-
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!
Are full blown Pretierism and Pelagianism heresies then?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
The answer to both is Yes!
How many actual Palagianists are there? Palagian wasn't even a Palagianist.
So why are some hesitant to have them defined as being such though?
Any who affirm that we still have enough free will intact after the fall to make that decision to receive Jesus apart from the Holy Spirit necessity are in that camp!
Good gosh you have loose standards for that. So what you intend to do here in this thread is label anyone who is not a Calvinist as a heretic. Is that right?
Is there anything good concerning the flesh and the desires of it?
If the human will is free to express righteousness, then by works of the law a person can be justified, for the best man can do by their own will is to follow the works of the law.
Isn't that what the non-cal folks claim of the Calvinist?
It would be good to see you make a post concerning those claims when they are made, too, would it not?
Not particularly disagreeing with your sentiment, but perhaps encouraging your fairness of standard.
Yes to both - in my opinion.
The final authority is the Scriptures, not the scheme of one looking for validation from the Scriptures.
Too often (imo) the "scientific method" in which a premise is first formulated, and then the Scriptures are searched for validation, opens the way to apportioning that which is in disagreement to the premise in redefining, misappropriating, or ignoring.
Both these schemes in the OP are not supported by the Scriptures, but by the realignment, misappropriating, and too often ignoring the Scriptures.
NO, as I see non cals as saved brethren, as long as they still affirm that they had to be given grace and enabling by the Holy Spirit still to be able to receive Jesus as Lord, classical Arminism does affirm that!
John Wesley and Whitefield both affirmed that lost sinners need the enabling and working towards them of and by the Holy Spirit to get saved!
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Brother, I’m wouldn’t call anyone a heretic (unsaved) based on how much they understand of God’s grace in bringing them to salvation.
As long as they affirm essentials given in scripture as of first importance (Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures, He was buried and rose from the dead, according to the scriptures and was seen by more than 500 people alive after the resurrection).
Anything else must be treated with careful discernment and humility, allowing for disagreements on theology.
peace to you
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
It's hard to pin any of the "isms" or "ists" down because people have a wide range of how they actually perceive things or do things in practice. But if I understand it right a true Pelagian believes that there is absolutely nothing to keep you from deciding to stop sinning and follow God but your own lack of resolve. Becoming a Christian would mean deciding to get serious about following Christ and then doing it (period). If that is the case, it is a heresy. I think it was considered a heresy by most since the time of Augustine. But it's one thing to teach something, another to just be an individual who doesn't understand. I think @canadyjd is right in the above post in that I don't see why an individual couldn't realize they are a sinner and justly deserve God's wrath because of their own sins and then upon hearing the gospel throw themselves on the mercy of God and be saved. I'm not sure I know any true Pelagians who claim to be Christians. Most Christians I know are semi--Pelagian though.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
That is "semi-Pelagian".
Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431). - Theopedia
Unlike the Pelagians, who denied original sin and believed in perfect human free will, the semi-Pelagians believed in the universality of original sin as a corruptive force in humanity. They also believed that without God’s grace this corruptive force could not be overcome, and they therefore admitted the necessity of grace for Christian life and action. They also insisted on the necessity of baptism, even for infants. But contrary to St. Augustine, they taught that the innate corruption of humankind was not so great that the initiative toward Christian commitment was beyond the powers of a person’s native will. - Encyclopedia Britannica
Unlike the Pelagians, who denied original sin and believed in perfect human free will, the semi-Pelagians believed in the universality of original sin as a corruptive force in humanity. They also believed that without God’s grace this corruptive force could not be overcome, and they therefore admitted the necessity of grace for Christian life and action. They also insisted on the necessity of baptism, even for infants. But contrary to St. Augustine, they taught that the innate corruption of humankind was not so great that the initiative toward Christian commitment was beyond the powers of a person’s native will. - Encyclopedia Britannica
There are SOME semi-Pelagians (but not many), and I have never encountered a full Pelagian (which is a denial of empirical reality). There are many people who believe in some form of "universal grace" that empowers men to overcome fallen nature and there are a wide variety of personal beliefs that are internally inconsistent. "Pelagianism" is more often an "ad hominim" fallacy in a heated debate (ie. name calling to discredit the speaker rather than refute the statement).
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Other than completely denying that Jesus will ever return, I find it hard to imagine any Eschatology being "heretical". Heresy usually denotes a belief that bars one from actually being saved (like rejecting the need for Christ as a savior).
I do see those not holding to the Doctrines of grace as saved as i am, as we both are saved by the Grace of the Cross of Christ, but those holding to full blown Pel affirm another gospel!
Full pel deny that we need to have the Holy Spirit enabling us to receive jesus as their Lord! we can do that ourselves
They deny the future second coming and a physical bodily resurrection, so is heresy!
Denying the future second coming and the bodily physical resurrection is heresy though, at least as held by the historical church!
timtofly
Well-Known Member
Heresy is any opposition to any "orthodox" belief. Some orthodox beliefs themselves are heresy. Even though that would be an oxymoron to the simple definition of orthodoxy. The only view that is "orthodox" is Scripture itself. Yet we have many claims of at least two branches of the church at odds with each other's "orthodox" views.
Heresy is not just being against a single view. The fact any church member was declared a heretic was based on not accepting the whole body of what was taught. It would be like breaking just the simplest OT law is breaking the whole Law. Those put to death as a heretic in the majority of examples were more saved than their accusers. Jesus pointed that out when He told them, "those without sin should cast the first stone".
Only those trying to maintain mental control over other individuals would put people to death. That is not how the redeemed operate. Obviously God has instilled even in wicked humans the will to live as long as possible in the flesh. Those without hope, have given up. Those who deem it necessary to kill other humans only do it out of selfish personal reasons. Definitely not because they are acting from God's direct orders.
The only time God gave His chosen people the order to kill every last human on earth, was to remove those wicked nations out of the Promised Land, so the nation of Israel would not follow after their wickedness. And then Israel still was not able to complete that order. It was not because those nations were part of Israel and started to introduce heretical doctrine. Sin was not supposed to take hold in Israel and those who broke the law were to be condemned to death.
The NT church was not to be in bondage of such a law of death. The heretics were to be removed from membership, but never was the death penalty ever instituted. If such a one broke the civil law, they were to be handed over to the civil authorities. The point is when a corrupt church becomes orthodox, even the truth can be deemed a heresy.
It is ironic when those who do not except free will, ask for people's free will opinion.