Featured Pelagianism

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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????

 

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.

 

@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.