It's a great subject--one that I've looked at for many years. I've leaned towards Calvinism, and my brother, who I love and respect very much, is on the Free Will side. And as the lady in your video might say, some of these things do not properly represent the adherants because the terms can be misleading.
I find it easiest to break the issues down simply by stating my own views, which then expose how the categories of belief get confused.
1) I'm a Predestinarian, pro-Augustine, pro-Luther, pro-Calvin, and yet with more of a belief in Free Will than, say, Luther, who wrote "The Bondage of the Will." I believe that Melanchthon, Luther's friend, was more Free Will than Luther.
2) God determined to prevail upon a set number of people a certain necessity to embrace God's word, even though this quest is set back and distracted by Sin. Therefore, an elect had to have existed in God's mind, and is predetermined both before and at birth.
Those not established to be this "elect" are *added,* not by God but by Satan and by the exercise of Free Will run amok by man cooperating with Satan. Men utilize their gift of Free Will to exercise independence from God, which is actually rebellion against God's word.
And the inevitable result of such a wicked autonomous tree is wicked autonomous fruit, or children. God didn't make them--Satan, by allowance of men, did. Such men have Free Will, but they are not *inclined* to put themselves under complete "bondage" to Christ.
It is not our job, as men, to decide how and when each kind of man should appear. It is in God's mind a process that is complicated and unnecessary for us to know, though we can certainly see it unfold before us in history. God has certainly said X number of people will be saved. If so, then it will happen by necessity, even if it includes our Free Will.
What I will say about the woman discussing Pelagius is that she bases her "favorable" view of Pelagius on what I believe is the false view that Augustine invented his new "orthodoxy." As she herself said, many of the ideas being discussed in his time were previously existing.
But the real point is, some of the previously existing doctrines and discussions were taking form in history that brought certain emphases to bear that were either orthodox or heretical, based on an examination of the apostles' teaching. For example, Augustine brought to bear Paul's teaching and Jesus' teaching on Predestination in a fresh way precisely because Pelagius was able to produce clarity of existing belief that came to be viewed as heretical.
So, it doesn't really matter if what Pelagius taught had been stated by orthodox believers before him. What he clarified in his own environment began to be viewed as a form of independence from God. That is, his sense of Grace weakened God's involvement in Free Will, making Free Will not completely separate from God's Grace, but certainly more independent of it.
This is where Luther's "Bondage of the Will" comes into conflict with Free Will. It is the joining of Predestination, advocated by Augustine, with Original Sin. However, both Predestination and Original Sin were taught by the Apostles and by the Bible, in my opinion.
It is true that Augustine's form of teaching on these was a new treatment of these older subjects, but it was done in a time when there was a danger of using Free Will and Grace as an excuse for lessening the dependence of Free Will on Grace.
The woman argues that Pelagius never did this in his writings. But in reality that appears to have been the effect not just on Augustine but on the whole of orthodoxy within the Church. Otherwise, the councils would not have agreed with Augustine. Augustine was not so powerful and invincible that he could coerce the entire Church leadership into agreeing with his own novel wording!
In summary, I have no problem understanding that Pelagius may have leaned on Grace for his Free Will to some degree. But in the denial of Original Sin that teaching is going to lead Free Will away from Grace, no matter how you put it in seeming biblical language. To ignore the inclination of our will away from God's word is to lessen the very danger that started human Sin!
I'm not here saying that Original Sin means God must choose Salvation for us. But I am saying that Original Sin prohibits Man from obtaining Salvation apart from Christ's enablement, whether you call it "Prevenient Grace" or not. Once you claim Man can obtain Salvation apart from Christ not only do you fall into "heresy" territory but you also propose a false non-corrupt view of human will. King David said that the heart of Man contains an evil that is not always apparent.
I believe that Grace enables us to choose for Salvation, but does not "Determine" this choice. God simply sets up preexistent conditions by which human will inclines towards a particular choice to obtain this Salvation, if only after setbacks and delays.
All men have Free Will, and do have good works, that they are indeed able to do. But the inclination towards Salvation is a preexistent matter, and man, by his Free Choice, is able to choose against this Salvation, giving birth to children, at some point in the future, who then incline away from this Salvation. These "non-elect" are not the product of God's preexistent will, but rather, of actions in time that act against God's will and result in an inclination towards independence from God.
So, what is it that causes the Elect to choose for Salvation if it is not predetermination or Prevenient Grace? It is actually a form of Prevenient Grace that is not deterministic, as I hold my own belief to be.
It is simply God's original word in Creation, to set apart X number of people for Himself, causing those X number of people to be drawn to His word. Those who are not so drawn to His word are the product of human works done *apart from His word," and are thus the product of works resisting His Grace.
Where I stand apart from some other doctrinally-orthodox believers is in my sense that people did not lose their ability to exercise Free Will in their resistance to embracing Christ. Though I believe in Original Sin I do not believe this reduces Man to an inability to choose or to do good. They may be inclined against Salvation but they can still accept Christ in part or God's word in part, and can still do good.
They can *partly* embrace Christ's word by doing some things that Christ approves of without accepting him wholly. And we should encourage alll men to do good, which they can do, whether they embrace Christ as a complete Lord or not.
The ability to do good was created innately in Man from the beginning, when he was made in the image of God. That did not end with Sin. We are born in Sin, but we still are able to draw upon our innate ability to accept Christ or to simply do good.
It is important, if we are to be Saved, to accept Christ as Lord wholly, and not just part of his word. But we have to be aware that with Original Sin we have the capacity to obey God's word or not. And the result of choosing against God's word can result in things coming into being that God never intended to come into being from the beginning.
Original Sin makes us aware of our constant need to avoid the attraction of Sin and to align ourselves with God's word--not just part of the time but all of the time. But Original Sin does not make our decisions the product of God's determination alone. He determined to have X number of elect children. We still must choose for that which we are inclined towards, and to be faithful to God's word in all areas of our life.
Big subject!
