Pelagianism

[JonC]

maybe due to the truth that Pelagianism has been defined as being heresy by the historical Church, as have other heresy such as Modualism and Oneness?

I suppose that is why they use "Pelagianism" as an insult. But it is not honest.

 

[Van]

Semi Pel been the de facto view of the Sotierology of the bible since Billy Graham era in America Christianity!

This false claim from someone who does not even define his terms.

 

[AustinC]

I suppose that is why they use "Pelagianism" as an insult. But it is not honest.

I can only speak for myself. I have claimed your view as a form of Pelagianism in that you make infants and children innocent of sin until an imaginary "age of accountability" which you are admittedly pulling from Jewish tradition, not scripture. You absolve children until this seeming age of enlightenment when they realize they are willfully sinning. Of course this moment is entirely subjective to each individual. But, this "age of accountability" also means that humans are not born sinners, but are activated sinners at that age of accountability. Until then, saving grace is not necessary since there is, in your theory, no accountable sin for which grace is required. For all intents and purposes the child is holy and righteous and perfect before God.

Such a view, I lable as a form of Pelagianism. Others might call it semi-pelagianism.

If that insults you, that is your feelings, not my intent. My intent is to organize your position into a category that is easier to manage.

 

[JonC]

I can only speak for myself. I have claimed your view as a form of Pelagianism in that you make infants and children innocent of sin until an imaginary "age of accountability" which you are admittedly pulling from Jewish tradition, not scripture. You absolve children until this seeming age of enlightenment when they realize they are willfully sinning. Of course this moment is entirely subjective to each individual. But, this "age of accountability" also means that humans are not born sinners, but are activated sinners at that age of accountability. Until then, saving grace is not necessary since there is, in your theory, no accountable sin for which grace is required. For all intents and purposes the child is holy and righteous and perfect before God.

Such a view, I lable as a form of Pelagianism. Others might call it semi-pelagianism.

If that insults you, that is your feelings, not my intent. My intent is to organize your position into a category that is easier to manage.

This is false.

I said that Hebrew tradition is that there is an age of accountability but that I do not believe there is such an age. I said that even the unborn are sinners, although they have committed no sin.

You said that a 6 month old infant lies by crying to trick his or her parents into providing attention. I said this is not lying, the infant cries for attention.

That said, even the Hebrew tradition is not Pelagianism.

You simply do not understand what the Pelagian heresy was.

 

[JesusFan]

This is a false statement.

I believe that the unborn are sinners who have not committed sinful acts. For this I was accused of Pelagianism.

I have seen others deny the RCC view of original sin. For that they were accused of Pelagianism.

Those who deny Calvanism in favor of free-will theology have been accused of Pelagianism.

Those who hold to corporate election have been accused of Pelagianism.

Most of the time, if not all of the time, these false accusations have been posted by Calvinists.

In fact, as far as has been posted on the BB there are no members who affirm Pelagianism or even Semi-Pelagianism.

IF any deny that we are born without sin natures, or that by ourselves we can accept the Lord Jesus, or deny that are spiritual dead in our sins, then they are affirming another gospel!

 

[JesusFan]

It looks to me like AustinC defines Pelagian teachings based on the assumption that The Fall of man was not imputed to his posterity.

That makes Pelagian thought Perfectly opposite of Calvinism, in a more pointed, specific way than Arminian teaching, which also is human- exalting and denies the sin of Adam.

This makes AustinC's labelling perfectly accurate.

If it is insulting, it is Insulting to God to deny the sin of Adam.

No one who a never- Calvanist on the BB has any trouble attempting to make that lable into as insulting a persecution as they have power to do.

The issue regarding Salvation IS The Adamic Nature.

Either human beings have some ability to assist God in the Performance of their "Salvation", or they do not.

It looks to me that AustinC is perfectly accurate in pointing out that; To the Degree an individual has a testimony that Man Helps God, then that is the Degree to which they are Palagian.

That signals to that person the Degree to which They Need to Repent.

Otherwise they are teaching false doctrine which leads hellbound souls into hell.

What's wrong with pointing that out?

Being Sound in The Faith Once Delivered to The Saints, Contending for the Faith, and being A GIANT in The Faith are simply a man of God's job.

Either we are dead spiritual on our sins and transgressions, or we are still able to 'assist" God in saving us!

 

[JesusFan]

This is false.

I said that Hebrew tradition is that there is an age of accountability but that I do not believe there is such an age. I said that even the unborn are sinners, although they have committed no sin.

You said that a 6 month old infant lies by crying to trick his or her parents into providing attention. I said this is not lying, the infant cries for attention.

That said, even the Hebrew tradition is not Pelagianism.

You simply do not understand what the Pelagian heresy was.

he understands that any who would deny the full effects of the Fall of Adam towards us are affirming some degree of it!

 

[JonC]

IF any deny that we are born without sin natures, or that by ourselves we can accept the Lord Jesus, or deny that are spiritual dead in our sins, then they are affirming another gospel!

No. But I understand why you think that (it is easy to add to the gospel, but the gospel itself is literally the "good news" of Christ and the kingdom of God).

They may be wrong, and you may disagree with them, but it is not that they believe another gospel.

 

[JonC]

he understands that any who would deny the full effects of the Fall of Adam towards us are affirming some degree of it!

The issue is this was common belief, what you would call the "Pauline" tradition. And this existed long before Pelagius was born.

How would you like it if we referred to your belief as a degree of Mormonism?

I'd wager you would not like it as it is untrue. You need to treat others with at least the degree of honesty you desire others show you.

 

[Alan Gross]

The issue is this was common belief, what you would call the "Pauline" tradition. And this existed long before Pelagius was born.

How would you like it if we referred to your belief as a degree of Mormonism?

I'd wager you would not like it as it is untrue. You need to treat others with at least the degree of honesty you desire others show you.

We are not going to get the correct teaching of How God Saves people from Mormonism or Islam, etc.

As long as the Pauline Tradition includes his teachings of;
Do you know if they skip these and go straight to Regeneration, "by desire".

Ephesians 2:1 - And you were dead in your trespasses and sins

Colossians 2:13; And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Ephesians 2:5
made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in our trespasses. It is by grace you have been saved!

Romans 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

and David and John:

Psalm 119:50
This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me.

John 5:21
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

 

[JonC]

We are not going to get the correct teaching of How God Saves people from Mormonism or Islam, etc.

As long as the Pauline Tradition includes his teachings of;
Do you know if they skip these and go straight to Regeneration, "by desire".

Ephesians 2:1 - And you were dead in your trespasses and sins

Colossians 2:13; And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Ephesians 2:5
made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in our trespasses. It is by grace you have been saved!

Romans 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

and David and John:

Psalm 119:50
This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me.

John 5:21
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

I agree. We are also not going to get the correct teachings of God through Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

That is my point.

@JesusFan likes to say people hold Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism when they do not. He looks at a denial of his view if original sin as a degree of Pelagianism and the Hebrew concept of an age of accountability as a degree of Pelagianism.

But that is far from honest. It is using a heresy (like Mormonism) as a type of insult when it is not related at all.

It would be like saying Calvinists hold to the cult of Clotho, at least to a degree, based on their understanding of God's decrees and predestination.

It is just a false argument.

 

[robycop3]

As for children who are aborted or die in infancy-David, who was also a prophet, said, in 2 Samuel 12:
22 And he said, “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”

 

[AustinC]

As for children who are aborted or die in infancy-David, who was also a prophet, said, in 2 Samuel 12:
22 And he said, “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”

This is the faith we hold in the grace of God saving someone who has never repented, yet God chooses to save them. Though they are born in sin, yet God chooses mercy and grace. David perfectly expresses this faith in God's mercy.

 

[37818]

Pelagian was wrong. The problem is not merely he was wrong, but not just why, but how? None of the so called church Fathers, nor as far as I know, any systematic theology, correctly addresses the real cause of mankind's sinful nature do to Adam's sin.

 

[JesusFan]

No. But I understand why you think that (it is easy to add to the gospel, but the gospel itself is literally the "good news" of Christ and the kingdom of God).

They may be wrong, and you may disagree with them, but it is not that they believe another gospel.

Those who affirm pel are holding to a false Gospel, and I have NEVER stated semi pel or arminians are that!

 

[JesusFan]

I agree. We are also not going to get the correct teachings of God through Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

That is my point.

@JesusFan likes to say people hold Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism when they do not. He looks at a denial of his view if original sin as a degree of Pelagianism and the Hebrew concept of an age of accountability as a degree of Pelagianism.

But that is far from honest. It is using a heresy (like Mormonism) as a type of insult when it is not related at all.

It would be like saying Calvinists hold to the cult of Clotho, at least to a degree, based on their understanding of God's decrees and predestination.

It is just a false argument.

If when you say one denies original Sin to the extent that we are not born with a sin nature and are spiritual dead, then yes that would be against what the bible teaches!

 

[JesusFan]

This is the faith we hold in the grace of God saving someone who has never repented, yet God chooses to save them. Though they are born in sin, yet God chooses mercy and grace. David perfectly expresses this faith in God's mercy.

Infants are born in the image of Adam, as sinners, but thank God for his grace towards them!

 

[JesusFan]

The issue is this was common belief, what you would call the "Pauline" tradition. And this existed long before Pelagius was born.

How would you like it if we referred to your belief as a degree of Mormonism?

I'd wager you would not like it as it is untrue. You need to treat others with at least the degree of honesty you desire others show you.

What theology of mine is anywhere close to lds, as I deny every tenet that church affirms?

 

[JonC]

Those who affirm pel are holding to a false Gospel, and I have NEVER stated semi pel or arminians are that!

Yes, you did.

You posted that the view man can come to God by his own ability is a heresy. Semi-Pelagianism holds this view...so how is it not a heresy?

 

[JonC]

If when you say one denies original Sin to the extent that we are not born with a sin nature and are spiritual dead, then yes that would be against what the bible teaches!

It depends on the doctrine held.

BUT the issue is your name calling.