Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Apr 14, 2011.
What exactly is Pelagianism ?
Are those who follow Arminism either semi or full Pel?
Anyone who suggests that all Arminian theologies are related to Pelagianism isn't reading historical theology accurately.
(Again I protest the use of the Arminian category to label anyone that isn't Reformed...the issue isn't this cut and dry.)
There are differences between the Pelagian position and Arminian beliefs.
Could you please list what each believes than?
Pelagianism is the view that original sin doesn't exist and that a man has the ability in and of himself to be holy and do the things God commands without help from God's grace.
Semi-Pelagianism states that man needs God's grace to come to faith but does not need it to remain in the faith.
Actual Arminianism is really neither. However, there have been semi pelagians that were also arminians and vice versa.
A full pelagian is what is also called an open theist in many cases. They don't even believe God is omniscient. That is an out and out heresy. Full pelagianism has been condemned as heresy by the church since the time of Augustine. They are generally rejected everywhere except for Free-Will churches and such. Even Methodists reject open theism.
Both views have been condemned as heretical by the church at various times.
So IF you do not believe in the Doctrine of original Sin, and that man can save himself by exercise his own free will, one is a pelagian?
That is typically what is meant by "Pelagianism," but to be fair we have very little of Pelagius' actual writings and arguments because after they were declared heretical they were mostly burned. All we have is what his opponents have said about him.
So, it would be like having Luke report what Webdog believes and thousands of years latter labeling that Weddogism and calling it heresy.
It makes me really suspicious about Peligius' actual beliefs. Don't misunderstand, I'm not defending him because I have no idea of what he really believed. But I suspect he was a sincere, well meaning follower of Christ....
I am neither "A" or "C", but I lean closer to "A", in that those who die lost, die that way because they reject God after He calls them. I have been called a "semi-Peligianist" and "gnostic" because I believe we are born alive unto God, and then die(therefore we become totally depraved) after God shows us our lost condition.
i am I AM's!!
On what basis do you believe this?
Sounds like something that was published years ago that tried to make the case that ALL have been elected to be saved thru Jesus Christ, but those who willfully decide to reject Him lose their free gift and are condemned due to being spiritual dead again....
I have read some on Pelagius, and I also believe he has been sorely misrepresented.
Here is what Pelagius believed
So, Pelagius believed a man was saved by faith, but he insisted true faith must be accompanied by good works. Many people today believe this and are not called Pelagians.
Pelagius did not believe in original sin, but in his day this was very orthodox, many of the early church fathers before Augustine believed men had free will and could obey God's commands.
It was actually Augustine that departed from orthodoxy, not Pelagius.
I have also read that Pelagius was brought before two Synods were he was found to be orthodox. It was only later that Augustine brought another council against him where Pelagius was not in attendance to defend himself, and it was then he was declared a heretic.
So, I do not know all that Pelagius believed, but I believe Augustine railroaded him.
Brother, this is something I have battled with my DoG Brethern for a LONG time. I do not wish to further expound on it, because it would derail this thread. Just go to my profile, and find my posts and you can read first hand what I have posted. I have come to this convictions through much studying and prayer. If you are a DoG Brother, I know you will not agree with my beliefs. If you wish, and feel like you want to further discuss this, start a new thread and I will sure jump in where I can, and try to hold on!!! LOL
But I do feel that Eze. 18:4 and 18:20 are good for starters and Luke 15:11-24 for enders.....but like I stated, its my belief.
i am I AM's!!
I wonder why it would only be a problem for Calvinists. Your position would also contradict the historic positions of Arminianism.
No. They can not even be compared.
IF one understands Pelagainism and Semi-Pel, one can not make such a silly claim.
Mormonism is completely pelagain.
Pelagianism core view.. that which all the rest stands upon is thus:
This is the teaching that man has the capacity to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God or the Holy Spirit, and therefore that salvation is effected by man's efforts.
Semi-Pel's core view was similar but different:
Teaches that man doesn’t have such an unrestrained capacity, but man and God could cooperate to a certain degree in this salvation effort: man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then increases and guards that faith, completing the work of salvation.
In other words.. man can come to God without God's assistance but he can not attain salvation.. thus God rewards man for his effort of faith by saving him.
Isn't that semi view similiar to what catholics teach about "fusion" of grace/works, amd Armenions with "prevelent/common grace" though?
Both teaching that man can come to God, and co operate with his efforts?
Mixing "Gods does that/we do this?"
But you left off what make them Pelagain.. that they come to God APART from ANY divine aid.
Thus it is actually - We do this/God must do that.
Both are reward based / works
One other thing.. even many of the Puritans held to prevenient grace, though not specifically the universal aspect.
I'm curious as to what most would consider to be "divine aid." Even "common grace" is a form of divine aid, right?
What about the Holy Spirit wrought gospel of reconciliation sent to the world through Holy Spirit indwelled messengers? Isn't that divine aid?
It seems to me that it is not just ANY "divine aid," but the level or kind of divine aid needed in order to be saved, right? I mean, even the MOST Peligian person in the world would affirm some level of God's revelation (common grace) wouldn't he?
No, actually he would not acknowledge such. Divine aid did include 'grace', because man did not need it, even common grace in the Pel view, and only needed 'grace' in the semi-pel once he reached a place he could go no further apart from God. This is the historically understood position of Pelagain himself, as well as the historically understood position of semi-pels. Man comes to God apart from ANY divine aid.. Pels state he does not need God to save Him by grace as his good works earn him admission (reward). However the Semi-pels agree with the initial or first part, but disagree that man can fully come to God due to his standing, being in sin, and thus God must finish where man had to stop. Yet in both cases, they hold that man can and does come to God without ANY divine aid.
However the word of God alone (apart from the work of the Spirit / revelation of the word by the Spirit of God) is not enough. Otherwise there is no purpose for God sending the Spirit to 'convict' the world the world of sin, righteousness and the judgment to come.. Since these are spiritual truths (noted because the Spirit of God must reveal them), and knowing that man, in and of himself, can not come to understand these truths himself through natural means, we note this is part of the Spirit's active ministry dealing with man. We also must note that conviction uses various means, though scripture is the ultimate and primary means to bring man to repentance and knowledge of true and eternal salvation in Christ Jesus
I disagree with your statement here. The scriptures make it clear that the Word of God is quick and powerful.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Jesus said his words were spirit and they were life.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
The very words of God are alive and powerful. You cannot seperate God's words from the Spirit. A man can be convicted, brought to the knowledge of truth, and enabled to believe simply by hearing God's words. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by God's word.
You seem to separate God's words from the Spirit. This cannot be done, they are one and the same.
To whom was it written and for what intent.
The context is not speaking to unbelievers nor the ability of the word alone to convict the heart of the unbelieving man.
The letter is never separate from the Spirits work, regarding conviction, revelation, ect...
To make the assumption that the written word, apart from the Spirits work, is all that is needful.. you must either ignore or dismiss large amounts of scriptures. If the written word is all that is needful (with no working of the Spirit upon man) then God would have never sent forth His Spirit to convict the world.
If the word is all that is needful, apart from the working of the Spirit, then unsaved and sinful man can come to understand spiritual things all by themselves. God would not need to reveal the spiritual truths of sin, His righteousness, and The Judgment to come... yet scripture states God reveals it to them.. the argument of that passage standing on the fact it is the 'work of God' as the grammar establishes God as the doer of revelation, and not passive in the revelation while man grasps it on his own.
Paul would not have needed to come in power of the Spirit, but merely give them the word. The argument is continuous and thus, to me, there is no need to continue.
Yes but this is not referring to the written word, in and of or by itself.
His words are spirit (spiritual) and life (life giving), to apply this to the written word has no contextual basis, nor a basis or foundation in exegesis.
Same as above.. you are severely twisting these passages of scripture, I don't understand why you would even try to use these passages when the context alone is enough to refute your supposition.
Yet, you are doing just THAT.
Your very paragraph (specifically the later portion) separates them as though they are distinct and the work of the Spirit is not needed. You ignore the work of the Spirit of God in that man is convicted by the Spirit of God revealing the word to him - allowing him to understand what by himself he can not fully comprehend. Just hearing the word is not enough, the Spirit of God must reveal, and thereby convict, using those words. He empowers them.
No, the Spirit of God and the bible are not one and the same.
The work of revelation and conviction unquestionably has both operating, it is the Spirit of God who is doing the work through the means of the written word. The word is alive because the Spirit of God makes them so.. but not everyone is enlightened the moment they read but ARE enlightened to the truth (whether or not they receive is another matter) because of the work of the Spirit of God.
That is not what I am saying and I think you know that. I am saying there is no such thing as the "mere word". God's words are Spirit themselves (John 6:63) and they are alive. They are powerful. A man cannot hear God's word without being affected in some way. Oh, some men are hardened to God's word, but they hear it and deep down they know it is true.
I am saying you cannot separate God's words from the Spirit, they are one and the same, and that is exactly what Jesus said in John 6:63.
And the fact is, the scriptures show Paul used the scriptures to persuade men.
Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening.
Paul used the scriptures (the law of Moses and the prophets) to persuade men.