Incapacitation of the will

[Winman]

continued from post #40...

Psalms 51:5 "Behold, I was shaped in iniquity (sin); and in sin did my mother conceive me."

This verse is speaking of David's mother, substitute any words for iniquity and sin and this becomes apparent. For instance;

"Behold I was shaped in pleasure, and in joy did my mother conceive me"

As you see, this verse is speaking of David's mother, not himself.

I have posted Scripture and principle in which you disagree. You assert I have made statements that I have not, and in this area you are misapplying the principle of Godly versus human righteousness.

You simply quote Calvinist dogma, not a correct interpretation of scripture. There is absolutely no scripture that says man is unable to believe. None. You can't show it, because it doesn't exist.

First, "human righteousness" does not mean sinful, but it is doomed to failure. That is Scriptures and has been proven to you.

I already showed you that God himself said men do righteousness. Live with it.

Second, If you are unregenerate, than yes everything you do (even good) will ultimately fail, that doesn't make it sinful, it just is as any human effort there will be decay and eventual death. Nothing man generated lasts forever.

Doing good will not merit salvation, because if you sin even one single time in your entire lifetime then you are condemned by the law. The wages of sin is death and you must pay for that one sin.

You don't get it, saying that man can do righteous works does not mean a man can merit salvation. The real issue is ABILITY. The scriptures show that unregenerate men have the ability to do righteous works. This is not saying they are 100% righteous, something you cannot seem to get your head around.

Saying that man does no good does not mean they are not able to do good.

I have never jumped off a building in my life, but that doesn't mean I am not able to do so. Why can't you understand this?

Third, I do not know how you extrapolate anything you stated about the commandments as reliably accurate to my posts. To do so is pure hyperbole.

I have no idea what you are saying here. What I am saying is that teaching everything an unregenerate man does is evil is pure error. When an unregenerate man tells the truth, it is not sin. This alone proves unregenrate men are ABLE to do good.

PLEASE, post were I ever stated this?

I haven't and when you brought it up, I showed that I had not made such an argument in the posts.

You have said there is HUMAN righteousness, as if this is different from God's righteousness. This is not so. To tell the truth is righteous by God's own definition of what is righteous and what is evil. And I have showed you scripture where God himself says men do righteousness.

You are fixated on a single element, it is a falsehood that I did not state, and you continue to deny the truth.

You are making a distinction that does not exist. Show where the scriptures say there are different kinds of righteousness, one for men, and another for God.

YOU have some proving to do.

You are the one who needs to provide scripture for your claims. I provide scripture to support my view all the time.

1) Prove your claim that I have made the statement you claim is absurd.

2) Demonstrate by Scriptures what error I have made in my use of human righteousness compared to the Godly righteousness.

3) Prove that you are not Pelagian in thinking on the matter of Adam's sin is not imputed to the prodigy as you have contended at least twice.

4) Prove by Scriptures how the natural (fallen) man can receive anything of the Spirit of God without the direct and purposed Grace of God intervening first.

5) Prove by Scriptures that the unregenerate man can of self volition claim any portion of salvation without the direct and purposed work of God having already first done a work of Grace in that person.

Show where the scriptures say there is a HUMAN righteousness compared to God's righteousness. God made the rules, if you tell the truth it is righteous, if you lie it is sin. There aren't different kinds of righteousness or sin for the unregenerate and regenerate.

And I have always said that without God graciously revealing and convicting man through his word, that no man could possibly be saved.

But this is not the same as saying a man must be regenerated to have the ability to respond to God's word as you falsely teach. There is not one word to support your view in scripture.

Why don't you simply show the scripture that says a man must be regenerated to believe the gospel? You can't do it.

You believe something NEVER said in scripture. Unbelievable.

Try shortening your posts up. Many words doesn't equate to truth.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Situation: Jesus is standing on the sea before us as we flail and sink to our death. We know we are perishing (HS convicts of our sin), we know who can save us (Jesus stands with his arm out), can we decide to reach for Jesus as he reaches for us? Jesus bids us come, we try and fail, despair, cry for salvation and Jesus saves. Is this heretical? Doesn't the statement say that no one can come to God without the conviction and drawing of the HS?

It is easily demonstrable that everyone has and exercises their will constantly every waking minute of the day. Man willfully chooses to sin. So the will has capacity. Also when God exhorts, "Choose you this day whom you will serve," it is not an empty command, is it? And when Paul on mars hill declared that now God commands all men everywhere to repent, is he not invoking a divine command upon the will to evince a decision in one direction, toward God and from sin?

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Does Jesus enlighten every man or not?

 

[agedman]

Situation: Jesus is standing on the sea before us as we flail and sink to our death. We know we are perishing (HS convicts of our sin), we know who can save us (Jesus stands with his arm out), can we decide to reach for Jesus as he reaches for us? Jesus bids us come, we try and fail, despair, cry for salvation and Jesus saves. Is this heretical? Doesn't the statement say that no one can come to God without the conviction and drawing of the HS?

Using the scenario of your illustration: The unregenerate person is/was born in the sea (sin) and is held captive by the sea (sin). As they grow the consuming of the pollution of the sea (sin) leads to deceptions, and "vain imaginations."

The unregenerate in the sea (sin) is aware they are being pushed about by the forces of the sea (sin), but can only make "human righteous" attempts (For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God) to keep their head above the sea (sin).

They "cannot see afar off" so they have only some human awareness of Christ (by the testimony of others) and perhaps the land but have no volition to attain Godliness (ye also have seen me, and believe not).

Christ, by the direct and purpose of God, rescues the unregenerate swimmer (The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach). Although the swimmer often resists the rescue ("kicks against the pricks" - conviction).

The swimmer becomes aware of death of the sea (wages of sin) and their helplessness (O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?) even in their own frailty and moral failure of human righteousness; the swimmer, by being given Godly righteousness (regenerate state) becomes aware of the the land (Word of God - set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings) and the nourishment and clothing available ("clothed in his right mind").

Are all swimmers in the sea rescued? No. The Lord knows who are His and who are not. He rescues His own.

Do any swimmers of their own volition swim to safety? No. It is impossible, for only the regenerate are "born again" (new nature), "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." "Without faith it is impossible to please Him" (Note: man generated faith is not the faith of Christ)

Who chooses which swimmer is to be rescued? The Father. "All that the Father gives me shall come to me; and him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."


What happens to the rest of the swimmers that are not rescued? They die in the disillusionment of their own sin. (wages of sin is death)

Is the sea the friend of the unregenerate swimmer? No, for although they were born in the sea, the sea seeks to ultimately destroy for that is the character and nature of the sea (sin). (a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour)

Can the unregenerate swimmer make good decisions and choices? Yes, for the unregenerate can struggle against the sea (sin) as taught by the parents and authorities in a human righteousness. But, no choice will have eternal value for in every choice, made by the unregenerate, the ultimate end is decay and destruction. (For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.)

Can the rescued swimmer return to the sea? Yes, but they will always be drawn back to the land, for it was by the land's nourishment and clothing they have become aware of the danger and ultimate destruction of the sea. (My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous)

Can the rescued swimmer die in the sea? Certainly. (For this cause some sleep.)


I have attempted to use your scenario and show how it might apply, but as all human examples I am certain there are gaps and limited application(s).

It is easily demonstrable that everyone has and exercises their will constantly every waking minute of the day. Man willfully chooses to sin. So the will has capacity. Also when God exhorts, "Choose you this day whom you will serve," it is not an empty command, is it? And when Paul on mars hill declared that now God commands all men everywhere to repent, is he not invoking a divine command upon the will to evince a decision in one direction, toward God and from sin?

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Does Jesus enlighten every man or not?

What is Jesus? The Scriptures state, "I am the light."

What is the Word? The Scriptures state, "Thy Word is a lamp to my feet a light to my path."

But WHO responds to the light and Word? The Scriptures state, "The entrance of thy Word gives light... understanding."

The believers carry the light (Ye are the light of the world). And as the Gospel is declared and testimony of the believers life is seen, light is given.

Some would desire to have the verse you quoted declare that God has given ability for all to be saved. But look at Christ's remarks about the human light.

Matthew 6:
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!​

Luke quoted it this way:

Luke 11:34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.​

John states, 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

It is evident then in the balance of Scriptures (for I only post a few to illustrate) that a general enlightenment of the need of salvation is not accurate to the verse you quoted.

Rather, the context shows that general enlightenment of the need of salvation is NOT given.
John 1:

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that comes after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
​

Do you see the light John is referring to that is given to all men?

It is the law of Moses. For when Christ came to his own, they didn't receive him. They had only the light of the law of Moses. Had they His light of "grace and truth" then they would have received him.

 

[agedman]

When you said this;

"the unregenerate human has no other response but to submit to the unregenerate will."

Perhaps you can explain exactly what you are saying here.

Apparently you believe the unregenerate man is not completely unregenerate and that the will is somehow not affected by the sinful nature in which all men are born.

You have repeatedly shown that you do not consider accurate that a person is “born in sin” – that Adam’s fall is imputed to all as Romans states.
Neither did Pelagius.

I view the Scriptures as holding that the "natural man" receives NOTHING of the spirit of God. Just as 1 Corinthians 2 would hold.

11 For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.​

Until you admit that you are wrong about this single area, then you are going to continue to embrace the heresy of Pelagius.

Well, I only quoted Barnes before because I knew you would not listen to my explanation of Romans 8. I do not agree with Barnes here, the scriptures say that Cornelius was a devout man who feared God, yet we know for a fact he was not saved, and did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Now, did Cornelius do this without the grace of God? No, and I have always said that no man could possibly believe in the true God unless God had graciously revealed himself through the word of God. But this does not mean that a man must be supernaturally regenerated to believe. Cornelius no doubt had heard the OT scriptures and believed them, so he certainly was assisted by God. But there is no mention of him being regenerated to believe as Calvinsim teaches.

Sorry but you have it wrong, and Barnes is right. Because your foundational view is Pelagian (as I have shown it to be) that skews all your thinking away from the truth.

You stated you don't know much about Pelagius, and frankly there really is little known. But the heresy that he taught infects and perverts of the truth of the Scriptures.

Are you saying a man will always reject the gospel? If so, scripture argues against you, many thousands of folks believed on Christ before the indwelling Holy Spirit was given. Can a man be regenerated without the indwelling Holy Spirit?

Again, I point you to the passage quoted above.

Argue with the Scripture all you desire. I have shown your view is skewed and why. That you reject the truth is evident, and a manifestation of how systemic the Pelagius heresy can become.

Oh, I have seen this quoted by Calvinists dozens of times ... Now, I ask you, is it possible for a man to be regenerated without the indwelling Holy Spirit? Please answer that question directly.

Again, the fact that you have rejected the truth by embracing error bears out in your attempts to make Scriptures into what you desire rather then reading the consistency.

If you have been given the truth and reject it, how would you expect my posts to sway your opinion. Pelagius died in his sin. He, too, thought that man had the volition and free will to attain unto Godly righteousness. He was in direct violation of the Scriptures.

You by adopting the same thinking are in direct violation, too.

No, I am not. Calvinists constantly accuse non-Cals of being Pelagians. It is simply the old "guilty by association" tactic. I don't have a clue what Pelagius truly believed, and I doubt you do either.

I do have a clue, and have stated his view(s) accurately. I suggest you do your own work on Pelagian heresy rather than attempting to excuse your demeaning attitude toward those who are Calvinistic in thinking with no foundation.

If I am not the only one to point out Pelagian error to you, then it should show your need to at least find out who the person was and why his views were so unscriptural.

If you can call me a Pelagian, then why can't I accuse you of a dishonest tactic? What is good for the goose is good for the gander, if you can't take the heat, you should get out of the kitchen.

Sorry it doesn't work that way.

YOU admit that, "I (you) don't have a clue what Pelagius truly believed," yet you would accuse one who does know and does distinguish correctly of using a "dishonest tactic."

Such statements really show how systemic the error can pervert the understanding of Scriptures.

You wanted me to shorten the posts.

Fine -

Show how Pelagius was not a heretic from his own words and letters.

Show how your not embracing Pelagian thinking which has been proclaimed heretical by more than just the RCC.

 

[Winman]

Apparently you believe the unregenerate man is not completely unregenerate and that the will is somehow not affected by the sinful nature in which all men are born.

Jesus himself said the unregenerate can respond to the word of God.

Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Did Jesus say the regenerate, the spiritually alive shall hear his voice here? No, he said "the dead" shall hear his voice, and those that hear shall live.

You can call me a heretic or Pelagian or whatever, I stand on what the word of God says, and the word of God says the unregenerate can respond to the word of God, and those that hear and come to Jesus will be made alive.

You have repeatedly shown that you do not consider accurate that a person is “born in sin” – that Adam’s fall is imputed to all as Romans states.
Neither did Pelagius.

Again, I believe the word of God. The scriptures say God has made man upright.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

The word "they" points back to the word "man" and shows this is speaking of all men, not just Adam.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Jesus said when the prodigal son repented and returned to his father that he was "alive again", in fact, Jesus said this twice. If a man is born dead in sins, then it would be impossible to say he is alive again. But if a man is born upright as Ecc 7:29 says, and then spiritually dies when he sins, then when he repents he would be alive again. But there is more...

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Paul said he was alive once without the law. If a man is born dead in sin, no man could ever say he was alive once. When Paul matured and understood the law and willingly sinned, he was convicted by the law and spiritually died.
But there is more...

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

If men are born dead in sin, separated from God, then it could never be said that a man is "returned" to God. However, if a man is born upright as Ecc 7:29 says, and spiritually dies when he sins, then when he repents he could be said to have returned to God.

Again, call me any name you want, I believe the scriptures, and I have shown you scripture that I believe PROVES man is not born dead in sin.

I view the Scriptures as holding that the "natural man" receives NOTHING of the spirit of God. Just as 1 Corinthians 2 would hold.

11 For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.​

And Galatians 3:2 refutes your interpretation of these verses.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

This question by Paul demands the answer that these Galatians received the Spirit after hearing and believing the gospel. How could they have been regenerated to believe if they did not have the Spirit yet?

Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

All the disciples believed (except Judas) on Jesus as well as thousands of others, yet none of these persons had the indwelling Holy Spirit. How can a man be regenerated without the indwelling Holy Spirit?

Until you admit that you are wrong about this single area, then you are going to continue to embrace the heresy of Pelagius.

I don't know what Pelagius believed, but you should consider confessing that Calvin was in error. The scriptures absolutely show the unregenerate can respond and believe the gospel.

Sorry but you have it wrong, and Barnes is right. Because your foundational view is Pelagian (as I have shown it to be) that skews all your thinking away from the truth.

Cornelius was not saved, or else the angel would have not told him to send for Peter where he would hear words whereby he would be saved. He did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he believed in God, he did not rebel against God and sent for Peter.

Acts 10:12 And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:
13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

See how much scripture I show you? and yet you will not believe.

You stated you don't know much about Pelagius, and frankly there really is little known. But the heresy that he taught infects and perverts of the truth of the Scriptures.

I don't know what Pelagius believed, so I don't know if he was a heretic or not. And really, I don't care, I believe what the scriptures say.

Again, I point you to the passage quoted above.

Argue with the Scripture all you desire. I have shown your view is skewed and why. That you reject the truth is evident, and a manifestation of how systemic the Pelagius heresy can become.

Again, I don't know exactly what Pelagius believed, but I have shown you much scripture that I believe shows man is born upright, that men are not born dead in sins.

Again, the fact that you have rejected the truth by embracing error bears out in your attempts to make Scriptures into what you desire rather then reading the consistency.

You can read, you tell me what the scriptures I posted said.

If you have been given the truth and reject it, how would you expect my posts to sway your opinion. Pelagius died in his sin. He, too, thought that man had the volition and free will to attain unto Godly righteousness. He was in direct violation of the Scriptures.

You by adopting the same thinking are in direct violation, too.

I do not believe you have given me the truth, I believe you hold to error. You have simply bought Calvinist doctrine without really looking at the scriptures.

I do have a clue, and have stated his view(s) accurately. I suggest you do your own work on Pelagian heresy rather than attempting to excuse your demeaning attitude toward those who are Calvinistic in thinking with no foundation.

If I am not the only one to point out Pelagian error to you, then it should show your need to at least find out who the person was and why his views were so unscriptural.

Why do I care what Pelagius believed? I care what the scriptures say, not men.

Sorry it doesn't work that way.

YOU admit that, "I (you) don't have a clue what Pelagius truly believed," yet you would accuse one who does know and does distinguish correctly of using a "dishonest tactic."

It is an intentional dishonest tactic. It is an attempt to smear a person by association. What does Pelagius have to do with our personal debate here? I don't depend on Pelagius, I show you what I believe from scriptures. I have no clue exactly what Pelagius believed and neither do you. He is not here to defend himself, you may very well misrepresent him.

Such statements really show how systemic the error can pervert the understanding of Scriptures.

Such as Calvinism?

You wanted me to shorten the posts.

Yes, it's simple. Show even one verse that says a man must be regenerated to have the ability to believe. If you could do that, all these long posts would be unnecessary. Long posts do not make you correct.

-

Show how Pelagius was not a heretic from his own words and letters.

Show how your not embracing Pelagian thinking which has been proclaimed heretical by more than just the RCC.

Why do you keep talking about Pelagius? I could care less what Pelagius believed. I am showing you what I believe, and I am showing you the scriptures that I believe support it.

If it makes you happy to call me a Pelagian go ahead.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

WINMAN:

I don't know what Pelagius believed, so I don't know if he was a heretic or not. And really, I don't care....

Neither does just about any Calvinist anywhere on this board.....his commentary on Romans just became available in English in 1995.....None of the Calvinists on this board have read it....none of them will, and it is by FAR....the single largest collection of his works in his own hand available and it wasn't available for centuries. Indeed, his second largest single work, the "letter to Demetrius" was considered a masterpiece of Patristic Christian literature for centuries, and it survived only because it was falsely ascribed to Jerome (his Theological nemesis). Otherwise, those who (in obvious Christian love and righteousness) had Pelagius beaten and declared a heretic (in absentia) would have burned it along with the rest of his writings. Calvinists neither know nor care what Pelagius believed....they only care that they have successfully turned his name into a cuss word....and they may thus commit the blatant, logically fallacious "genetic fallacy" when they invoke the word. The "beliefs" they claim Pelagius held are more accurately ascribed to John Cassian or Caelestius (names I personally have, to date, never heard a Calvinist on this board invoke). Pelagius is on record as having publically "anathematized" in his own words...many beliefs and statements by Caelestius, usually in all the public hearings wherein he was called to answer for his alleged heresy.....wherein thrice he was acquitted of any charges.

NEVER, while he was permitted to speak for himself, was he considered a heretic. Although, between Augustine and Jerome, they successfully finally got him adjudged a heretic (in absentia) and, of course, only according to the witness they furnished of his alleged beliefs.

"I anathematize the man who either thinks or says that the grace of God, whereby 'Christ
Jesus came into the world to save sinners,' is not necessary not only for ever hour and for every moment, but also for every act of our lives: and those who endeavor to disannul it deserve everlasting punishment."

Pelagius

This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its [the will's] helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will.

Pelagius

Whether these are really the opinions of Coelestius or not, is the concern of those who say that they are. For my own part, indeed, I never entertained such views; on the contrary, I anathematize every one who does entertain them.

Pelagius

Interestingly, Pelagius NEVER claimed that there was any such thing as a person who had ever lived without sin....(Calvinists lyingly claim he did).

But we never said that any man could be found who at no time whatever, from infancy to old age, had committed sin: but that if any person were converted from his sins, he could by his own labour and God's grace be without sin; and yet not even thus would he be incapable of change ever afterwards. As for the other statements which they have made
against us, they are not to be found in our books, nor have we at any time said such things.

Pelagius

Ironically, Augustine heretically believed Mary was without sin (many at that time did). Prior to their eventual fracas, He wrote these words to Pelagius:

"To my most beloved lord, and most longed-for brother Pelagius, Augustine sends
greeting in the Lord. I thank you very much for the pleasure you have kindly afforded me
by your letter, and for informing me of your good health. May the Lord requite you with
blessings, and may you ever enjoy them, and live With Him for evermore in all eternity,
my most beloved lord, and most longed-for brother. For my own part, indeed, although I
do not admit your high encomiums of me, which the letter of your Benignity conveys, I yet
cannot be insensible of the benevolent view you entertain towards my poor deserts; at the
same time requesting you to pray for me, that the Lord would make me such a man as you
suppose me to be already." [in another hand]: "Be mindful of us; may you
be safe, and find favour with the Lord, my most beloved lord, and most longed-for
brother."

-Augustine to Pelagius,

Personally, I have Pelagius' commentary on order, and look forward to allowing the man to speak for himself for once.....I have no doubt I will find numerous areas of disagreement with him (as I do with the prostitution-enthusiast Augustine). But I will have the freedom to read and learn more of what he believed himself. Remember, Pelagius was also a heretic (acc. Augustine) because he reportedly denied the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration and he allegedly refused to Baptise infants....as the Theologically-sound Augustine would have. <---doctrinal ideas insignifigant to us as Baptists.

Winman, do not confuse Calvinists with the facts.

Why do you keep talking about Pelagius?

Because Calvinists have made his name a cuss-word....the supposed "Reformers" stand cap-in-hand with Catholics in condemning something, because the RCC agrees with them on this. It's a free "genetic fallacy". It is also meaningless.

If it makes you happy to call me a Pelagian go ahead.

It does.....he warms to it, a pleasant feeling circuits through his bones every time he says it...it's like a drug. Calling you a damnable heretic, by creating a correlation (real or imagined) between you and someone he has already consigned to hell: see here:

Pelagius died sinful.

Simple: consign the "boogeyman" (whose works he has never read) to hell....establish implicit correlation between your beliefs and his. He doesn't have to argue Calvinist dogma on merit alone when he does this.