i took pfal and vp was way off, just plain wrong in every point
very little of it was needed and he never even saw it
so quit guessing and tell me what is this gathering together? if you know
but, yes, you are sorry, cause you don't know
According to Paul, we have been baptized into death. But some by taking the Colossians account that has=the author kind of acts like they’ve been not only buried in baptism but also risen in baptism, and read it back into Romans 6. That’s not what Paul said in Romans 6, he doesn’t say they have been raised yet. Paul teaches we have been buried, but then he says, “So we too might walk in newness of life,” that’s not happened yet, according to Paul. “If we had been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be reunited with him in a resurrection like his.” We have been baptized into death, but not raised yet.
The gathering together is a coming, we get to be with our Father and our brother.
Things we need to consider, the gathering together is a coming.
The Assyrians are spared, and Jonah is furious, the very idea of a prophet being sent to Nineveh=Nineveh the capital of the hated Assyrian empire, the home of the people who had destroyed the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the ten tribes of Israel in 722BC, dispersing those ten tribes forever, the nation that had then laid siege to Jerusalem and exacted tribute from Judah for many years=Nineveh appears as another Sodom, Yahweh is going to punish them for immorality, but not necessarily for idolatry. But the stronger problem for Jonah seems to be the lack of punishment for the wicked. Jonah is indignant that the Assyrians didn’t get what they so richly deserved: didn’t Jonah say this would happen, that Yahweh always forgives, he’s this slow to anger, compassionate guy; he always repent, the wicked are never punished! It seems Jonah is fed up with the way Yahweh is doing things, his mercy perverts his justice, and some things ought not to be forgiven; people must be held to account for their evil actions, how can Yahweh not do justice! As Jonah is leaving the city to sulk, seems his complaint is twofold. If your going to punish the wicked then just push them; they deserve it. And if you’re planning to spare them, then just spare them and don’t waste my time with messages and oracles. As Jonah sits in a little booth that he has constructed, Yahweh causes a leafy plant to grow over him, providing shade and saving him from a good deal of discomfort; and the plant is to be the source of a final lesson for Jonah. How could Yahweh not be compassionate? For even the most evil of peoples are no less his creation that he has cared for than precious Israel. And if they will only turn to Yahweh in humility, he’ll wipe the slate clean, he’ll show compassion and forgive. It is only human to long for the punishment of the wicked; but Yahweh longs for their re-formation, their turning. Their is the moral law of the Noahide covenant, and it’s for this that Yahweh has decreed punishment, and Jonah is a champion of divine justice. Jonah believes that sin should be punished, he’s outraged at Yahweh’s forgiveness. But Jonah learns that a change of heart is enough to obtain mercy, and that the true role of the prophet is perhaps to move people to reformation and turning.
We could perhaps draw the conclusion that Adam and Eve had access to this tree of life, as long as their will conformed to the will of Yahweh, there was no danger to their going on eternally, being immortal. But once they discovered their moral freedom, once they discovered that they could thwart Yahweh and work evil in the world, and abuse and corrupt all that Yahweh had created, then Yahweh could not afford to allow them access to the tree of life. Perhaps herein is the Serpent’s shrewdness manifested, could Yahweh afford to allow them access to the tree of life, that would be tantamount to creating divine enemies, immortal enemies; how would Yahweh maintain the upper hand in his struggle with these humans who have learned to defy him. Perhaps the Serpent thought they would died on the spot, but Yahweh maintains the upper hand in this, the fact that they eventually must die; but access to the tree of life is blocked, no humans have access to immortality, and the pursuit of immorality is futile. That Serpent was not Satan, that Serpent acted on his own, his own reasonings, perhaps to see if or how Yahweh would modify his plans.
So the concept of the divine image in humans, that's a powerful idea, that there is a divine image in humans and that breaks with other ancient conceptions of the human. Humans are not the menials of Yahweh!
if Paul in the grave with no concision in the grave
where is Paul?
i guess God being mean to Paul making him sit in grave all this time
is Paul dead or part of one's who rose after Christ return
we are in Christ the seed of Christ are conceive only in Christ
Paul already got his new body Paul he rose with Christ at Paul death
we come out of this body at the sight of Christ
with love and a holy kiss Roy
The access to the tree of life was block, the pursuit of immortally was futile; Yahweh raised Yeshua from among the dead, Yeshua is the frist and only one that has been raised from among the dead!
The access to the tree of life was block, the pursuit of immortally was futile; Yahweh raised Yeshua from among the dead, Yeshua is the frist and only one that has been raised from among the dead!
Hmmm what about the son of the Widow of Nain, Jairus's daughter and Lazarus among others?
if any one can put tmvp's ramblings into any sense at all
please post it
otherwise he's just a troll
One can come to the conclusion, that Adam and Eve had access to the tree of life, as long as their will conformed to the will of Yahweh, there was no danger to their going on eternally, being immortal; Yahweh was taking his resting during this time. Clearly Yahweh’s plan for these two humans was to eat off the tree of life, but it was up to them. The logic of freedom of will, their has to be the freedom to disobey; so they learned that they have moral autonomy by making the defiant choice, the choice for disobedience. The very action that brought them a Yahweh-like awareness of their moral autonomy, was an action that was taken in opposition to Yahweh. The serpent omitted in his speech to Eve, having that good and bad knowledge is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good. Yes, you’ll become like Yahweh, it’s true in one sense, but also in another; the serpent sort of omitted to point out that it’s the power of moral choice alone, that is Yahweh-like. So we see then that having knowledge of good and bad is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good.
Hmmm what about the son of the Widow of Nain, Jairus's daughter and Lazarus among others?
I think these people got that breath life back, but they don't have that life Yahweh has within himself, or that life Yeshua is the first fruit from among the dead, to have within himself?
dead have rose from the dead that why they are called the dead in Christ
unless your a VPW man
VPW teaching are Teach Men Holy Book
VPW had nothing
I came to see teach saw that but was I wrong
you did not even answer one part of what i ask you
The access to the tree of life was block, the pursuit of immortally was futile; Yahweh raised Yeshua from among the dead, Yeshua is the frist and only one that has been raised from among the dead!
the access to tree of life was gave by Christ 2,000 years ago
I did not ask anything about the Access of Christ open the door
You can think when you die, your heaven bound all you want; but that is only backwards teaching and believing, Apostle. Those of us that were awake during PFAL, remember the gathering together, that gathering together is coming soon!
It is interestring that humans being created in the image of Yahweh, breaks with other ancient conceptions of the humans. I see a little of this menials of Yahweh belief here. I see some are caught up into that vertical teaching, you know, Paul taught that horizontal teaching: we're here, we're going there; we're on earth, we'll be in heaven. Their are those that have taken that horizontal and turned it vertical: there's the cosmos and there's the heavenlies, but they still exist right how; so the rest of the world is down here on earth, but followers of Jesus have been translated already right now into the heavenly places. Why do some of you'ins believe this way?
In 1517, an Augustinian monk posted a notice requesting a public discussion at Germany’s Wittenburg University. With these 95 Theses, thirty-three year old monk Martin Luther declared an end to the 1,200 year era of holy Roman Catholic hegemony over Christian belief and practice.
The single catholic church created 12 centuries earlier by Emperor Constantine would now be faced with a challenger over an issue as old as the dispute between the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James. Was salvation from eternal damnation to be found as a matter of works or as a matter of faith?
For Luther, the issue at hand related to the increasingly pervasive practice of selling indulgences – relief from the eternal damnation or purgatory in exchange for a monetary contribution. The application of much of this pay for grace theology involved funding the construction of St. Peter’s basilica in Rome.
The 95 Theses were aimed squarely at papal authority – both temporal and spiritual. Luther’s thesis #5 launched the attack: "The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law."
By the time he gets to Thesis #86, Martin has become somewhat more personal in his attack: "Again: since the pope’s income today is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?"
The Reformation Luther launched carries forward as the dominant event of Christianity for the subsequent 500 years to this 21st century. Unfortunately, this reformation is incomplete. The Christian revolution was aborted – by none other than Luther himself.
Background of Martin Luther
The life of Martin Luther can be divided into distinct categories – as it has by numerous theologians and historians. At least three distinct phases can be identified – beginnings, reformation, church leadership and old age.
Luther’s Beginnings: Martin Luther was born in Eisleben, Germany on November 10, 1483. His father Hans was a copper miner. The older Luther had high hopes for Martin to become a professional man, a lawyer. At age 17, his father picked the University of Erfurt, one of the finest universities of the time – as the place for Martin’s college education – and paid for by Hans.
After graduating 30th in a class of 57, Martin received his Masters degree. His father then arranged for Martin’s entry into law school. On July 2, 1505, less than two months after beginning law school, Martin was traveling his way back to Erfurt from his parents’ home and became caught in a violent thunderstorm.
Luther was nearly struck by lightning and thrown to the ground. At this moment, he cried to Saint Ann to save him, vowing to become a monk if he escaped alive.
Just over 2 weeks later, Martin Luther entered the Black Monastery on July 17 – much to his father’s displeasure. Luther saw this as perhaps the surest path to his own soul’s salvation. As a grouping of Augustinian Hermits, the monastery was a strict though not austere order of mendicant monks.
In 1507, Luther was ordained and celebrated his first mass. The subsequent year he taught briefly at the new university in Wittenburg. In 1510, he and a traveling companion were sent to Rome to handle some of the orders’ political affairs. Upon his return in April 1511, Luther was transferred to the newly constructed Black Cloister in Wittenburg.
In 1512, Luther received his Doctor of Theology degree. A year later, he became a lecturer on the Psalms. At age 30 (in 1513), he also became priest off-campus at Wittenberg’s city church.
Two years later (at age 31), he was appointed vicar in charge of eleven Augustinian monasteries. That same year, he began a year of lectures on the subject of the New Testament book of Romans.
In 1516, plague struck Wittenberg. Luther stayed and the next year Johann Tetzel began selling indulgences on the borders of Saxony. This occurred through licensing action of Pope Leo X as a means to finance the construction of St. Peter’s basilica in Rome.
Many of the customers for Tetzel’s indulgences also were parishioners of Martin Luther. As one side effect, Luther noticed fewer people coming to confession. Luther was outraged.
On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses to protest the sale of indulgences. To elevate the level of protest, he also had a copy of the Latin text delivered to the archbishop, hoping to get an answer beyond that of a private disputation. Initially, Luther received little response, but in December Johann Tetzel wrote two sets of countertheses after noticing a fall-off in the sale of indulgences.
Reformation: Less than one year after the posting on the Wittenberg door, Luther was tried (in absentia) on charges of heresy in Rome. Pope Leo also issued Cum Postquam, outlining the church’s doctrine on indulgences (in direct opposition to Luther).
By early 1519, Luther was ready to recant and even send a letter of apology to the pope. In March, he actually sent a letter to Leo X, stating it was not his intent to undermine the authority of the pope or church. However, Luther also entered into a debate with Johann Eck. It was during this debate that he denied the primacy of the Pope and the infallibility of church General Councils.
In 1520, Luther completed three major works. The first was titled and addressed To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation. It debunked the three walls on which papal authority had rested: stating that all believers are priests, there is no exclusive papal right to interpret the Scriptures, and a reformatory council of the church could be called by others than the pope.
In 1521, Martin Luther was summoned by Emperor Charles V to appear before the Diet of Worms. During the second hearing, Luther made his position clear: "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason, I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me."
In 1523, the first Protestant martyrs were burned at Brussels. In 1524, peasants revolted citing Luther’s teachings and demanding more just economic conditions. Luther also stopped wearing the religious habit. In 1525, Martin Luther wrote Against the Murderous and Thieving Hordes of Peasants. At the Battle of Frankenhausen, 50,000 peasant lives were lost. By the time the uprising was quelled, nearly 100,000 lives were lost. The peasants believed Luther had betrayed them.
This same year, Martin Luther married former nun Katherine von Bora. They took up residence at Black Cloister, the former Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg.
Church Leadership & Old Age: Though married late at nearly age 42, Martin Luther clearly enjoyed family life. Over the next 9 years, Katherine gave birth to 6 children – two of whom would die before their father. His love for family is an on-going legacy – reflected in the Christmas tree tradition begun for Martin’s family. And he composed the most basic of the Christmas carols "Away in a Manger."
As a composer, Luther also wrote the Smart Songbook and "A Mighty Fortress is our God" in 1527. He wrote doctrinal text for the new Lutheran church, including a Small and Large Catechism.
While Luther found marriage enjoyable, advancing age and, perhaps, job stress led to growing health issues. Within two years of marriage, Luther began to experience heart problems as well as long-standing digestive and intestinal difficulties. By 1538 (age 54), deteriorating health (including uric acid stones) and arthritis were affecting his ability to work and write. The next year, Katherine experienced a miscarriage; Martin was by her bed much of the time.
Advancing age also brought on more violently polemical writings , capped by his polemic Against the Jews in 1543. In 1545, Luther wrote Against the Papacy at Rome founded by the Devil. Less than one year later, Martin Luther died during a visit to Eisleben, the home of his birth. Death was attributed to heart failure. The date was February 18, 1546, and Martin was 62 years of age.
Reformation Incomplete
Half a millennium later, we live in the shadow of Martin Luther’s heresy. Martin’s heresy was not the doctrine of salvation by grace; he merely uncovered what Paul had written 1,500 years earlier.
Rather, Luther’s heresy was his inability to put the concept of a priesthood of believers into practice. Luther’s heresy was the imprimatur for Christianity – Protestant or Catholic – to continue down the same path of intolerance and repression that continue to obscure the diversity and true eclecticism of Jesus’ message.
Part of the reason for Martin Luther’s inability to shake the Catholic tradition of intolerance comes from his own proclivity to long bouts of depression. This natural predisposition was reinforced by Luther’s preoccupation with the wrath of God. During a bout of this black horror, he could not bear to read biblical words such as those of Psalm 90: "For we are consumed by your anger; by your wrath we are overwhelmed."
Luther’s inability to fully trust in a priesthood of believers, in individual reason, came as the result of his own insecurities. Because Luther’s God was a god of vengeance, Martin Luther similarly gave himself license to wreak havoc on those with whom he disagreed. As with the church he dedicated his life to tear down, this revolutionary reverted to what he earlier had disdained – a priesthood of one. Papal authority was no more; in its place was substituted Luther the new religious autocrat.
Peculiarities of Martin Luther
Much like the apostle Paul, Martin Luther was a man of uncommon intellect and authority. One did not cross Luther lightly. Yet it is precisely the power of the man from which spring forth distinctive eccentricities. The Vulgar Luther: Much of Luther’s vulgar commentary focused on the digestive and excretory systems – where Luther himself often experienced physical problems. Luther was particularly haunted by the presence of the devil – who manifest himself in obscene ways.
Lutherly Exclusion: The Augustinian monk who railed against the egotistical excesses of the papacy increasingly came to emulate similar patterns of disfavor, then persecution for those out of synch with his own expectations.
On the canonical level, a particular target of Martin Luther’s ire was the New Testament epistle of James. The epistles assertion that "faith without works is also dead" absolutely rubbed Martin the wrong way (as it had Paul before him). Luther commented that James was "a right strawy epistle" and questioned whether a book of such inferior worth even belonged in the New Testament.
On a more practical level, Luther’s disfavor had more catastrophic consequences. His ultimate condemnation of the Peasants’ Revolt ultimately lead to the loss of 100,000 lives. He came to support the execution of Anabaptists who he felt disrupted the public order and refused to stay in banishment.
And in a sentiment with far-reaching consequences, Martin Luther came to advocate severe repression for the Jewish population in Germany, offering suggestions to: "Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, laying three thousand lest the whole people perish."
Martin Luther in Summary
With Martin Luther, we profile the last of the great heretics of Christianity. Luther took his historic stand at Wittenburg – placing himself in opposition to the combined weight of more than a millennium of accreted Catholic dogma. His 95 theses unleashed the forces of people, faith and politics against papal authority and the economic hegemony of a single European church-state.
More so than the other heretics of the Christian faith, Martin Luther changed not only the church, he altered the state. The economic and social energies unleashed by the Reformation heralded the end of feudalism, the triumph of capitalism, the resurgence of education, and eventually the swelling tide of democracy.
If the 21st century still resonates in the freedom and dynamic energy released by of these tidal forces, we also remain imprisoned within the socio-religious fortress that Luther reinforced. Jesus remains a caricature of the Nicene Creed which continues supreme.
To the dominant church of the era, Martin Luther’s heresy came in his challenge to papal authority. To those who value the divine, Luther’s heresy was the claim of salvation through grace, not works. But these heresies were nothing new; Luther was merely rediscovering and again unleashing the power of a Pauline ministry 1,500 years earlier.
The reformation of protestants that Luther launched carries forward as the dominant event of Christianity for the subsequent 500 years to this 21st century. Unfortunately, this reformation is incomplete. The Christian revolution was aborted – by none other than Luther himself.
For those who have lived in the ensuing five centuries of Luther’s legacy, the real heresy lies in Luther’s failure to complete the Reformation he started. Luther failed to throw off the shackles of Nicaea, to accept and celebrate diverse interpretations of the Jesus message, and to center a revived church on the message of creative conflict rather than monolithic uniformity. That time, that fulfillment of reformation, has yet to come.
This passage is adapted from the chapter "The Heresy of Luther: Reformation Undone," further detailed in the approximately 360 page book 12 Heresies of Christianity. Please click here for more information on the 12 Heresies of Christianity.
Is this what you guy believe in, so there is a spirit within which you call yourselves, and it is perfectly distinct from the body in which you dwell. So your spirits, which are generated in or with your bodies, are elaborated from immaterial substances into separate existences?
Few churchmen have been so maligned as Pelagius in the Christian West. For nearly 1,500 years, all that anyone has known of the British monk's theology has come from what his opponents said about him — and when one's opponents are as eminent as Augustine and Jerome, the chance of getting a fair hearing is not great. Consequently, it has been easy to lay all manner of pernicious heresies at Pelagius's doorstep. Only in the last couple of decades have scholars been able to recover and examine Pelagius's works directly. What they have found is that very little of what has historically passed for "Pelagian" heresy was actually taught by him.
This "rehabilitation" of Pelagius by Western scholars calls for an Orthodox Christian response. Indeed, through ecumenical contact and dialogue with Western Christians, Orthodox theologians have come to appreciate the immense impact that Augustine has had in shaping the landscape of Western Christianity; and the divergence of the Augustinian trajectory of theology from the Apostolic and Patristic Tradition has been carefully charted. It is surely time, then, for an evaluation of Augustine's chief opponent, Pelagius. We may even find in the British monk's criticism of Augustinian ideology a voice sympathetic to Orthodox concerns.
There is no denying that Orthodox Christians have traditionally called Pelagius a heretic. Yet no Eastern Fathers were acquainted with him, and condemnations of Pelagianism were included in the Oecumenical Synod of Ephesos only under Western influence. As we shall see, on the couple of occasions during his lifetime that Pelagius was actually tried at local councils in the East, the evaluation was positive. This paper picks up where those councils left off, though a thorough evaluation of Pelagius lies well beyond its scope. We shall begin the process by analysing herein the Letter to Demetrias, in which many of Pelagius's principal views are set out.
Back to the Top
A Brief Life of Pelagius
Tracing the life of Pelagius is not easy. No one wrote his biography, nor are there many autobiographical details in his works. There are no accounts of the controversies from an objective historian, and little commentary exists from friendly or neutral sources. Nonetheless, scholars are confident they have pieced together an accurate portrait of Pelagius's life.
The first we know of Pelagius is in Rome where he came in early 380s. He was almost certainly from Britain, where he was born around 350.[1] There he received a very good education, with extensive training in the Scriptures, as well as in both Latin and Greek Patristic writings. He inherited in his theological formation the Romanised Celtic tradition, "with its emphasis on faith and good works, on the holiness of all life and the oneness of all. "[2] Consequently, once in Rome, he became impatient with the moral laxity that surrounded him. The Christianisation of the Empire was not making true Christians of people, he believed, only "conforming pagans." He began preaching with the fervent desire to lead everyone to live an authentic Christian life according to the Gospel. Pelagius believed that the grace and renewing power of baptism had brought the opportunity to struggle on the path to perfection; but instead, he saw Christians squandering their baptism and "lapsing back into their old, comfortable habits of self-indulgence and careless pursuit of Mammon."[3] The main focus of his preaching was never theological, but practical moral advice.
In Rome, Pelagius gradually gathered around himself a large and influential circle of loyal adherents, including educated aristocrats, many of them women, as well as many clergy. Though he did not belong to any religious community and never sought ordination, Pelagius was often called a monk, a testimony to his holy life. Even Augustine described him as "a holy man, who, I am told, has made no small progress in the Christian life."[4] Gleaning what they could from his writings, commentators have described Pelagius as "a cultivated and sensitive layman," "an elusive and gracious figure, beloved and respected wherever he goes," always "silent, smiling, reserved," certainly a "modest and retiring man."[5]
The first hint of theological controversy came around 405, when Pelagius heard someone reading from Augustine's Confessions, "Give me what you command and command what you will." This verse annoyed Pelagius very much; he believed this and other Augustinian teachings contradicted the traditional Christian understanding of grace and free will, turning man into a "mere marionette, a robot."[6] Soon after, he wrote his famous Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, in which he set out his opposition to such Augustinian doctrines as the inherited guilt of original sin, rigid predestination, and the necessity of baptism to spare infants from hell.
With Alaric the Visigoth threatening Rome with attack in the year 409, Pelagius departed for Palestine, where he was greeted with hostility by Augustine's theological ally, Jerome. Jerome had been busy fighting Origenism, and when he heard that Pelagius was teaching that a baptised Christian was able to live a sinless life, if he so willed, he reacted strongly. For him, this doctrine of impeccantia (sinlessness) sounded like the Stoic notion of apatheia which Origen had adopted. So Jerome managed to have Pelagius formally charged with heresy, and the British monk was brought before Bishop John of Jerusalem at the Synods of Jerusalem and Diospolis in the year 415. At these two synods, Pelagius admitted to having taught this doctrine, but disassociated himself from the more extreme views of Celestius, a lawyer whom he had met in Rome. He quoted Scripture on the necessity of grace and anathematised those who denied that it was essential. The Synod of Diospolis therefore concluded:
Now since we have received satisfaction in respect of the charges brought against the monk Pelagius in his presence and since he gives his assent to sound doctrines but condemns and anathematises those contrary to the faith of the Church, we adjudge him to belong to the communion of the Catholic Church.[7]
After his acquittal, Pelagius wrote two major treatises which are no longer extant, On Nature and On Free Will. In these, he defends his position on sin and sinlessness, and accuses Augustine and Jerome of being under the influence of Manicheanism. Their doctrine of original sin restored evil to a Manichean status, and their predestinarianism was tantamount to Manichean fatalism.
Unsurprisingly, Jerome and Augustine were not convinced by the conclusions at Jerusalem and Diospolis. They decided to direct all their energies to attacking Pelagius and the British monk soon found himself "out-manoeuvred and out-gunned."[8] Under the influence of Augustine, the bishops of Africa appealed to Pope Innocent I, and after some time, he declared that Pelagius and Celestius were to be excommunicated unless they renounced their "heretical" beliefs. Innocent died a month later, and his successor Zosimus reversed the judgement. The African bishops stood fast, though, and between 416 and 418, several councils of Carthage passed numerous canons against the tenets of what had become known as "Pelagianism."[9]
Today, historians of the Church realise that Pelagius was not condemned simply on theological grounds. Rather, Pelagius's teaching was seen as a threat, a "potentially dangerous source of schism in the body social and politic."[10] His central message that there is only one authentic Christian life, the path to perfection, left no room for nominal Christians. If he had gone off into the Syrian or Egyptian desert, he would probably have been a revered "abba." Instead, he clashed with the comfortable Christianity which had become the basis of unity in the Imperial Church, and, as a result, he has gone down as the West's chief heresiarch.
Around the time of his condemnation by the councils of Carthage, Pelagius disappeared. He is thought to have died not long after 418 somewhere near the Eastern Mediterranean, possibly in Egypt, though some have speculated that he may have returned to Britain.[11]
At the Oecumenical Synod of Ephesos in 431, those who failed to disassociate themselves from "the opinions of Celestius" were excommunicated. This canon clearly resulted from the direct influence of Cyril of Alexandria and other African bishops, rather than from the theological reflection of the whole Church. Thus, as one commentator has said, it was as "a matter of courtesy rather than a result of reasoned debate" that the Eastern Church overruled the earlier decisions in favour of Pelagius at local Eastern Synods at Jerusalem and Diospolis.[12]
Back to the Top
The Letter to Demetrias: History and Text
Pelagius was in Palestine when, in 413, he received a letter from the renowned Anician family in Rome. One of the aristocratic ladies who had been among his followers was writing to a number of eminent Western theologians, including Jerome and possibly Augustine, for moral advice for her daughter, Demetrias. The latter was a young woman of 14, who, though recently engaged to be married, had chosen to take a vow of virginity. Demetrias's mother wanted her to receive the very best instruction as she began her new life. Evidently, the request was fervently made, for in his response, the Letter to Demetrias, Pelagius admits to having been persuaded by the "remarkable force of her heartfelt desire" (1:2).[13]
Pelagius rose to the dual challenge of not only writing for an aristocratic audience but doing so in direct competition with his illustrious theological adversaries. The Letter to Demetrias has been called "one of the jewels of Christian literature."[14] One modern commentator describes the impression given by the letter, the impression which Demetrias herself must have received, as that
of an older, wiser friend, writing with deep feeling and sincerity from his own lifetime of experience and commending the values and obligations which he himself prizes above all else in other words, of that same simple, devout Christian teacher whom she had once known as a child in Rome and heard expounding the mysteries of the scriptures to her elders, one whose judgement she could respect and trust, one who believed what he said and practised what he preached, one whose sole concern was to be about his Father's business. And as she read his advice, no doubt she would have in her mind's eye a picture of a rather eccentric, distinctly overweight, elderly gentleman, dressed in the simple habit of a monk, strict in his teaching and his behaviour, but capable of impressing the elite of Rome by his enthusiasm and example.[15]
In addition to giving us insight into the practical moral advice which was the centre of Pelagius's teaching, this letter provides us with the "most complete and coherent account" of his views of natural sanctity and man's moral capacity to choose to live a holy life.[16]
As with all of Pelagius's writings, the textual history of the Letter to Demetrias is complicated by his condemnation as a heretic. After the Synod of Ephesos in 431, it became a crime to be in possession of any Pelagian works, so they were transmitted under others' names. The great irony of this letter is that for centuries it was considered to be one of the works of Jerome and was included in his corpus of writings.[17] Later, the letter would be ascribed to various followers of Pelagius like Celestius and Julian of Eclanum. Today, however, the authenticity of the Letter to Demetrias as a work of Pelagius is not seriously questioned. Textual analysis indicates that its style and vocabulary are typically Pelagian. Moreover, modern scholars point out that Augustine himself knew the letter to have been written by Pelagius, something he mentions in his refutation of it in his work of 417, On the Grace of Christ.[18]
Back to the Top
The Letter to Demetrias: Content and Analysis
The first half of the Letter to Demetrias is an exposition of Pelagius's views of human nature. The monk explains why he begins this way:
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 (2:1).
The moral life of purity, for Pelagius, can only be achieved by drawing upon both "the good of nature and the good of grace" (9:1); this will be the dominant theme of his exhortation.
Pelagius's reflections on the human person are not unlike those of the Eastern Fathers. They share the same starting point of moral reflection, that is, the innate goodness of man because God has created him in His image and likeness. Pelagius writes, "you ought to measure the good of human nature by reference to its Creator" (2:2). For Pelagius as well as the Fathers, creation in the image of God means creation with free will, as free, self-determining persons:
Moreover, the Lord of Justice wished man to be free to act and not under compulsion; it was for this reason that 'he left him free to make his own decisions' (Sir 15:14) and set before him life and death, good and evil, and he shall be given whatever pleases him (2:2).
As with the Fathers, Pelagius has contempt for that "ignorant majority" which believes that because man is able to do evil, he has not been created truly good. In fact, Pelagius says, if man were created to do good "on compulsion and without possibility of variation" — as these people would have preferred — there would be no real humanity, and no real virtue or goodness (3:1). Here we can see that the heart of Pelagius's objections to Augustine and Jerome is not a question of abstract theology, but practical spirituality: those who deny the free will of man make futile the moral life.
This innate goodness of the human person, Pelagius argues, was not destroyed in the Fall. Man continues to carry in his nature the goodness of creation, a kind of natural grace or "natural sanctity" (4:2). Pelagius goes to great lengths to demonstrate this, offering first as evidence the fact that many pagans have been "chaste, tolerant, temperate, generous, abstinent and kindly, rejecters of the world's honours as well as its delights, lovers of justice no less than knowledge" (3:3). His central argument, though, is from the Old Testament; he produces a lengthy roll-call of the patriarchs and Old Testament saints (5:1ff) whose examples of holiness prove that it is possible to follow the commandments. Again, Pelagius emphasises the practical moral implications of this doctrine of human goodness:
We can never enter upon the path of virtue, unless we have hope as our guide and companion and if every effort expended in seeking something is nullified in effect by despair of ever finding it (2:1).
There is nothing that Pelagius abhors more than people forsaking the path to life because it is too hard or difficult, because "we are but men, we are encompassed by frail flesh" (16:2). To deny, as Augustine and Jerome did, man's innate goodness and capacity to live a holy life is not only moral pessimism, it is real blasphemy: for it means that God does not know what he has done or commanded, or that he does not remember the human frailty which he created, or that God has "commanded something impossible" and therefore seeks not our salvation but our punishment and damnation (16:2).
Pelagius also argues against the Augustinian view of the Fall and man because it undermines the reality of sin as a moral choice. The view of his opponents that there is something in nature which compels human beings to sin strikes Pelagius as "blaming nature" for what is really the choice of free human persons. He writes:
If it should be thought to be nature's fault that some have been unrighteous, I shall use the evidence of the scriptures, which everywhere lay upon sinners the heavy weight of the charge of having used their own will and do not excuse them for having acted only under the constraint of nature (7).
For Pelagius, in the "books of both Testaments [...] all good, as well as all evil, is described as voluntary" (7). This is most easily demonstrated in the case of brothers like Cain and Abel, or Jacob and Esau, who share the same nature. The monk explains, "when merits differ in the same nature, it is will that is the sole cause of an action" (8:1). Therefore, the Fall of man could not have corrupted nature to the point of making of the entire human race the Augustinian massa peccati (mass of sin) unable to do anything but sin. The effect of the Fall must rather be conceived in more "environmental" terms. Pelagius writes:
Nor is there any reason why it is made difficult for us to do good other than that long habit of doing wrong which has infected us from childhood and corrupted us little by little over many years and ever after holds us in bondage and slavery to itself, so that it seems somehow to have acquired the force of nature (8:3).
For the British monk, it was not true to say as Augustine did that all men sinned in Adam and thus inherit his guilt; human beings of their own free will simply imitate Adam and re-enact the Fall in themselves.
Most of what Pelagius argues against Augustine and Jerome can be found in the teaching of the Eastern Fathers. Certainly, the assertion that it is possible to live a holy life after the Fall, as evidenced by the saints of the Old Testament, is a familiar Patristic theme. Moreover, the Eastern Fathers nowhere teach the necessity of sin, emphasising, as Pelagius does, the rôle of human free will. Nor do any of the Fathers propose a doctrine of original sin like that of Augustine which disturbed Pelagius so much. Nevertheless, in his polemics against those who denied human moral freedom, Pelagius develops perhaps too high a view of human free will. As the Orthodox moral theologian, Fr Stanley Harakas, has noted, the Fathers generally distinguished between the innate self-determination (autexousion) of rational beings and the freedom (eleutheria) which is a property only of the "condition reached in Theosis where there is no conflict or struggle in acting in a fully human, divine-like fashion."[19] Pelagius does seem to confuse these two, anticipating a little too much of real freedom in human self-determination. Furthermore, in his argument against human moral depravity, Pelagius neglects somewhat the effects of mortality and corruption after the Fall which, as the Fathers insist, evoke a tendency (though not a compulsion) towards sin. Finally, to bring it totally in line with Patristic teaching, Pelagius's understanding of sin would need to be broadened to encompass the concept of "involuntary sin" — the evil acts and events in which we participate, yet do not will.
Still, contrary to caricatures drawn of him, Pelagius does not have a naive and overly optimistic vision of human perfection.[20] The great effort he expends in defending the goodness of human nature is only to show what a wonderful creation has been wasted by sin, to demonstrate "how great is that treasure in the soul which we possess but fail to use" (6:3). It is instructive to recall Pelagius's response, at the Synod of Diospolis, to one of the principal charges brought against him by Jerome — the belief that "a man can be without sin, if he wishes." Pelagius answered:
I did indeed say that a man can be without sin and keep the commandments of God, if he wishes, for this ability has been given to him by God. However, I did not say that any man can be found who has never sinned from his infancy up to his old age, but that, having been converted from his sins, he can be without sin by his own efforts and God's grace, yet not even by this means is he incapable of change for the future.[21]
While he was totally committed to the possibility of a completely sinless life, Pelagius was thus reluctant to admit anyone had ever achieved it.
Despite the oft-cited charge of his critics that he denied the need for redeeming grace,[22] Pelagius clearly emphasises its necessity for the moral life. The first step in the path to moral perfection is baptism, which is a genuine rebirth.[23] After his long roll-call of Old Testament saints, Pelagius writes:
Even before the law was given to us, as we have said, and long before the arrival of our Lord and Saviour some are reported to have lived holy and righteous lives; how much more possible must we believe that to be after the light of his coming, now that we have been instructed by the grace of Christ and reborn as better men (8:4).
This theme of baptismal rebirth is taken up again as a direct exhortation to the young Demetrias:
Consider, I beseech you, that high rank with which you have been made glorious before God and through which you were reborn in baptism to become a daughter of God (19:1).
Like the Fathers, Pelagius teaches that redemption in Christ enables man to co-operate with God in the ascetical struggle toward deification.[24] Yet he departs somewhat from the Patristic Tradition in failing properly to indicate how the grace of redemption works. While Augustine clearly teaches that grace works within the heart of man, Pelagius is never definite about an infused grace. He speaks of being "instructed by the grace of Christ," of being "purified and cleansed by his blood, encouraged by his example to pursue perfect righteousness" (8:4). These kinds of statements, along with his tendency sometimes to write about "meriting" grace (cf. 25:3), have left Pelagius open to the charge that his understanding of grace is too rationalistic and external.[25]
Notwithstanding possible deficiencies in his theology of grace, Pelagius's vision of the moral life is far from restricted to external holiness; he directs a lot of his attention to the development of the interior life. Virtues, he writes, "do not come from outside but are produced in the heart itself" (10:4). Nor is it acceptable simply to perform virtuous acts; they must transform the inner person so that we "desire righteousness as strongly as we desire food and drink when hungry or thirsty" (12). Furthermore, Pelagius says that
the habit of doing good must be exercised and strengthened by the practice of constant meditation; only the best things must occupy the mind, and the practice of holy conduct must be implanted at a deeper level (13).
This focus on the interior life must begin at the outset of the path to holiness, with a thorough self-examination: "Let us approach the secret places of our soul" (4:1), Pelagius exhorts his reader.
In the second half of the Letter to Demetrias, Pelagius proceeds to give the young virgin practical advice on the spiritual path she has chosen. It is in this practical realm that Pelagius shines most brightly: his spiritual direction is traditional, yet sharply relevant; the medicine is tough, but administered gently. The spiritual fervour and depth of the teaching are clear evidence of his advanced degree in the ascetical life. This is inspirational teaching at its very best, the kind one only finds in the great Fathers of the Church.
As with all of the Fathers, Pelagius's writing is permeated with quotations from and allusions to the Bible. It is no surprise that one of his main pieces of advice for Demetrias is to attend to the Scriptures. He tells her: "Read the holy scriptures in such a way that you never forget that they are the words of God" (23:2). Many of Pelagius's themes are familiar ones from Scripture and the early Fathers. He presents the moral life as a choice between two ways, the path to life and the path to destruction. He writes:
You must avoid that broad path which is worn away by the thronging multitude on their way to their death and continue to follow the rough track of that narrow path to eternal life which few find (10:3).
Another dominant theme from Scripture is Pelagius's stress that progress in the spiritual life is all-important. There is no standing still, he says; so "if we do not want to go back, we must run on" (27:4). Commenting on the parable of the talents, he writes:
He who hides in a napkin a talent which he has received is condemned by the Lord as a useless and good-for-nothing servant: it is culpable not only to have diminished that talent but also not to have increased it (15).
No hour should go by for a Christian, he insists, without some measure of spiritual growth (23:1).
Pelagius also warns Demetrias about numerous traps and pitfalls in the spiritual life. He tells her carefully to distinguish between vices and virtues: for while they are always contrary to each other, they are "linked in some cases by such resemblance that they can scarcely be distinguished at all" (20:1). This problem often afflicts neophytes who are anxious to live the virtuous life. Pelagius writes:
For how many reckon pride as liberty, adopt flattery as humility, embrace malice instead of prudence and confer the name of innocence on foolishness, and, deceived by a misleading and most dangerous likeness, take pride in vices instead of virtues? (20:1)
He tells her most especially to be wary of false humility. It is easy, he says, to look humble through "verbal fictions" and "feigned gestures," but "endurance of insult reveals the truly humble" (20:1). "Let there be no sign of pride, arrogance or haughtiness in you" (20:2), he exhorts. "Beware of flatterers like your enemies" (21:1), he goes on to say, for they lead people to think of their reputation rather than their conscience. These are wise words indeed, reminiscent of the advice of the desert Fathers, for they are the product of the same authentic spiritual experience.
Pelagius also shares the maximalistic approach of the Fathers to the spiritual life. "Do everything," he says bluntly. "We are not to select some of God's commandments as if to suit our own fancy but to fulfil all of them without exception" (16:1). But as any good elder, he gears himself to the special needs of his novice, tempering his message with pastoral dispensation and concern. At one point, for instance, he urges her to combine her fasting with works of mercy; but he then excuses her for a time from the works of mercy, directing her grandmother and mother to do them for her, so that she can devote all her "zeal and care" to the ordering of her spiritual life (22:1). Elsewhere he urges her not to go to extremes with any of her spiritual disciplines: "immoderate fasting, overenthusiastic abstinence and vigils of extravagant and disproportionate length are [...] evidence of lack of restraint," he says; the result may be that "it becomes impossible thereafter to perform such works even in a moderate way" (23:3). Thus, "with good practices as well as bad whatever exceeds the bounds of moderation becomes a vice instead of a virtue" (24:1). The reason for moderation is clear: "the body has to be controlled, not broken" (21:2). Furthermore, simplicity in the spiritual life guards the heart against feelings of pride and success. He writes: "Poor clothing, cheap food, wearisome fasts ought to quench pride, not nourish it" (21:2). Throughout the letter, this tempering of severe demands with loving moderation displays Pelagius's genuine empathy with his spiritual child.
Pelagius's discussion of virginity in the Christian life is further demonstration of his spiritual maturity. To be sure, he betrays at times the Western tendency to divide the spiritual life into ordinary commandments and "counsels of perfection." He says that in the Scriptures, "evil things are forbidden, good things are enjoined; intermediate things are allowed, perfect things are advised" (9:2). For instance, "marriage is allowed, so is the use of meat and wine, but abstinence from all three is advised by more perfect counsel" (9:2). But unlike many Western theologians, he vigorously stresses the fundamental unity of the spiritual life. He writes:
In the matter of righteousness we all have one obligation: virgin, widow, wife, the highest, middle and lower stations in life, we are all without exception ordered to fulfil the commandments, nor is a man released from the law if he proposes to do more than it demands (10:1).
Pelagius tells Demetrias that her vow of virginity does not exempt her from the fullness of demands of the Christian life; he warns her not to be deceived by those who adopt chastity "not along with righteousness but in its place" (10:2). Righteousness, he insists, "is enjoined on everyone without exception" (9:2).
The ascetical struggle towards holiness and perfection in which Pelagius instructs Demetrias to engage is a difficult path involving both overcoming the passions and battling against demonic powers. Here again his teaching is perfectly consonant with all the Fathers. In describing how to resist the enemies of our soul, he once more emphasises human free will to accept or reject their temptations:
They indeed can give counsel but it is ours to choose or reject their suggestions, for they harm us not by compelling but by counselling, and they do not extort our consent from us but court it (25:4).
Pelagius quotes from Matthew 15:19, "Out of the heart of man come evil thoughts," to show that the origin of sin is the evil image or thought in the human heart. These evil thoughts paint "every single deed on the tablet of the heart, as it were, before doing it" (26:2). Therefore, the Christian must learn to discern thoughts in his heart. The mind[26] must become careful and watchful, trained to differentiate between bad and good thoughts, "so that it either nourishes good thoughts or immediately destroys bad ones" (26:2). When the soul is "illuminated by divine speech" and "occupied with heavenly thoughts," the devil quickly flees (26:2). The key, therefore, is to watch carefully to protect the heart against the first stirrings of evil:
All your care and attention must be concentrated on keeping watch, and it is particularly necessary for you to guard against sin in the place where it usually begins, to resist temptation at once the very first time it appears and thus to eliminate the evil before it can grow and spread (26:3).
Pelagius follows here the Patristic teaching about watchfulness (nepsis) and guarding of the heart, though he does not develop the mystical dimension, the healing rôle of the prayer of the heart. Indeed, the one apparent weakness of his spiritual "system" is his lack of full attention to prayer; but that is a difficult matter to judge, since we have no reason to suppose he was trying to be systematic and all-encompassing in this short letter. At any rate, prayer is certainly both the implied means and end of a spiritual life whose goal he describes as "a soul continuously clinging to God" (23:2).
Back to the Top
Conclusion
The great English monk and scholar St Bede once quoted several passages from the Letter to Demetrias saying that it contains "much excellent moral instruction but is marred by the author's failure to emphasise the need to rely on divine grace rather than free will and strength of mind."[27] Yet if we remember that Pelagius was not a systematic theologian but a moral reformer, and that his theological argumentation was made in reaction to writings that he believed undermined the authentic Christian spiritual life, we may perhaps more easily forgive his few exaggerations and omissions than did Bede. In fact, since on most of his points of disagreement with Augustine, Pelagius upholds the Patristic Tradition of the Church, and since in his practical spiritual advice he is entirely harmonious with Church teaching, this much-maligned British monk would appear to be no more heretical than many venerable Fathers. When that is considered along with his indisputable holiness of life — attested to not only by the depth of his spiritual writings but by Augustine himself! — can we help but to wonder if we have long-neglected a great saint of the Church?
Pelagius's lonely and thankless struggle against the novel doctrines of Augustine and Jerome was eventually taken up by monks in southern Gaul. They were alarmed to hear of the "Pelagian controversy," especially Augustine's teaching on election and predestination, which they believed to be "contrary to the opinion of the Fathers and the common view of the Church."[28] They saw the Augustinian theological system as a threat to grace as synergy, as a partnership between God and man. Their champion was St John Cassian, a disciple of St John Chrysostom. Together with his supporters, St Vincent of Lérins and St Faustus of Riez, he upheld the Patristic Tradition against Augustinianism and its proponents, especially Prosper of Aquitaine, as well as against the extreme "Pelagians" who indeed denied the necessity of God's grace for salvation. These noble Gallic monks were later branded "Semi-Pelagians," and their doctrine of synergy was condemned at the Synod of Orange in 529. This council rejected Augustinian predestination but accepted much of Augustine's theology of sin and grace, definitively setting the Western Church on a path diverging from the Apostolic and Patristic Orthodox Tradition.
Pelagius and his Christianity are more in line with the teachings of Jesus while those of Augustine are derived from a Gnostic cult known as Manacheism, a form of Mesopotamian Gnosticism. Augustine would define the Original Sin for the Latin Church but Pelagius saw through this appalling nonsense. (Gnosticism claims all creation and flesh are corrupt and even sex within marriage was evil.) Like Arius who tried to bring the Christian church in line with Bible, Pelagius too would try to bring the church back to the moral teachings of Jesus. Both lost.
The whole argument is over the question of original sin a concept invented by Paul and later expanded by St. Augustine in the West. Due to the politics of Augustine, Pelagius was convicted of heresy in the West, but was cleared by the Eastern Churches while Augustine himself was rejected later on.
Pelagius was accused along with his disciple, Coelestius of the following beliefs:
Adam was created liable to death, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not.
The sin of Adam hurt himself only and not the human race.
Infants at their birth are in the same state as Adam before the fall.
Neither by the death nor fall of Adam does the whole race of man die, nor by the resurrection of Christ rise again.
The Law introduces men into the kingdom of heaven, just in the same way as the Gospel does.
Even before the coming of Christ there were some men sinless.
(Catholic Encyclopedia)
Thus he claimed one could achieve grace through ones own free will without the church, its priests, and all its trappings. Many early Christians believed that following Jesus example and living life as He taught was the way to salvation, but this left nothing for the church to do and so this was declared heresy. Like the Arian Heresy, controversy would raged in the church for years and still haunts us today.
After much theological and political maneuvering, pope Zosimus condemned Pelagius and Augustine's view of sin more or less became the official one. Later, a middle road was sought which would be somewhere between Pelagius and Augustine. John Cassian. (360? - c. 435?) produced what is known as Semi-Pelagianism. What this boils down to is Augustine claims man is corrupt/dead and only the elect are saved; Pelagius claimed all man were alive/good and could be saved; Cassian says were just sick and can be cured.
While it's true Pelagius was convicted in the West for heresy due to politics and the urgings of Augustine, Pelagius was cleared in the Eastern Churches. (The Catholic Church claimed this was because of his accusers not being able to be at the trial.) To quote: immense impact that Augustine has had in shaping the landscape of Western Christianity; and the divergence of the Augustinian trajectory of theology from the Apostolic and Patristic Tradition has been carefully charted...condemnations of Pelagianism were included in the ecumenical Synod of Ephesus only under Western influence...was actually tried at local councils in the East, the evaluation was positive. Pelagius was not condemned simply on theological grounds. Rather, Pelagius' teaching was seen as a threat... See Pelagius: To Demetrias by Deacon Geoffrey Ó Riada
Both Martin Luther and John Calvin (Calvinism) would base their theology on Augustine and Paul, rejecting Jesus' moral teachings as irrelevant. This is the basis of most evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant churches. Pelagius accuses Augustine and Jerome of being under the influence of Manicheanism. Their doctrine of original sin restored evil to a Manichean status, and their predestination was tantamount to Manichean fatalism.
Semi-Pelagianism would influence both Celtic Christianity and later may have contributed to Arminianism, which says as follows:
God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)
Christ died for all men (not just for the elect), but no one except the believer has remission of sin.
Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born again of God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit.
All good deeds or movements in the regenerate must be ascribed to the grace of God, but his grace is not irresistible.
Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the faith. But it is possible for a believer to fall from grace.
Arminius and his followers claimed they were not Pelagians, and they are certainly not.
Arminianism is generally characterized by an emphasis on the fatherhood of God, the supreme moral and religious example of Jesus, the essential goodness of man and his infinite capabilities of growth in reason and freedom, the duty of doing something to correct all those conditions whether ignorance or social injustice-that stultified the being of man. Strongly indorse critical Biblical scholarship. Usually denies the existence of the wrath of God and equates God with love.
This is what's followed by Mainline Protestant Churches today and sounds close to Pelagianism. For example, the evangelical tenets of Arminianism found a forceful expression in the teachings of John Wesley and the Methodists, with its emphasis on the moral responsibility of man, the need of a new birth, and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit.
Why Pelagius was Right
Protestants claim the Bible is the sole authority on God, and considering the hostility of both Protestants and Catholics towards Pelagius, we must turn to the Bible and our God-given reason for answers. Let's take the issues Pelagius confronted one at a time and see if his claims are false based on Scripture.
Adam was created liable to death, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not. There is nothing in Genesis that Adam was immortal. In 2:17 we have thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. He didn't die of coarse from eating the fruit, but we find also this in Genesis 3:22, "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever..." Adam was expelled from the Garden for the express purpose he would not be made immortal. It seems God never intended humans to be immortal, which throws any idea of life after death (bodily resurrection) into question. Pelagius was right on this count.
The sin of Adam hurt himself only and not the human race. Throughout the Jewish Scriptures God says over and over that only the sinner will die, not mothers, fathers, their children, etc. (See Deut. 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; Ezek. 18:20; Ezek.33:20; etc.) One is held liable for his/her own actions, not that of others. If Adam was the "father" of the human race, we are not responsible for his actions. Thus God said clearly the innocent are not liable for the actions the guilty.
The fact is Jesus Himself never mentions Adam or any "Fall" in any gospel. The Apostle Paul invented this entire concept of Adam causing humans to lose immortality because we are responsible for Adam. Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" Romans 5:19, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..." Paul by the way never met Jesus in the flesh. The entire concept of God sacrificing His "Son" an innocent person just to make up for the "crime" of someone else is immoral in itself and contrary to God's words in the Old Testament.
Even before the coming of Christ there were some men sinless. This brings up one of the most thorny issues for Christians in that all of those prior to Jesus are burning in hell for the mere fact they were born before Jesus was ever "conceived." Thus they are punished for something they had no possible power to prevent. The Bible again proves Pelagius was right on this issue.
There were many sinless men: Numbers 14:24, "But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully..." 2 Kings 22:2, "And he (Josiah) did that which was right in the sight of the LORD..." God went so far as to referred to Abraham as "My friend" (Isaiah 41:8) and Daniel as "beloved." (Daniel 9:23; 10:11; etc.) This brought up one of Pelagius main arguments: Why would God give commands He knows nobody could carry out? His opponent St. Augustine and later Calvin, and Luther claimed just this. Again, enter Paul.
Among Paul's many abuses and misquotes of the Old Testament, none stands out more than Romans 10:8 as Paul wrote, ""But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach)." This was a misquote of Deuteronomy 30:10-14 which states: "if you will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes...The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it."
Jesus Himself (whom Paul never met in the flesh) is very clear on this as well. In Matthew 19:16, "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" Jesus denied being God, and told the young man very specific things he could (and expected him to be able to do it) which didn't include any "faith in Jesus Christ" or blood atonement by His suffering and death. (Also see Mark 10:17 and Luke 18:18.)
But according to Calvin, even faith in Jesus won't "save" you. Under the Augustine/Calvinist view of predestination, God's "grace" is bestowed on people on a whim and one is damned even if they accept Jesus.
Infants at their birth are in the same state as Adam before the fall. Christians on the abortion issue claim life begins at conception and equally deny reincarnation. Thus a new life begins as a blank slate with nothing other than instinct or reflex. This also call into questions of infant Baptism (which Pelagius felt only introduced one to God) because as we saw, because God said in the Old Testament we are only responsible for our own actions. Only Paul's discredited claims address such an issue.
Neither by the death nor fall of Adam does the whole race of man die, nor by the resurrection of Christ rise again. This is the real reason why Christianity needs the Original Sin doctrine. If Original Sin is false as the Old Testament shows and there are clearly men who overcame sin without faith in Jesus, then by our own efforts we can achieve this task. Thus we don't need Christianity, its institutions, and leaders to control our lives. One is Jesus' own relatives prior to His birth. To quote Luke 1:5-6,
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless...
The Law introduces men into the kingdom of heaven, just in the same way as the Gospel does. Jesus in no manner did away with the Law of Moses. Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Mt.19:17 "If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." It's given through much of the Old Testament that in fact the Law given by God to Moses is the way to the Kingdom.
But Paul has a different view of things. He is inconsistent and confused on this issue as we shall see:
Romans 2:6, 13 "Who will render to each one according to his deeds'. For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified." 2 Cor.5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." 2 Cor.11:15 "Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."
But Paul contradicts himself: Romans 3:20 "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight." Romans 3:28 "A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." This one is even more questionable: Romans 1:16-17 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God salvation to every one that believeth .... As it is written, The just shall live by faith." This only appears in Paul's writings (Galatians 311-12, Hebrews 10:38) and nowhere did Jesus ever say such a thing and nowhere in the Old Testament is such a statement to be found. In fact the phrase "by faith" or "faith alone" does not appear at all in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
Some Encyclopedia Stuff
From Britannica.com;
Pelagius, although little is known of him only he is thought to have come from Britain and personally played an important role in shaping the early character of the Celtic Christianity. Although a priest, Pelagius was a Celtic monk and a highly respected spiritual leader for both laymen and clergy. What is recorded of his behavior denotes his Celtic heritage. He firmly believed in the individual--his free will and his ability to better himself as a spiritual being.
These ideas pitted Pelagius directly against the Christian Church of the time. It was the time when the Church was trying to combat the heresy of the Donatists of North Africa. Simply stated the Donatists claimed the efficacy of the sacraments depended upon the spiritual state of the priest who dispensed them. Such a declaration caused a great dilemma for the Church. For, if agreed to, it meant "the entire ceremonial edifice of the Church would be dependent on the moral character of the clergy and no one could ever be sure that a given rite had been supernaturally effective." But, if the Donatists' declaration was declared false then "a sacrament could be effectively administered even by a heretic or heathen. "
The defense against the heresy was to save the structure of the Church. At the time many men of the Church including Augustine were speaking out against the heresy claiming "the Church (in the word's of Augustine's predecessor, Optatus of Mileum) is an institution, "whose sanctity is derived from the sacraments, and not estimated from the pride of persons. ... The sacraments are holy in themselves and not through men."
Needless to say, the Church's stand would prevail. But, all Celts failed to see it that way including Pelagius and his chief disciple Caelestius who were contemporaries of the churchman Patrick in Ireland. Pelagius and Caelestius held firmly to the Stoic doctrine of free will. Neither did they hold to Augustine's doctrine of original sin which the Church adopted. Pelagius did not believe that man's nature was tainted by the sin of Adam; and therefore, by his own nature and efforts could only inherit hell or damnation. He dismissed Augustine's assumption that man could only gain salvation through the Church .
He declared the doctrine of original sin abdominal, detesting it completely. It is this doctrine which declares that all men are conceived in sin and can only be saved by the unmerited grace of God which is only received through Jesus Christ and His Church.
The view of Pelagius and his followers firmly held to the Stoic doctrine of the free will of man and the innate goodness of nature, which they claimed, was not corrupted but only modified by sin. Such a stand put them in direct opposition to their great antagonist Augustine. However, their view served for the basis of Pelagianism.
Pelagius' views was not the only source of his troubles with the Church. He visited Rome around 380. What he saw and heard was in direct opposition to the rigorous asceticism practiced by him and his followers. He was repelled by the grandeur of the Church hierarchy, especially the Papacy. He " blamed Rome's moral laxity on the doctrine of divine grace that he heard a bishop cite from the Confessions of Saint Augustine, who in his prayer for continence beseeched God to grant whatever grace the divine will determined. Pelegius attacked this teaching on the grounds that it imperiled the entire moral law." He won a great following and met his closest friend and collaborator, a lawyer, Caelestius.
When returning to Ireland they continued to meet the criticism of Augustine, but Pelagius because of his life of asceticism and insistent preaching on "man's basically good moral nature and on man's own responsibility for choosing Christian asceticism for his spiritual advancement" continued to win a wider following.
Around 412 Pelagius went to Palestine where in 415 he appeared before the synod of Jerusalem accused of heresy. He succeeded in clearing himself to avoid being censured. To combat future attacks from Augustine and the Latin biblical scholar Jerome he wrote his De libero arbitrio ("On Free Will") in 416, which brought about his condemnation by two African councils. Both he and Caelestius were considered for condemnations and excommunication by Pope Innocent I, but Innocent's successor Zosimus first pronounced Pelagius innocent on the basis of his Libellus fidei ("Brief Statement of Faith"), but reconsidered after the investigation was renewed by the council of Carthage in 518. Zosimus confirmed the councils nine canons condemning Pelagius. There is no further information concerning Pelagius after this date.
However, Pelagius is remembered for trying to free mankind from the guilt of Adam. He and his followers remind us once again that in the early history of the Church there were dissenters. "The great German theologian Karl Barth a few years ago described British Christianity as "incurably Pelagian." The rugged individualism of the Celtic monk, his conviction that each person is free to choose between good and evil. And his insistence that faith must be practical as well as spiritual remain hallmarks of Christians in Britain. An the British imagination has remained rooted in nature, witnessed by the pastoral poetry and landscape panting in which Britain excels, indeed that peculiar British obsession with gardening is Celtic in origin. Visitors to the British Isles are often shocked at how few people attend church each Sunday. Yet to the Britons, church-goers as well as absentees, the primary test of faith is not religious observance, but daily behavior towards our neighbors and towards one's pets, livestock and plants." A.G.H.
"Pelagius" Britannica.com
From the Columbia Encyclopedia;
Pelagianism
Christian heretical sect that rose in the 5th cent. challenging St. Augustine's conceptions of grace and predestination. The doctrine was advanced by the celebrated monk and theologian Pelagius (c.355-c.425). He was probably born in Britain. After studying Roman law and rhetoric and later theology in England and Rome, he preached in Africa and Palestine, attracting able followers, such as Celestius and Julian of Eclannum. Pelagius thought that St. Augustine was excessively pessimistic in his view that humanity is sinful by nature and must rely totally upon grace for salvation. Instead Pelagius taught that human beings have a natural capacity to reject evil and seek God, that Christ's admonition, "Be ye perfect," presupposes this capacity, and that grace is the natural ability given by God to seek and to serve God.
Pelagius rejected the doctrine of original sin; he taught that children are born innocent of the sin of Adam. Baptism, accordingly, ceased to be interpreted as a regenerative sacrament. Pelagius challenged the very function of the church, claiming that the law as well as the gospel can lead one to heaven and that pagans had been able to enter heaven by virtue of their moral actions before the coming of Christ. The church fought Pelagianism from the time that Celestius was denied ordination in 411. In 415, Augustine warned St. Jerome in Palestine that Pelagius was propagating a dangerous heresy there, and Jerome acted to prevent its spread in the East. Pelagianism was condemned by East and West at the Council of Ephesus (431).
A compromise doctrine, Semi-Pelagianism, became popular in the 5th and 6th cent. in France, Britain, and Ireland. Semi-Pelagians taught that although grace was necessary for salvation, men could, apart from grace, desire the gift of salvation, and that they could, of themselves, freely accept and persevere in grace. Semi-Pelagians also rejected the Augustinian doctrine of predestination and held that God willed the salvation of all men equally. At the instance of St. Caesarius of Arles, Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange (529). By the end of the 6th cent., Pelagianism disappeared as an organized heresy, but the questions of free will, predestination, and grace raised by Pelagianism have been the subject of theological controversy ever since (see Molina, Luis; Arminius, Jacobus). Pelagius' Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul was edited in English by Alexander Souter (3 vol., 1922-31). 1 See J. E. Chisholm, The Pseudo-Augustinian Hypomnesticon against the Pelagians and Celestinans (Vol. I, 1967); J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (1971).
Jesus Himself (whom Paul never met in the flesh) is very clear on this as well. In Matthew 19:16, "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" Jesus denied being God, and told the young man very specific things he could (and expected him to be able to do it) which didn't include any "faith in Jesus Christ" or blood atonement by His suffering and death. (Also see Mark 10:17 and Luke 18:18.)
There is a rather interesting variant here that I think you need to be made aware of. The Greek Text followed by the KJV (the Textus Receptus) has Jesus say: "Why do you call me good? None is good but one, i.e. God! But if you would enter into life, keep the commandments."
HOWEVER, the NU-Text (Critical Text, Alexandrian, Nestle-Aland) has him say: "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is one [thing] that is good, and if you would enter into life, keep the commandments."
Interesting eh??? I've come to the conclusion that rabid Paulinist Augustinians altered the text from "Why do you ask me about what is good?..." to "Why do you call me good?..." to make it as though Jesus was denying that men could be good. And as a side effect, they made him deny being good himself and deny being God and they were too stupid to realize what they had done!
Respecting other posters, push your none PFAL junk on your own thread, Apostle. Their are other people like me that got worked over by the Way; but they have to meet the Apostle's none PFAL, mixing of all the man made beliefs together, how sad. Start your own thread.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
12
11
67
Popular Days
Dec 2
18
Dec 5
17
Nov 26
13
Dec 6
13
Top Posters In This Topic
year2027 22 posts
cman 12 posts
RachelYsrael 11 posts
teachmevp 67 posts
Popular Days
Dec 2 2010
18 posts
Dec 5 2010
17 posts
Nov 26 2010
13 posts
Dec 6 2010
13 posts
Popular Posts
cman
what is this 'gathering together'? and why can't there be more then one? i guess if you haven't done it then you don't know so why do you think you do? and why threaten people with it? me thinks
waysider
Ahhh, but it does, my friend. It just doesn't always answer in a language that's constrained by words. Sometimes it answers with a sweet, fragrant smell or a breath-taking view or a sound that's like
waysider
Perhaps one of those unspoken messages holds the answer to your question.
teachmevp
It is interestring, that Satan had nothing to do with this garden that Yahweh planted in Eden.
Evil is a product of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the cosmos; Man's disobedience
is the cause of the human predicament, that's what allowed Satan and his clan to infiltrate. Human
freedom can be at one and the same time an omen of disaster, as a result of this infiltration; and a
challenge to do good, true godliness means imitation of Yahweh, the exercise of one's power in a
manner that is godlike, good, life-affirming; and a opportunity, the moral choices and actions of
humans have consequences that have to be borne by the perpetrator. Here we can clearly see that
spirit has nothing to do with being created in the image of Yahweh?
That gathering together is a coming!
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks teachmevp
Yahweh is Serpent and Serpent is Yahweh
god is good we do and he also the evil we do
teachmevp breath and kill because when you breath an oxygen creature has to die
did god tell us not to kill
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Like a tiger stalking the mangrove swamps of the Bay of Bengal, this Serpent stalked with shrewdness;
yet at that time the tiger and the Serpent did't strike fear into the heart of every living being. Its in the
nature of a wild beast, men can teach like wild beasts, could that be a wild nature, seems like Titus I think
called some people wild beasts or something like that?
That gathering together is a coming!
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
According to Paul, we have been baptized into death. But some by taking the Colossians account that has=the author kind of acts like they’ve been not only buried in baptism but also risen in baptism, and read it back into Romans 6. That’s not what Paul said in Romans 6, he doesn’t say they have been raised yet. Paul teaches we have been buried, but then he says, “So we too might walk in newness of life,” that’s not happened yet, according to Paul. “If we had been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be reunited with him in a resurrection like his.” We have been baptized into death, but not raised yet.
The gathering together is a coming, we get to be with our Father and our brother.
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
For Paul, all the enjoyments that we will experience at the gathering together are still in the future; like horizontal.
We’re here, we’re going there, we’re on earth, we’ll be in heaven. Ephesians and Colossians, they’ve taken this horizontal
and turned it vertical. There’s the cosmos and there’s the heavenlies but they all still exist right now, so the rest of the
world is down here on earth, but followers of Jesus have been translated already right now into the heavenly places, and
they already enjoy these benefits.
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Things we need to consider, the gathering together is a coming.
The Assyrians are spared, and Jonah is furious, the very idea of a prophet being sent to Nineveh=Nineveh the capital of the hated Assyrian empire, the home of the people who had destroyed the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the ten tribes of Israel in 722BC, dispersing those ten tribes forever, the nation that had then laid siege to Jerusalem and exacted tribute from Judah for many years=Nineveh appears as another Sodom, Yahweh is going to punish them for immorality, but not necessarily for idolatry. But the stronger problem for Jonah seems to be the lack of punishment for the wicked. Jonah is indignant that the Assyrians didn’t get what they so richly deserved: didn’t Jonah say this would happen, that Yahweh always forgives, he’s this slow to anger, compassionate guy; he always repent, the wicked are never punished! It seems Jonah is fed up with the way Yahweh is doing things, his mercy perverts his justice, and some things ought not to be forgiven; people must be held to account for their evil actions, how can Yahweh not do justice! As Jonah is leaving the city to sulk, seems his complaint is twofold. If your going to punish the wicked then just push them; they deserve it. And if you’re planning to spare them, then just spare them and don’t waste my time with messages and oracles. As Jonah sits in a little booth that he has constructed, Yahweh causes a leafy plant to grow over him, providing shade and saving him from a good deal of discomfort; and the plant is to be the source of a final lesson for Jonah. How could Yahweh not be compassionate? For even the most evil of peoples are no less his creation that he has cared for than precious Israel. And if they will only turn to Yahweh in humility, he’ll wipe the slate clean, he’ll show compassion and forgive. It is only human to long for the punishment of the wicked; but Yahweh longs for their re-formation, their turning. Their is the moral law of the Noahide covenant, and it’s for this that Yahweh has decreed punishment, and Jonah is a champion of divine justice. Jonah believes that sin should be punished, he’s outraged at Yahweh’s forgiveness. But Jonah learns that a change of heart is enough to obtain mercy, and that the true role of the prophet is perhaps to move people to reformation and turning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
We could perhaps draw the conclusion that Adam and Eve had access to this tree of life, as long as their will conformed to the will of Yahweh, there was no danger to their going on eternally, being immortal. But once they discovered their moral freedom, once they discovered that they could thwart Yahweh and work evil in the world, and abuse and corrupt all that Yahweh had created, then Yahweh could not afford to allow them access to the tree of life. Perhaps herein is the Serpent’s shrewdness manifested, could Yahweh afford to allow them access to the tree of life, that would be tantamount to creating divine enemies, immortal enemies; how would Yahweh maintain the upper hand in his struggle with these humans who have learned to defy him. Perhaps the Serpent thought they would died on the spot, but Yahweh maintains the upper hand in this, the fact that they eventually must die; but access to the tree of life is blocked, no humans have access to immortality, and the pursuit of immorality is futile. That Serpent was not Satan, that Serpent acted on his own, his own reasonings, perhaps to see if or how Yahweh would modify his plans.
So the concept of the divine image in humans, that's a powerful idea, that there is a divine image in humans and that breaks with other ancient conceptions of the human. Humans are not the menials of Yahweh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks teachmevp
you said
if Paul in the grave with no concision in the grave
where is Paul?
i guess God being mean to Paul making him sit in grave all this time
is Paul dead or part of one's who rose after Christ return
we are in Christ the seed of Christ are conceive only in Christ
Paul already got his new body Paul he rose with Christ at Paul death
we come out of this body at the sight of Christ
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
The access to the tree of life was block, the pursuit of immortally was futile; Yahweh raised Yeshua from among the dead, Yeshua is the frist and only one that has been raised from among the dead!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Hmmm what about the son of the Widow of Nain, Jairus's daughter and Lazarus among others?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
if any one can put tmvp's ramblings into any sense at all
please post it
otherwise he's just a troll
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
One can come to the conclusion, that Adam and Eve had access to the tree of life, as long as their will conformed to the will of Yahweh, there was no danger to their going on eternally, being immortal; Yahweh was taking his resting during this time. Clearly Yahweh’s plan for these two humans was to eat off the tree of life, but it was up to them. The logic of freedom of will, their has to be the freedom to disobey; so they learned that they have moral autonomy by making the defiant choice, the choice for disobedience. The very action that brought them a Yahweh-like awareness of their moral autonomy, was an action that was taken in opposition to Yahweh. The serpent omitted in his speech to Eve, having that good and bad knowledge is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good. Yes, you’ll become like Yahweh, it’s true in one sense, but also in another; the serpent sort of omitted to point out that it’s the power of moral choice alone, that is Yahweh-like. So we see then that having knowledge of good and bad is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
I think these people got that breath life back, but they don't have that life Yahweh has within himself, or that life Yeshua is the first fruit from among the dead, to have within himself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks teachmevp
that was more 2,000 years ago
dead have rose from the dead that why they are called the dead in Christ
unless your a VPW man
VPW teaching are Teach Men Holy Book
VPW had nothing
I came to see teach saw that but was I wrong
you did not even answer one part of what i ask you
the access to tree of life was gave by Christ 2,000 years ago
I did not ask anything about the Access of Christ open the door
so can get in by dying
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
You can think when you die, your heaven bound all you want; but that is only backwards teaching and believing, Apostle. Those of us that were awake during PFAL, remember the gathering together, that gathering together is coming soon!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
It is interestring that humans being created in the image of Yahweh, breaks with other ancient conceptions of the humans. I see a little of this menials of Yahweh belief here. I see some are caught up into that vertical teaching, you know, Paul taught that horizontal teaching: we're here, we're going there; we're on earth, we'll be in heaven. Their are those that have taken that horizontal and turned it vertical: there's the cosmos and there's the heavenlies, but they still exist right how; so the rest of the world is down here on earth, but followers of Jesus have been translated already right now into the heavenly places. Why do some of you'ins believe this way?
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Is this what you guy believe in, so there is a spirit within which you call yourselves, and it is perfectly distinct from the body in which you dwell. So your spirits, which are generated in or with your bodies, are elaborated from immaterial substances into separate existences?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Those are meaningless words, cloud without rain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God Frist
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Start your own thread, Apostle. Push your cr@p on my thread, jurk!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks teachmevp
I do not try to make a Joke what you write
but you call me by calling it crap and junk
this is our tread it does not just belong to you
that like God's love it's our love that teaches us all things
Like these words are a part of our history
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Respecting other posters, push your none PFAL junk on your own thread, Apostle. Their are other people like me that got worked over by the Way; but they have to meet the Apostle's none PFAL, mixing of all the man made beliefs together, how sad. Start your own thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.