[jo kus]

Harley, I was basing my interpretation of the Bishop and what he said based on what you snipped. I didn't see where he said that God bases his grace upon man's actions (which, by the way, is not Pelagianism. That is a perfectly acceptable school of thought in Catholicism called Molinarism).

Again, Pelagianism is NOT about free will, it is about the concept of man coming to God by natural means (as opposed to responding to God's initiative of grace). Pelagius even said that before the regeneration of Baptism, we could make efforts to come to God WITHOUT God's help. The Council of Orange AND Trent refute that position. The Bishop, as far as I can see, does not say anything like that. We understand that free will is not alone, but is guided by God. It is still free, because we make the final choice. For example:

Work out your salvation in fear and trembling, For it is God who works in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. (Phil 2:12-13)

Catholic theology says, then, that there is an interaction between God and man that is not fully explainable or defined by dogma. For example, what makes grace effective? Man or God? A question not answered by the Church. EITHER idea can be held and still be considered Catholic. But the important point to understand is that WE both work together. God and I are partners. BY MYSELF, I cannot come to God - thus, Pelagianism is refuted.

Regards

[HarleyD]

I would refer you to the following excellent article: Complete Grace by Damian M. Romano. Below is a excerpt:

It has been said that there are two ways in which man formulates his theology. Either he embraces a man-centered theology (anthropocentric), or he holds to a God-centered theology (theocentric). If one wants to remain consistent with the truth taught in the Bible, that is, what God reveals to his creatures concerning himself, though it may come as a shock, one has no alternative but to choose a God-centered theology. For God declares that all things are done for His purpose and His glory. So it must follow that the source by which we find this truth will remain consistent with its own affirmation. However many have distorted their theology so as to center the purposes of God around man; as if man were the absolute object of God's love. This inconsistent position facilitates improper worship and inhibits the due veneration that belongs to Him and Him alone. I have come to recognize, however, that many neither have the time nor the patience to study tedious disciplines in theology which exuberate such a dichotomous nature to which many have deemed a topic like this to be of secondary importance.

Let me start off by identifying the three main categories that, for the most part, all Christians would have to place themselves in. The first is called Pelagianism. This belief system was has its roots in the fifth century where a British monk named Pelagius was engaged in a vicious debate with the Bishop of Hippo, Aurelius Augustine. The conflict began when Pelagius was reading a famous prayer penned by Augustine that said, "Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt." This is a simple utterance of a confession on behalf of Augustine that merely portrayed his reliance on God for everything, including his righteous deeds. Nevertheless, Pelagius was not concerned with the second part of the prayer (for God has the sovereign authority to command whatever he desires); rather his disagreement came from first part. "He [Pelagius] could not conceive that the power to obey the commandment must come from the same source as the commandment itself." [5] This aroused Pelagius to contention against the notion that man was unable to obey the command of God in and of himself. Consequently, Pelagius then raised this question: Is it necessary to have the grace of God in order to obey His commands? Which led him to believe that if God commanded his creatures to fulfill certain commands, then it must follow that man is able to comply, even be holy and righteous. Could God actually command men to perform acts that they were unable to perform? Why then does He still find fault and blame us [for sinning]? For who can resist and withstand His will?[6]

The second and most widely accepted point of view in our day is called Semi-Pelagianism, also known as Arminianism. Though many would not consider themselves Arminian, they remain this way nonetheless. This is a less militant view of Pelagianism and adheres to a more biblical stance than that held by Pelagians. Unlike Pelagius, however, he affirmed that the Grace of God was necessary for the salvation of men, but man was able to reject the Gospel call. He says, "In the very commencement of his conversion, man conducts himself in a purely passive manner; that is, though, by a vital act, that is, by feeling [sensu], he has a perception of grace which calls him, yet he can do no other than receive it and feel it. But, when he feels grace affecting or inclining his mind and heart, he freely assents to it, so that he is able at the same time to with-hold his assent."[7] In other words, Arminius presumed that there one thing left up to man in his fallen state in order to achieve salvation, namely, to accept God's grace found in the sacrifice of Jesus. This we will see, in my opinion, is not what the Bible teaches.

The third point of view according to salvation is the Augustinian view. This perspective is taken from the legendary Aurelius Augustine of Hippo. With a deep and profound knowledge of the Scriptures, Augustine concluded that man in his fallen state is completely incapable of even making the choice to accept Gods grace, but God altogether makes the election of who to distribute His grace to. With respect to the condition of man after the fall of Adam, he often pointed to Romans 3:10-12 "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one". Hyperbole, I think not. Stated another way, man does not posses the ability, nor have the natural proclivity toward God in any respect whatsoever.