Pelagianism in modern "Orthodoxy"

[eish]

This is a HUGE problem in among the World Orthodox. It's also a problem in orthobro culture adjacent to World Orthodoxy.

Old Calendar Zealot has a few good texts up on his YT channel, and then pseudo-orthodoxy like this. It appeals to Modern Man with his soft, conflict averse sensibilities. The niceness which the world exalts as holiness.

First notice there is an implicit assumption that it is an unbaptised infant.* Then it's literally Pelagianism. By Canon 121 of Carthage**, condemned Pelagianism.

http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxvn6YcCeP32c ... JZrNA478YG

Instead of patting ourselves on the back with feel-good stories about babies being automatically saved--baptised or not--we should be praying for their souls. And if they are baptised, we should commemorate them in church.

*Four alternative interpretations:
1) This is only speaking of unbaptised infants. In that case it is Pelagianism.
2) This is only speaking of baptised infants. Papists do not consider baptised infants to be condemned by Original Sin, so is not a sensible interpretation of the meme.
3) This makes no distinction between baptised and unbaptised infants. In that case it is certainly Pelagianism on account of the unbaptised infants.
4) This is alternating between speaking of whichever infants the speaker needs in order to make his based meme fit (straw man argument). I don't think I need to explain why that would be bad.
To top it off, I know of no teaching of the Church which says that all baptised infants are in all cases saints upon death.
**Interpretation:

This passage, I say, cannot be taken to mean anything else than what the catholic Church of the Orthodox has understood and believed it to mean, to wit, that even the newborn infants,
notwithstanding the fact that they have not sinned by reason of any exercise of their own free and independent will, have nevertheless entailed upon themselves the original sin from Adam; wherefore they need to be purified through baptism necessarily from that sin: hence they are truly, and not fictitiously. being baptized for the remission of sins.

[Lazarún Zalónir]

This is a HUGE problem in among the World Orthodox. It's also a problem in orthobro culture adjacent to World Orthodoxy.

Old Calendar Zealot has a few good texts up on his YT channel, and then pseudo-orthodoxy like this. It appeals to Modern Man with his soft, conflict averse sensibilities. The niceness which the world exalts as holiness.

First notice there is an implicit assumption that it is an unbaptised infant.* Then it's literally Pelagianism. By Canon 121 of Carthage**, condemned Pelagianism.

http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxvn6YcCeP32c ... JZrNA478YG

Instead of patting ourselves on the back with feel-good stories about babies being automatically saved--baptised or not--we should be praying for their souls. And if they are baptised, we should commemorate them in church.

*Four alternative interpretations:
1) This is only speaking of unbaptised infants. In that case it is Pelagianism.
2) This is only speaking of baptised infants. Papists do not consider baptised infants to be condemned by Original Sin, so is not a sensible interpretation of the meme.
3) This makes no distinction between baptised and unbaptised infants. In that case it is certainly Pelagianism on account of the unbaptised infants.
4) This is alternating between speaking of whichever infants the speaker needs in order to make his based meme fit (straw man argument). I don't think I need to explain why that would be bad.
To top it off, I know of no teaching of the Church which says that all baptised infants are in all cases saints upon death.
**Interpretation:

This passage, I say, cannot be taken to mean anything else than what the catholic Church of the Orthodox has understood and believed it to mean, to wit, that even the newborn infants,
notwithstanding the fact that they have not sinned by reason of any exercise of their own free and independent will, have nevertheless entailed upon themselves the original sin from Adam; wherefore they need to be purified through baptism necessarily from that sin: hence they are truly, and not fictitiously. being baptized for the remission of sins.

Is Pelagianism just another version of universalism from the apocalypse of Peter?

[Suaidan]

Is Pelagianism just another version of universalism from the apocalypse of Peter?

No, Pelagianism is a real condemned heresy named after an actual condemned heretic.

[Lazarún Zalónir]

Is Pelagianism just another version of universalism from the apocalypse of Peter?

No, Pelagianism is a real condemned heresy named after an actual condemned heretic.

Can you explain what it is?

[Suaidan]

Is Pelagianism just another version of universalism from the apocalypse of Peter?

No, Pelagianism is a real condemned heresy named after an actual condemned heretic.

Can you explain what it is?

No, you can Google that.

[Bruder Klaus]

Canon 112 of the Council of Carthage (A.D. 419)

That the grace of Christ gives not only the knowledge of our duty, but also inspires us with a desire that we may be able to accomplish what we know

Also, whoever shall say that the same grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord helps us only in not sinning by revealing to us and opening to our understanding the commandments, so that we may know what to seek, what we ought to avoid, and also that we should love to do so, but that through it we are not helped so that we are able to do what we know we should do, let him be anathema. For when the Apostle says: Wisdom puffs up, but charity edifies it were truly infamous were we to believe that we have the grace of Christ for that which puffs us up, but have it not for that which edifies, since in each case it is the gift of God, both to know what we ought to do, and to love to do it; so that wisdom cannot puff us up while charity is edifying us. For as of God it is written, Who teaches man knowledge, so also it is written, Love is of God.

[Bruder Klaus]

Decree 16 of the Confession of Dositheus (1672)

We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. [...]