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.
Harley, Augustine did not teach what you say he did. You've had this pointed out to you dozens of times on other threads. Will you stop this falsification of Augustine's teaching once and for all? It's tiresome.
Just for good measure Romano'[s portrayal of Pelagius's teaching leaves out the most important and distinctive matters, as does his summary of Semi-Pelagianism.
You cherry pick some R.-C.-Sproul-clone hack-theologian and think you've made a compelling argument. And you've done this a hundred times on FR threads and you've had chapter and verse in Augustine's anti-pelagian writings presented to you showing that efforts to show Augustine denied free will are not supported by his writings. And it runs off you like water of a quack's back. Sheesh.
If you want tit for tat, Mary T. Clark's book on Augustine's doctrine on freedom refutes every point Romano makes. So does Gerald Bonner, both of them having read Augustine thoroughly and in the original language. Romano's footnotes show he cribbed his stuff from Hodge and Sproul. Ten-to-one he hasn't even read Augustine in English very thoroughly, to say nothing of readin him in Latin.
To put it very briefly, Harley, in letters written in 426 to accompany his treatise On Grace and Correction, Augustine explicitly rejected the interpretation of his writings against Pelagius that Romano gives here. We have from Augustine's own pen his response to those who wished even during his lifetime to interpret his writings as denying free will. He said explicitly, we dare not ever interpret grace in such a way as denying free will and we must never interpret free will in such a way as to deny grace. Period.
Posting hack writers for your side is not very convincing, old boy. Give it up.