First I was just kidding. I don't care either way. Second I did not think you meant "now" I thought you meant "no".
-
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!
Is Semi-Pelegainism heresy?
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
First I was just kidding. I don't care either way. Second I did not think you meant "now" I thought you meant "no".
They appear to be hyper Arminian and I think a poster earlier defined them well.
OK, going by the definition cited earlier, my opinion is that semi-Pelagianism is not heresy, but it is error.
There was plenty to find fault with in Evan's post but I resisted. Part of my turning over a new leaf campaign (along with new avatar and signature.)
quantumfaith
Active Member
You also need to send them a letter.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Calvinists also like to point out that, “Pelagianism has been condemned as heresy by councils all throughout Church history.” I always find it amazing when the so called “Reformed” and “Sola Scriptura” crowd will point to Catholic councils about Pelagius. They are not very reformed if they appeal to Rome, and they are not sola scriptura if they appeal to councils.
There were three councils that condemned Pelagianism; the Council of Ephesus in the year 431; the Council of Carthage in the year 418; and the Council of Orange in the year 529. This is because Pelagius was not invited nor present to defend himself but his opponents and adversaries stated his doctrine for him. When Pelagius was able to defend himself, the Council of Diospolis in 415 declared Pelagius orthodox. And Pope Zosimus also declared Pelagius’ orthodoxy in 417. He was always acquitted when present to clarify and defend his views. If these are our authorities to determine orthodoxy, do we accept the ones in favor of Pelagius or the ones against him?
In addition, the Council of Orange and the Council of Carthage were not ecumenical councils. They did not consist of Bishops from the entire church, which mean that the rulings of the Councils were not universally affirmed by the Eastern and Western churches.
If heresy is heresy because a council says so, or because of majority vote, Calvinism must be more heretical than Pelagianism was because there were more councils that condemned Calvinism than condemned Pelagianism. The Calvinist doctrines of predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace were condemned throughout history. Lucidus was condemned by the Council of Oral in 473, Council of Arles in 475, and Council of Orange in 529. And Gottschalk (Gotteschalcus) was condemned by the Council at Mentz in 848 and the Council of Chiersey (Quiercy) in 849. And what do Calvinists think of the Council of Constance in 1414 for John Huss, or the Council of Worms in 1521 for Martin Luther, or the Council of Trent in 1561 for the Protestants? Are these Councils not the voice of Orthodoxy as Ephesus and Carthage supposedly were?
In fact, the Council of Orange that condemned Pelagianism also condemned the doctrines of Calvinism. Specifically, the doctrine of limited atonement and double predestination was condemned by the Council of Orange. If the council is authoritative in the former case, it must be equally authoritative in the latter as well. But if it was mistaken in the latter case, maybe it was mistaken in the former as well.
On the other hand, the Synod of Philadelphia declared Albert Barnes as orthodox in 1829, after he presented his case for rejecting limited atonement, natural inability, and the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt to all his posterity. And Lyman Beecher was accused of heresy for his new school theology in 1835 but was acquitted by the Synod of Cincinatti. Though “New England Theology” or “New School Theology” was accused of being “Pelagian” by “Old School Calvinists,” it was nevertheless declared orthodox by Christian Synods.
And just so that nobody feels left out, the Synod of Dort condemned the doctrines of Arminianism in 1618-1619. Certainly the Arminian camp should not, therefore, give credibility to councils which determine orthodoxy by popular vote.
But to determine if Pelagius really was a heretic, we should go to his actual words to see what he taught. It is a common error for Calvinists to quote from Pelagius’ opponents and accusers to express what Pelagius taught, rather than to quote from Pelagius himself. Certainly, Calvinists would not like it if people quoted from the opponents of Reformed Theology to state what Calvinism teaches. We should give Pelagius the same honesty and fairness that we would want our doctrine to be treated with.
http://biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com/about/the-morrell-family/
There were three councils that condemned Pelagianism; the Council of Ephesus in the year 431; the Council of Carthage in the year 418; and the Council of Orange in the year 529. This is because Pelagius was not invited nor present to defend himself but his opponents and adversaries stated his doctrine for him. When Pelagius was able to defend himself, the Council of Diospolis in 415 declared Pelagius orthodox. And Pope Zosimus also declared Pelagius’ orthodoxy in 417. He was always acquitted when present to clarify and defend his views. If these are our authorities to determine orthodoxy, do we accept the ones in favor of Pelagius or the ones against him?
In addition, the Council of Orange and the Council of Carthage were not ecumenical councils. They did not consist of Bishops from the entire church, which mean that the rulings of the Councils were not universally affirmed by the Eastern and Western churches.
If heresy is heresy because a council says so, or because of majority vote, Calvinism must be more heretical than Pelagianism was because there were more councils that condemned Calvinism than condemned Pelagianism. The Calvinist doctrines of predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace were condemned throughout history. Lucidus was condemned by the Council of Oral in 473, Council of Arles in 475, and Council of Orange in 529. And Gottschalk (Gotteschalcus) was condemned by the Council at Mentz in 848 and the Council of Chiersey (Quiercy) in 849. And what do Calvinists think of the Council of Constance in 1414 for John Huss, or the Council of Worms in 1521 for Martin Luther, or the Council of Trent in 1561 for the Protestants? Are these Councils not the voice of Orthodoxy as Ephesus and Carthage supposedly were?
In fact, the Council of Orange that condemned Pelagianism also condemned the doctrines of Calvinism. Specifically, the doctrine of limited atonement and double predestination was condemned by the Council of Orange. If the council is authoritative in the former case, it must be equally authoritative in the latter as well. But if it was mistaken in the latter case, maybe it was mistaken in the former as well.
On the other hand, the Synod of Philadelphia declared Albert Barnes as orthodox in 1829, after he presented his case for rejecting limited atonement, natural inability, and the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt to all his posterity. And Lyman Beecher was accused of heresy for his new school theology in 1835 but was acquitted by the Synod of Cincinatti. Though “New England Theology” or “New School Theology” was accused of being “Pelagian” by “Old School Calvinists,” it was nevertheless declared orthodox by Christian Synods.
And just so that nobody feels left out, the Synod of Dort condemned the doctrines of Arminianism in 1618-1619. Certainly the Arminian camp should not, therefore, give credibility to councils which determine orthodoxy by popular vote.
But to determine if Pelagius really was a heretic, we should go to his actual words to see what he taught. It is a common error for Calvinists to quote from Pelagius’ opponents and accusers to express what Pelagius taught, rather than to quote from Pelagius himself. Certainly, Calvinists would not like it if people quoted from the opponents of Reformed Theology to state what Calvinism teaches. We should give Pelagius the same honesty and fairness that we would want our doctrine to be treated with.
http://biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com/about/the-morrell-family/
Any condemnation directed to Primitive Baptists? :laugh:
Vince Lombardi once stood in front of an NFL team, I think it was the Washington Redskins and told thim they would be going back to the fundamentals, he held up a football & said "Gentlemen, this is a football." :applause:
How bout we start with a large dose of humility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmVxRl5bc4Y
How bout we start with a large dose of humility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmVxRl5bc4Y
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
None intended. I just thought it was a good article. Sorry if any part of it "came off" that way.
It was because Pelagius was being deceptive and hid his heresies well.
The deceit of Pelagius is similar to that of Arminius centuries later. Shortly after May 1 of 418 Pope Zosimus wised-up with help from the African bishops. Zosimus issued his Tractoria which finally condemned Pelagainism and its authors (Wickipedia and other sources).
PreachTony
Active Member
You can say that about anyone you disagree with over theology. There's no discernible proof that Pelagius went out of his way to "[hide] his heresies." Please note, Rippon, that I'm not condemning or condoning Pelagianism. I'm just saying that such a blanket statement is not really backed up by any written account that I can find.
There is a lot of political intrigue involved in Zosimus getting "help" from the African bishops. I remember reading before (and really wish I could remember the source) that Zosimus may even have excommunicated Pelagius in an attempt to curry favor with the African contingent after a cleric in Africa had broken tradition and appealed directly to the Pope instead of appealing up the ladder with the African bishops. This might've been one way in which Zosimus sought to smooth the waters.
I'm not saying it was, I just remember reading it that way.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Well I know not so much, but I disagree with you in the strongest sense particularly regarding alleged deception of Arminius. Perhaps Reformed Theology 101 teaches such .....
convicted1
Guest
FYI, no one truly knows what Pelagius believed...his writings were burned by Augustus of Hippo, no?
convicted1
Guest
All that we know about Pelagius was via Augustus of Hippo's writings, correct? Wasn't his writings burned by same Augustus of Hippo?
And anyone can edit wikipedia, so they hold no merit, imo.
I'm on your side of the debate, Brother Rippon, but none of us know about Pelagius, other than through Augustus of Hippo's writings....
correction....Augustine of Hippo
convicted1
Guest
Augustus was another name of Augustine, iirc...
Lets just call him either Auggie or Gus...:laugh:
convicted1
Guest
Van,
The thing is this...none of us today really knows Pelagius' beliefs. According to historical writings, Augustine...better EW&F??...LOL...according to history, burned up Pelagius' writings. All we know about Pelagius is from Augustine...
The thing is this...none of us today really knows Pelagius' beliefs. According to historical writings, Augustine...better EW&F??...LOL...according to history, burned up Pelagius' writings. All we know about Pelagius is from Augustine...