• 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!

How many here hold to the heresy of Pelagianism

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AustinC

Well-Known Member
"Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace — and here’s the key distinction — facilitates righteousness. What does “facilitate” mean?

It helps, it makes it more facile, it makes it easier, but you don’t have to have it. You can be perfect without it."

The Pelagian Captivity of the Church, by R.C. Sproul
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
AustinC said:
"Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace — and here’s the key distinction — facilitates righteousness. What does “facilitate” mean?

It helps, it makes it more facile, it makes it easier, but you don’t have to have it. You can be perfect without it."

The Pelagian Captivity of the Church, by R.C. Sproul
Click to expand...
I think Dr Sproul would have known what was the real theology being taught!
 
M

MartyF

Well-Known Member
AustinC said:
"Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace — and here’s the key distinction — facilitates righteousness. What does “facilitate” mean?

It helps, it makes it more facile, it makes it easier, but you don’t have to have it. You can be perfect without it."

The Pelagian Captivity of the Church, by R.C. Sproul
Click to expand...

Not a quote from Pelagius.

Yeshua1 said:
I think Dr Sproul would have known what was the real theology being taught!
Click to expand...

An actual quote from RC Sproul

"I believe that people who reject infant baptism, for example,—I think they’re wrong—but I believe they’re zealous about it because they want to practice the sacraments the way they believe God intended them to be practiced. And they believe it would be wrong to give this sign before somebody has the capacity to manifest faith, right? I think it’s a sin—you can quote me—not to baptize your children. God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son. It was a very serious matter to administer the sign of the covenant to believers and to their infants. And nowhere is there in biblical content that principle of solidarity ever, ever abrogated. And so I think we’re making a huge mistake when we exclude the children of believers from the sign of the covenant. Alright? And so I think it’s a serious matter. Because I want to make sure with the administration of the sacraments that we’re doing what’s pleasing to God. So I think it’s pleasing to God to baptize infants of believers. My friends in the Baptist community think that it’s displeasing to God. Both sides want to do what is pleasing to God. What I do believe is that we should not break fellowship over that issue because there’s not an explicit teaching in the New Testament that says that ‘you must baptize children of believers.’ Nor is there an explicit prohibition in the New Testament that says, ‘No,you may not baptize the children of believers.’ And so you have to rest your case on inferences drawn from narratives and other texts of the Bible and any time a doctrine is left to development by inferences you’re open to all kinds of mistakes. So, if any kind of doctrine should provoke patience and toleration with each other it’s something like that."

It's very very clear now that you'all ain't Baptists.
 
M

MartyF

Well-Known Member
You'all do realize that if you agree with the theological concept of original sin that Pelagius opposed, you aren't Baptists.
 
M

MartyF

Well-Known Member
Theological concept of Original Sin Pelagius opposed meant that infant who died before being Baptized went straight to Hell.
 
M

MartyF

Well-Known Member
It's why St. Augustine decided that people couldn't make choices. After all, the infant didn't.
 
M

MartyF

Well-Known Member
And of course, everyone knows the idea of Original Sin came for his Manichean/Gnostic background
 
M

MartyF

Well-Known Member
It's more clear to me now than ever that most people on this forum only say that they are Baptists when they actually aren't. They hold to the beliefs of Presbyterians.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
MartyF said:
It's more clear to me now than ever that most people on this forum only say that they are Baptists when they actually aren't. They hold to the beliefs of Presbyterians.
Click to expand...
Very close to each other, now if we could just persuade them to get off infant baptism!
 
A

AustinC

Well-Known Member
MartyF said:
Not a quote from Pelagius.



An actual quote from RC Sproul

"I believe that people who reject infant baptism, for example,—I think they’re wrong—but I believe they’re zealous about it because they want to practice the sacraments the way they believe God intended them to be practiced. And they believe it would be wrong to give this sign before somebody has the capacity to manifest faith, right? I think it’s a sin—you can quote me—not to baptize your children. God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son. It was a very serious matter to administer the sign of the covenant to believers and to their infants. And nowhere is there in biblical content that principle of solidarity ever, ever abrogated. And so I think we’re making a huge mistake when we exclude the children of believers from the sign of the covenant. Alright? And so I think it’s a serious matter. Because I want to make sure with the administration of the sacraments that we’re doing what’s pleasing to God. So I think it’s pleasing to God to baptize infants of believers. My friends in the Baptist community think that it’s displeasing to God. Both sides want to do what is pleasing to God. What I do believe is that we should not break fellowship over that issue because there’s not an explicit teaching in the New Testament that says that ‘you must baptize children of believers.’ Nor is there an explicit prohibition in the New Testament that says, ‘No,you may not baptize the children of believers.’ And so you have to rest your case on inferences drawn from narratives and other texts of the Bible and any time a doctrine is left to development by inferences you’re open to all kinds of mistakes. So, if any kind of doctrine should provoke patience and toleration with each other it’s something like that."

It's very very clear now that you'all ain't Baptists.
Click to expand...
Baptism is not akin to circumcision, despite what you have been told by your church. Therefore, to withhold baptism from infants is not akin to Moses not circumcizing himself and his children. You have created a false parallel.
 
M

MartyF

Well-Known Member
AustinC said:
Baptism is not akin to circumcision, despite what you have been told by your church. Therefore, to withhold baptism from infants is not akin to Moses not circumcizing himself and his children. You have created a false parallel.
Click to expand...

:Roflmao

Thank you for pointing out that the guy whose book you quoted from - RC Sproul - is an idiot and a second rate intellect.

I completely agree RC Sproul Is completely wrong and his books should be relegated to the comedy section.

AustinC said:
Not at all.
The paradox is the baptist who holds a semi-pelagian theology.
Click to expand...

:Roflmao

You’ve just said that the most-read theologian of Calvinism is completely wrong and now you are saying that you don’t have any problem with him. You need to start taking your schizophrenia medication.

Then you trot out the semi-pelagian b.s. and you haven’t even asked about my beliefs. Why? Because you just don’t care. You’re like Calvin - hiding in his mansion while everyone-else else dies of the plague.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top