Pelagianism

[AustinC]

Nice try (actually, a foolish reply as Scripture presents the lost in their fallen state as seeking God and putting their faith in Christ).

The difference is whether God draws these lost men, whether the Spirit is working in their lives.

You call @Van a heretic by equating his statement to semi-Pelagianism. But @Van has stayed that these lost do not come to God apart from the Spirit.

You assume these lost are regenerated before believing, but rejecting that is not semi-Pelagianism.

You owe @Van and me sn apology. For my part, keep it. It's your character at stake. And I forgive you.

Jon, you are wrong. No apologies needed to you. Both you and Van have thoughts on the Bible that are not in line with any Reformed thinking and to my knowledge not in line with any Baptist thinking. You are at odds. No apologies needed in stating this.

Just because you disagree, Martin has no need to apologize because your feelings are hurt.

 

[AustinC]

Obviously you are wrong, as I have never once posted anything remotely contrary to salvation being the sole work of God.

This is an example of what I mean with a few members intentionally misrepresenting what other members have posted. It is an utterly dishonest attempt at winning an argument.

And perhaps members like you, intentionally making false accusations about what others have posted, is the reason other members come to think men like @Van have declared views he never claimed.

You attempt to cloud the water so as to "defeat" your "enemy". But Chriatians are not to conduct themselves in that manner.

For the record, and to restate what you feel is a denial of God's work alone in salvation, I believe in predestination and reprobation. I believe men cannot come to God unless God draws them to Himself.

As far as clarity goes, I understand that you find my statement "man cannot come to God unless God draws him" and "salvation is solely the work of God" confusing. This is evident by you thinking it is a denial of God's work of salvation.

But I am not responsible for your inadequacies.

All I can do is ask that you refrain from misrepresenting the views of others. Whether you decide to take a Christian approach is entirely up to you.

Jon, so many words when you are wrong is your m.o. Realize no one agrees with you and move on.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Nice try (actually, a foolish reply as Scripture presents the lost in their fallen state as seeking God and putting their faith in Christ).

Are you thinking of Matthew 11:25, John 3:19, John 6:44, Romans 3:11 or 1 Corinthians 2:14?

The difference is whether God draws these lost men, whether the Spirit is working in their lives.

I would like to hear from @Van how he reconciles his two statements.

I have posted dozens of times no one comes to Jesus unless "drawn" (attracted) by the Father.

Can the lost in their fallen state seek God and put their faith in Christ? Yes

In doing this I am simply following your instructions in post #107.

You call @Van a heretic by equating his statement to semi-Pelagianism. But @Van has stayed [sic] that these lost do not come to God apart from the Spirit.

Perhaps you would like to show me where I have accused @Van of heresy. I have done no such thing. You started a thread on Semi-Pelagianism on a discussion forum, and you have given a definition of it. As part of that discussion, I have asked how @Van's theology does not fall into your definition. You owe me an apology, but keep it. It's your character at stake, and I forgive you.

You assume these lost are regenerated before believing, but rejecting that is not semi-Pelagianism.

You do not know what I assume.

You owe @Van and me an apology. For my part, keep it. It's your character at stake. And I forgive you.

If I have wronged @Van, I will gladly apologize to him. I am not clear how I have wronged him since I have only asked him, on a discussion forum, to clarify his views.

 

[JesusFan]

I am not Van, but I have the same gripe I am sure Van has. Many Calvinists level the claim of "Ignorance" to all who dispute Calvinism.
I understand Calvinism. I understand it better than most Calvinists. I simply disagree with it.

I do not say that you are not my brother in Christ due to that, but at times van seems to be on his personal vendetta to blast away at we Calvinists, and others here seem to see us as holding to another gospel and God even!

 

[JesusFan]

Nice try (actually, a foolish reply as Scripture presents the lost in their fallen state as seeking God and putting their faith in Christ).

The difference is whether God draws these lost men, whether the Spirit is working in their lives.

You call @Van a heretic by equating his statement to semi-Pelagianism. But @Van has stayed that these lost do not come to God apart from the Spirit.

You assume these lost are regenerated before believing, but rejecting that is not semi-Pelagianism.

You owe @Van and me sn apology. For my part, keep it. It's your character at stake. And I forgive you.

Did not van state that even the unsaved and natural men can receive the milk of the word, and that they van seek God by themselves though?

 

[JesusFan]

Yep.

They understand Arminianism and disagree. They understand free-will theology and disagree. But anybody who disagrees with Calvinism does so in ignorance.

No, rather many times the critics of Calvinism will be attacking straw men of own creation, not even what we really do hold with!

 

[JesusFan]

I am not Van, but I have the same gripe I am sure Van has. Many Calvinists level the claim of "Ignorance" to all who dispute Calvinism.
I understand Calvinism. I understand it better than most Calvinists. I simply disagree with it.

I just have issues with any, and nor saying any here hold to them, that would see us as not being affected by the fall of Adam, and not having even a sin nature at birth, and to be spiritual dead in our sins to some degree!

 

[Brightfame52]

Did not van state that even the unsaved and natural men can receive the milk of the word, and that they van seek God by themselves though?

If anyone promotes that, its error, the milk of the word is for the newly regenerated. The context of 1 Pet bares that out 1 Pet 1:22-2:2

22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

2 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,

2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

besides, anyone knows a baby must be alive to desire milk ! But before regeneration man is dead to spiritual things.

 

[JonC]

Jon, you are wrong. No apologies needed to you. Both you and Van have thoughts on the Bible that are not in line with any Reformed thinking and to my knowledge not in line with any Baptist thinking. You are at odds. No apologies needed in stating this.

Just because you disagree, Martin has no need to apologize because your feelings are hurt.

You are correct that my views are not in line with Reformed thinking. I am not Reformed.

You are wrong in that you think my views are not Bsptist. What you mean is "Reformed Baotist".

My feelings are not hurt at all.

@Martin Marprelate misrepresented Van. I actually believe Martin is honest, so I attribute the error to false statements by you and a few others. You repeat misinformation so as to cloud the truth.

But the fact is @Van never said that men come to Christ apart from the work of the Spirit. He said that the lost, in their natural state, seek God (the normal Christian belief). Not that the Spirit is not working in those lost.

The only person who said that @Van believes men come to Christ apart from the work of Hod in their lives is you and @Martin Marprelate (@Van flat our denied that view several times).

That is a problem. You and @Martin Marprelate have posted that another member believes something he does not believe, something that he has clearly rejected.

It is dishonest and anti-Christian to post on a public form that a brother holds views that he has outright denied. As you two have defended your accusations even after Van has clarified, it has to be an intentional sin, not just a mistake.

 

[JonC]

Jon, so many words when you are wrong is your m.o. Realize no one agrees with you and move on.

It does not matter if anyone agrees with me. I am not here to seek the approval of men.

The point that you ate trying once again to obscure is that you are wrong to attribute beliefs to other members when those members have rejected the beliefs.

Your MO is is obscure. The post I quoted is proof. Rather than act in a Christian manner you just want people to move on and pretend not to see your agenda.

 

[AustinC]

You are correct that my views are not in line with Reformed thinking. I am not Reformed.

You are wrong in that you think my views are not Bsptist. What you mean is "Reformed Baotist".

My feelings are not hurt at all.

@Martin Marprelate misrepresented Van. I actually believe Martin is honest, so I attribute the error to false statements by you and a few others. You repeat misinformation so as to cloud the truth.

But the fact is @Van never said that men come to Christ apart from the work of the Spirit. He said that the lost, in their natural state, seek God (the normal Christian belief). Not that the Spirit is not working in those lost.

The only person who said that @Van believes men come to Christ apart from the work of Hod in their lives is you and @Martin Marprelate (@Van flat our denied that view several times).

That is a problem. You and @Martin Marprelate have posted that another member believes something he does not believe, something that he has clearly rejected.

It is dishonest and anti-Christian to post on a public form that a brother holds views that he has outright denied. As you two have defended your accusations even after Van has clarified, it has to be an intentional sin, not just a mistake.

So... stop being anti-christian, Jon. What you have posted about myself, and I believe Martin, is your interpretation, which is false.
Honestly, you sound hurt that no one holds your, or Van's, fringe view of Christianity.

 

[JonC]

Are you thinking of Matthew 11:25, John 3:19, John 6:44, Romans 3:11 or 1 Corinthians 2:14?

I would like to hear from @Van how he reconciles his two statements.


In doing this I am simply following your instructions in post #107.

Perhaps you would like to show me where I have accused @Van of heresy. I have done no such thing. You started a thread on Semi-Pelagianism on a discussion forum, and you have given a definition of it. As part of that discussion, I have asked how @Van's theology does not fall into your definition. You owe me an apology, but keep it. It's your character at stake, and I forgive you.

You do not know what I assume.

If I have wronged @Van, I will gladly apologize to him. I am not clear how I have wronged him since I have only asked him, on a discussion forum, to clarify his views.

I can answer because I agree with @Van (not answering for him, but addressing the question).

Saying the lost in their natural state can seek God does not mean that the Spirit is not working in the hearts and minds of these lost.

If you realize that you have acted wrongfully towards @Van , your nature itself has not changed. You just come to a knowledge of a truth.

To explain this in a Calvinistic way, Spurgeon gives a great example in a sermon. He presents God as "conquering" the lost. God slowly works in the heart and mind of the lost to "persuade" (Spurgeon's word) the lost. The lost remain lost but start turning to God in degrees.

 

[JonC]

So... stop being anti-christian, Jon. What you have posted about myself, and I believe Martin, is your interpretation, which is false.
Honestly, you sound hurt that no one holds your, or Van's, fringe view of Christianity.

No, it is not interpretation.

@Van has clarified. He has posted that he rejects the ideas you and @Martin Marprelate ascribe to him.

Before that it could have been misunderstanding. Afterwards, however, it ventures towards dishonesty.

And that is the mark of so many Calvinists on this board. They attribute to Christisns who dare disagree with Calvinism views they never held.

 

[JonC]

No, rather many times the critics of Calvinism will be attacking straw men of own creation, not even what we really do hold with!

You are wrong with your "no". The rest is correct.

But it is wrong to use the dishonesty of others to justify one's own dishonesty.

 

[JonC]

Did not van state that even the unsaved and natural men can receive the milk of the word, and that they van seek God by themselves though?

No, he didn't. He stated that the list in their natural state can seek God. You assume this to mean without the work of the Spirit. And Van clarified that it doesn't.

 

[AustinC]

No, it is not interpretation.

@Van has clarified. He has posted that he rejects the ideas you and @Martin Marprelate ascribe to him.

Before that it could have been misunderstanding. Afterwards, however, it ventures towards dishonesty.

And that is the mark of so many Calvinists on this board. They attribute to Christisns who dare disagree with Calvinism views they never held.

Van rejects, then restates a view that is false. When trying to clarify, he calls "falseology" and then restates his false view. The view has been dismantled, yet Van keeps trying to reconstruct it. You do the same thing, but with a different twist. Neither of you actually give clarity and it seems you purposely muddy so as to not have your unorthodox views fully exposed.

 

[JonC]

LOOK....this is a serious problem.

Often members disagree. This is a purpose of this board. But members need to be honest and stop assigning to members views they do not hold.

@Martin Marprelate does not understand how the "classic views" of atonement necessitate the Cross. That is fair. But to claim they don't would be dishonesy.

@AustinC does not understand why @Van rejects Pelagianism. That is fair. But to claim he doesn't would be dishonest.

Others do not understand how Reformation Arminianism (@Reynolds position) is not man saving himself. That is fair. But to claim it is self-salvation is dishonest.

Here is how it should go:

"So you believe this?" "No, I don't." "My bad. I can't reconcile your statements."

Here is how it goes on this board:

"You believe this heresy" "No, I strongly reject that heresy" "Well, until I can reconcile your statements or you concede that I am right, you believe thus heresy".

When a member sounds to you like he is affirming something, just ask for clarification. If he tells you that is NOT what he believes, then that is not what he believes.

You do not have to understand the guys beliefs, he does not have to reconcile points for you.

 

[JonC]

Van rejects, then restates a view that is false. When trying to clarify, he calls "falseology" and then restates his false view. The view has been dismantled, yet Van keeps trying to reconstruct it. You do the same thing, but with a different twist. Neither of you actually give clarity and it seems you purposely muddy so as to not have your unorthodox views fully exposed.

Doesn't matter. @Van never stated that he believed the position you and @Martin Marprelate assigned to him. In fact, he rejected that view.

But you two keep on assigning to people views they do not hold.


My view is simple. I will not explain it to you because you do not understand my words. I'll just direct you to look up the "classic view". Perhaps the writings of others can help where I could not.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

To explain this in a Calvinistic way, Spurgeon gives a great example in a sermon. He presents God as "conquering" the lost. God slowly works in the heart and mind of the lost to "persuade" (Spurgeon's word) the lost. The lost remain lost but start turning to God in degrees.

This is an example of you not knowing what I assume.
This is exactly my view and it was the view of many of the Puritans, starting with William Perkins (read his Golden Chaine) and including Thomas Goodwin and John Owen (read his Apostasy from the Gospel). It seems to have been John Murray and his otherwise excellent book Redemption, Accomplished and Applied that has changed people's minds on the subject and persuaded them of 'all-in-one' regeneration. . I doubt you are interested, but I have a blog post on the subject. New Birth (7) The Order of the New Birth

The thing is that I have posted to @Van that God must 'do a work on the heart of' someone before he can respond to the Gospel, and he has, as is his wont, dismissed it out of hand. Hence my uncertainty that he believes it.

 

[JonC]

This is an example of you not knowing what I assume.

No, that is why I used the example.

When non-Calvinists post their views Calvinists often want to create more distance in belief than exist.

Van posted that God draws the lost. That should have been the end of the discussion. You did not accept his answer. I can't blame him for ignoring your constant demands for acquiescence.