Pelagianism

[JonC]

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!

No. I am saying your accusation against @Van is wrong. I understand that you disagree with him but his post does not indicate that he holds to Pelagianism (the last quote was an accusation you directed towards Van).

Members toss around lables like Pelaganism, Semi-Pelagianism, communist, leftist, liberal, etc. as insults as most of the time the lables themselves do not apply.

I agree with you that Pelagianism is a heresy. I include Semi-Pelagianism as a heresy.

My complaint is only that members here use these heresies as sticks to bat those who hold different views.

 

[JonC]

But still they would see that due to freely choosing the free gracing the Holy Spirit bestows towards them!

No, you are confusing Arminianism with Semi-Pelagianism.

Semi-Pelagianism holds that natural man, without the work of the Spirit, makes the decision. Then God takes over.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@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.

That is because it is JW doctrine. It was also the doctrine of the Unitarians in the early 18th Century. See my blog article here: Learning The Lessons of History (1).
If you believe in an elder-led church, that is JW doctrine. If you believe in adult baptism by immersion, that is JW doctrine. To believe in the Trinity is Romanist Doctrine. To claim that Reformed doctrine is ' RCC doctrine once removed' when many Reformers were burned by the Church of Rome for their stand against Romanism is stupid, asinine and specious as well as being offensive to their memory and I repaid you in your own coin. I never accused you of being a JW..

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Semi-Pelagianism holds that natural man, without the work of the Spirit, makes the decision. Then God takes over.

I will be interested to learn how that is not what @Van believes. However, the word 'heresy' is in itself offensive and should not be used on the forum.

 

[JonC]

That is because it is JW doctrine. . . . I never accused you of being a JW..

It is also Christian doctrine, the doctrine of many Baptists, anabaptist doctrine....so why say it is JW doctrine of not as an insult?

That is my point. People use heresies not for what those heresies ate but as insults.

I also never claimed you to be a Roman Catholic. I am pointing out that many of your beliefs were unique to the Roman Catholic Church until the Reformation and were carried over....some verbatim, others in a reformed form....by Reformed Theology.

Your faith carries over a lot of RCC doctrine, which is natural given that the founders of your faith were coming out of the RCC.

 

[JonC]

I will be interested to learn how that is not what @Van believes. However, the word 'heresy' is in itself offensive and should not be used on the forum.

Semi-Pelagianism holds that man, without the Holy Spirit, makes a decision to be saved. Then God takes over. Baptism is essential for our salvation.

If you want to know what @Van bueces, then ask @Van :

1. Does natural man, without the work of the Spirit in his life, choose to be saved and then God takes over?

2. Is baptism necessary to be saved?

If he answers "yes" to the above then investigate more.


I disagree. The word "heresy" is a word. Pelaganism and semi-Pelagianism are considered heresies (historically, and it is in that context I use the word).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is my point. People use heresies not for what those heresies ate but as insults.

Exactly. That is what you were doing. Being snide. It would have been impossible for the Reformers to believe in the Trinity without carrying over RC doctrine.

 

[Van]

I will be interested to learn how that is not what @Van believes. However, the word 'heresy' is in itself offensive and should not be used on the forum.

Yet another obviously false charge, hurled from ambush by a Falselogy advocate. I have posted dozens of times no one comes to Jesus unless "drawn" (attracted) by the Father. But these disinformation posters continue to be allowed to blacken this forum with material false statements.

 

[JonC]

Exactly. That is what you were doing. Being snide. It would have been impossible for the Reformers to believe in the Trinity without carrying over RC doctrine.

This is false.
Clement of Rome (prior to the Roman Catholic Church) provides a basic teaching of the Trinity.

Theophilus of Antioch (prior to the invention of the RCC) provides the first recorded use of using the word Trinity, Tertullian (also prior to the RCC) provides us the first recorded defence of the Trinity.

Those outside of the RCC also believed in the doctrine of the Trinity.

I agree that your faith gets its doctrine of the Trinity from the RCC, but the RCC did not come up with the doctrine. The RCC did not exist until the early 4th Century.

 

[JonC]

Back to the topic of the thread, @Van is absolutely right, and he is not the only one that has been falsely accused of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism.

I know I have been falsely charged as holding Pelagianism. If memory serves, so have @Reynolds and many others who reject Calvinism.

This thread discusses Pelagianism (which is a heresy) and the compromise between Augustine doctrine and Pelagianism called Semi-Pelagianism.

Both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism rejects the necessity of the work of God in our lives to choose Christ, to believe, and places the decision solely on man's natural and uninfluenced will.

But on this thread nobody has expressed Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism (we all have acknowledged the necessity of the Spirit in salvation - not only in conversion but also in convicting the list of sin, in working in the heart of the lost towards salvation.

It is fair to debate the process, to debate how God draws men, to debate the role of man, etc. But calling members out for holding Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism is dishonest.

 

[JesusFan]

No. I am saying your accusation against @Van is wrong. I understand that you disagree with him but his post does not indicate that he holds to Pelagianism (the last quote was an accusation you directed towards Van).

Members toss around lables like Pelaganism, Semi-Pelagianism, communist, leftist, liberal, etc. as insults as most of the time the lables themselves do not apply.

I agree with you that Pelagianism is a heresy. I include Semi-Pelagianism as a heresy.

My complaint is only that members here use these heresies as sticks to bat those who hold different views.

I do not see Van as holding to pel theology, just that he has some really bad theology in certain areas, as i am sure we all do!

 

[JesusFan]

Back to the topic of the thread, @Van is absolutely right, and he is not the only one that has been falsely accused of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism.

I know I have been falsely charged as holding Pelagianism. If memory serves, so have @Reynolds and many others who reject Calvinism.

This thread discusses Pelagianism (which is a heresy) and the compromise between Augustine doctrine and Pelagianism called Semi-Pelagianism.

Both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism rejects the necessity of the work of God in our lives to choose Christ, to believe, and places the decision solely on man's natural and uninfluenced will.

But on this thread nobody has expressed Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism (we all have acknowledged the necessity of the Spirit in salvation - not only in conversion but also in convicting the list of sin, in working in the heart of the lost towards salvation.

It is fair to debate the process, to debate how God draws men, to debate the role of man, etc. But calling members out for holding Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism is dishonest.

We call out those such as van for how they misunderstand and blast Calvinism, and for the misunderstands he holds in regards to Calvinistic theology!

 

[JonC]

I do not see Van as holding to pel theology, just that he has some really bad theology in certain areas, as i am sure we all do!

That is fair.

My objection was that you said @Van is "well on the road to semi-Pelagianism".

You seem to have posted without considering what you were posting. We all do that sometimes.

 

[Reynolds]

We call out those such as van for how they misunderstand and blast Calvinism, and for the misunderstands he holds in regards to Calvinistic theology!

I am not Van, but I have the same gripe I am sure Van has. Many Calvinists level the claim of "Ignorance" to all who dispute Calvinism.
I understand Calvinism. I understand it better than most Calvinists. I simply disagree with it.

 

[JonC]

I am not Van, but I have the same gripe I am sure Van has. Many Calvinists level the claim of "Ignorance" to all who dispute Calvinism.
I understand Calvinism. I understand it better than most Calvinists. I simply disagree with it.

Yep.

They understand Arminianism and disagree. They understand free-will theology and disagree. But anybody who disagrees with Calvinism does so in ignorance.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yet another obviously false charge, hurled from ambush by a Falselogy advocate. I have posted dozens of times no one comes to Jesus unless "drawn" (attracted) by the Father. But these disinformation posters continue to be allowed to blacken this forum with material false statements.

Well, my apologies to you. I seem to recall you saying reference 1 Corinthians 2:14 that men without the Spirit could indeed receive the things of the Spirit of God. That would appear to be in line with @JonC's definition of Semi-Pelagianism.

Semi-Pelagianism holds that natural man, without the work of the Spirit, makes the decision. Then God takes over

But if you never said anything of the kind then my memory is obviously playing me false.[/QUOTE]

 

[AustinC]

Back to the topic of the thread, @Van is absolutely right, and he is not the only one that has been falsely accused of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism.

I know I have been falsely charged as holding Pelagianism. If memory serves, so have @Reynolds and many others who reject Calvinism.

This thread discusses Pelagianism (which is a heresy) and the compromise between Augustine doctrine and Pelagianism called Semi-Pelagianism.

Both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism rejects the necessity of the work of God in our lives to choose Christ, to believe, and places the decision solely on man's natural and uninfluenced will.

But on this thread nobody has expressed Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism (we all have acknowledged the necessity of the Spirit in salvation - not only in conversion but also in convicting the list of sin, in working in the heart of the lost towards salvation.

It is fair to debate the process, to debate how God draws men, to debate the role of man, etc. But calling members out for holding Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism is dishonest.

The nuance is in the nature of humans at conception and who initiates the cooperative process that free will proponents insist must happen...or else God would be a tyrant puppet master in their eyes.

Jon, you have openly abandoned the sole work of God alone and exchanged it for some theory of your own making that you can rarely articulate with any clarity. Thus, like Van, you cry foul when everyone pushes you to express yourself clearly.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yet another obviously false charge, hurled from ambush by a Falselogy advocate. I have posted dozens of times no one comes to Jesus unless "drawn" (attracted) by the Father. But these disinformation posters continue to be allowed to blacken this forum with material false statements.

Since my last post, I have come across this by you on the 'Essential vs Non-essential Doctrine' thread.

Can the lost in their fallen state seek God and put their faith in Christ? Yes
Those that deny this basic Christianity 101 doctrine lack an essential understanding of truth.

I seems that it is not I who is attacking you but @JonC.

Semi-Pelagianism holds that natural man, without the work of the Spirit, makes the decision. Then God takes over.

 

[JonC]

The nuance is in the nature of humans at conception and who initiates the cooperative process that free will proponents insist must happen...or else God would be a tyrant puppet master in their eyes.

Jon, you have openly abandoned the sole work of God alone and exchanged it for some theory of your own making that you can rarely articulate with any clarity. Thus, like Van, you cry foul when everyone pushes you to express yourself clearly.

Obviously you are wrong, as I have never once posted anything remotely contrary to salvation being the sole work of God.

This is an example of what I mean with a few members intentionally misrepresenting what other members have posted. It is an utterly dishonest attempt at winning an argument.

And perhaps members like you, intentionally making false accusations about what others have posted, is the reason other members come to think men like @Van have declared views he never claimed.

You attempt to cloud the water so as to "defeat" your "enemy". But Chriatians are not to conduct themselves in that manner.

For the record, and to restate what you feel is a denial of God's work alone in salvation, I believe in predestination and reprobation. I believe men cannot come to God unless God draws them to Himself.

As far as clarity goes, I understand that you find my statement "man cannot come to God unless God draws him" and "salvation is solely the work of God" confusing. This is evident by you thinking it is a denial of God's work of salvation.

But I am not responsible for your inadequacies.

All I can do is ask that you refrain from misrepresenting the views of others. Whether you decide to take a Christian approach is entirely up to you.

 

[JonC]

Since my last post, I have come across this by you on the 'Essential vs Non-essential Doctrine' thread.

I seems that it is not I who is attacking you but @JonC.

Nice try (actually, a foolish reply as Scripture presents the lost in their fallen state as seeking God and putting their faith in Christ).

The difference is whether God draws these lost men, whether the Spirit is working in their lives.

You call @Van a heretic by equating his statement to semi-Pelagianism. But @Van has stayed that these lost do not come to God apart from the Spirit.

You assume these lost are regenerated before believing, but rejecting that is not semi-Pelagianism.

You owe @Van and me sn apology. For my part, keep it. It's your character at stake. And I forgive you.