The LILAC of Arminian and Non-Cal Theology

[glfredrick]

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.

I would not have posted those particular comments if they had stemmed from your supposed vantage point.

I'm not trying to be unfair, untruthful, or otherwise misrepresent the doctrines of SOME here on the board. They ARGUED FOR the positions that I cited.

Further, I well expect to get a new round of "show us who said that and where" responses. Note that I am ARGUING AGAINST THE DOCTRINES not AGAINST THE MAN.

I've posted as I did to remove personalities from the discussion. Take that for what you will, and I know the ad hominems will come against me for doing so, but THERE ARE THE POINTS ARGUED.

 

[webdog]

I would not have posted those particular comments if they had stemmed from your supposed vantage point.

Whatever this means...

I'm not trying to be unfair, untruthful, or otherwise misrepresent the doctrines of SOME here on the board.

Of course not, to do that would mean you would leave out the context and link so others can read them in context. Oh wait...

They ARGUED FOR the positions that I cited.

Which doesn't make them pelagian any more than you holding to Augustine's position on original sin makes you Roman Catholic.

 

[preacher4truth]

Why don't you go take a gander yourself and see the context instead of instigating an attack and leveling an implied charge that glfredrick is lying?

I'm certain you can cut and paste each term into "search" and see for yourself. Maybe not.

The arms & non-cals are still in denial of what their cousin camps and which some themselves teach. Like I said, they'd come in here after proof is given and argue ANYTHING including the lame "context" copout.

Self-deception in action and at its finest with these camps.

Also, you fail as usual to see that the main tenant of Pelagius is that of not needing divine assistance. Your statement otherwise is erroneous at best.

 

[quantumfaith]

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:

Thank you for the interesting quotes. Will have to "digest" them. BTW, this is not sarcasm.

 

[quantumfaith]

Why don't you go take a gander yourself and see the context instead of instigating an attack and leveling an implied charge that gklfredrick is lying?

I'm certain you can cut and paste each term into "search" and see for yourself. Maybe not.

The arms & non-cals are still in denial of what their cousin camps and which some themselves teach. Like I said, they'd come in here after proof is given and argue ANYTHING including the lame "context" copout.

Self-deception in action and at its finest with these camps.

Also, you fail as usual to see that the main tenant of Pelagius is that of not needing divine assistance. Your statement otherwise is erroneous at best.

You are completely WRONG once AGAIN. Deficient as you say so often about others.

 

[webdog]

Why don't you go take a gander yourself and see the context instead of instigating an attack and leveling an implied charge that gklfredrick is lying?

It's not my place to supply the context...it is the one making the alleged accusation.

I'm certain you can cut and paste each term into "search" and see for yourself. Maybe not.

I'm certain you can mind your own business. Probably not

The arms & non-cals are still in denial of what their cousin camps and which some themselves teach. Like I said, they'd come in here after proof is given and argue ANYTHING including the lame "context" copout.

On the contrary, you are just delusional as is shown in your op. Perhaps you can show where one of the quotes equates to man seeking and coming to God on their own apart from His working. Won't hold my breath...

Self-deception in action and at its finest with these camps.

Ignorance and debate fallacies are known in yours.

Also, you fail as usual to see that the main tenant of Pelagius is that of not needing divine assistance. Your statement otherwise is erroneous at best.

No, QF pointed out quite accurately and plainly what the main tenant is. You just refuse to acknowledge it as it would diminish your pejorative ammunition.

 

[preacher4truth]

It's amazing that a person can argue for Pelagian doctrine, believe in what it teaches, even to the point of the major error of Pelagian doctrine that no divine assistance is needed, yet not be Pelagian in doctrine. :laugh:

This is a classic representation of logic and reason of some non-calvinists.

 

[webdog]

And the level of contructing strawmen continues at break neck speed. At least The Sidekick is back to his old ways...

 

[DaChaser1]

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.

There IS however a direct connection between these two though, for IF one holds that we are born with a true free will, as sin nature NOT been imputed to us yet by God until we decide to freely sin....

Then one could also say that we could chose freely to be able to accept jesus or not, by ourselves, God not required to assist us!

 

[quantumfaith]

And the level of contructing strawmen continues at break neck speed. At least The Sidekick is back to his old ways...

Oh how I wish there was a Like button.

 

[glfredrick]

It's not my place to supply the context...it is the one making the alleged accusation.
I'm certain you can mind your own business. Probably not
On the contrary, you are just delusional as is shown in your op. Perhaps you can show where one of the quotes equates to man seeking and coming to God on their own apart from His working. Won't hold my breath...
Ignorance and debate fallacies are known in yours.
No, QF pointed out quite accurately and plainly what the main tenant is. You just refuse to acknowledge it as it would diminish your pejorative ammunition.

For now, as an exercise, let's LEAVE the ATTACKS AGAINST THE MAN out of this discussion.

Those posts were posted on this board by persons who argued those points. I cut out one little sentence here and there from multiple persons, threads, discussions, and other arguments similar. So, SOMEONE holds them as TRUE.

You want names... I want to discuss the abbarant doctrines expressed and leave personalities OUT OF THE DISCUSSION. To the level that you cannot do that, you are THE PROBLEM not the SOLUTION.

So, instead of attacking me for posting them, let's instead have a discussion or debate ABOUT THE POINTS ABOVE.

What is it that you either agree with or disagree with?

Let's JUST discuss the points and not worry about who said them. Is that COMPLETELY ISSUE ORIENTED?

 

[Iconoclast]

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:

Yes..the long list is sad indeed...much study,debate and correction needed.:thumbs:

 

[webdog]

There IS however a direct connection between these two though, for IF one holds that we are born with a true free will, as sin nature NOT been imputed to us yet by God until we decide to freely sin....

Then one could also say that we could chose freely to be able to accept jesus or not, by ourselves, God not required to assist us!

I have no idea how one can arrive to that conclusion, nor have I ever seen such a position presented here or anywhere for that matter. Where does the ability to choose come from? Where does our very lives come from? It's an invalid and non existent position on this board that somehow seems to keep being brought up as fact.

 

[webdog]

Yes..the long list is sad indeed...much study,debate and correction needed.:thumbs:

Then it shouldn't be hard to name names.

 

[glfredrick]

Then it shouldn't be hard to name names.

As I thought, you are FAR MORE interested in the names than in the subject matter.

:tonofbricks:

 

[webdog]

For now, as an exercise, let's LEAVE the ATTACKS AGAINST THE MAN out of this discussion.

Who?

Those posts were posted on this board by persons who argued those points. I cut out one little sentence here and there from multiple persons, threads, discussions, and other arguments similar. So, SOMEONE holds them as TRUE.

Without the context of those quotes and knowing who made them it is akin to stating "there is no God" is valid since it's found in Scripture

You want names... I want to discuss the abbarant doctrines expressed and leave personalities OUT OF THE DISCUSSION. To the level that you cannot do that, you are THE PROBLEM not the SOLUTION.

Were you trying to discuss Augustinianism...or Pelagianism?

So, instead of attacking me for posting them, let's instead have a discussion or debate ABOUT THE POINTS ABOVE.

See above response.

What is it that you either agree with or disagree with?

Already answered. The lack of belief in original sin and even a sin nature for that matter does not equate to Pelagianism. It may or may not be one view shared, but as I already stated, you holding to Augustinianism does not mean you are Roman Catholic.

Let's JUST discuss the points and not worry about who said them. Is that COMPLETELY ISSUE ORIENTED?

Sure, let's just discuss random quotes without worrying where they came from or what they were in response to We'll all just take your word for it.

 

[webdog]

As I thought, you are FAR MORE interested in the names than in the subject matter.

:tonofbricks:

No, I would like to see the quotes in context. For some reason you are sure squirming your way out of supplying them. Wonder why <end sarcasm>

 

[preacher4truth]

It's not important at all to name names.

It's better to just show the teachings, statements, beliefs, and address them.

 

[convicted1]

What are we to preach to the lost Willis? I know you know this, it's the Gospel. It worked for Paul, Peter, and it works for us. Why? Because it is the power of God unto salvation, and this is the message to the lost, not meat of the word, the Gospel, not fine points of soteriology, the Gospel.

Every person after salvation grows in knowledge of Bible truths (ideally).

I will tell you this, I'd certainly avoid telling the person it is a power move on their part, that in them they have a power source called faith, and they can solicit God into them whenever they want or decide to. And that is exactly what is taught in here by some. As a matter of fact, some teach this to the lost, that just like sitting on a chair they can make God Savior (or very similar easy-believism illustrative tactics).

Instead I'd preach the Gospel to them. It will do it's job and those who are elect will be saved, 2 Timothy 2:8-10.

- Peace

Can't say I disagree with this woderful post. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

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.

:thumbs::thumbs:

And when Glf actually links to the context of quotes I may take the time to engage. Just as different Calvinists here represent their view in various ways (some of which come across more 'hyper' or like a 'hard determinist' than others), so too there are non-Cals here who represent their views in different ways.

I don't deny men are born with a sin nature, while Webdog seems to take issue with that view. I can't speak for him, but after reading him in context it appears that he has more of an issue with how 'sin nature' is defined by many Calvinists, where as he MIGHT not have an issue with the way I would define it.

Since I don't believe a man's propensity to sin (i.e. 'sin nature') prevents him from being reconciled in light of God's powerful appeal, and Calvinists do, there could be a difference of degree and/or definition that should be noted.

As Webdog and Quantum have rightly pointed out, the 'essential element' of Pelagianism (man is born good/and seeks God on his own) is universally denied here to my knowledge.

The problem even with this view is that the very accusation is based upon a reality that doesn't exist (i.e. a world where God is not seeking the lost). Since that reality is non-existant, how can a view dependent upon that reality even exist? IOW, if we both affirm that God is seeking to save the lost (sending his gospel appeal to EVERY creature; sending the HS to convict the world of sin, etc), which I assume we can all affirm; THEN how can any of us believe in a system where men are coming to God on their own initiative and without God's gracious aid?