Back on June
7, 2011, Ken Temple published a thread at the Beggars All blog called
"Between Orange and Trent" (LINK), which was an attempt to defend the
following:
"Semi-Pelagianism
condemned at Orange in 529 AD, but reaffirmed at Trent"
The above is
a very popular view among anti-Catholic apologists, including Dr. R. C.
In the last comment of the above thread, I provided the URL to a thread here AF which should have put to rest any further attempts to construe the teachings of the Council of Trent as "Semi-Pelagianism" (LINK).
Ken himself
participated in the combox of that thread, so it came as a bit of a surprise to me
to discover that three years later (almost to the day) he has produced yet another thread (LINK) which attempts to paint the Council
of Trent as Semi-Pelagian !!! Note the following:
R. C. Sproul
demonstrates the contradiction in Roman Catholic Theology, when it claims it
agrees with Augustine against Pelagius and the Semi-Pelagians (Provincial Synod
of Orange in 529 AD), but later re-affirms Semi-Pelagianism by the decrees of
Trent (1545-1563)...
My discovery
of this thread came on June 30th. I subsequently attempted to post the
following in the combox of that thread (BA comments are now moderated):
Hi Ken,
I have not
had much 'spare' time to spend on the internet over the last couple of months;
as such, I was not aware of the existence of this thread until today. With that
said, I am somewhat amazed that you chose to publish it, given our past
exchanges concerning the issue of semi-Pelagianism. IMO, the threads contained
in THIS
LINK, have exposed some grave errors in your reasoning on this
matter.
The
essence of those threads can be summarized by the following:
Semi-Pelaganianism teaches
that an individual apart from grace can accept the offer of salvation, and that
once accepted one then cooperates with the grace that God gives. In other
words, semi-Pelagianism denies the necessity of grace for one to believe/accept
the gospel.
While Pelagianism denies that ANY grace is necessary for salvation (both before and after the acceptance of the Gospel), semi-Pelaganism only denies that grace is necessary for one to accept the gospel.
While Pelagianism denies that ANY grace is necessary for salvation (both before and after the acceptance of the Gospel), semi-Pelaganism only denies that grace is necessary for one to accept the gospel.
Grace and
peace,
David
My
comment/post has yet to be published, so I thought it prudent to point out yet
once again here at AF that Ken's and Sproul's continued attempts to define
the teachings of the Council of Trent as Semi-Pelagianism are based on grave
historical errors and false definitions. Trent (and all official Catholic
teaching on soteriology) clearly denies both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism,
affirming time and time again that, grace is necessary for salvation
both before and after the acceptance of the Gospel. No amount of sophistry will change these facts...
Grace and peace,
13 comments:
Update: Either yesterday, or this morning, my comment/post held in moderation status at BA was finally published.
My sincere thanks goes out to Ken for doing so.
Grace and peace,
David
Its rather late, but I wanted to thank you for this post. I was reminded of it today when I was thumbing through an old catechism I have in the house. Next month will be the centenary of the death of Pope St. Pius X, and it is a catechism published during his pontificate in the 20th Century. The first two of hundreds of lessons actually addresses this accusation that Catholics associate salvation with any kind of graceless activity:
1) Q. Are you a Christian?
A. Yes, I am a Christian, by
the grace of God.
2) Q. Why do you say: By the grace of God?
A. I say: By the grace of God, because to be a Christian is a perfectly gratuitous gift of God, which we ourselves could not have merited.
Hi David,
Thanks for your challenging comments. Thank James Swan for letting your comment through, as I have been overseas teaching since June 12 (and still am); which is also why I have not had time to respond or have written any new articles recently.
After I get back to the USA, I hope to interact more with this issue, Lord willing.
Ken T.
Hi Ken,
So good to hear from you; you posted:
==...I have been overseas teaching since June 12 (and still am); which is also why I have not had time to respond or have written any new articles recently.==
Me: Which country ? (Hope that it is not Israel !!!)
==After I get back to the USA, I hope to interact more with this issue, Lord willing.==
Me: Sounds good. Hope all goes well and that you stay safe...
God bless,
David
It was not Israel. Send me an email for more info. (smile)
I responded over at Beggar's All in the same thread where you questioned me. (2 parts)
Good morning Ken,
I attempted to post the following response over at the BA thread, but verification box is not working.
>>Hi Ken,
Thanks much for taking the time to respond to my concerns. In your last two posts, you wrote:
==I wrote about this before in our discussion of these issues; my point is that I am asserting that Bavinck was right in saying that Semi-Pelagianism came back into Roman Catholicism "in a roundabout way" - that even though Orange condemned "semi-Pelagianisn" in 529 AD, it came back into popular and practical Roman Catholicism through the sacramentalism development between Orange and Trent. ==
Me: And I am asserting that Bavinck, Sproul and yourself are misrepresenting what actually constitutes semi-Pelagianism.
==If you read my article, "Between Orange and Trent", I was focusing on the belief that water baptism in itself gives grace...==
Me: I did read it, and once again, I feel the need to point out that the issue of baptismal regeneration has nothing to do with either Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism. To introduce baptismal regeneration as a component of either Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism is both historically and theologically flawed.
I urge you to go back and read THESE THREADS; especially THIS THREAD. If you take the time to do so, you will come to understand two important facts: first, baptismal regeneration has nothing to do with semi-Pelagianism, for semi-Pelagianism promoted the doctrine/teaching that no grace was necessary in order for one to accept the Gospel. The whole controversy was dealing with the issue of grace and conversion via the acceptance of the Gospel. The attempt to introduce baptismal regeneration as part of this controversy is severely flawed. And second, to read the decrees of the council of Trent as teaching Pelagianism and/or semi-Pelagianism requires one to redefine Pelagianism and/or semi-Pelagianism, introducing elements that had nothing to do with either heresy, resulting in a gross distortion/s.
If you think that I have somehow misrepresented the facts, I shall appeal to Dr. Tony Lane (A.N.S. Lane), a reformed scholar whom you have invoked, for in his book, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue, he takes the same position that I do on the issues we are discussing.
Looking forward to your response/s...
Grace and peace,
David>>
If you so desire, you can post my above response at BA.
Even if baptismal regeneration has nothing to do with semi-Pelagianism, the other sacramental development of Purgatory, indulgences, relics, prayers to Mary and saints, priestly ex opere operato sacerdotalism that developed after Orange to Trent, is the reality of re-introducing semi-Pelagianism back into the church "in a round about way". Bavinck was correct, IMO. I made that point also, but you ignored all that stuff.
They didn't even call it "semi-Pelagianism" at the time of Orange in 529 AD. Shows the broad range of what it could mean, and that parents and church doing a work on behalf of a child is doing a ritual, work - without grace.
From what I have read, they did not call Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, and the French Monks in Southern France "Semi-pelagians" at Orange or soon afterward, but did not use that term until the Molinist view was invented by Luis de Molina to combat Reformed Theology. (around 1588-1600) Others said the Molinism sounded like what was condemned at Orange, and called Molinism "semi-Pelagianism.
I think Jansen and Pascal accused Molinism of being "semi-Pelagian. Jansen and Pascal were right.
What I wrote to Cletus, in the Beggar's All combox to the article on Sproul and semi-Pelagianism that you are protesting:
As many have said before, in various ways, about many things in Roman Catholicism, that it basically has a very complicated system that dies and implodes on itself and contradicts itself with a thousand qualifications and distinctions. It has to play words games between "actual grace" and "sanctifying grace" and Latira, dulia, and hyperdulia, and "condign merit and congruous merit, general infallibility vs. specific statement from Chair of Peter infallibility, "no salvation outside of the church" before Vatican 2; then "separated brethren" and "atheists and Muslims are saved" after Vatican 2, etc. Your whole system is messed up. I think Sproul nailed it, as Roman Catholicism seems to bring semi-Pelagianism and even Pelagian back into popular Roman Catholic practice (arguably from 600 onward to Trent, with Purgatory, exalting of Mary, Transubstantiation, infant baptism as initial justification and sanctification, penances, relics, statues and worshiping Mary and praying to her, indulgences, purgatory, etc.), while at the same time denying them in official statements. Given the word games and qualifications ad infinitum, it seems like that reality to me.
Hi Ken,
Thanks much for getting back to me so quickly. In your response(s), you wrote:
==Even if baptismal regeneration has nothing to do with semi-Pelagianism, the other sacramental development of Purgatory, indulgences, relics, prayers to Mary and saints, priestly ex opere operato sacerdotalism that developed after Orange to Trent, is the reality of re-introducing semi-Pelagianism back into the church "in a round about way". Bavinck was correct, IMO. I made that point also, but you ignored all that stuff.==
Me: Yes, I "ignored all that stuff", because it has nothing to do with semi-Pelagiansim.
==They didn't even call it semi-Pelagianism" at the time of Orange in 529 AD. Shows the broad range of what it could mean, and that parents and church doing a work on behalf of a child is doing a ritual, work - without grace.==
Me: What scholars now term "semi-Pelagianism" is the doctrines/teachings of those who retained one-half of the heretical teachings of Pelagianism. (I have identified those heretical doctrines/teachings in a number of the threads I have linked you too.) Unfortunately, what you (and Bavinck, Sproul, et al.) term "semi-Pelagianism", has no real connection to that historical group who retained one-half of th0se heretical teachings of Pelagianism.
==From what I have read, they did not call Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, and the French Monks in Southern France "Semi-pelagians" at Orange or soon afterward, but did not use that term until the Molinist view was invented by Luis de Molina to combat Reformed Theology. (around 1588-1600) Others said the Molinism sounded like what was condemned at Orange, and called Molinism "semi-Pelagianism.==
Me: When the actual term "semi-Pelagianism" was coined is irrelevant; what one must do, is identify the doctrines/teachings of those who retained a portion of Pelagiansim in their original, historical context.
The same holds true for Arianism and "semi-Arianism". If one is going to lay the charge of either Arianism or "semi-Arianism" on someone (and/or a body of doctrines/teachings) one must first identify those teachings of Arius which were deemed heretical. A "semi-Arian" would be one who retains one or more of those heretical teachings.
To date, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that any of the official doctrines/teachings of the RCC actually reproduce/retain any of the heretical teachings of Pelagianism in their original historical context. To label any doctrine/teaching as either Pelagian or semi-Pelagian that does not actually reproduce/retain any of the heretical teachings of Pelagianism is a grave error (if not out-right dishonest).
Sincerely hope that you see/understand what I am attempting to convey...
Grace and peace,
David
It makes about as much sense to claim some link between Pelagius and prayers to Mary as it would be to claim a link between intercessory prayer and the Corn Laws in 19th Century England. This claim is truly out of left field as they say, and it all it does is retard any meaningful discussion.
By all means disagree with prayers to Mary, but everything that is wrong isn't guilty of everything else that is wrong. Hitler persecuted the Jews therefore he is a Pelagian and also guilty of the attack on the Trade Center. It makes about as much sense.
A Pelagian believes that by means of free will, each soul has the ability to become a Christian, whatever that means. For Catholics, it is valid water baptism. Maybe we are wrong about how to become a Christian, but as I established in my first post nearly a month ago, the Council of Trent clearly indicates that the FIRST movements towards God in the life of a Christian begin with God, not the free will of man. Whatever other mistakes the Catholic Church makes, we reject the teachings of Pelagius.
Of course I don't admit that Catholics are wrong about prayers to Mary or anything else, but even if I could be persuaded we were, it is ludicrous to try to connect such an alleged error into some chain that means we think we can arrive at salvation without grace by means of our own free will like Pelagius did. Represent us properly Ken. C'mon.
There are no implications whatever regarding salvation by free will if we mistakenly think Mary hears our prayers when she doesn't. It would be nice to think that those who oppose us have some kind of grip on reality. On the other hand, I guess one should be glad if non-Catholics haven't arrived at the use of reason, and are therefore unaccountable for what they think or say.
Rory,
Thanks for those comments.
The whole point is how semi-Pelagian concepts came back into Roman Catholicism "in a roundabout way" (Bavinck) after Orange to Trent. Also realize they didn't call it "semi-Pelagianism" at the time until Molina attempted a middle position between Augustine and the Reformers. - even though the RC won't admit it, the system of rituals and sacramentalism and purgatory and prayers to dead saints and Mary created a system that is "semi-Pelagianism" in reality and concept, even if the RCC denies that it is. Ultimately, your system is dependent on your own efforts. It is like the Galatian heretics, adding works and merit in order to be saved.
For a baptized cradle Roman Catholic - the person baptized as a baby is "born again", regenerated, and the will is healed so that they can choose the right way, after their baptism, right?
As Tony Lane wrote, the whole concept of being lost and dead in sin is "pushed back to forgotten infancy", since RCs are taught that their baptism "saves them", regenerates, causes them to be born again.
Cradle catholics are never confronted with the fact they are sinners and dead in sin; so in a way, the other works (sacramental system, Purgatory, prayers to Mary) they are taught, rituals, including prayers to Mary, does relate, because the RC person operates his or her whole life assuming that their baptism "got them in", and they can then co-operate the rest of their lives. I realize that in the RC system, apparently, once "in", the person is in a state of grace and supposedly operates from that base and power. But since there is no initial realization of lostness and repentance of a sinner (since the cradle Catholic is taught they are "in"), there is no real reality of the impact of the gospel on sinners to repent and trust Christ, since they think a physical ritual in water did it to them.
How do you know anything happened (regeneration) to the person's soul as a baby?
For the adult convert, is the will bound to sin, dead (Ephesians 2:1-3, Ezekiel 36:26-27) - is the will able to choose?
How do you know if it is or if it isn't?
Prayers to Mary (and other rituals) are works and rituals that Roman Catholics do to gain grace; so it is at least a "semi-Pelagian" system and emphasis, even though this is denied. Granted, the Catechism at # 1040 seeks to teach against semi-Pelagism at the beginning of the paragraph by "since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace . . . ", but the second part seems to gut the first part of any real meaning. It says that "we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, and for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life." (# 1040) The attainment of eternal life is still an earning and dependent on the person to work for it.
Post a Comment