"Pelaganists" who believe in depravity

[1689Dave]

Okay there you have it. Before and after the fall, from your own lips, Adam had the same propensity. That's my point. Only you and Pelagians believe this. They believe Adam was free before and after the fall, you believe he was bound to sin before and after the fall. Both of these views are wrong.

Paul says from the same lump God makes vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath.

 

[Calminian]

Paul says from the same lump God makes vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath.

I agree. This doesn't help you. You're still Pelagian lite.

 

[1689Dave]

I agree. This doesn't help you. You're still Pelagian lite.

Pelagianism = free will.

 

[Calminian]

Pelagianism = free will.

It was one of this beliefs, yes. He also shares a belief with you, that Adam was basically the same before and after the fall.

 

[Van]

Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism = Calvinist Sophistry.
Total Spiritual Inability = Calvinist fallacy
Limited Autonomous Will = Biblical Doctrine

 

[Calminian]

Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism = Calvinist Sophistry.
Total Spiritual Inability = Calvinist fallacy
Limited Autonomous Will = Biblical Doctrine

Total depravity prior to God's intervention is Biblical doctrine.

John 9:39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”​

Calvinists and Arminians believe this.

 

[Van]

Total depravity prior to God's intervention is Biblical doctrine.

John 9:39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”​

Calvinists and Arminians believe this.

Yes, the false doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability is believed by those who buy into Calvinism and Arminianism.

What is Pelagianism? Also see at the bottom of the above link, a link to What is Semi-Pelagiaism.

Basically Calvinists define these terms so that if you do not accept "Total Spiritual Inability" you believe as historical heretics believed. The ploy is sophistry.

What does scripture teach?

First, as a consequence of Adam's sin, all mankind is made "sinners." Second, just as Adam was "corrupted" when his eyes were opened (to the knowledge of good and evil) all mankind was also "corrupted." Now just what are the results of being "corrupted" and "made sinners" is not specifically described in scripture, and so Calvinists have supplied those results, i.e. Total Spiritual Inability and needing to be "enabled" by Irresistible Grace which compels the individual to seek God and believe in the gospel - the so-called "gift of faith."

If "Total Spiritual Inability" were true, then God would not have needed to harden the hearts of unbelieving Jews, Romans 11:7. The fact that God did proves conclusively that the "T" of the TULIP is false doctrine.

Then we have Jesus teaching in parables to preclude people from understanding, believing and being saved. Matthew 13:10-15.

And we have examples of the lost seeking God, such as Matthew 23:13, but being blocked by false teaching.

Ask yourself if Abraham was enabled by irresistible grace and given his faith in God, why did God need to credit that faith as righteousness? Answer God would not need to credit it for Abraham's sake, nor (Romans 4:23-24) for our sake.

But what about "no one seeks after God?" Romans 310-12 Here contextually Paul is making the argument that all have fallen short of the glory of God, we all have sinned. When we are sinning, we are not seeking God, so since scripture says no seeks God (all the time or when sinning) this passage supports the idea we all are under sin. Calvinists use the same text to claim no one seeks God (at any time) to support their false doctrine of total spiritual inability.

But what about Romans 8:6-7:
For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,

Here Calvinist make the unsupported claim, unless they have been regenerated, the Fallen are unable to set their minds on any Spiritual things. But again this is reading a self serving limitation into the text. Again I point to Matthew 23:13 which has unsaved people seeking God (trying to enter the kingdom) thus able to set their minds at least a little of the time on spiritual things.

Well what did the Fall accomplish? The separation from God (because we are made sinners) results with us being spiritually dead, and yes Calvinists redefine that concept to mean unable to seek God and trust in Christ, but again that is an unsupported claim. Thus we need to be born anew, made alive together with Christ which occurs when God places us into Christ. But why cause our corruption, our predisposition to sin? I think the idea is the same as when God reduced the size of Gideon's army in order to increase the glory given to God because of the victory. When a fallen sinner turns to God and trusts in Christ, from a fallen state, that brings more glory to God.

As far as John 9:39, if we look down to John 9:41 we see that the Pharisees had enough spiritual ability to be guilty of knowingly sinning. So the very passage cited actually teaches limited spiritual ability.

 

[Calminian]

Yes, the false doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability is believed by those who buy into Calvinism and Arminianism.....

Yes, like John, whom I quoted.

Why is it offensive to you that John believed you were once blind? (assuming you're not still blind)

 

[1689Dave]

It was one of this beliefs, yes. He also shares a belief with you, that Adam was basically the same before and after the fall.

I did not say this. Adam died spiritually when he sinned.

 

[Van]

Yes, like John, whom I quoted.

Why is it offensive to you that John believed you were once blind? (assuming you're not still blind)

Notice the Calvinist is questioning my behavior and studiously avoiding the fact that Jesus said the Pharisees were guilty of knowingly sinning, demonstrating some spiritual ability. Why the subject change?

Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism = Calvinist Sophistry.
Total Spiritual Inability = Calvinist fallacy
Limited Autonomous Will = Biblical Doctrine

 

[Calminian]

I did not say this. Adam died spiritually when he sinned.

Right, but the idea becomes meaningless if he was already created with a bent toward sin. It's a distinction without a difference.

If you do believe there was a difference between pre and postlapsarian Adam, explain what it is in practical terms.

 

[Calminian]

Notice the Calvinist is questioning my behavior and studiously avoiding the fact that Jesus said the Pharisees were guilty of knowingly sinning, demonstrating some spiritual ability. Why the subject change?

You know you've stumped Van when starts talking past you.

 

[Yeshua1]

It's been a while since I hashed in this out in depth. But the pelagian position, in essence, denies the fall, positing that Adam really didn't undergo any type of change in his nature. This would seem to be contradicted by the knowledge Adam immediately received after partaking—knowing he was naked. This represented an innate knowledge he did not have before.

Adam had moral awareness prior to his fall, and the intelligence to understand God's command and warning. But he did not have the knowledge innately, as he did after partaking. This is akin to the innate knowledge Paul discussed in Romans 2, which convicts and excuses us. Prior to his fall, all moral knowledge was given to him via direct revelation.

Here is how I understand the 4 basic positions:

Pelagianism - No change in nature after the fall. Resisting and succumbing to sin are the same before and after parting of the TOK. (this is obviously incorrect)

Semipelagianism - There was a change in Adam and his descendants after the fall, but not to the point of total inability. Faith and salvation are still possible but with great difficulty. God provides grace that we can take advantage of, and successfully believe, without further transformation of our nature.

Arminianism - There was a change in Adam and his descendants after the fall that renders man completely unable to seek God and trust the Gospel. A special transforming grace is required—prevenient grace as Wesley called it—for man to become enabled to a state where he can believe. Man can, however, reject the Gospel in this state, by not embracing the Gospel he's been enlightened about. All men, at some point in their lives, are given this grace, but only those responding in faith will be saved.

Calvinism - There was a change in Adam and his descendants after the fall that renders man completely unable to seek God and trust the Gospel. An effectual transforming grace is therefore required (regeneration), causing man to believe and be saved. This grace cannot be resisted, and is only given to the elect.​

I'm sure the above can be tweaked and clarified. I do see Pelagianism as extremely problematic. I see Semipelagianism as problematic, but acceptable, not undermining the Christian faith to the point of heresy. I myself will fall between Arminianism and Calvinism, being I hold to eternal security (perseverance of the saints).

First group would deny original Sin, as we have not been affected by the fall, and still have moral free will intact to accept Jesus as Lord ourselves!

 

[Yeshua1]

Right, but the idea becomes meaningless if he was already created with a bent toward sin. It's a distinction without a difference.

If you do believe there was a difference between pre and postlapsarian Adam, explain what it is in practical terms.

pre fall Adam had a sinless nature as Jesus had, while post adam had now sin nature!

 

[Calminian]

pre fall Adam had a sinless nature.....

That's seems clear from the immediate context of his creation.

Gen. 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
​

 

[Van]

You know you've stumped Van when starts talking past you.

Once again the old change the subject to the opponents behavior ploy.

Notice the Calvinist is studiously avoiding the fact that Jesus said the Pharisees of John 9:39 were guilty of knowingly sinning, demonstrating some spiritual ability. Why the subject change?

Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism = Calvinist Sophistry.
Total Spiritual Inability = Calvinist fallacy
Limited Autonomous Will = Biblical Doctrine

 

[Calminian]

Once again the old change the subject to the opponents behavior ploy.

Notice the Calvinist is studiously avoiding the fact that Jesus said the Pharisees of John 9:39 were guilty of knowingly sinning, demonstrating some spiritual ability. Why the subject change? ...

And a mic drop to boot. Some things never change.

 

[Van]

And a mic drop to boot. Some things never change.

Yet another change the subject post, yet another effort to make my behavior the subject, but...

Notice the Calvinist is studiously avoiding the fact that Jesus said the Pharisees of John 9:39 were guilty of knowingly sinning, demonstrating some spiritual ability. Why the subject change?

Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism = Calvinist Sophistry.
Total Spiritual Inability = Calvinist fallacy
Limited Autonomous Will = Biblical Doctrine

 

[1689Dave]

Right, but the idea becomes meaningless if he was already created with a bent toward sin. It's a distinction without a difference.

If you do believe there was a difference between pre and postlapsarian Adam, explain what it is in practical terms.

God created Adam without the ability to sin. Because sin is the violation of God's law which came later. Adam's nature was such, I believe it was because he was in God's sovereign image, that sin became inevitable when God gave him a law to break. It is the nature of sovereignty to give the law, not obey it to it.

 

[37818]

I would say the view you describe above, is actually a works based security, which is problematic. We all sin and John says. If we can sin our way out of salvation, we're in trouble.

People are lost because the wages of sin is death. And it is a work of sin by which one's name is removed from God's book. Now do you really think there is a work one does to keep one's name in the book?
1 John 5:4, Romans 4:4-5.