You miss my point.
I am asking how you would like ot of people used heresies as an insult against you because that is what you and several others do to other people.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Pelagianism
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
I am asking how you would like ot of people used heresies as an insult against you because that is what you and several others do to other people.
It is also what you do. Glass houses and all that.
No, this is a false accusation.
I have never said a person holds to Pelagianism (none do on this forum, to my knowledge anyway).
I suspect you may be thinking of all the times you have accused those who believe essential doctrines must be contained in God's Word as reminiscent of Jehovah Witness doctrine. But that was you, not me.
I have pointed out that Reformed Theology is very closely related to Roman Catholic theology, but that is common knowledge. If you take RCC soteriology and replace merit with the 16th Century humanistic idea of justice then you have the very foundation of Calvinism.
That said, Reformed persons are not Roman Catholics. They are Roman Catholics "once removed" (they have kept some doctrines, redefined others, and abandoned some).
They would still affirm are fallen in Adam , have sin natures, and must be graced by the Holy Spirit and then make their free will decision!
what name calling, when i accuse pel theology as being heresy?
Only in regards to those who deserve the label, such as those holding to Oneness, Modualism, Unitarianism, and Pel for examples!
The very foundation of Calvinism is Pauline Justification!
No, they do not. That is Arminianism.
Semi-Pelagianism affirms the doctrine of Original sin and the necessity of baptism as defined by the Roman Catholic Church. That part is true.
Where you go wrong is in the last part of your post. Semi-Pelagianism holds that men make the decision based on their own natural will.
The name calling is referring to members views as Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism when they ate not.
We both agree that Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism are heresies. The Problem is you assign those views to people who do not hold them.
These are false statements:
I understand that you disagree with free-will theology. But Semi-Pelagianism, while a free-will theology, does not represent free-will theology as a whole.
Many Calvinists here, to their discredit, simply toss around lables as insults. You have been one of them.
You have accused me and others time after time of following Roman Catholicism, but when someone accuses you of something no less true you don't like it. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
This is a false accusation.
There is a difference between saying you flow Roman Catholuc doctrine and saying you follow Roman Catholic doctrines "once removed,".
You do hold to a Roman Catholic tradition when it comes to your soteriology, and this influences the doctrines you hold. But there is a difference, as I have repeatedly stated, between your doctrine and RCC doctrine.
Your soteriology is based on Roman Catholic soteriogy reformed (you do not hold RCC doctrine). You hold a soteriology that alters RCC soteriology by replacing merit with the 16th Century idea of justice.
While this is way too close to Roman Catholic doctrine for me, it is also not itself Roman Catholic theology.
You do cling to the doctrine of Original sin as interpreted by the RCC, but this is because it was kept by the Reformers.
Anyone who is Trinitarian can be accused of being a Roman Catholic once removed.
The fact is that on this forum you have no scruples about making false accusations about other people's theology, but when others do it to you, you suddenly become all pious and shocked. There is a word for that attitude and it begins with H.
The fact is that on this forum you have no scruples about making false accusations about other people's theology, but when others do it to you, you suddenly become all pious and shocked. There is a word for that attitude and it begins with H.
Could be, depending on what they hold as dogmatic. BUT I, as a few others here, draw a distinction between the Early Church and the Roman Catholic Church.
But there is a difference between pointing out how doctrines we hold developed and accusing people of holding heresies they never articulated holding.
Would you be offended if I said your view is the Jehovah Witness view?
Ok....bad example as you have made that accusation against others who believe the JW's are a cult.
But don't you see the difference between pointing out the fact your view takes for granted teachings previously unique to the RCC and claiming somebody to hold to Pelagianism for not agreeing with RCC doctrine????
I am not aware of having accused anyone of holding to JW doctrine, but if I have it was the duty of the moderators to delete the post. But since you are up to your eyeballs in accusing people of holding views that they don't it is unsurprising that you fail in your duty..
Not my problem.
If I call people heretics then that is on me. If I call people heretics and then complain about others calling folks heretics then that is on me.
But don't use my failures to justify your own.
I am not saying you are correct, just pointing out even were you correct it would not be an excuse.
But still they would see that due to freely choosing the free gracing the Holy Spirit bestows towards them!
Even though when used in a proper sense?
Are you saying that I am accusing anyone not hold to Calvinism to be such then? If so, check all of my postings, as never have stated non cals are not saved!
@Martin Marprelate
I have never claimed you were a closet Roman Catholic and you know it. I said that Reformed Theology is reformed RCC doctrine/ RCC doctrine "once removed". I stand by that statement.
You referred to my belief that essential-foundational doctrines need to be in God's Word as the Jehovah Witness doctrine. You cannot change what you said, but I accept you no longer mean it.
I have never claimed you were a closet Roman Catholic and you know it. I said that Reformed Theology is reformed RCC doctrine/ RCC doctrine "once removed". I stand by that statement.
You referred to my belief that essential-foundational doctrines need to be in God's Word as the Jehovah Witness doctrine. You cannot change what you said, but I accept you no longer mean it.
- Status