4.13 The Heresies-Pelagianism and the Seeds of Calvinism | Way of the Fathers 

Thanks for sharing your beautiful story!

Thank you for that testimony - sometimes we wonder why God allows us to go through those "rock bottom" times, but those of use who have come out on the other side closer to God understand why God allows it - because it gives us the opportunity (by free will, if we choose it) to let it drive us closer to God. But it does highlight how we must believe that there are things that God allows, but does not cause, and this does not at all compromise God's sovereignty.

@@TheOriginalChurch I think you’re exactly right. I m so dumb that I needed to be torn to pieces to open my heart. The important piece I’ve understood is when I receive it I NEED to give it away to receive more to give away. That is the dance or I think synergy used in this clip that cleanses me and others. I never fully understood the Holy Spirit, I think a lot of us don’t understand it or how it works so that’s the point I m going to drive home when encountered with these conversations and when I start my own family God willing, one thing I am going to do before we start our day is we are going to sit down together in prayer and remind each other to be good to those around us and to be selfless. We’re going to begin each day with our hearts open. That will be priority number one before anything else

Jesus is our Great High Priest and intercessor. For there is one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). In the light of this statement, don't you think that exalting Mary as your intercessor is heretical? Go to God's word, the Bible, for your theology.

@@cbwilson2398 are you looking to argue or are you searching for truth?

The Holy Spirit dwells in the Catholic Church since 33AD

i have to respond to God's grace (sanctifcation), but even those good works are fruits of God's grace...glad you escaped the spider's web...

Go orthodox instead

@@davido3026not really the catholic church of today comes from their schism from the majority at the great schism

St faustina diary gives great insights into this thought. If you can't buy it, a podcast covers the whole diary.

Thank you! Unfortunately, we are struggling to maintain the budget to keep producing our podcasts. Would you consider signing up for a monthly donation, even a small amount per month? (Of course, if only a one-time donation is possible for you, that helps too.) catholicculture.org/donate/audio

Thank you! Please share them with your social networks!

It would be an interesting follow-up to compare the canons of the Council of Orange with the language of Aquinas and see whether the "predestination" that Aquinas mentions here is really the same thing as that which was condemned by the council. Always keep in mind that unless you are reading the original languages (Latin, in this case) you are at the mercy of translators who may be using the word "predestination" differently, or too loosely. Also, the word predestination was used by St. Paul, but it always has to be defined and interpreted in light of God's foreknowledge. It's all about what the author means by predestination, which cannot be understood in its nuance from a short quote out of context. And at the end of the day, saints and even doctors of the Church can be wrong about some things. If Augustine could be wrong (though not heretical) because he went too far in this direction, it is not impossible that Aquinas could have followed him down that road and also gone too far. And full disclosure - I am not a scholar of Aquinas, that's too recent for me - but if the bottom line is that Aquinas chose to follow Augustine over the Council of Orange and the mainstream consensus of the Church, that's not a choice I would advise anyone to make. I wouldn't treat Aquinas like he's writing Sacred Scripture, no matter how great he is.

yeah that is what infralapsarian Calvinism teaches...

I wonder about the context to that statement. Did Pelagius reject that other things, the Sacraments, confer grace, or is he saying that a soul who dies believing, like a catechumen, before baptism and Eucharist, has all the grace he needs to be saved?

I think that when one has the luxury of a longer format (like a whole book) one could always talk about whether the followers of a famous heretic went farther than the original heretic - in other words, did Nestorius really teach Nestorianism, or was that something his followers pushed farther than he did? You can ask that question with all of them, including Pelagius, but at the end of the day there is a reason each respective heresy is named after them .

Thanks for listening! I doubt that will come up very soon because we are covering the early Church. We will start on the Doctors of the Church (next year?) and I suppose it's possible it will come up with one of them, but I'm not sure.

Actually, I guess Jansenism should come up with St. Alphonsus. By the way, we need supporters to keep going for future episodes - would you consider signing up for a monthly donation, even a small amount per month? (Of course, if only a one-time donation is possible for you, that helps too.) catholicculture.org/donate/audio

Dr. Papandrea teaches at a Protestant school, so I wouldn't expect him to bash :)

I don't know how Jim would respond to this, but I will take a shot. I understand the argument based on the necessity of baptism, but I don't think it necessarily follows that hell or limbo are therefore the only two options for infants. We know that God is not limited to the ordinary dispensation of the sacraments, and thus He could intervene in some way to give an infant the mental maturity to be capable of baptism of desire before death, or even send an angel to baptize the baby...who knows. My understanding is that the Church does not offer us any kind of guarantee of this, but nor does it say hell and limbo are the only two orthodox possibilities. That said, I take your point about speaking as though limbo is a totally defunct idea. Between those two options, I find the idea that God damns infants to hell untenable. But if God chooses to give them perfect natural happiness but not the Beatific Vision, then that is very generous on His part and we have no grounds for complaint - He does not owe us anything except in the sense that He cannot contradict His own goodness. So modern theology has probably been rash in jettisoning limbo. Though perhaps there was a faulty understanding of it in the past that needs to be purified (like conceiving it as part of hell).

@@CatholicCulturePod I think that is a great reply and I appreciate it. I think my biggest concern is that, while I would hope that God does those things, it is purely speculative and not based on any of the handed down teachings. I come from a family of Protestants that do not believe in baptizing babies, and I have had a family member murdered in the womb, a sibling that died almost immediately after birth last year, and another family member that died in infancy decades ago. I certainly would absolutely love the idea that God would have saved them in extraordinary means. But because I cannot find anyone before the 1800’s teaching anything other than either hell (proper) or Limbo (and I agree it should lose the association with hell just as a matter of discourse), I’m going to more outwardly speak of the perfect natural happiness. I think my biggest problem is that when we put too much emphasis on the rejection of Limbo while simultaneously putting too much emphasis on the newer speculative extraordinary possibilities, and also ignoring what the councils of Florence and Trent (as well as the Catechism of Trent says), we *inadvertently* weaken the teaching of the necessity of baptism *and* lessen the severity of the crimes of Abortion. I myself personally believe in vicarious Baptism of Desire when it comes to the infants of the faithful (so if a baby of a Catholic that would have been baptized by faithful parents) would be covered by the desire of the parent, because the child would have been baptized. (But I believe a 17th century pope may have condemned that). On the other hand, I recognize that we can go too far on the other side and also water down the Mercy of God. That’s why for me the problem is more with the phrase used and not the idea behind it. It’s the same with the dangers of putting to much emphasis on any of the extraordinary means. We run the risk of making the ordinary means appear unimportant, and thus we cheapen the faith and exacerbate lukewarmness. Anyways, great reply and thank you. (And if you can find any earlier examples of theologians that are saints from the 1600’s or before that speak that it is possible, let me know. I am not a “only before a certain timeframe alone” guy, but the more support I find of it being handed down, the easier it is for me accept it personally).

@@CatholicCulturePod actually limbo is mentioned in the Papal document AUCTOREM FIDEI PIUS VI OF THE PUNISHMENT OF THOSE WHO DIE WITH ORIGINAL SIN ALONE. Baptism, § 3. XXVI. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of Hell (which the faithful commonly call the Limbo of children) in which the souls of those who die with only original guilt are punished with the penalty of damage, without the penalty of fire; It was as if those who exclude the punishment of fire, by this very reason introduced that place and that middle state devoid of guilt and punishment between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, as the Pelagians fabled; FALSE, RECKLESS, INSULTING CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. it cannot be rejected

This condemns the rejection of limbo "as a Pelagian fable", that is, it says you can't say belief in Limbo is a heresy. The second line explains the argument which is being rejected. These condemnations are very precise and they have to be read precisely, so I would say that it does not seem to condemn mere disbelief in Limbo or having another interpretation of it - or if that was the intent, we would need more clarification from the Magisterium on that point.

@@CatholicCulturePod only Mary was born without original sin, u are a Pelagian Heretic an u have hurt everyone who has watched it.

Yes, because everything that God created is fundamentally (I believe that's the word Pope Francis used) good, on an "existential" level if not in a moral sense. We are subject to the great corruption of sin, including original sin, but sin is not capable of making human nature itself evil at its very root - as though human beings had the power to completely undo what God has done.

Thanks David - I think we should not use the word predestination in casual conversation or use it lightly because it is too easily misunderstood. Of course Paul uses the Greek word, but what it means has to be understood in light of God's foreknowledge. I'm not sure Aquinas is correct on predestination - he may have followed Augustine into the same error Augustine fell into. In any case, just because Aquinas said something doesn't make it correct, necessarily - he was wrong about the Immaculate Conception. As to the question of whether Calvin himself actually taught 5 point Calvinism - you may be right, but that wasn't really my point. In the same way Luther probably didn't believe in sola Scriptura in the way that modern fundamentalists do, but regardless, the modern versions of these things are heresy, and there is a traceable trajectory from Augustine to the heretical version of Calvinism.

Foreknowledge is an interesting word. The idea that God knew me before the foundation of the world is quite powerful.

@@TheOriginalChurchI mean this is something that has several schools of thought, and the church has more consistently held the Thomistic and Augustinian schools. (At least in the west). Further, Ott has it as de Fide that some people *are* predestined to eternal damnation (with caveats). Several popes officially endorsed limbo, it was both Eastern and Western, and had unanimous consent of Theologians. It wasn’t until recently that it was really challenged. I can also likely find official papal documents that will support the more Thomistic view but my 1950’s denzinger is at home right now.

@@Arkangilos With regard to double predestination, the Church has not accepted the late Augustine, the Council of Orange corrected that. I'm not an expert on Aquinas, but it seems to me that he has more nuance than Augustine - to the extent that he follows Augustine, I think that he leans too much in that direction, but again I think Aquinas has thought it through more than Augustine, so has more nuance. Having said that, there are those who are generally orthodox but tend to lean too far toward predestination and flirt with fatalism. For example, I like Jean Pierre de Caussade, but he can lean too far in that direction. At the end of the day, Aquinas is not always right about everything (case in point: the Immaculate Conception). Both Augustine and Aquinas are proof that even doctors of the Church are not infallible.

@@TheOriginalChurch right, I’m not saying they are infallible, but both their positions have been accepted by the Church at large and their teachings have never been condemned. Their positions are also not double predestinarian. So what I argue against is saying, “they are wrong about that” in this case, because the Church hasn’t declared their specific ideas wrong. In fact, there is sufficient support from official documents to say that it has, in various times, preferred the Thomistic and Augustinian views. I think the best alternative is to do what someone like St. Alfonsus Ligouri does, and say something like, “likely he takes it too far and the y position is more probable.” We just have a habit of dismissing Church Fathers and the preeminent doctors of the church as straight wrong, even when they have historically enjoyed more support than the other opinions, and even if they disagree, so long as their specific position hasn’t been declared heretical (and neither of theirs have been), we should be more charitable. As for the double predestination, I haven’t seen any work of his that says he actually held that position. However, it is de Fide that God has, through the eternal resolve of His will, predestined certain men to hell. (I recommend reading Ott’s Fundamentals on the section of predestination and free will for sources, and such). The rejection was not reprobation, but positive reprobation where God makes people sin.

No I haven't heard about that one - but then my focus is the early Church.

Link is in the video description near the bottom

With regard to sources, I do not trust wikipedia, but I do generally trust Catholic Answers. To the extent that John Cassian was semi-pelagian, he was not a heretic - he was actually chosen by the Pope to write a theological treatise against Nestorius. So it kind of becomes a matter of definitions - if you define Cassian as semi-Pelagian then semi-Pelagianism is not a heresy. If you define semi-Pelagianism as a heresy, then John Cassian was not a semi-Pelagian. I was taught by my patristics professor that John Cassian was in fact the primary spokesman for the semi-Pelagian position. And I think that semi-pelagianism is the mirror or parallel of Augustine's position on the other side of the orthodox middle - so like St. Augustine's teaching, it is not all correct, but also not heresy. I think that some of Celtic Christianity, some of eastern Christianity, and some of monastic spirituality could all be put in the semi-Pelagian "box" if we wanted to, but at the end of the day, there is a sweet spot in the middle that defies orthodoxy, but there is also a range of acceptable teaching, which includes Augustine on the one side, and semi-Pelagianism on the other. The true extremes that are outside the boundaries of orthodoxy would be Pelagianism on one extreme, and Calvinism on the other. Anyway, that's how I see it.

I will, thanks for the suggestion.

Also Calvin did not believe in once saved always saved. He believed that people really could have faith and fall away out of the hardness of there hearts. He just recognized that the ultimate cause of all things is God, but we are the Author of sins

Interesting. Where does he write about that? I seriously want to know.

@@matt8637 "I have preferred to retain literally what the Apostle states, rather than to give a paraphrase as to the wicked or depraved heart of unbelief, by which he intimates that unbelief would be connected with depravity or wickedness, if after having received the knowledge of Christ they departed from his faith. For he addressed them who had been imbued with the elements of Christianity; hence he immediately added, By departing; for the sin of defection is accompanied with perfidy." Calvin's Commentary on Hebrews 3:12. He expands on this in the later sections, but as you can see, Calvin agrees that one can have Christ and then lose him by his own hardening of heart, but he will say the ultimate cause of this is God's predestination. There is the anthropocentric view and the theocentric view, and both are just as real and need to be held in tension.

Yes there is a similar thread there; I grew up JWs.

Gross misrepresentation and. Straw man fallacy.

Which Protestants are you referring to? The idea of "someone working himself into a state of faith" is certainly NOT what the magisterial reformers were teaching.

Actually no, what the Bible says is that we accept the teaching/tradition handed down to us. The history of the Church and the writings of the Church fathers IS the history of the interpretation of Scripture. Everything the Church fathers wrote is based on Scripture, but there is a difference between Scripture and the writings of the Church fathers, in that the Church fathers can sometimes be wrong - and we judge that not by our own interpretations, but by comparing each teaching to the consensus of the fathers in any given age, and how they receive the interpretations that came before them. The purpose of this podcast is not a Bible study per se, but a study of the Church fathers. I do my weekly Bible study on locals - you are welcome to join - we will pick up again in July, every Saturday.

@@TheOriginalChurch where in the Bible does it say to follow church fathers and traditions?

@@dy4sm I guess I'm thinking of passages like I Corinthians 15:3 where Paul says he teaches what he received from those who came before him - but the bigger issue is that you have to understand the concept of apostolic succession and the way that our faith was taught and transmitted even before there was a New Testament - see my video on why Christianity is like Kung Fu: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DhukLAiiN2o.htmlsi=6kiVHmT13axIs8jV

@@TheOriginalChurch brother, there is no father but God. Paul received scripture from the Son Jesus and scripture tells us to NOT follow the traditions of man for the exact reason that they be wrong. Also, there are none, “apostles of Christ”, since the writing of our “New Testament”. We are children of God and we, the church, is his Bride. Our teachings are solely from scripture and those called to spread the true word of God are his earthly vessels/messengers. “If you love Me(Christ) you will follow my fathers commandments/laws. The early Catholic/universal church killed off the “Original/true Church”

Your comment is stupid. Growup

wrong. John 20:23 Jesus Appears to the Disciples. When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.” The sacrament is confession. Our most important sacrament handed down through one, catholic and apostolic church.

@@sfelton20 I must confess I’m surprised to get someone that actually has a passage, and wrote it out, as a valid argument. Well done! So here is the main question: do you believe in one-verse theology? Or do you believe that there are no errors in scripture and all scripture must agree before our interpretation can be declared sound? Sure that one verse verse seems to say what it seems to say, but there are far more verses that tell us that it can’t mean that. Here is one from Matthew 9. It’s an entire passage explaining something important: 9:2 “…and Jesus, seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy: Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.” No sacraments in this forgiveness. But let’s move on: 9:3 “and, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.” Behold is a word to bring significant attention, Why did they think this, and why did Jesus make a point of it? Luke 2:7 explains in more detail why: “…who can forgive sins but God? Only?” Did Jesus correct their wrong thought? No. Because it wasn’t wrong. So why didn’t Matthew make that part of their argument clear? Because Matthew was written to the Jews, who know very well that only God can forgive sins, but Luke makes that point clear for the more general reader. Ok, moving on- and we may as well stay in Luke, though Matthew also goes here too-; Luke 2:8-9 “…he said unto them; Why reason ye these things in your hearts? whether it is easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?” What was Jesus making clear? His next comment speaks for itself: 2:10 “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,” [he did the miracle.] Ok, so what did we learn from this? Only God can do miracles. Only God can forgive sins. Because of these two undisputed facts for the Jews, Jesus used the one to validate the other, and thereby establish clearly that he was of God in the flesh. No sacraments needed. We have lots and lots of verses where it is declared that sins are forgiven because of their faith in Jesus: Luke 7:50, Roman 5:9, etc. Matthew 1:21-23 makes clear that the prophecy foretold of one coming who would be able to forgive sins. There is much more scripture to drive this point home but suffice it say that Jesus is the sin forgiver, and faith in Jesus gains forgiveness of sin. OK, so now what do we do with the several passages that give believers the power to forgive sins? There are none. Believers don’t have such power… but faith in Jesus does. Sins are not forgiven by the saints prayer, as many think James 5:14-15 suggests: “…and the prayer of FAITH shall save the sick” it’s not the prayer, nor the oil, that does the “magic” but the faith directed toward the one who can do miracles, and forgive sins. This prayer is a request not a power per say. So now what do we do with the verse you used to suggest gives the Catholic Church the power to forgive sins through sacraments? The church has no such power. Any believer (the meaning of the original language for Saint) can lead a sinner into salvation by turning them to Christ: mark 16:16-17, Luke 8:12, acts 15:11, 16:31, Romans 10:9, etc. “…So what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house,”… Acts 16:30-31. No sacrament, no magic talisman, no Hail Marys, no priest. Just explanation from a believer and a turning to Christ. That’s it.