Pelagianism

[JesusFan]

Have you, or have you not, added to the gospel with your CALVINIST MANTRA "justification by faith alone"? For the umpteenth time, produce one, just one teeny tiny itsy bitsy passage from scripture that supports your CALVINIST TEACHING of "justification by faith alone".

What can we do to add to the finished work of Lord Jesus, was salvation accomplished in full or not then?

 

[JesusFan]

Please answer my question, "Have you, or have you not, added to the gospel with your CALVINIST MANTRA "justification by faith alone"?"

You mean pauline Justification is false?

 

[JesusFan]

This false claim is posted, but without any understanding of the doctrine. It is just a name falselogy advocates use to hide false doctrine by shifting the subject.

Semi Pel been the de facto view of the Sotierology of the bible since Billy Graham era in America Christianity!

 

[Silverhair]

Austin you claim to be the scripture purist so why do you add your own view when your commenting on a text? You claim that man has to be given faith so I checked for that in Romans 3. This is what I found.
through faith vs 22, through faith vs 25, justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. vs 26, by the law of faith. vs 27, justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law vs 28, justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith vs 30, through faith vs 31.
Well I figured that you must have some justification for that claim so I did a search for "faith + gift, or "faith + given" in the NT and did not see where faith has to be given to someone. So it would seem that you are bring your view into the text.
So it would seem you should have just written. In Romans 3 Paul lays out the fact that both Jew and Gentile are only justified before God because of the faith they have in Christ Jesus alone. And have left out (been given).

 

[AustinC]

Austin you claim to be the scripture purist so why do you add your own view when your commenting on a text? You claim that man has to be given faith so I checked for that in Romans 3. This is what I found.
through faith vs 22, through faith vs 25, justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. vs 26, by the law of faith. vs 27, justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law vs 28, justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith vs 30, through faith vs 31.
Well I figured that you must have some justification for that claim so I did a search for "faith + gift, or "faith + given" in the NT and did not see where faith has to be given to someone. So it would seem that you are bring your view into the text.
So it would seem you should have just written. In Romans 3 Paul lays out the fact that both Jew and Gentile are only justified before God because of the faith they have in Christ Jesus alone. And have left out (been given).

Where did that faith come from, Silverhair, when the text says "through faith?"

 

[Silverhair]

Where did that faith come from, Silverhair, when the text says "through faith?"

Through hearing and trusting the gospel message. You know like the bible says.
Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

 

[AustinC]

Through hearing and trusting the gospel message. You know like the bible says.
Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Well the Bible says that God quickens, the person hears Jesus speak, and save, then they trust. So this verse certainly shows us that it is from God alone and not of yourself.

I am always surprised that you cannot see faith being from God, but instead argue that it comes from your own self.

 

[Silverhair]

Well the Bible says that God quickens, the person hears Jesus speak, and save, then they trust. So this verse certainly shows us that it is from God alone and not of yourself.

I am always surprised that you cannot see faith being from God, but instead argue that it comes from your own self.

I am always surprised that you fail to actually read and understand the text. You twist scripture to fit your theology rather that just trust what the bible says. The fact you have to add to the clear text just shows you do not have a leg to stand on. How complicated can it be HEAR, BELIEVE, SAVED. Even you should be able to understand that.

 

[kyredneck]

Kyred, I would quote the same verses you quoted and I would state exactly what I stated to you. The entire first 11 chapters of Romans is one big argument by Paul for justification by faith alone.

NO! IT"S NOT! There's absolutely ZERO content in Paul's writing espousing 'justification by faith alone'. Programmed robots like you try to force it, but it ain't there. You're unable to produce one, just one teeny tiny itsy bitsy passage from scripture that supports your CALVINIST TEACHING of "justification by faith alone", and then you've the gall to try make it something wrong for me to "quote the Bible".

Man, you're a trip. I know you're a legend and a sage in your own mind with your preachy sanctimonious lectures void of scripture, but a Biblicist you are not.

You reject that position, which all Reformed persons believe.

Is that why you hold to it, because everybody else does? You confirm to be the conformist that you are. Has to be it, because there's certainly ZERO scripture to support it. And you're wrong, not 'all Reformed' folks hold to 'justification by faith alone'.

That is your prerogative.

Yep, my prerogative, I exercise my Right to Private Judgement as espoused by the Calvinist, Charles Hodge:

"The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject...."

What you need to be honest about is that you and the RCC hold a similar view of justification by faith plus works.

I challenge you to provide proof, citations, of Roman Catholic teaching in agreement with me on post #36, or any myriad of other posts of mine.

Instead of just blithering your smears, put up or shut up.

 

[kyredneck]

@AustinC

I challenge you to provide proof, citations, of Roman Catholic teaching in agreement with me on post #36, or any myriad of other posts of mine.

Instead of just blithering your smears, put up or shut up.

 

[Alan Gross]

It was the position of Pelagius that Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. That is to say, as a result of Adam’s transgression there was no change wrought in the constituent nature of the human race. Man was born in a state of righteousness, and as one created in the image of God, he was created immutably so. Even though it was possible for him to sin, it was not possible for him to lose his basic human nature, which was capable always and everywhere to be obedient. Pelagius went on to say that it is, even after the sin of Adam, possible for every human being to live a life of perfect righteousness and that, indeed, some have achieved such status.
The Pelagian Controversy by R.C. Sproul

Along with Pelagius, Evangelicals[2] today believe that salvation is by character.[3] They believe that men, by faith, before God actually affects a change in their nature, must exercise their will towards that which is good and believe the promises of God without coercion because they are able to do so.
The Pelagian Captivity of the Church – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

Original Sin & the Death of Infants | Tim Challies

It looks to me like AustinC defines Pelagian teachings based on the assumption that The Fall of man was not imputed to his posterity.

That makes Pelagian thought Perfectly opposite of Calvinism, in a more pointed, specific way than Arminian teaching, which also is human- exalting and denies the sin of Adam.

This makes AustinC's labelling perfectly accurate.

If it is insulting, it is Insulting to God to deny the sin of Adam.

No one who a never- Calvanist on the BB has any trouble attempting to make that lable into as insulting a persecution as they have power to do.

The issue regarding Salvation IS The Adamic Nature.

Either human beings have some ability to assist God in the Performance of their "Salvation", or they do not.

It looks to me that AustinC is perfectly accurate in pointing out that; To the Degree an individual has a testimony that Man Helps God, then that is the Degree to which they are Palagian.

That signals to that person the Degree to which They Need to Repent.

Otherwise they are teaching false doctrine which leads hellbound souls into hell.

What's wrong with pointing that out?

Being Sound in The Faith Once Delivered to The Saints, Contending for the Faith, and being A GIANT in The Faith are simply a man of God's job.

 

[AustinC]

@AustinC

I challenge you to provide proof, citations, of Roman Catholic teaching in agreement with me on post #36, or any myriad of other posts of mine.

Instead of just blithering your smears, put up or shut up.

Does the RCC teach justification by faith plus works?

Do you teach justification by faith plus works?

We can talk after you answer these two questions.

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon 9)

 

[JesusFan]

It was the position of Pelagius that Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. That is to say, as a result of Adam’s transgression there was no change wrought in the constituent nature of the human race. Man was born in a state of righteousness, and as one created in the image of God, he was created immutably so. Even though it was possible for him to sin, it was not possible for him to lose his basic human nature, which was capable always and everywhere to be obedient. Pelagius went on to say that it is, even after the sin of Adam, possible for every human being to live a life of perfect righteousness and that, indeed, some have achieved such status.
The Pelagian Controversy by R.C. Sproul

Along with Pelagius, Evangelicals[2] today believe that salvation is by character.[3] They believe that men, by faith, before God actually affects a change in their nature, must exercise their will towards that which is good and believe the promises of God without coercion because they are able to do so.
The Pelagian Captivity of the Church – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

Original Sin & the Death of Infants | Tim Challies

Many today would affirm that we were marred and harmed in the fall, bust were not made totally depraved, as still retain enough free will to save ourselves!

 

[JesusFan]

Saying somebody believes Pelagianism should be. But also because lying is against the rules.

Some want to paint those who disagree with them in the worst light, even if it is untrue, just to have points of greater disagreement. That is how some use "Pelaganism", "leftist", "liberal", etc. It is just to create emotion because they cannot defend their own views adequately.

maybe due to the truth that Pelagianism has been defined as being heresy by the historical Church, as have other heresy such as Modualism and Oneness?

 

[JesusFan]

It was the position of Pelagius that Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. That is to say, as a result of Adam’s transgression there was no change wrought in the constituent nature of the human race. Man was born in a state of righteousness, and as one created in the image of God, he was created immutably so. Even though it was possible for him to sin, it was not possible for him to lose his basic human nature, which was capable always and everywhere to be obedient. Pelagius went on to say that it is, even after the sin of Adam, possible for every human being to live a life of perfect righteousness and that, indeed, some have achieved such status.
The Pelagian Controversy by R.C. Sproul

Along with Pelagius, Evangelicals[2] today believe that salvation is by character.[3] They believe that men, by faith, before God actually affects a change in their nature, must exercise their will towards that which is good and believe the promises of God without coercion because they are able to do so.
The Pelagian Captivity of the Church – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

Original Sin & the Death of Infants | Tim Challies

Some would seem to also affirm that mankind is basically born with a blank slate, and that are still innocent until we actively choose to sin! Not born with a sin nature, but change to one later on

 

[JesusFan]

It's more than that.

Scripture presents Adam as the head of man. It is not that Adam made everybody sin, but that through Adam sin entered the world, and through sin, death. And death spread to all men for all have sinned. Granted, "men" here is people groups...i.e., Jew and Gentile. But the fact is all are men.

In other words, were you in the Garden instead of Adam you would have done the same.

But Pelagius was, of course wrong. That is not the point here.

The point is that you, and a few others, use the word "Pelagianism" not to reflect the beliefs of the heresy but as an insult to hurl at anybody who dares question Calvinism.

You would do better to defend your position rather than misrepresent the views of others.

We do not call them holding to heresy who just deny Calvinism, but to actually embrace Pelaguise theology is heresy!

 

[JesusFan]

Since it has come up....
Is not calling someone a heretic a violation of board rules? By defacto, accusing one of doctrinal heresy labels them as a heretic.
Why is accusing a person of believeing Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism not a violation of board rules?

Doctrines that have been defined historically as being heresy need to be called out and addressed!

 

[JesusFan]

I use it to reflect the idea that a human being is born without sin.

Indeed, as affirming that we are not born with sin natures, which is a contradiction of the scriptures

 

[JesusFan]

@AustinC

I challenge you to provide proof, citations, of Roman Catholic teaching in agreement with me on post #36, or any myriad of other posts of mine.

Instead of just blithering your smears, put up or shut up.

he is just saying that your understanding of what salvation is as per James agrees with RC, but not Baptists!

 

[JonC]

We do not call them holding to heresy who just deny Calvinism, but to actually embrace Pelaguise theology is heresy!

This is a false statement.

I believe that the unborn are sinners who have not committed sinful acts. For this I was accused of Pelagianism.

I have seen others deny the RCC view of original sin. For that they were accused of Pelagianism.

Those who deny Calvanism in favor of free-will theology have been accused of Pelagianism.

Those who hold to corporate election have been accused of Pelagianism.

Most of the time, if not all of the time, these false accusations have been posted by Calvinists.

In fact, as far as has been posted on the BB there are no members who affirm Pelagianism or even Semi-Pelagianism.