31. The Pelagian Controversy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- One of the most important of the disputes of Augustin's day was the so-called Pelagian Controversy, named for Pelagius, a British monk who challenged Augustin's strong view of grace in the work of salvation. It was in the context of this dispute the Augustin clarified his deep commitment to God's sovereignty in the salvation of humankind, a perspective that became highly important at the time of the Reformation. This lecture finishes a discussion of the views of Pelagius, and begins a summary of Augustin's response.
It’s hard to listen to a dyed in the wool Calvinist discuss any person or topic that disagrees with their viewpoint, because the confirmation bias is so transparent. Having said that, although I don’t know Bruce personally, he seems to be one of the nicer Calvinists I have ever listened to.
May I apologize on the behalf for many affirming the doctrines of grace that did not come across gentle and kind and understanding, standing for the truth in disagreement I understand ,but we must be ambassadors of love in Christ as well , this is a work progressive sanctification
we should be humble but we fall utterly fail in this manner on how to be respectful and have an ability to speak and converse sometimes with others and not everyone sees or learns or grasp as we do, im sorry and I hope that I myself and others can grow in the grace of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ and be spirit filled and led. We all have battles with the flesh and it seems as if sometimes passionate zeal instead creates controversy instead of wisdom,
Hopefully you have better interactions from here! As a young believer myself I know I went through a stage where I couldn’t articulate words gently and couldn’t express my thoughts out of lack of season
God bless you
You are so helpful, Mr Gore!! Thank-you!!
Read the book of ali boner, the MYTH OF PELAGIANISM, most of what is taught here are miarepresentations of what really pelaguis teach. We have lots of his surviving writings... ;)
Bonner has come under scrutiny, and rightfully so, for her historical revisionism. The general consensus among Christian scholars is that Pelagius's writings were redacted by his contemporaries after his death.
Even if Pelagius didn't teach *Pelagianism*, it's still a formally defined system, and it's outside of biblical orthodoxy, same with Nestorianism and Arianism.
Hello Mr. Gore. Thank you for sharing this.
I really appreciate this video. It helped me make some real progress (I hope) both in understanding the faith and philosophically. While the notion of free will has been an almost literally vital concept for modern philosophy (it trips up the modern scientific world view implications), I think our English concept of free will also misleads us terribly. I think the problem with it is that it implies we are rather more like angels (which from a biblical point of view is frightening enough - I mean who out there would want us to so misconstrue our actual nature!): One consequence being our physiology is inclined to be all wrong, especially (again I think) in the areas of things like habit, appetite, desire, emotion and the like. While the notion of free will is again vital for justifying human law, order and justice it can also incline us to an extreme and an extreme Pelagius may have been rather pleased with: not breaking the law is simply a matter of choice. It's almost like there is the abstract ideal implied where people are fully in command of all of their faculties, ('top-to-bottom' so to speak), so a law breaker might almost seem to be completely gratuitous and consequently positively malicious.
For me, philosophically at least, the notion of free will I acquired really made it difficult for my own anthropology: I mean it had the consequence of making me unwittingly dualistic as imagining man was basically like an angel in a body (I mean the nature of an angel not the moral sense). Traditional Christian apologetics usually justify (or try to justify) the eternal condemnation of the angels and the impossibility of their bring saved or redeemed as being a consequence of their free will (and/or their nature). Will in the Scholastic tradition is defined as 'intellectual appetite' (if memory serves). The consequence I am drawing here is if that man actually had free will 'no strings attached,' then he would or ought to be judge for his decisions no differently than the angels are for their choices. It would presumably also make us by nature irredeemable. Now if we are all fallen in Adam (I of course believe that we are), then necessarily (I think at least) our whole nature is also fallen and corrupted - certainly at least from the point of view of moral judgment and justice... Now who 'out there' is traditionally depicted as believing man is a sinner unworthy of redemption or salvation?
Sorry for the long post but I felt a need to share it. Hope you have a great day and may God bless you.
I don't think Pelagias would have rejected the cross as an atonement. Just like the animal sacrifices under the law of Moses were coupled with their repentance and obedience to the law for staying in God's mercy, Christ's sacrifice would have had the same kind of significance as the animal sacrifice. Just because he said you could obey to be righteous enough prior to Christ, that does not mean he nullifies the significance of the cross.
The main reason for being Agnostic most of my life is the result of the vile filth perpetrated on the common man by mainstream Christianity . I was not "born into sin" and not remotely "responsible for the sins of my ancestors" . Two of the most vile teachings imaginable .
Pelagian teachings are absolutely refreshing . Thanks for this video .
Sad. You just can't accept that you as a human are not perfect and therefore cannot abstain from sin.
Be a man and take the truth for what it is.
@@sandromnator It's sad you can't take your own advice . Man up and don't believe nonsense .
@@sandromnator what you just described is reasonable. What Augustine taught was downright perverse.
It's called discipline...
All people at their very core are fallible and broken. We by nature desire things which are dishonoring to God and to our neighbor.
Humanity will be grateful to Anyone who can permanently rid us of these wretched 'sub-titles' which are not merely distracting (bad enough), but infuriatingly misleading.
Wonder why no reference to Church Fathers who also believed in free will prior to the Roman govt takeover of the Church?
They were killed and their writings burned.
TRUTH!!!!!! 110%
Here’s the best description of Pelagianism you will ever hear and save you watching this video: Nature is grace.
@26:06 Is it an opinion that eating the apple came with judgment upon discovery? I was lead to believe this was a repercussion of the fruit eaten. Judgment was being tossed, and a cursed ground. Is this not so?
Is there no part one? :/
He starts dipping into Pelagianism in the previous episode.
But doesnt Augustine's notion of "Liber Arbitrium" play into the Pelagian belief in the following way? What if what the individual wants most is innocence, Godly purity, and virtue? Does this not affirm Pelagius' concept of seeking one's own salvation? Examples in History or literature of such people....Galahad, Percivale....perhaps some youthful female saint that lived in perfect purity in a convent all her short life?????
That desire would come as a gift of the Holy Spirit. Calvinists would say that this desire comes as a direct result of regeneration. Other Christians in the Western Church, including Arminians and Roman Catholics, would say this is a result of prevenient grace.
A person always chooses their greatest desire - Sounds like a non-falsifiable statement. How do you argue against a non-falsifiable statement?
A monk from Britain says it, and he's labeled a heretic "full of Irish porridge". But if and Italian says it, applying pre-Christian Greek philosophy, he's canonized as a saint. The bigotry of the Roman Catholic church is as apalling as it is transparent. And from what unbiased source did Pelagius say "Human nature is indestructibly good"?
exactly most people are just augistine idolaters and are intellectually dishonest..
Augustine was an African Berber though
@@jacksonmsaha1255No sir, we simply read the book of Romans in the historical-grammatical method. We read Romans based on what Paul intended, in the Jewish worldview that Paul was writing from to a Roman audience.
Also, libertarian free will is a pre-Christian Greek philosophical concept.
Augustine opinion on Pelagius belief's are obviously biased. Same theological disputations in all religions.
Example of choosing against the strongest desires is Jesus in the garden of gethsemane. Also every Christain that has truly walked with God.
Christ endured the cross for the 'joy set before him' (Heb. 12), which was his strongest desire.
@@brucegore4373
True, but his greatest joy came from being with the Father.
Surely you have granted him unending blessings and made him glad with the joy of your presence.
Psalm 21:6
Our greatest desires can only be Gods greatests desires if we learn to trust and obey him. Many people live out their greatest desires, until they realize what God desires for them. This is what we call repentance. Any person that repents must give up their greatest desire of loving themselves, and surrender to God and love him.
Another example of choosing against their greatest desires is Jonah. Jonah didnt want to go to Nineveh, but God commanded and directed him to go even by causing him to be swallowed by a fish.
Fair enough. You'll have to take up this disagreement with Augustin. Thanks for your interest.
Pelagian thought the nature of mankind was good, wonder what gave him that idea?
Genesis 1
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
31 And
God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And
there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
mankind made in the image of the Most High and when mankind was complete it was "very good".
maybe Augustin was using a different bible version than we have today. . .
joeydelrio well if you keep reading the bible, adam & eve disobeyed God & ate from the tree he forbade them not too. This caused man to inherit concupiscence, which is the winding of the souls passion, to no longer be perfectly ordered to the souls intellect. Mans passions are at battle with his logic & reason, this is what man inherited as his nature, that came from original sin.
Brandon what you are saying here would make sense except for one thing - Scripture teaches otherwise. In Ezekiel 18 God Himself very clearly explains that the son shall not bear the punishment of the iniquity of the father (vs.20), he shall not die for the iniquity of the father (vs.19). Also in Romans 5:18, it states that "through the trespass of one man (Adam) came condemnation for all men, so through the righteous act of One (Jesus) came justification of life for all men."(MEV) Obviously if it was here saying that through Adam all humanity is condemned (lost), then it would also be saying that through Christ all of humanity is justified (saved). That would be teaching Universalism which we know is a false teaching,
When Adam sinned he and his wife exposed their posterity to moral compromise - that is transgression of God's law (sin). With nothing but a sinful father to have as a example while the moral character is developing in a child pretty much guarantee's the offspring will follow their bad example and also become transgressors. But the guilt was not acquired through heredity, but through choice. Thus we are sinners because we sin, not because of who our earthly father is, God made us perfectly in His image, but we choose to disobey.
This helps explain why very ungodly parents generally raise very ungodly children. While children growing up in very godly homes generally have a very high sense of godly moral behavior. However all children will make their own choice.
DerKirchenhocker
I agree. ‘Being conceived and born into sin’, is not the same as ‘being conceived and born sinful.’ This explains why babies go to heaven: they have no sin to repent of.
@@samysantarella8287 That isn't the historical Protestant (or Catholic) view. What you're explaining is an exclusively Eastern Orthodox Christian anthropology.
Werd Nnam False. People can label it as Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or whatever they want. It’s simply Biblical. That’s it. Period. (1 Cor 7:14, etc.)
Both of them (Pelagius and Augustine) were wrong. John Cassian was right.
Can you elaborate on Cassian righteousness?
That's not what Pelagius taught. Pelagius taught that no good deed is possible without grace. Gore just takes Augustines misinterpretation of Pelagius' vuewpoint on faith value. When you do a lecture about Pelagius, look into his own works.