How many here hold to the heresy of Pelagianism

[rsr]

Repeating something over and over does not make it true.

 

[robycop3]

For years, I was told that pelagianism's main belief is that salvation can be EARNED, thru good worx. Nothingta do with free will.

 

[Noah Hirsch]

Define Pelagianism.

Pelagius believed in Believer's Baptism, why Augustine did not.

So, I guess you and rlvaughn are lying about being Baptist?

Or can you give your own clear and concise definition like I did?

I have met both paedobaptists and credobaptists holding to Pelagian errors.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet, there are those who will not admit to being Pelagians that are in fact Pelagians. Those who hold to a modified version of Pelagianism, holding that we are all born with a sin nature, but denying that we all stand condemned, guilty before God, and in need of a Savior and being justified by Christ’s blood through faith. One example would be the National Association of Free Will Baptists according to their own confession on their website. They straight out and assert that we are born in need of a Savior, asserting that we only become in need of a Savior once we reach what they call an “age of accountability.”

I have met people who I would consider to be holding to Pelagian heresy. I have met those who say that those who die in infancy are covered by the blood of Christ without faith in Him. This is to deny that salvation is only by grace through faith in Christ alone.

Any who would claim that they can save themselves thru their own "free will" , or that Jesus had the same human nature as we do! They would be functioning as pels, even if not acknowledging it!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, that is not true. Belief in free will is NOT Pelagianism. (And it is quite possible that Pelagian did not subscribe to the heresies he's saddled with, just as Arminius did not exactly agree with the positions of the Remonstrants and Wesleyans. But that's the way things work.)

I would see it as belief in our free will being sufficient in and by itself to receive Jesus thru faith would fit that definition!

 

[Noah Hirsch]

Here. Allow me to be more clear.

Pelagianism = belief that believers should be Baptized.

Anti- pelagianism = belief that infants should be Baptized.

Ulrich Zwingli was Pelagian, and yet he affirmed infant baptism. Also, those who hold to the First Baptist Confession of Faith (1644), the First London Baptist Confession of Faith (1646), and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) are Baptists. James White is a Calvinist and a Baptist. I have met both Pelagian and non-Pelagian Baptists. I will even say that I have met non-Calvinists Baptists who are not Pelagian.

 

[Yeshua1]

For years, I was told that pelagianism's main belief is that salvation can be EARNED, thru good worx. Nothingta do with free will.

We were not affected by the Fall, so basically still good, and we have real freewill remaining in order to accept Jesus as lord!

 

[Yeshua1]

I have met both paedobaptists and credobaptists holding to Pelagian errors.

How so?

 

[Yeshua1]

Ulrich Zwingli was Pelagian, and yet he affirmed infant baptism. Also, those who hold to the First Baptist Confession of Faith (1644), the First London Baptist Confession of Faith (1646), and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) are Baptists. James White is a Calvinist and a Baptist. I have met both Pelagian and non-Pelagian Baptists. I will even say that I have met non-Calvinists Baptists who are not Pelagian.

I hold to the scriptures, and the 1689 Confession, so would be a Calvinist, and not at all into seeing things in a Pel like fashion!

 

[Yeshua1]

Repeating something over and over does not make it true.

Repeating what?

 

[MartyF]

I have met both paedobaptists and credobaptists holding to Pelagian errors.

So Noah Hirsch admits that he believes monogamous marriage is a sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

So Noah Hirsch admits that he believes monogamous marriage is a sin.

No, think that he would just be saying some in both camps hold to this heresy!

 

[Noah Hirsch]

How so?

The Pelagian error that I heard from a believer in infant baptism was the error that those who have never heard of Christ and do not have access to the Bible will go to heaven because they may still love God. It was asserted that one who does not have access to the Scriptures and has not come in contact with Christianity can practice polytheism, but still love God and be saved.

The error I heard argued by a credobaptist (who believed in free will) was that the unborn and certain mentally disordered people are not accountable, and are therefore covered by the blood of Christ without putting their personal faith in Jesus Christ.

I have also heard it argued that both of these errors are true by several people at the same time. This issue is not taken as seriously as it ought to be. The standard of orthodoxy within professed “Evangelicalism” is too broadened. It is not just liberals that we should be concerned about with reference to the perversion of the gospel of the grace of God, but also other conservatives who identify themselves as evangelicals.

 

[MartyF]

No, think that he would just be saying some in both camps hold to this heresy!

Nope, that's not it. You and Noah Hirsch both believe the monogamous marriage is evil and that infant baptism is salvific.

After all, there are those who will not admit to being anti-Pelagians that are in fact anti-Pelagians.

 

[Noah Hirsch]

So Noah Hirsch admits that he believes monogamous marriage is a sin.

So Noah Hirsch admits that he believes monogamous marriage is a sin.

I have met both paedobaptists and credobaptists holding to Pelagian errors with regard to original sin and the state of infants before God because of their sinful nature. When I speak of Pelagianism I am not referring to everything Pelagius himself ever believed or taught.

 

[Noah Hirsch]

Nope, that's not it. You and Noah Hirsch both believe the monogamous marriage is evil and that infant baptism is salvific.

After all, there are those who will not admit to being anti-Pelagians that are in fact anti-Pelagians.

I have met people who are both baptismal regenerationists heretics and Pelagian heretics at the same time. I have met others beside myself who would both deny that infant baptism is salvific, as well as affirm original sin and that infants stand in a condemned state before God.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Pelagian error that I heard from a believer in infant baptism was the error that those who have never heard of Christ and do not have access to the Bible will go to heaven because they may still love God. It was asserted that one who does not have access to the Scriptures and has not come in contact with Christianity can practice polytheism, but still love God and be saved.

The error I heard argued by a credobaptist (who believed in free will) was that the unborn and certain mentally disordered people are not accountable, and are therefore covered by the blood of Christ without putting their personal faith in Jesus Christ.

I have also heard it argued that both of these errors are true by several people at the same time. This issue is not taken as seriously as it ought to be. The standard of orthodoxy within professed “Evangelicalism” is too broadened. It is not just liberals that we should be concerned about with reference to the perversion of the gospel of the grace of God, but also other conservatives who identify themselves as evangelicals.

The first view males little sense, as the Lord himself will make sure that somehow and in someway all of his own will get the gospel, but the other view would be stating that since infants/babies and mentally challenged cannot in and by themselves place faith towards Jesus, God Himself has chosen to elect them unto eternal life in Christ himself, to do for them what they cannot do for themselves.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nope, that's not it. You and Noah Hirsch both believe the monogamous marriage is evil and that infant baptism is salvific.

After all, there are those who will not admit to being anti-Pelagians that are in fact anti-Pelagians.

I hold that God plan is still one man and one woman until death parts them, and that there is NO salvation power in any type of water baptism!

 

[MartyF]

I hold that God plan is still one man and one woman until death parts them, and that there is NO salvation power in any type of water baptism!

Just like it doesn't matter what Pelagian said, it doesn't matter what Yeshua1 says. Yeshua1 definitely believes that marriage is a sin and that infant baptism is salvific.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just like it doesn't matter what Pelagian said, it doesn't matter what Yeshua1 says. Yeshua1 definitely believes that marriage is a sin and that infant baptism is salvific.

Interesting that he held to the views that he did, as they were heresy!