Featured Pelagianism

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Yep.

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

 

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.

 

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.