Saved at birth? Part 2

Yes, we see that the King was free to ignore God.
No one disputes that man is free to be rebellious to God.
That's what sinners do.
What you have to show is how man is free to want and desire God apart from the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit.

Yet God fully knows the outcome of each man's destiny.
So He pleads with men to turn to Him all the while knowing the exact ones who won't.
Is God confused?
Disingenuous with His offer?
Hoping against hope He can change what He already knows to be a certainty?

 

This is the most open display of Pelagianism I have seen on this board

 

...and this is the most open display of ignorance of what Pelagianism actually is on this board.

 

If no one is good and no one seeks God, then who is it that chooses God?

Even the disciples didn't choose Him.

 

You are mixing "choosings", Amy.

If no one seeks God...is God fibbing by telling man to seek Him?

 

Is God fibbing when He says:


Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Rom 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
Rom 3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

 

“Omne bonum ac malum, quo vel laudabiles vel vituperabiles sumus, non nobiscum oritur, sed agitur a nobis: capaces enim utriusque rei, non pleni nascimur, et ut sine virtute, ita et sine vitio procreamur: atque ante actionem propriæ voluntatis, id solum in homine est, quod Deus condidit.”157157Pelagius, Apud Augustinum de Peccato Originali, 14; Works, edit. Benedictines, vol. x. p. 573, a. b. Again, “Volens namque Deus rationabilem creaturam voluntarii boni munere et liberi arbitrii potestate donare, utriusque partis possibilitatem homini inserendo proprium ejus fecit, esse quod velit; ut boni ac mali capax, natural iter utrumque posset, et ad alterumque voluntatem deflecteret.”

 

The radical principle of the Pelagian theory is, that ability limits obligation. “If I ought, I can,” is the aphorism on which the whole system rests. Augustine's celebrated prayer, “Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis,” was pronounced by Pelagius an absurdity, because it assumed that God can demand more than man render, and what man must receive as a gift.

 

another one that says just what you said..

“Iterum quærendum est, peccatum voluntatis an necessitatis est? Si necessitatis est, peccatum non est; si voluntatis, vitari potest. Iterum quærendum est, utrumne debeat homo sine peccato esse? Procul dubio debet. Si debet potest; si non potest, ergo non debet. Et si non debet homo esse sine peccato, debet ergo cum peccato esse, et jam peccatum non erit, si illud deberi constiterit.

Like I said...pure pelagianism

 

We're all "impressed" but could you please post in English? I had 3 years of Latin in high school but its been a while (40 years).

 

This has been discussed here before, but the key is "as it is written". Who was David talking about in the Psalms (14, 53)? Those who opposed God...not those who weren't granted that right to seek him. Paul, being a Jew, knew the OT quite well.

If you equate this to all mankind, then all mankind is seeking to shed blood, too. I've never had the urge to shed anybody's blood...you?

 

For those who like english, let's see what pelagianism is (summarized from wikipedia)

Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humanity does not require God's grace for salvation (beyond the creation of will),[1] Jesus' execution is therefore devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christian theology.

Nothing I said even remotely resembles this, except the rejection of augustinian original sin. Just because one does not agree with original sin does not equate to one being pelagian any more than one beliving in the Trinity should be labeled a catholic.

 

I didn't quote the psalms. I quoted Paul who quoted psalms. What is the context in which Paul is speaking?

 

How do you become elect after salvation?

Chapter and verse please.

 

Agreed. But we are the elect after salvation has occured not before. This is why Paul said "us"

Rippon : Ephesians 1:4 : for He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world , to be holy and blameless in His sight .

2 Thessalonians 2:13 : But we must always thank God for you , brothers loved by the Lord , because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through the belief in the truth .

2 Timothy 1:9 : who has saved us and called us with a holy calling , not according to our works , but according to His own purpose and grace , which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began .

All of my Scripture references are from the HCSB .

Summary from the Bible : We are elect before the foundation of the world . We do not become elect after salvation .

 

Web.....

The battle cry of Coelestius, Pelagius, and Julian was...."If I ought, I can"

This is why they were kicked out of the church.

The main point on which the whole free will system is found, contradicts the consciousness of men. Every man knows that he is bound to be better than he is, and better than he can make himself on his own. We are bound to love God perfectly, but we know that perfect love is beyond our power. We are told to be free from all sin, and absolutely conformed to the perfect law of God. Yet no man is so foolish or so blinded to his own being to really believe that he either is perfect, or has the power to make himself so.

"If I ought, I can" tells us man is able. The Bible tells us we are not.