Nope paradox is the right word.
-
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
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
I disagree with many excellent Bible teachers on various issues. Just because I disagree in one area, I do not dismiss the person in other areas. A good example of this is AW Tozer. I find his call to holiness inspiring. I find his free will soteriology woefully inadequate.
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.
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.
Sproul was wrong on infant baptism. However, Sproul did not teach salvation via infant baptism as a means of grace, which is what both Roman Catholics and Lutherans teach. The Reformed position is more like a Baptist baby dedication with water added.
The sign of being in Covenant with God under the NC is having the Holy Spirit in you....
Or a full blown pelagian view!
I do not agree with everything they held with, but am pretty sure both Calvin and Sproul biblically smarter than you are!
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.
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.
Calvin taught that Murder of others who profess to be Christian was A.O.K.
R.C. Sproul doubted his own salvation.
If those are the ones you want to follow, I hope to never meet you in person.
Marty, your opinion on this is skewed.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would love to have seen him and Dr Sproul debate this topic!
Well we know, no one is as smart as you. and of course you know Calvin and Sproul
MB
That's not what Pelagius actually believed.
It's easily demonstrated by Pelagius' own works he didn't believe that.
"Pelagianism" is simply a boogey-man term of scandalous lies attributed to a man who could not defend himself and clearly taught something other than what it was alleged he claimed.
Lemme learn you a good fact that would serve you well:
Augustine of Hippo was a vicious and deceitful man.
You need to embrace the reality of that and stop worshipping everything he said and assuming any lie he made up about someone he viewed as a personal enemy as the gospel.
R.C. Sproul is wrong....clearly wrong on this point.
Here's a good idea....
Actually read Pelagius himself, and you would know he didn't teach that.
Here's a cute factoid, when Sproul wrote this he was relying on tertiary information.
Many of Pelagius' works are now available since AFTER Sproul wrote this.
Sproul was relying on unreliable sources when he said this and the primary sources which are only now available would clearly prove him mistaken.
Sproul was talented enough to gather a following, he was also very wrong.
Oh, absolutely.
And he never shook his pagan philosophy.
It superintended everything he taught (and gave him license to live the horrifically sinful life he lead)….
Did you fail to also list in that long list of his wickedness that he supported prostitution and the practice of observing Roman blood-sport for entertainment?
You missed that Marty....
tsk tsk....
Don't you have anyone you ridicule. I will not answer anymore of you nonsense.
MB
Which ones... PCUSA; Orthodox PC, PCA? Then there are Reformed.
Here is my question concerning the quote/un-guote, "fall".
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, (Adam) that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, (Jesus, the Word made flesh) that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels. From Heb 2:6,7
Forasmuch then as the children (Of Adam) are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Jesus the Son of Man, the Word made flesh} also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:14
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8
that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Was the "fall," of the created man Adam the man of Gen 1:27 Gen 2:7, 22 necessary in order for God to destroy the devil and his works? The devil, who in the form of a serpent, was in the garden that God planted and then placed the man he had created.
Was, the serpent already the devil before the man was created? Had the devil already sinned and needed to be destroyed before man was created? Before man was created, in the image of God, did God have a plan to destroy the devil? How?
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, (Adam) that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, (Jesus, the Word made flesh) that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels. From Heb 2:6,7
Forasmuch then as the children (Of Adam) are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Jesus the Son of Man, the Word made flesh} also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:14
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8
that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Was the "fall," of the created man Adam the man of Gen 1:27 Gen 2:7, 22 necessary in order for God to destroy the devil and his works? The devil, who in the form of a serpent, was in the garden that God planted and then placed the man he had created.
Was, the serpent already the devil before the man was created? Had the devil already sinned and needed to be destroyed before man was created? Before man was created, in the image of God, did God have a plan to destroy the devil? How?
There is a reason why Jesus said:
Jesus answered and said to him, 'Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'
Any one, no exceptions from Adam to the last one born of woman, no age of accountability, any one.
To be born again ie from above was the plan before Adam was created.
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Gal 4:4-6
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:18-20
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:14,15
Adam was going to need to be born again to see the kingdom of God.
Jesus answered and said to him, 'Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'
Any one, no exceptions from Adam to the last one born of woman, no age of accountability, any one.
To be born again ie from above was the plan before Adam was created.
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Gal 4:4-6
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:18-20
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:14,15
Adam was going to need to be born again to see the kingdom of God.
Going forward members need to be very careful about becoming the "boy who cried heresy".
Too often old heresies are used as types of insults towards people who do not hold those views.
On this forum people have been accused of Pelagianism who do not actually hold that view (although it seems some may hold to semi-Pelagianism...which is within orthodox Christianity).
On other forums people have done the same by calling Calvinisim "fatalism" (the difference is how they view people) and Free-Will Theology as men saving themselves (the difference is how they view God's work). I've seen members try to associate people with teachers they reject (like N.T. Wright) and false religions (like Jehovah Witnesses). So it is not just here, but it is an immature type of method and it is childish.
Be adult enough to discuss doctrine and beliefs rather than tell someone they hold a view as a whole that that person truly rejects.
Too often old heresies are used as types of insults towards people who do not hold those views.
On this forum people have been accused of Pelagianism who do not actually hold that view (although it seems some may hold to semi-Pelagianism...which is within orthodox Christianity).
On other forums people have done the same by calling Calvinisim "fatalism" (the difference is how they view people) and Free-Will Theology as men saving themselves (the difference is how they view God's work). I've seen members try to associate people with teachers they reject (like N.T. Wright) and false religions (like Jehovah Witnesses). So it is not just here, but it is an immature type of method and it is childish.
Be adult enough to discuss doctrine and beliefs rather than tell someone they hold a view as a whole that that person truly rejects.
- Status