Featured Pelagianism

You are right that this is a problem.
We have a situation on this board where we are allowed to accuse one another of heresy, but not of Semi-Pelagianism. But a moderator then opens a thread entitled Semi-Pelagianism and gives a definition of it but gets all stressed when people start discussing it.
The first thing that needs to be done is to ban the words 'heresy' and 'heretic.' Then doctrines can be discussed without all this blame game.
I write as someone who has been accused of heresy for believing in Reformed Baptist Theology. It doesn't matter; I wear it as a badge of honour, but it does show how people who should know better splash the word around and fail to apologize.

 

@Van doesn't have to reply to me, much less 'acquiesce' (?). It is you who is making a big deal out of it and prolonging the agony.

 

Yes, I have said with regard to 1 Corinthians 2:14 that unregenerate individuals can hear, understand and respond affirmatively to Spiritual Milk, the fundamentals of the Gospel, but not Spiritual Solid Food. This view is no where found in Semi-Pelagianism and I expect you know it.

Since salvation depends 100% on God and 0% on man, it is slander to claim my view is Semi-Pelaganism. And it is just as much a slander to claim the Holy Spirit's work is not a required prerequisite for any fallen individual to seek God or trust in Christ.

Likewise, post #139 misrepresents me yet again.

 

I do too.

 

So, it seems to be your idea that accusing someone of holding a heretical doctrine is fine, so long as you leave the word "heresy" out of the discussion?

 

Paul and Isaiah plainly stated that none seek God on their own , were they both wrong?
van states that unsaved persons can receive the spiritual truths of the bible, yet Paul disagrees with him, do you disagree with Paul then here?

 

How many seek after God apart form the working of the Holy Spirit according to isaiah and Paul?

 

The same reasoning should be applied when one states that holding to the accepted reformed and majority Baptist views regarding the Psa view of Calvary, and yet that view gets ridiculed as being "not biblical, not true, making God out to be pagan etc!"

 

Do they understand and receive by faith the truth of the bible on their own , by exercising inherit faith and their free will then?

 

Van just posted that the lost person can hear and receive spiritual milk on their own, but Paul stated even milk is for babes in Christ, not any lost!

 

Or in stating that one theology must be non biblical and wrong period, such as some have stated Psa view is, but most one should say is that I think bible affirms or rejects that, but not that it means is categorically wrong!

 

The problem is though van seems to shift around his positions at times!