Is Pelagius Teaching On The Rise?

[Winman]

Are you thick.....I said that regeneration is determined by the supernational workings of God.

Well, if a man cannot regenerate himself, how can he take credit for eternal life?

Even if you choose to be saved, you must depend on God to regenerate you, NO??

Not everybody who chooses to be saved will be saved.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Jesus here tells of people who believed they were saved, but were not. Did they believe in God? YES. Did they make God the Lord of their life? YES, in fact it is emphasized by Jesus that they said "Lord, Lord" TWICE.

So why weren't they saved?

Because they depended on their works. Look at their claim, they claimed to have prophesied in Jesus' name. They cast out devils in Jesus' name, and they did MANY WONDERFUL WORKS in Jesus' name. They depended on their good works to earn them heaven instead of submitting to God and depending on Jesus alone to save them.

Now look at a man who did it right.

Luk 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

You probably know the story, the publican and the Pharisee went into the temple. The Pharisee bragged about his good works but was not saved.

Did the publican get dragged into the temple? NO, he went in of his own free will. What was different was his attitude about himself. He did not claim any good works that could merit salvation, but confessed he was a wicked sinner and cast himself on the mercy of God.

And Jesus said this publican went down to his house justified.

Did the Pharisee want to be saved? YES. Why was he not saved? Because he did not submit to God and trust in him, but depended on his own righteousness and his own good works to merit salvation.

The man that cries out to Jesus to save him from his sins is saved.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[go2church]

Someone needs a theological dictionary. Words don't mean what you want them to mean just because that is what you want them to mean. Free will is not the extent of the teachings of Pelagius. To represent them as the same thing is either intentionally dishonest or wholly uninformed.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Someone needs a theological dictionary. Words don't mean what you want them to mean just because that is what you want them to mean. Free will is not the extent of the teachings of Pelagius. To represent them as the same thing is either intentionally dishonest or wholly uninformed.

... :laugh: And someone is a bit hyper sensitive to inquiries about this stuff. :flower:

 

[webdog]

Calvinists know that anyone who believes we can lose salvation, does not understand salvation to begin with.:thumbs:

That's like saying anyone that believes one must persevere to the end doesn't understand salvation to begin with.

 

[Herald]

Pelagius argued for the existence of free will. He could not see how we can be responsible for something if we do not have free will in that matter. His premise was that the will, rather than being bound by sin, is actually neutral---so that at any moment or in any given situation, it is free to choose either good or evil.

From what Im reading & hearing this is the view of most people today....including Christians.

Is there in fact a broad spectrum of people embracing this as their operating doctrine today? Do you see it & who are they? Could you be one? Is this theology on the rise?

Actually semi-Pelagianism is more prevalent in Baptist churches than Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism does not deny original sin, but it also teaches that man cooperates with God in salvation. Man is tainted by sin, according to semi-Pelagianism, but not completely fallen. Charles Finney was the great modern proponent of this theology, and his handiwork still dominates broad evangelicalism.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Only Presbyterians & Dutch Reformed follow Calvin.

"Reformed" Baptists do, also, believing in all the petals of TULIP. And they mistakenly refer to those as the "doctrines of grace", as if Arminians and others do not believe in grace.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I don't know much about Free Will Baptists, so I cannot comment on them.

I also do not understand your question about Original Sin, but this doctrine is credited most to Augustine, although a few ECF expressed a type of OS in some statements. Most of the ECF were completely silent on Original Sin from what I have studied. It simply wasn't an issue with them, or they simply failed to address the matter.

The early church fathers were Greek in orientation, and they had a different concept of sin from that which developed in the Latin-influenced church.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Someone needs a theological dictionary. Words don't mean what you want them to mean just because that is what you want them to mean. Free will is not the extent of the teachings of Pelagius. To represent them as the same thing is either intentionally dishonest or wholly uninformed.

That is correct. A study of Pelagius is in order.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Actually semi-Pelagianism is more prevalent in Baptist churches than Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism does not deny original sin, but it also teaches that man cooperates with God in salvation. Man is tainted by sin, according to semi-Pelagianism, but not completely fallen. Charles Finney was the great modern proponent of this theology, and his handiwork still dominates broad evangelicalism.

Thanks & you know, the good thing about Joisey is there is very little of this up here, thank the Good Lord. Perhaps that makes me ignorant to the movement of SBC, Free Will Baptists, etc but thats OK. I can deal with catholics, apostate liberal churches & non-believers allot easier than a wave of the other type proclaiming the Lord & living like carnal Christians. SERIOUSLY! :godisgood:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Thanks & you know, the good thing about Joisey is there is very little of this up here, thank the Good Lord. Perhaps that makes me ignorant to the movement of SBC, Free Will Baptists, etc but thats OK. I can deal with catholics, apostate liberal churches & non-believers allot easier than a wave of the other type proclaiming the Lord & living like carnal Christians. SERIOUSLY! :godisgood:

If you are equating that with Arminian Baptists, this is a gross misrepresentation and injustice.

 

[Herald]

Thanks & you know, the good thing about Joisey is there is very little of this up here, thank the Good Lord. Perhaps that makes me ignorant to the movement of SBC, Free Will Baptists, etc but thats OK. I can deal with catholics, apostate liberal churches & non-believers allot easier than a wave of the other type proclaiming the Lord & living like carnal Christians. SERIOUSLY! :godisgood:

Oh, it is there. I can rattle off at least a dozen fundie-type Baptist and baptistic churches in north Jersey that channel Finney. But more and more you're seeing churches that are retreating on the Finney model in place of conversion through osmosis.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you are equating that with Arminian Baptists, this is a gross misrepresentation and injustice.

Why are you automatically jumping to that conclusion? did I say that Arminians are Pelagians? But by the same token the Arminian position on Human ability....i.e, that human nature has been damaged by the fall, but not totally disabled, I believe to be the seed of problems down line. We can go through this again & again ad nauseam but the position of Reformed is NOT that every sinner retains the ability to choose for or against God. We differ there. There are a few more but I will not address them here.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Why are you automatically jumping to that conclusion? did I say that Arminians are Pelagians? But by the same token the Arminian position on Human ability....i.e, that human nature has been damaged by the fall, but not totally disabled, I believe to be the seed of problems down line. We can go through this again & again ad nauseam but the position of Reformed is NOT that every sinner retains the ability to choose for or against God. We differ there. There are a few more but I will not address them here.

Not jumping, automatically or otherwise. Notice my use of the word "If"?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oh, it is there. I can rattle off at least a dozen fundie-type Baptist and baptistic churches in north Jersey that channel Finney. But more and more you're seeing churches that are retreating on the Finney model in place of conversion through osmosis.

Interestingly enough.....my little bro belongs to a Fundamentalist Church in Parsippany where the Pastors soteriology is DoG....his eschatology is another matter.

 

[Yeshua1]

Pelagius argued for the existence of free will. He could not see how we can be responsible for something if we do not have free will in that matter. His premise was that the will, rather than being bound by sin, is actually neutral---so that at any moment or in any given situation, it is free to choose either good or evil.

From what Im reading & hearing this is the view of most people today....including Christians.

Is there in fact a broad spectrum of people embracing this as their operating doctrine today? Do you see it & who are they? Could you be one? Is this theology on the rise?

Well, lets see...

many deny Original Sin, deny that we have had imputed the Fall of Adam towards us, deny that we are spiritually dead, hold that we can still come to Jesus by freewill alone, no need for extra enabling Grace...

yep, would say that its alive and well in Evangelical circles today!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, lets see...

many deny Original Sin, deny that we have had imputed the Fall of Adam towards us, deny that we are spiritually dead, hold that we can still come to Jesus by freewill alone, no need for extra enabling Grace...

yep, would say that its alive and well in Evangelical circles today!

LOL....God I love ya....:laugh:

 

[Winman]

Well, lets see...

many deny Original Sin,

Yes, and many Christians have denied this from the beginning of the church.

deny that we have had imputed the Fall of Adam towards us,

Yep, because Ezekiel 18:20 says the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father. Many Christians have believed this from the beginning of the church.

deny that we are spiritually dead,

When we are born we are not spiritually dead, Paul said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.


Paul HAD to be speaking of spiritual death here, he could not possibly have written that he physically died. So Paul himself tells us he was originally spiritually alive. He told us in verse 7 that the law made him to know what sin is. So, when Paul learned the law and came to know what sin is, he was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died. It is you that denies scripture, not me.

hold that we can still come to Jesus by freewill alone,

Jesus said "Come unto me". He did not attach any conditions to this, and he did not say a person had to be made spiritually alive to come to him. In fact, Jesus said a person must come to him to have life.

Jhn 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

It is you that teaches the false doctrine that a person must have life to come to Jesus. Jesus taught the exact opposite, that a person must come to him to have life.

no need for extra enabling Grace...

This is an outright falsehood and you know it. There is not one person here at BB that claims a person can come to Jesus without God's grace. I challenge you to show where ANYONE here has EVER said that.

You can't show that and you know it, you have told an intentional falsehood.

yep, would say that its alive and well in Evangelical circles today!

You say all sorts of silly things, I would completely ignore you except that others might believe your nonsense.

 

[MB]

Free will was the view of the church until Augustine. All of the early church fathers believed in free will. Here is a page with numerous quotes from ECF on free will;

http://www.biblequery.org/Doctrine/Predestination/EarlyChristiansNotCalvinists.htm

Most Baptists believe in free will and have from the beginning.

I applaud you for this link.
Amen
MB:applause::applause::applause:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

here's all i really want to know, "is salvation entirely of God or is it not?" What is your answer?

 

[Yeshua1]

here's all i really want to know, "is salvation entirely of God or is it not?" What is your answer?

well, according to paul, its ALL of God, even our faith to receive Jesus comes to us by Him, part of the entire 'salvation package!"