Replies

You might consider that others must be factored in

WHAT "other factors"???

You provide some comments including "yet to call them pelagian is totally simplistic" when I was pointing towards the confusion over what does or does not constitute semi-pelagianism, as example of how difficult it can be to pin things down. By which I mean, your response comes across as retrograde & superficial (retrograde for the semi-pelagian direction is already going AWAY from more basic Pelagianism) or else just some form of obsfucation.

You can drag my own comments off into the bushes if you like, but excuse me when I don't much assist in that effort, or instead try to drag 'em back out...

If the trouble with Augustine (according to you) is because his theology is viewed as being "shaped by his own path to acceptance of the Gospel", as you put it, what then of Paul?

He was taught by no man, not learning the Gospel at the feet of other Apostles. But then again, Augustine doesn't comport well with Paul at every juncture, either. Nor does RCC teachings in some aspects, for that matter. Try Romans 7. To which I would wish to add as comparison to verse 17

So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. that when we "do good", much like when we sin, and it be the sin living in us that is at work, when we actually do good (remembering there is no one good except the Father in Heaven, and And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven which we can see clearly enough would include that nothing "good" comes from anywhere, but heaven) it is not so much "we" who are doing the "good" but that within us, given to us by Him, in action, that is in actuality doing "good". Built upon Christ, it will endure. All the programs of men, all the busy work and activity...if He not be the originator & guide of it, how can it be truly good? It might look good for a while...but towards His economy, if the coin didn't come from there (heaven), then it is impure specie, not fit as legal tender in that realm.

Like I said, it is more what we yield ourselves to... what we go along with. It needn't be overly burdensome (He can make the difficult work easier for us, when the going gets tough)

Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

One notable difference the RCC seems to have settled upon, is there is more emphasis on response and works, all along, even from the very beginning of one's "response" or acceptance, except when there isn't, later on down the line in one's Christian walk, when it's finally realized our own efforts don't amount to much, and guys like Ratzinger can be quoted as saying "it's all by grace" at certain juncture. I posted a quote from that man before saying as much, but cannot recall for the moment the precise context. sorry about that...

I was otherwise pointing towards how much of a complex, confusing mess man makes of the Gospel. But you want me to look elsewhere, and factor in some other, that makes things even murkier???

How about us sticking to how the "response" that is said to be required, can often turn into that same [needed] response to Him, to be confused with just following along and doing whatever one is told, no questions asked, fully allowing at times, the identity of the church itself to be confused with the Lord Himself..for that is the way Catholicism (and many others, it should be added) seem to prefer it, when they can get away with it!

A simple antidote I've offered on this forum before; We are not Him and He is not us.

You are welcome to your own salvation, however you accept that may have arrived, be described or can be obtained, but I cannot and will not surrender a single item that I have myself recieved from the Lord more simply & directly.

I know the sound of His voice. Following, or responding perfectly (or even listening perfectly, always) I cannot claim. If that changes, I'll be sure to let ya'll know.