• 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!

"Pelaganists" who believe in depravity

Status
Not open for further replies.

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
On another thread @Calminian made a point but rightly did not want to hijack that thread. I am starting this to evaluate and discuss his observation.

I define Pelaganism as the teachings of Pelagius that man’s nature was unaffected by the Fall and men today can freely choose between good and evil without God’s intervention.

I define Semi-Pelaganism as the teaching that while men cannot choose good God makes the first move and enables men to choose good and then they freely choose between good and evil.

My understanding is that all men have gone astray and no one seeks God except God works in their lives, changes them, and draws them. Once God starts a work God accomplishes that work (all that God draws to salvation is saved because this is a work of God).

My view is that God chooses or elects men to be a part of a greater group called “the Elect”, or those who are saved. Salvation is accomplished by God and not by man. But I also believe that Adam was not created with a will equal to or greater than God. believe Adam was created with a human nature and as such allowed his own desires to lead him to sin.

@Calminian initially thought (per his posts) that this view was "Semi-Pelaganism".

But then I posted that I believe God created Adam with a human nature and a will that was less than God. So now I am a "full-blown Pelagian".

I would like to discuss definitions here. And I will use myself as an example (don't worry, y'all won't hurt my feelings).

Please explain how my view is "full blown Pelaganism" and provide definitions.

I wonder because it seems that Pelaganism and semi-Pelaganism is used most often dishonestly as an insult than to legitimately address differences in understanding.
I don't say this lightly, and I know my views are less than unwelcome in this debate but....what if....
We disabused ourselves of the slavery imposed by systematizing Theology and simply stopped worrying about "natures" and the consequences of "the fall" and other unbiblical representations of the simplicity of the text?

Wouldn't it be so much simpler?

"Pelagianism" isn't a "thing".....
That is to say, it only matters to people who are attempting to supply systematic and Philosophical definitions to ideas which Pelagius himself was unconcerned with because the Scriptures themselves were un-concerned with.
"The Fall"..."Spiritual death"...."Natures"....
Those are ideas present in Systematic Theologies....
They are not the obvious witness of the text which did not concern itself with such terms.

I'm not afraid of Systematic Theology. I do understand it, but, it's hindering us because we are concerning ourselves with precisely and exactly, what happened to Adam and his real or potential offspring after the event of the first sin.... And, furthermore....in what way was Adam's "nature" or that of his offspring potentially altered or damaged as a result of that event????

Try as anyone might, none of those questions are spoken of in Scripture, because the text deals with no such thing.
We can go round and round in circles (and we do) unless we realize that the Scriptures aren't concerned with teaching how Adam was materially or physically or emotionally altered by the fact that he sinned.
The text says that he would die.

It meant by that, that he would...die....not "spiritually" die, but just die.
That's why he was removed from access to the tree of LIFE...(remember he put sword-weilding Cherubs at the gates and what-not???)

Ask yourself this question:
When speaking of Adam's "fall" how often do you debate the importance of the sword-weilding Cherubs, and the removal of access to the tree of life, and banishment from the garden and the statement that God now refuses to let man live forever "...lest he partake of the tree of life and live forever"...<----What the Bible concerns itself with...and instead start asking questions about "progeny", "Seth's Image", "Adam's image", "Natures", "Sin Natures" and "non-posse-non-peccarre"?
Systematic Theology is destroying us. It's seeking to answer non-sense questions God's holy word doesn't address, because they are non-questions.

That's why Christ's ressurrection matters (as conquering death).
That's what Paul spoke of:
1Co 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


That's why the "tree of Life" is in the New Jerusalem (heaven whatever) as John saw in the Revelation......
The Bible literally is Book-ended by the tree of life in Genesis and the tree of life in Revelation ch. 22

Death means death, life means life....and systematic Theology is bordering on epic stupidity.
"Nature" isn't a Biblical concern...."Spiritual death" is not biblical terminology (although it's not inappropriate entirely to speak of it).
It's all in the text, and the text doesn't give us room to debate issues like "Pelagianism"....

We invented both the doctrine, and the heresy.

The Bible doesn't speak in such terms.....
Gnostic Western Pagans, newly converted to Christianity do.
And they superimposed a system of Theology on the Biblical text which it does not concern itself with and did not previously exist. And we never seem to come to agreement about it, because the Bible is essentially silent on the entirety of the topic, because it isn't a Biblical topic.
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I don't say this lightly, and I know my views are less than unwelcome in this debate but....what if....
We disabused ourselves of the slavery imposed by systematizing Theology and simply stopped worrying about "natures" and the consequences of "the fall" and other unbiblical representations of the simplicity of the text?

Wouldn't it be so much simpler?

"Pelagianism" isn't a "thing".....
That is to say, it only matters to people who are attempting to supply systematic and Philosophical definitions to ideas which Pelagius himself was unconcerned with because the Scriptures themselves were un-concerned with.
"The Fall"..."Spiritual death"...."Natures"....
Those are ideas present in Systematic Theologies....
They are not the obvious witness of the text which did not concern itself with such terms.

I'm not afraid of Systematic Theology. I do understand it, but, it's hindering us because we are concerning ourselves with precisely and exactly, what happened to Adam and his real or potential offspring after the event of the first sin.... And, furthermore....in what way was Adam's "nature" or that of his offspring potentially altered or damaged as a result of that event????

Try as anyone might, none of those questions are spoken of in Scripture, because the text deals with no such thing.
We can go round and round in circles (and we do) unless we realize that the Scriptures aren't concerned with teaching how Adam was materially or physically or emotionally altered by the fact that he sinned.
The text says that he would die.

It meant by that, that he would...die....not "spiritually" die, but just die.
That's why he was removed from access to the tree of LIFE...(remember he put sword-weilding Cherubs at the gates and what-not???)

Ask yourself this question:
When speaking of Adam's "fall" how often do you debate the importance of the sword-weilding Cherubs, and the removal of access to the tree of life, and banishment from the garden and the statement that God now refuses to let man live forever "...lest he partake of the tree of life and live forever"...<----What the Bible concerns itself with...and instead start asking questions about "progeny", "Seth's Image", "Adam's image", "Natures", "Sin Natures" and "non-posse-non-peccarre"?
Systematic Theology is destroying us. It's seeking to answer non-sense questions God's holly word doesn't address, because they are non-questions.

That's why Christ's ressurrection matters (as conquering death).
That's what Paul spoke of:
1Co 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


That's why the "tree of Life" is in the New Jerusalem (heaven whatever) as John saw in the Revelation......

Death means death, life means life....and systematic Theology is bordering on epic stupidity.
"Nature" isn't a Biblical concern...."Spiritual death" is not biblical terminology (although it's not inappropriate entirely to speak of it).
It's all in the text, and the text doesn't give us room to debate issues like "Pelagianism"....

We invented both the doctrine, and the heresy.

The Bible doesn't speak in such terms.....
Gnostic Western Pagans, newly converted to Christianity do.
And they superimposed a system of Theology on the Biblical text which it does not concern itself with and did not previously exist. And we never seem to come to agreement about it, because the Bible is essentially silent on the entirety of the topic, because it isn't a Biblical topic.
Personally I believe that we should take Scripture as it comes.

If the Bible says that God was going to do xyz but changed His mind and did not do xyz then I do not see a need to question His thinking. If the Bible says men make their plans then I can accept that. I can also accept if the Bible says God determines the outcome.

Many of the things asked are humanistic questions we only ask because we desire more knowledge than is given.

I believe that God reveals Himself to man not to increase our knowledge but to bring us into a spiritual relationship with Him and towards spiritual maturity.
 

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Personally I believe that we should take Scripture as it comes.
True, and the Scriptures do not speak of a "fall" or "natures".
If the Bible says that God was going to do xyz but changed His mind and did not do xyz then I do not see a need to question His thinking
Agreed.
If the Bible says men make their plans then I can accept that. I can also accept if the Bible says God determines the outcome.
I don't think they are contradictory statements, (there are models which can help us explain how those are both true) but, yes, they are both true.
Many of the things asked are humanistic questions we only ask because we desire more knowledge than is given.

I believe that God reveals Himself to man not to increase our knowledge but to bring us into a spiritual relationship with Him and towards spiritual maturity.
Yes....
And "Pelagianism" isn't a thing....at least biblically. And poor Morgan himself was quite unaware of it.
It never was, it never will be.
It's non-sense. The Bible doesn't address the conversation in any sense like we debate it, or Augustine debated it. Western Pagans invented the question to begin with and then debated how the Bible answered a question it never addressed.
As I said, we invented both the doctrine itself and the heresy.
That's why the whole thing exists.
It's stupid.
 

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't read too much into it. It's an old handle I picked long ago. Probably wouldn't pick it again, but too late. I'm stuck with it.

What I'd recommend for you is a thorough study of Genesis. Immerse yourself in it. It is the most attacked book of our time, with compromised interpretations galore in the wake of evolutionary deep time thinking. Currently, there are only about 20 seminaries nationwide that hold to a literal six day recent creation interpretation. Compromise on this book has lead the Church into error.

This error you espouse of Adam being created to sin (for God's glory) is no different, IMHO. It's leading to error, and totally unnecessary. It's not essential to Calvinism. I can say with certainty, Calvin didn't believe it.
If God did not create Adam to sin, who did?
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
People see what you say about me on a personal level and in this case you are lying.

The beating your wife question is a common example of questions with premises. It's used often to demonstrate this fallacy.

Good grief.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
good points, why would we need the tree of Life though if in eternal state?
Thai is an excellent question. The answer to that question is the answer why do the resurrected need healing? ". . . the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. . . ." -- Revelation 22:2. Jesus was resurrected with the nail prints, the beheaded are resurrected beheaded.
 
Last edited:

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
good points, why would we need the tree of Life though if in eternal state?

What we know for certain is that Adam was never commanded to eat so he could stay alive. The only criterion for that was abstaining from the Tree of Knowledge.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Huh? You just quoted a verse that affirms no death until Adam sinned.
No. What it affirms is sin became a cause of death. And sin made death the enemy. The tree of life was proved before the fall to prevent death! And was not forbidden until after the fall, Genesis 3:22-24.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
People see what you say about me on a personal level.

Dave, I assure you, that wasn't the point of the comment. There is a fallacy of embedding a premise into a question. You asked, "If God did not create Adam to sin, who did?" The question includes the premise that Adam was created to sin.

When these kinds of questions are asked, the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question is often is offered as an example of why it's a fallacy. It's extremely common. I assure you, I was not speaking personally.
 

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
Dave, I assure you, that wasn't the point of the comment. There is a fallacy of embedding a premise into a question. You asked, "If God did not create Adam to sin, who did?" The question includes the premise that Adam was created to sin.

When these kinds of questions are asked, the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question is often is offered as an example of why it's a fallacy. It's extremely common. I assure you, I was not speaking personally.
Some time years from now someone might say "I heard from a reliable source he was a wife-beater". Because of your character assassination attempt launched in this thread. If you can't prove your point with scripture, leave it at that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top