The LILAC of Arminian and Non-Cal Theology

[quantumfaith]

I have also posted these 5 articles on several occaisons, but some of the folks who are arguing in threads would just as much disavow the 5 articles as they would the TULIP. In fact, I have so far not actually run into ANYONE here on the board who actually holds to the 5 articles as presented above. If they are here, I would like them to stand in agreement, but I've not seen them in multiple debates on these issues.

Some hold to some points, but they modify some as well, even our resident Arminian, Skandelon. Perhaps you hold them, I'm not sure for it is rare that you make a POSITIVE statement about your own dotrinal structure; more often you resort to thumbs up for someone else's statements.

GL, you intellectually astute enough to also know the same principle applies to the adherents of reformed theology and the Tulip (and all nuances there).

Bottom line, each person (us) have an innate character that tells us ...."I am correct on this (insert issue)"

 

[Skandelon]

I posted just a couple of comments from one thread. I could fill posts to past the word count cut-off if I started gathering posts from other threads where like -- and worse, including a defense of Pelagianism -- comments occur.

I did not attribute the posts, though of course, I could. Board rules stipulate that I could and most likely would be censured for naming names, but I would sure like to.

There is no rule against giving credit for a quote. You do it every time you push the quote button and respond to my words. That is all I asked you to do, just give credit to the one making the quote and/or link to the thread where it was made... no big deal

So, my word back to you is to stop pretending that all "non-cals" are above board and biblical in their doctrines.

What?!? I've taken many non-Cals to task over differing views. Just ask Van or Allen, as just two examples. We've had numerous discussions over differing views.

I only suggested that the tendency was to label us all as Pelagian, as it has been done to me countless times. And then you claim others in another thread DO defend Pelagian views but you refuse to simply link the quote you are referring to. I have NO idea what other non-Cals may or may not be arguing on other threads. But, I DO know the tendency of Cals to label me and dismiss me as a Pelagian as I have been the victim of that many times. I simply was pointing out the latter...

There are some Cals who argue all Arminian theology is really Pelagian, without any apology or qualification. That is what I'm used to hearing and what I was arguing against. If there a some non-Cals who deny the doctrine of Original Sin then I stand with you against them on that point, but how can I if you refuse to link to their quotes?

 

[quantumfaith]

I COULD stand in agreement if I were able to ask the authors to define more clearly what is meant by 'assisting grace.' As I've explained in debates before, I consider the gospel itself to be a divine, supernatural, powerful, gracious work of the Holy Spirit that 'assists' or 'enables' man to hear, see, understand and turn. In other words, the gospel is a means of 'assisting grace' that can be resisted and thus would fit the criteria of what is explained in the articles above, but I'm not sure if that was the author's intent. I would have to ask them and they are dead.

That gospel, God's gracious means to enable salvation, was not even sent until the Holy Spirit was sent at Pentecost and Christ ascended into heaven. Before then, Christ was revealing himself to a select few from Israel who were to be the foundation for the church, the rest were being blinded temporarily.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

At present my position is one along the lines of "prevenient grace". Now as to the when/how of this grace....I do not know. I see nothing in the fall and curse that God pronounced that indicates the definition and requisites that my calvinist brothers assign to total inability.

 

[Skandelon]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

At present my position is one along the lines of "prevenient grace". Now as to the when/how of this grace....I do not know. I see nothing in the fall and curse that God pronounced that indicates the definition and requisites that my calvinist brothers assign to total inability.

Right. Men's inability is not due to some kind of inborn restraint to hear and respond to the gospel appeal, otherwise why even make the appeal to begin with? Just regenerate and inform, no reason to 'make an appeal.'

In our view, the appeal itself is gracious and powerful. It informs the lost of their truth and empowers a response. In the Calvinistic view it really isn't even an appeal and it doesn't really have any power. It's more of a way to inform those regenerated of their status...i.e. "those who have been born again will believe it..."

So, you can either think of the gospel as God's gracious and powerful means to enable a faith response by which they are born again, OR as God's means to inform his elect of their powerful and gracious rebirth. I believe the bible supports the former rather than the latter.

 

[DaChaser1]

I COULD stand in agreement if I were able to ask the authors to define more clearly what is meant by 'assisting grace.' As I've explained in debates before, I consider the gospel itself to be a divine, supernatural, powerful, gracious work of the Holy Spirit that 'assists' or 'enables' man to hear, see, understand and turn. In other words, the gospel is a means of 'assisting grace' that can be resisted and thus would fit the criteria of what is explained in the articles above, but I'm not sure if that was the author's intent. I would have to ask them and they are dead.

That gospel, God's gracious means to enable salvation, was not even sent until the Holy Spirit was sent at Pentecost and Christ ascended into heaven. Before then, Christ was revealing himself to a select few from Israel who were to be the foundation for the church, the rest were being blinded temporarily.

The Gospel has the power of God to save the elect that will come to receive Chrsit by faith, but does NOT work independent of the HS, as He MUST enable us to be able to have that power become effective at work in us!

Both God and His word working together to save us!

 

[preacher4truth]

The Gospel has the power of God to save the elect that will come to receive Chrsit by faith, but does NOT work independent of the HS, as He MUST enable us to be able to have that power become effective at work in us!

Both God and His word working together to save us!

Amen!!!!!!!!

2 Timothy 2:8-10

St. Paul gives us a reason in the text different from any of those which I have mentioned. He laboured more than all the apostles; and why? not to civilise the world, not to smooth the face of society, not to facilitate the movements of civil government, not to spread abroad knowledge, not to cultivate the reason, not for any great worldly object, but “for the elect’s sake.” And when St. Paul and St. Barnabas preached at Antioch to the Gentiles, “As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” When St. Paul preached at Athens, “some mocked,” others said, “We will hear thee again,” but “certain men clave unto him.” And when he addressed the Jews at Rome, some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. Such was the view which animated, first Christ Himself, then all His apostles, and St. Paul in particular, to preach to all, in order to succeed with some. - Biblical Illustrator

 

[glfredrick]

GL, you intellectually astute enough to also know the same principle applies to the adherents of reformed theology and the Tulip (and all nuances there).

Bottom line, each person (us) have an innate character that tells us ...."I am correct on this (insert issue)"

Oh, absoultely! I think that you will find, that while I argue often and in an informed way for the Doctrines of Grace, I do not do so blindly nor do I intentionally present the doctrines that others hold in any other light than what they are -- as best I can with what I am given to work with -- which is why I am ALWAYS asking people to publicize their own doctrinal framework.

I wish to portray as accurately as possible what others hold because it does me nor anyone else much good to argue the straw man. The truth will stand without that sort of assistance, though many practice it.

The larger "truth" of this issue is that the people who post on it are ALL OVER THE MAP as far as their cognizance of the doctrines they espouse, often incoherent and incohesive in the way they put together this and that part of any given doctrine that they prefer, and also often ignorant that there even IS another position. I realize that all have not attended high level academia and that some have come under the influence (on any side) of some certain preacher or web site that purports to hold all the answers, and so they go.

I greatly prefer to educate as I debate and because (BECAUSE) I am a disciple of THE TRUTH, who is the Lord Jesus Christ -- I SEEK TRUTH above all. So, notwithstanding the fact that ANY of us can be in error, I DO try to portray as accurately as possible those positions that I debate.

 

[glfredrick]

There is no rule against giving credit for a quote. You do it every time you push the quote button and respond to my words. That is all I asked you to do, just give credit to the one making the quote and/or link to the thread where it was made... no big deal

What?!? I've taken many non-Cals to task over differing views. Just ask Van or Allen, as just two examples. We've had numerous discussions over differing views.

I only suggested that the tendency was to label us all as Pelagian, as it has been done to me countless times. And then you claim others in another thread DO defend Pelagian views but you refuse to simply link the quote you are referring to. I have NO idea what other non-Cals may or may not be arguing on other threads. But, I DO know the tendency of Cals to label me and dismiss me as a Pelagian as I have been the victim of that many times. I simply was pointing out the latter...

There are some Cals who argue all Arminian theology is really Pelagian, without any apology or qualification. That is what I'm used to hearing and what I was arguing against. If there a some non-Cals who deny the doctrine of Original Sin then I stand with you against them on that point, but how can I if you refuse to link to their quotes?

But, I do not... I call Pelagian the ones who profess Pelagian doctrine. I do not see a Pelagian around the back of every tree. There are SOME here who whether knowingly or not DO INDEED profess Pelagian doctrine. With those persons I have pointed out that some point of doctrine is in fact Pelagian, and they argue all the more for it, thinking -- as you accuse me now -- that I am just using the term as a perjorative or as a way to incite some emotion.

Far from it and God forbid... Calling some expressed doctrine Pelagian is serious business. It either IS or it is NOT. If not, I do not call it such. Very plan, very simple.

After all the debates we've been in so far, debates where I have presented TO YOU the 5 Articles of the Remonstrance or some of Wesley's writings and confronted you on your deviance from a stated position (you are an avowed Arminian by your own confession) so you KNOW that I KNOW the difference and the nuance between the positions. You can kindly stop lumping me in with others who may not.

And, finally, I have chosen to not name names because ALL it would accomplish here is a fight. You can use the search feature to find the posts.

Now, ready for some more quotes? There are much more shocking statements that I can bring to the table... Those above were from one thread on one day. We have any number of threads where worse is said.

 

[DaChaser1]

Oh, absoultely! I think that you will find, that while I argue often and in an informed way for the Doctrines of Grace, I do not do so blindly nor do I intentionally present the doctrines that others hold in any other light than what they are -- as best I can with what I am given to work with -- which is why I am ALWAYS asking people to publicize their own doctrinal framework.

I wish to portray as accurately as possible what others hold because it does me nor anyone else much good to argue the straw man. The truth will stand without that sort of assistance, though many practice it.

The larger "truth" of this issue is that the people who post on it are ALL OVER THE MAP as far as their cognizance of the doctrines they espouse, often incoherent and incohesive in the way they put together this and that part of any given doctrine that they prefer, and also often ignorant that there even IS another position. I realize that all have not attended high level academia and that some have come under the influence (on any side) of some certain preacher or web site that purports to hold all the answers, and so they go.

I greatly prefer to educate as I debate and because (BECAUSE) I am a disciple of THE TRUTH, who is the Lord Jesus Christ -- I SEEK TRUTH above all. So, notwithstanding the fact that ANY of us can be in error, I DO try to portray as accurately as possible those positions that I debate.

Just think that sometimes that there are some here on the BB that do NOT adhere to what they claim to follow, as they fail to see where their views would logically end up for them!

Also, think that there IS a double standard in play here for discussing things such as salvation theology, as the non cals/arms seem to have more support and allowance for their views then the cals do!

At least they seem not to get "raked over the coals" for holding those beliefs as much!

 

[glfredrick]

Just think that sometimes that there are some here on the BB that do NOT adhere to what they claim to follow, as they fail to see where their views would logically end up for them!

Also, think that there IS a double standard in play here for discussing things such as salvation theology, as the non cals/arms seem to have more support and allowance for their views then the cals do!

At least they seem not to get "raked over the coals" for holding those beliefs as much!

It is what it is. Either play the game or leave the board.

What I do insist on is that we ACCURATELY REPRESENT the views that folks put forward. I am sick and tired to death of defending stereotypes and straw man arguments. By now all the players around here have heard all this stuff hundreds of times. As Christian brothers and sisters, we may well have differing interpretations, but for GOD'S SAKE at least argue TRUTH IN CONTEXT instead of trying to make one's own position the only possible interpretation by all sorts of allagorical, metaphorical, or otherwise twisting Scripture and doctrine.

 

[preacher4truth]

The bottom line is there are those who hold to the positions of LILAC who are in fact claiming arminian or non-calvinist theologies. As of yet no one on that side wants to readily admit that some within their own camp do in fact adhere to these teachings.

Instead, we get the typical pejorative laden belligerency against the OP instead of admittance that there are those who hold these while detailing how these beliefs are erroneous.

The above should be done without taking it personal, at the same time admitting these teachings are in fact held by others.

Then, possibly, we can enter into a co-belligerency ("Calvinists" and Arm/Non-Calvinists) against these false teachings, instead of attacking those who expose such errors.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Then, possibly, we can enter into a co-belligerency ("Calvinists" and Arm/Non-Calvinists) against these false teachings, instead of attacking those who expose such errors.

Your seriously suggesting that people "On this Board" can publicly admit errors:laugh:.......you cant be serious! ROFL .... Will never happen. Notice, cant even treat each other like loving brethren.

I will say though that the sisters have been cool. You go ladies!!:love2:

 

[quantumfaith]

But, I do not... I call Pelagian the ones who profess Pelagian doctrine. I do not see a Pelagian around the back of every tree. There are SOME here who whether knowingly or not DO INDEED profess Pelagian doctrine. With those persons I have pointed out that some point of doctrine is in fact Pelagian, and they argue all the more for it, thinking -- as you accuse me now -- that I am just using the term as a perjorative or as a way to incite some emotion.

Far from it and God forbid... Calling some expressed doctrine Pelagian is serious business. It either IS or it is NOT. If not, I do not call it such. Very plan, very simple.

After all the debates we've been in so far, debates where I have presented TO YOU the 5 Articles of the Remonstrance or some of Wesley's writings and confronted you on your deviance from a stated position (you are an avowed Arminian by your own confession) so you KNOW that I KNOW the difference and the nuance between the positions. You can kindly stop lumping me in with others who may not.

And, finally, I have chosen to not name names because ALL it would accomplish here is a fight. You can use the search feature to find the posts.

Now, ready for some more quotes? There are much more shocking statements that I can bring to the table... Those above were from one thread on one day. We have any number of threads where worse is said.

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam’s sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354–430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 43

Perhaps you have seen more than I have on the board, but I have not encountered this "essential element" of Pelgianism on BB.

I think you use wisdom not to "call out names" unless of course, you speak personally with the person and both are in agreement that the label applies.

 

[preacher4truth]

Your seriously suggesting that people "On this Board" can publicly admit errors:laugh:.......you cant be serious! ROFL .... Will never happen. Notice, cant even treat each other like loving brethren.

I will say though that the sisters have been cool. You go ladies!!:love2:

Yes, it's insane to think that the arms/non-calvinists could actually debate the false teachings I've addressed which some in their camp hold to instead of resorting to Jr. High School pejoratives against the OP. :laugh:

What was I thinking!!!! :tongue3:

I take it they can't debate it. Maybe for three reasons: 1) To do so would be to admit that the teachings are in their camp (and they in fact are in their camp). 2) To do so would be to actually engage in theological discussion. 3) And, to do so would mean they wouldn't be able to practice their typical banter of calling the OP names right off the bat, never addressing the facts. In other words, it would ruin their objective for being here.

 

[glfredrick]

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam’s sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354–430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 43

Perhaps you have seen more than I have on the board, but I have not encountered this "essential element" of Pelgianism on BB.

I think you use wisdom not to "call out names" unless of course, you speak personally with the person and both are in agreement that the label applies.

What you have (accurately) described as Pelagian doctrine is PRECISELY what I have seen on this board. Not just by inference, but ARGUED, and not just argued, but forcefully in protracted threads on the subject.

Here are a few more examples:

The scriptures NEVER say we have a sin nature.

All men are spiritual in a sense. They all are simply not directing their spirit in a manner consistent with the plan and conditions of salvation.

So in order for a Christian to be "undefiled" he must remain sinless.

It is no wonder why devout Christians from their earliest childhood, like Pelagius who was to come on the scene a short time subsequent to this novel doctrine being instituted in the Church, and after being raised a Christian and greatly studied in Scripture and the early patristic writings of the early Christian fathers, would try and rid the Church of such pagan practices?

Strictly speaking, nothing is sin that is not a willful transgression of a known commandment of God.

One would not require salvation to enter into eternal life with God if in fact they obeyed His laws and commandments from the first light of moral agency on. The same would have applied to Adam and Eve IF they would have continued in obedience. They would not have needed salvation to simply continue to walk with God until God chose to remove them from this temporal earth.

Sin is at its heart, intentional. Sin is blameworthy, and eternally so. To indicate that a Just God would hold man accountable for matters completely unintentional, is paramount to saying that God will hold a man accountable for the color of their hair or the color of their skin. You have produced nothing to suggest that God holds man eternally accountable for things beyond one direct willful control.

It is interesting to note that some historians say that it was not so much the beliefs of Pelagius that Augustine so objected to, but rather Augustine feared that if Pelagius would sway some to recognize the pagan origin and influence on infant baptism etc, that the Church might be split as a result of such teachings. Can one start to see the power and influence wielded by the ones profiting the most by a united Catholic Church, and the losss both of monetary means as well as the loss of power, control, and prestige that would come by any division? Can one see why Augustine exhibited such hatred against a man even he saw as a holy and devout believer? Could have Augustine's real motivation against Pelagius have been to simply keep the wheels of the Catholic machine well greased and unified in the actions Augustine took against Pelagius? To me it is a no brainer.

Support the notion from Scripture that sin is defined as you define it: "missing the mark of God's perfect righteousness." I would not believe that such is a Scriptural concept of sin. Where does Scripture define sin in the manner you describe?
Even in the OT Moses was clear as to the reasonableness' of God's law and the clear ability every moral agent had to obey it.

If we keep our mind on the things of God and not own our own selves then we will indeed be able to serve Him in holiness all the days of our life.

No, Jesus came in the flesh (sarx), the same flesh we have. But the flesh is not evil in itself. The flesh has lusts and desires that would pull and entice us toward sin, but a person does not sin or become sinful until they obey the lusts of the flesh and commit a transgression of God's law.

I find it very relieving to be free of that Augustinian heathen notion. It frees my mind to consider other means whereby the Scripture and reason can be in harmony.

Are we to believe that the God of the Universe holds man accountable when there was honestly no formed intent to violate His law towards man or Himself, at direct antipodes to the very sense of justice He instills in even children? I think not.

Let me be frank. If one believes for a minute that the sins one commits on a daily basis, not repented of, and not forsaken, are already forgiven by virtue of their standing with God, such a one is under clear deception. Such deception is no different that the deception of the Jews, that believed by virtue of their lineage they were the eternal children of God.

From this we can know that Paul was not born spiritually dead because a person must be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually as a result of sinning. Paul, as well as you and I, are born spiritually alive.

You are confused because you are just plain ignorant of what the Scriptures teach. A two year old does not know right from wrong so sin will not be imputed to him when he does things which are not good.

Many things may be in question, but this one thing I know. No man can be said to be keeping himself 'pure' in any moral/ Scriptural sense that is practicing sin on daily basis.
If words means anything, ' pure' is without fault, blameless, without sin. Sin is blameworthy and no one can keep themselves 'pure' while practicing sin.

It is impossible that a baby out of the womb is lawless so no one is sinful by nature from birth.

The fact that no man goes without sin proves nothing. Adam and Eve were created very good, they had no sin nature, yet they sinned the very first time they were tempted. What makes you think any other man would do better? They lived in a pure world with only one law and one temptation and sinned, we live in a filthy world with many laws and thousands of temptations.

You Calvinists have God imputing sin to innocent children for doing things which they do not even know is wrong. That is not something that the loving God of the Bible would ever do.

People harden themselves against their conscience, their conscience becomes seared. This all proves it is natural for man to do right, and unnatural to do wrong. If our nature were sinful, then sin would be natural and not offend our conscience.

If you are right and they are not sinless that can only mean that sin has been imputed into their account. But that will not happen unless they know that what they are doing is wrong.

Those who believe we are born sinful are in effect accusing God of making sin.

You are grasping at straws in defending an indefensible position. To suggest that no man can be sinless is to deny the reality of the work of Christ upon the heart of man. Your insistence that the work of Christ in our hearts and lives is first and foremost a positional matter, is simply not in accordance to Scripture. There is not the least bit of freedom from sin positionally if one is still in the sin business in all actuallity. Try as you may, the conscience will faithfully testify to ones sin and bring condemnation into your heart and life, unless the Spirit has already started to withdraw Himself from such an individual, sending them a strong delusion of deception. If one can sin, and do so without guilt, such a one is walking on mighty thin ice with God. It is not that guilt is not there, but rather that one has trained themselves to act 'as if though' there is no guilt and just condemnation.

I am clean from all unrighteousness. Do you believe that a sin defiles a person?

But I do not believe it is some sort of contagion like a disease. Sin is a free will choice, just as it was for Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created upright, no one thinks this undermines Christ, as soon as they sinned they needed Christ. It is the same for us, this is what I believe.

I am consistent with my view. I believe every man is made upright as Ecc 7:29 says. We come into the world just like Adam and Eve, and just like Adam and Eve we all choose to sin and become sinners.

 

[preacher4truth]

Sometimes persons ought to take a look around before assuming that these things don't go on.

It's interesting that whomever claims that these things are going on, said become the target of ridicule and other pugnacious remarks for doing so, instead of the actual proponents of these teachings being targeted. It seems to me like a game, and that the intended target is anyone with a "Calvinist" theology while turning a blind eye to anything else.

Thus, many many threads have been created to target "calvinists" while these other issues go unchecked. I believe personally the denial that these other teachings happen is all a pretense in order for one not to get off track of a clear objective against reformed brothers. There is absolutely no way that these things can be missed.

But, make one thread about a serious false teaching going on in Arminian and Non-Calvninist camps, i.e. LILAC, and here comes the same tribe bent on an anti-Calvinist agenda to ridicule, blast, name-call, and cast doubt that what is so obviously happening, and hit the one exposing it with derogatory insults. Then we have others come along to congratulate such for this behavior. How imprudent to say the least.

These ought to take a look into their own camp and see what Arminian and Non-Calvinist theologies have fostered, which is represented above and in LILAC. It's very serious error.

Thanks glfredrick for taking the time to validate this fact with your proofs.

Now, it would be nice to see the errors actually addressed, and to sharpen ones apologetic against it, or, side with them and make it plain that you do side with it.

That's why the OP is important here, and properly engaging it might just help some folks.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oh My .... it's cronic!

 

[DaChaser1]

What you have (accurately) described as Pelagian doctrine is PRECISELY what I have seen on this board. Not just by inference, but ARGUED, and not just argued, but forcefully in protracted threads on the subject.

Here are a few more examples:

You forgot to add that it would be possible for Christians to live in a sinless state for the Lord, and that once saved, sin nature no longer resides in us, and that we are sinners ONLY after choosing to actual sin, NOT before that!

 

[glfredrick]

You forgot to add that it would be possible for Christians to live in a sinless state for the Lord, and that once saved, sin nature no longer resides in us, and that we are sinners ONLY after choosing to actual sin, NOT before that!

I don't recall commenting on any of that in this thread.

 

[webdog]

What you have (accurately) described as Pelagian doctrine is PRECISELY what I have seen on this board. Not just by inference, but ARGUED, and not just argued, but forcefully in protracted threads on the subject.

Here are a few more examples:

Of course you do not supply the context of the phrases or where they can be found. And more to the point, there is no denial that God reaches out to man first THE main tenant of pelagianism. The debate about original sin, sin nature, et al. in no way, shape or form states man can come to God on their own apart from His working. To equate the two views as one in the same is ignorant.