising given the fact that it was the primary Western doctrine for over a millennium. Grace has to work first, regardless of which side you find yourself on. One cannot begin to believe in and accept Christ without having experienced his word. Therefore, if one decides to believe based on prior experience with the Word of God, then grace comes first. The only way grace would not come first is if someone somehow began to believe in Christ without knowing who he was or what he did. Grace holds a place in your life even before you accept it.
When listening to this lecture I found it interesting that the two sides of the controversy were opposite in beliefs to each other and that it took 110 years to resolve. The Augustinian side believed, man was born into sin and that irresistible grace of God could free us from our bondage if we were apart of the elect. While Pelagianism believe that sin was not passed down through the generations and grace could be resisted, it was human choice whether to accept the grace offered by God or not. I found this particularly interesting because of all the other controversies we have studied this year the two opposing side were in agreement on most beliefs and ideas, but had a few aspects where they differed. Another reason I found this interesting is because Pelagianism was considered a heresy yet differed greatly from Augustinian beliefs. Heresy usually slip unnoticed into the church by twisting few beliefs and teachings. But Pelagainism was different because Pelagion read the work of Augustine and thought completely different about the matters and began his own view of Christianity that was soon called heresy. I was surprised it took so long to resolve because Pelagion was confronted early on in his teaching yet it was not until 529 at the Council of Orange that it was resolved. Which was around 110 years after the death of Pelagion. This lecture surprised and interested me in learning about the difference in from the Pelaganism controversy compared to others learned in the past.
Great lecture. Great speaker. Great topic. Not the best camera person. After this lecture I really was surprised about how complex the arguments where between Pelagius and Augustine. I have not thought about the aspect of freewill and I never tired it to the aspect of sin until watching this. It’s interesting to think about how sin is not a disease and not a behavior. It makes scene to call sin a disease because wont it tints a person’s mind it’s impossible to escape from it and also the argument that we have freewill but only to sin. Fascinating, we have it yet we don’t have it. The next part was a point brought up by Pelagius that people could be saved but not through God’s grace. As Christians this sounds crazy but it’s what people believed, saved through good actions and not through faith.
This whole debate is something that I've thought a lot about. I am a Christian. Could I not be saved currently if I didn't want to be? Does God give me the free will to turn Him down? Also, can unsaved people truly not do anything good? It seems fairly obvious that unsaved people can at least try to do good. Can I choose God or does He choose Himself through me? One thing that Christians have to understand when looking at this is that God's ways often do not logically make sense. It seems unreasonable that God could choose an elect group for no reason besides His good will and save them but leave the rest to suffer in their sins and in hell and still be loving and just. However, God often acts in ways that we do not necessarily think are right or just, but we know He is still completely good, loving and just. I think Augustine and Pelagius, along with the rest of the Church, took this disagreement to another level than they should have (as with many disputes).
"Grace is the things God gives you so you can make the right choices."
I know that I use this form of blogging often, and I told myself I wouldn't use it this week. But this quote really stuck out to me (probably a lot more than it should have), but this in accompany with what the speaker said was powerful to me. For Pelagius, grace was more of an information thing. The Ten Commandments, the Law, Jesus's commands, all fall under "grace". "It's passive. But for Augustine, it's active." To Augustine, grace is like medicine to a sickness. I tend to side with Augustine on this argument. I believe in an active grace that continually covers over my sins and failures (of which there are many).
Picking something to talk about from this engaging lecture was difficult. I was highly intrigued by the different views on grace— grace as a “medicine” and grace as “information”. The controversy on infant baptism was fascinating as was the dissection of the factions of the different beliefs. I could go on and on summarizing and then diving into the main points of Auguston vs Plagean controversy. Instead, I’m going to focus on a thought provoking quote that is sandwiched among the meat of the lecture. “If there is no free will, then there is no moral responsibility and there’s no need to try to be good” Jim L. Papandrea, the lecturer, says this while he briefly talks about Plagean’s successor, Julian of Eclannm. Julian was trying to answer the question, “How does sin become attributed to the person?” He answered much like his mentor Plagean, by saying the above quote. When I heard this, I was stunned. Saying this, means that humans don’t necessarily have to try to be good, they can simply rely on God to give them the will to be good. If God doesn’t give them this will it is God’s fault. A person can simply say, “I don’t have the power to be good because God hasn’t given it to me.” The blame for our sin is then transferred to God, which I don’t agree with. God does not want us to sin, we are innately sinful and cant’t help it. God is there to HELP us, but when we don’t listen to him, it isn’t His fault, but our own.
Well, apparently the comment I tried to submit earlier never went through, so sorry about that. I didn't see that my post wasn't here till today. :P
While listening to this lecture, right in the beginning he quoted Augustine and I thought that this quote was very interesting. Augustine said, "In some strange way, the very object which we covet becomes all the more pleasant when it is forbidden." This seems true in the modern world, you see many examples where people covet something even more so when that thing is forbidden.
As he began talking about Pelagius, I thought it was interesting that Pelagius thought that there was no original sin. Therefore, infant baptisms were not needed. Thus he doesn't believe that we are born with a sinful nature.
Some major themes that surfaced in this lecture were original/voluntary sin, grace/free will, and predestination. Firstly, regarding original/voluntary sin, Popandrea talks about how Pelagius rejected the idea of “original sin,” which then in turn supported that all humans are born with a clean slate. Pelagius continued this idea with the belief that all sin is voluntary, and that if we choose to sin we will be held responsible for these decisions. This, from what I feel, gives a sense of detachment between us and God. Pelagianism makes sin seem like a misuse of free will, whereas we see it as a testament to our fallen nature (which we inherit at birth) and need for salvation. Pelagians see take that sin upon their shoulders, since they are held responsible, while we look to Jesus so that He can ultimately relieve us of our burdens. Secondly, Popandrea discusses grace relative to free will. For Augustine, free will is passive and grace is active. Humanity’s only version of free will is the free will to sin. As sinners, we can only want to do something good, but it is not in our power to do so. We are only able to do good things through the power of grace. For Pelagius, free will is active and grace is passive. Grace is seen as the set of laws, (The Ten Commandments, the Law of Moses, etc.), where free will is the choice to follows these laws or sin. Personally, I feel like our broken nature is so crucial to our existence, and that it’s something we have inherited from generation to generation, beginning with Adam. When Jesus died on the Cross, He healed us from that broken nature. Because of this, anything we do will be tainted by sin, and it is something that we cannot change ourselves. It is only through the beginning of our sanctification on earth (which only begins here, but cannot be finished since it is a fallen world and no one can achieve perfection) that the power of grace will give us the ability to do good things in the world. But this is only the work of God through us. Lastly, Popandrea talks a lot about predestination and the elect. Augustine presents the idea that the elect are the ones who are given the grace to believe and act on that belief. While God wants everyone to be saved, not all are called to be saved. That is why some believe while others don’t. Variations in predestination within Augustinians and Pelagians arise with the Semi-Augustinian and Semi-Pelagian positions. The idea of limited atonement remains mostly with the Augustinian position. I think it’s cool to know that God has chosen you out of the entire world to save! For only by grace we are saved, because His divine grace gives us the ability to believe. It’s also sad that others will not be saved from God’s wrath. My question would be, since grace gives us the ability to believe, yet some choose not to, would the ‘decision’ not to be considered our free will/choice in the matter, or would that be our sinful nature keeping us from doing the right thing? I must say, free will and predestination are tricky subjects of comprehension!
ReplyDeleteWell for starters, I really liked this speaker. Compared to the speaker who talked on Constantine, he was a HUGE improvement! I found him very engaging and easy to follow. Within the gobbs of information that he put out there for consideration, there was one particular thing that I kept thinking about throughout the talk. How could Pelagius justify the cross from his position? The only reason God sent Christ was because we couldn't save ourselves. Shortly before Christ's crucifixion Jesus prays, "My father, if it is possible let this cup pass from me..." Mathew 26:39. Jesus was afraid. He was asking to not have to be crucified if there was any way to avoid it. If we were truly capable of being perfect, God would have relieved Jesus then and there, but seeing as we are totally incapable of being perfect, Jesus had to die on the cross. My point is, if we could be perfect, we would have no need for salvation.
ReplyDeleteAs I continued listening, I found the different definitions of grace between Pelagius and Augustine very interesting. Perhaps its because I've grown up with the fact that grace is not something material that I can't grasp the idea of God's law and word being his grace. It was an interesting thought... making grace material, but I don't personally agree with it. I would have used the term tools, rather than grace.
One last side note that is kind of disrelated to everything I've said so far, is that you can totally see the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism in the information provided by the video. I was reminded very much of our conversation we had in Mrs. Gottlieb's class last Wednesday. I basically had that playing through my mind and now realize that these decisions made back then, really do affect the now, in so many more ways than are conceivable.
This lecture made me think a lot about what I believe in relationship to the concepts of original sin, predestination, grace, and free will. One quote I found interesting is from Pelagius: “since perfection is possible it is obligatory.” This quote means that since perfection is possible, God expects you to achieve it. What a hard view to uphold. Pelagius has this view because he believed that there is no such thing as original sin. He believed one had free will and could choose to sin or not. God’s grace was reduced to information and it was human will that was active not God’s grace. He looked at Augustine’s views on free will and grace and couldn't help but feel that the stress Augustine put on God giving you the will to choice the right choices gave humans no moral responsibility. As I think about these challenging views of grace and free will I thought about Romans 6. In verse one it says, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” Paul goes on to say that since we are dead to our sin we must to chose to walk alive with Christ. We can choose death by staying in our sins or become alive by being set free from them.
ReplyDeleteGreat points Grace. I wonder if Pelagius didn't hold all of the Bible as true? Because there are many passages like the following: Galatians 5:17, Psalm 51:5, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 5:19...and I could go on for a few more lines. So, I really am curious to what he would say about that, especially considering that fact that he was a monk...and it's not like he didn't have a chance to read a copy of the Bible (Vulgate Bible AD 382). So, regarding sin nature, I really don't get his reasoning.
DeleteAfter watching this lecture, I was struck by the fact that political leaders influenced both the Augustinism-Pelagianism debate and the Arianism-orthodoxy debate. In attempt to close the debate over Arianism, hundreds of bishops were gathered together in AD 325, while Constantine presided over the council of Nicea. Similarly, the emperor Honorius in AD 418 became involved with the Augustinism-Pelagianism debate by banishing all Pelagians from Rome. These two emperors could have had very different reasons for getting involved--or they could have had similar ones. As emperors, it was necessary to help preserve the peace of the empire. As “Christian” emperors, they attempted to pacify their religion by, let’s just say, putting their foot down. What I found intriguing was that both emperors’ commands did not accomplish what they wanted. Constantine soon discovered that his single edict could not control a handful of bishops and people groups with varying theological differences. Honorius also discovered that even though he banished the troublemakers, Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism still existed. Anyways, I found it intriguing to see emperors attempt to solidify and pacify only what God can do in the two debates of Augustinism-Pelagianism and Arianism-orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteWatching this lecture opened my eyes to an overload of new information. You know, it's so humbling when you learn, because it really shows how much you haven't learned yet. I mean this especially regarding Augustinian, Semi-Augustinian, Semi-Pelagian, and Pelagian views of Christianity. Honestly, before I began this semester, I had no idea how many controversies developed during this period in history. Typically, when reading history, I tend to root for whoever I agree with, but today was extremely difficult because all four views had at least one valuable thought.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, although his view is not the most comforting or accepted, I appreciated Augustine's thoughts on sin.
He stated, "In some strange way, the very object that we covet becomes all the more pleasant when it is forbidden." I thought a while about his words, and my goodness, did he know what he was talking about!!! As Papandrea stated, Augustine was a monk. Think about how many things were forbidden for a monk! Restriction upon restriction. On the other hand, I believe Augustine took a few things too far. To me, it sounded like Augustine was "robotizing" humans. He spoke many words of truth, but I feel like he could have clarified a few things. I agree with Pelagius that it sounds like: "If I sin, that means God didn't give me the power."
I found this lecture to be very interesting from a theological standpoint, because I’d never realized that so many different doctrinal and theological beliefs were developed in the early church. One thing I was especially noticing during the lecture was how these different standpoints ended up causing so much division in the church. Since much of the controversy dealt with complex issues such as grace, free will, and predestination, I found it a bit surprising that people on both sides of the debate were so ardent in their belief that they had the correct view of the issue, and that the other side must be wrong. On one hand, it was good that the early church placed so much emphasis on truth, but on the other hand, a lot of disunity was created because of the conflicting viewpoints that came about.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, the church today often tries to avoid controversial issues like predestination (at least in my experience), instead focusing on issues that are more universally agreed upon. Generally speaking, I would also say that most people are much more tolerant of the views of other Christians than then they were back in the time of Pope Augustine. Though this tolerance does help with the problem of a lack of unity in the church, I believe that it can often cause people to simply ignore controversial issues, rather than being determined to search for the truth. This lecture reminded me that trying to achieve a balance between a desire for truth and desire for unity has been and ongoing struggle throughout the church’s history.
one thing that really stood out to me was all the controversy on baptism and free will and the grace of God. i have always been kind of in the dark about the "clean slate", just not understanding where the idea came from, and this lecture really cleared that up. the idea that i have grown up with was, that we are all sinners and that God couldn't be with sin and we needed the perfect sacrifice and that was the point of Jesus coming and sacrificing himself on the cross in the first place(at least the watered down version), but when he said that Pelagius rejected the idea of original sin. that caught me off guard. i think that our relationship with Jesus would be much more shallow if that was the case. have you guys ever heard that Adams sin was a blessing because if he didn't sin, how could we meet Jesus and how would we know that He loves us. and I think that is so true! we cant be perfect, there is no getting around that. i also find it dumb how Pelagianism says that we could be perfect there has never and will never be a fully perfect human(Christ being the acceptation). i still don't get where they thought of that idea. i just seems crazy to me. i don't believe that babies, when they are born are in the same state as Atom and Eve.
ReplyDeletei think it is our choice whether or not we want to accept Jesus's sacrifice for us and our choice to repent and try to leave sin. i think that Jesus is giving us the OPTION to become Christians and go to heaven, and if you chose not to that's your choice.
This lecture was very interesting, er, intriguing, er, FASCINATING to me. I had no idea Pelagius existed, or exactly what Augustine believed. After learning what they each believed, I don’t think I exactly agree with either of them. There are dangers to each view. If you go with Augustine’s view, you believe that no one can do good on their own, and that a certain number of people will be saved. (Basically the T, I, and L in TULIP, the Calvinist beliefs.) This can be a problem because Augustine then had to believe that Gd chose people to not be saved. That doesn’t seem very consistent with God’s loving and forgiving character. Granted, Augustine said God wanted to save everyone (but he doesn’t, so if cancels out the wanting to). The idea of total depravity also leads to a belief that infant baptism is necessary, which isn’t anywhere in the Bible.
ReplyDeletePelagius believed that perfection is possible in humans, that we can be perfect without any help from God. Also, he believed that humans are born without sin. He did believe we need God’s grace, but his idea of grace was simply the information God gave us (the Bible) that we need to make good choices (without God). He did not believe in infant baptism. This is also a dangerous extreme, because if we can be perfect, why did Jesus have to die? This would totally make it unnecessary.
I think I would agree with the semi-Augustinian position. I don’t think Jesus only died for some people, although God does know who will be saved, but he doesn’t force anyone to accept him. So grace is resistible. I am not exactly sure if I agree with this position though, because I am not sure what he means by the whole grace and will cooperating and grace moving first. I also don’t think babies sin. They may have a sin nature, but they don’t have the mental ability to determine what is right or wrong or to understand salvation. So I don’t believe in infant baptism, because baptism is for believers who want to make their commitment public. I suppose that makes me semi-semi-Augustinian.
A significant theme which arose quite a few times in the lecture and captured my interest was the fact that Pelagius and Augustine thought of grace differently. To be honest, I never knew the definition of grace which Pelagius held existed; in my mind, what he believed to be grace seems to be what is commonly thought of acts of God’s grace, instead of grace itself. Pelagius held that grace is external, passive, merely information, merely things which God gives us in order to do good. The Law would be an example of grace from a Pelagian viewpoint. Augustine held that grace is internal, active, a “medicine” with which to heal human nature, per say. Also, Pelagius and Augustin’s views of grace corresponded with their views of the human will, and this fact both fascinated and confused me! Pelagius, as I wrote, believed that grace is passive and the will is active. Augustine believed the opposite: the will is passive and grace is active. It’s confusing and yet intriguing to ponder.
ReplyDeleteIt’s also interesting to note that Pelagius view of grace seemed unique to him and his followers alone. The Semi-Pelagian group, Semi-Augustinian group, and, obviously, Augustine himself held to the view of active, healing grace. In 529, this would be the view chosen for official Catholic Orthodoxy in the West. This is a great reminder that, even though heresies rise, the truth will prevail.
While listening to this lecture, one idea I had not heard of before was the way the lecturer classified worldviews by their optimistic or pessimistic anthropology. Such broad classifications surprised me, but I do think they are helpful in understanding the baseline for some theologies. Augustine, as the lecturer stated, had a very pessimistic anthropology: he believed that man couldn’t and wouldn’t do a single thing to lift himself out of the terrible situation in which he was lost. Pelagius, on the other hand, had an optimistic anthropology, in which he believed that that man was perfectly capable of becoming what God wanted him to be. The same idea can be used to measure many religions, but I believe Christianity is probably the most pessimistic. Few other religions believe in a God so merciful he would reach out to humanity when we had done nothing to earn him. At the same time, I think this is what bothers me so much about Pelagius’s viewpoints. The idea that man can reach perfection and please God on his own undermines God’s mercy in chasing us and his power in saving us. God chose to save us to show his power and glory, and imagining we could have done it on our own minimizes his glory. Augustine’s pessimistic anthropology is, on the other hand, a testament to God’s glory.
ReplyDeleteFascinating lecture by an excellent speaker. It's nice to hear the concepts of predestination and election touched on again, as I felt the previous teaching I received regarding these topics was a bit lacking. I found myself personally agreeing with the semi-Augustinian more than the others, but that isn't exactly surprising given the fact that it was the primary Western doctrine for over a millennium. Grace has to work first, regardless of which side you find yourself on. One cannot begin to believe in and accept Christ without having experienced his word. Therefore, if one decides to believe based on prior experience with the Word of God, then grace comes first. The only way grace would not come first is if someone somehow began to believe in Christ without knowing who he was or what he did. Grace holds a place in your life even before you accept it.
ReplyDeleteWhen listening to this lecture I found it interesting that the two sides of the controversy were opposite in beliefs to each other and that it took 110 years to resolve. The Augustinian side believed, man was born into sin and that irresistible grace of God could free us from our bondage if we were apart of the elect. While Pelagianism believe that sin was not passed down through the generations and grace could be resisted, it was human choice whether to accept the grace offered by God or not. I found this particularly interesting because of all the other controversies we have studied this year the two opposing side were in agreement on most beliefs and ideas, but had a few aspects where they differed. Another reason I found this interesting is because Pelagianism was considered a heresy yet differed greatly from Augustinian beliefs. Heresy usually slip unnoticed into the church by twisting few beliefs and teachings. But Pelagainism was different because Pelagion read the work of Augustine and thought completely different about the matters and began his own view of Christianity that was soon called heresy. I was surprised it took so long to resolve because Pelagion was confronted early on in his teaching yet it was not until 529 at the Council of Orange that it was resolved. Which was around 110 years after the death of Pelagion. This lecture surprised and interested me in learning about the difference in from the Pelaganism controversy compared to others learned in the past.
ReplyDeleteGreat lecture. Great speaker. Great topic. Not the best camera person. After this lecture I really was surprised about how complex the arguments where between Pelagius and Augustine. I have not thought about the aspect of freewill and I never tired it to the aspect of sin until watching this. It’s interesting to think about how sin is not a disease and not a behavior. It makes scene to call sin a disease because wont it tints a person’s mind it’s impossible to escape from it and also the argument that we have freewill but only to sin. Fascinating, we have it yet we don’t have it. The next part was a point brought up by Pelagius that people could be saved but not through God’s grace. As Christians this sounds crazy but it’s what people believed, saved through good actions and not through faith.
ReplyDeleteThis whole debate is something that I've thought a lot about. I am a Christian. Could I not be saved currently if I didn't want to be? Does God give me the free will to turn Him down? Also, can unsaved people truly not do anything good? It seems fairly obvious that unsaved people can at least try to do good. Can I choose God or does He choose Himself through me? One thing that Christians have to understand when looking at this is that God's ways often do not logically make sense. It seems unreasonable that God could choose an elect group for no reason besides His good will and save them but leave the rest to suffer in their sins and in hell and still be loving and just. However, God often acts in ways that we do not necessarily think are right or just, but we know He is still completely good, loving and just. I think Augustine and Pelagius, along with the rest of the Church, took this disagreement to another level than they should have (as with many disputes).
ReplyDelete"Grace is the things God gives you so you can make the right choices."
ReplyDeleteI know that I use this form of blogging often, and I told myself I wouldn't use it this week. But this quote really stuck out to me (probably a lot more than it should have), but this in accompany with what the speaker said was powerful to me. For Pelagius, grace was more of an information thing. The Ten Commandments, the Law, Jesus's commands, all fall under "grace". "It's passive. But for Augustine, it's active." To Augustine, grace is like medicine to a sickness. I tend to side with Augustine on this argument. I believe in an active grace that continually covers over my sins and failures (of which there are many).
Picking something to talk about from this engaging lecture was difficult. I was highly intrigued by the different views on grace— grace as a “medicine” and grace as “information”. The controversy on infant baptism was fascinating as was the dissection of the factions of the different beliefs. I could go on and on summarizing and then diving into the main points of Auguston vs Plagean controversy. Instead, I’m going to focus on a thought provoking quote that is sandwiched among the meat of the lecture.
ReplyDelete“If there is no free will, then there is no moral responsibility and there’s no need to try to be good”
Jim L. Papandrea, the lecturer, says this while he briefly talks about Plagean’s successor, Julian of Eclannm. Julian was trying to answer the question, “How does sin become attributed to the person?” He answered much like his mentor Plagean, by saying the above quote. When I heard this, I was stunned. Saying this, means that humans don’t necessarily have to try to be good, they can simply rely on God to give them the will to be good. If God doesn’t give them this will it is God’s fault. A person can simply say, “I don’t have the power to be good because God hasn’t given it to me.” The blame for our sin is then transferred to God, which I don’t agree with. God does not want us to sin, we are innately sinful and cant’t help it. God is there to HELP us, but when we don’t listen to him, it isn’t His fault, but our own.
Well, apparently the comment I tried to submit earlier never went through, so sorry about that. I didn't see that my post wasn't here till today. :P
ReplyDeleteWhile listening to this lecture, right in the beginning he quoted Augustine and I thought that this quote was very interesting. Augustine said, "In some strange way, the very object which we covet becomes all the more pleasant when it is forbidden." This seems true in the modern world, you see many examples where people covet something even more so when that thing is forbidden.
As he began talking about Pelagius, I thought it was interesting that Pelagius thought that there was no original sin. Therefore, infant baptisms were not needed. Thus he doesn't believe that we are born with a sinful nature.