Pelagianism

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

You are right that this is a problem.
We have a situation on this board where we are allowed to accuse one another of heresy, but not of Semi-Pelagianism. But a moderator then opens a thread entitled Semi-Pelagianism and gives a definition of it but gets all stressed when people start discussing it.
The first thing that needs to be done is to ban the words 'heresy' and 'heretic.' Then doctrines can be discussed without all this blame game.
I write as someone who has been accused of heresy for believing in Reformed Baptist Theology. It doesn't matter; I wear it as a badge of honour, but it does show how people who should know better splash the word around and fail to apologize.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

@Van doesn't have to reply to me, much less 'acquiesce' (?). It is you who is making a big deal out of it and prolonging the agony.

 

[JonC]

You are right that this is a problem.
We have a situation on this board where we are allowed to accuse one another of heresy, but not of Semi-Pelagianism. But a moderator then opens a thread entitled Semi-Pelagianism and gives a definition of it but gets all stressed when people star discussing it.
The first thing that needs to be done is to ban the words 'heresy' and 'heretic.' Then doctrines can be discussed without all this blame game.
I write as someone who has been accused of heresy for believing in Reformed Baptist Theology. It doesn't matter; I wear it as a badge of honour, but it does show how people who should know better splash the word around and fail to apologize.

No, members have often been accused of semi-Pelagianism (which is a declared heresy).

The issue is people use the heresy as a misnomer.

I agree members should not be called heretics. But saying they hold heresies is just as bad.

I disagree that we should ban the word "heresy" when it is used to speak of historical heresies (like Pelagianism, Aranism, semi-Pelagianism, etc.).

 

[Van]

Well, my apologies to you. I seem to recall you saying reference 1 Corinthians 2:14 that men without the Spirit could indeed receive the things of the Spirit of God. That would appear to be in line with @JonC's definition of Semi-Pelagianism.

But if you never said anything of the kind then my memory is obviously playing me false.

Yes, I have said with regard to 1 Corinthians 2:14 that unregenerate individuals can hear, understand and respond affirmatively to Spiritual Milk, the fundamentals of the Gospel, but not Spiritual Solid Food. This view is no where found in Semi-Pelagianism and I expect you know it.

Since salvation depends 100% on God and 0% on man, it is slander to claim my view is Semi-Pelaganism. And it is just as much a slander to claim the Holy Spirit's work is not a required prerequisite for any fallen individual to seek God or trust in Christ.

Likewise, post #139 misrepresents me yet again.

 

[Reynolds]

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!

I do too.

 

[JonC]

@Van doesn't have to reply to me, much less 'acquiesce' (?). It is you who is making a big deal out of it and prolonging the agony.

This is because people keep attributing to people beliefs that are historical heresies when those people reject the historical heresies.

You seem to want to say that people affirm historical heresies without calling those views "heresies" or those people "heretics".

Do you really think that is right?

It sounds like you just want to get around BB rules by saying that they hold those heresies without identifying the heresy as such.

The problem is every person on this board so far has rejected both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, but a few Calvinists (apparently you included) keep on call attributing to them those beliefs.

You ask for Van to clarify, again, that he does not hold to semi-Pelagianism. But you are unwilling to accept his previous two (at least) clarifications.

 

[JonC]

A few Calvinists just like calling non-Calvinists heretics....not by using the word "heretic" but by attributing to them historical heresies that those non-Calvinists have rejected.

That is dishonest. It is an attempt to shut down an argument via slander. Usually that type of behavior is seen when one cannot defend their position.

If a member says he does not believe something then he does not believe that something.

 

[Reynolds]

You are right that this is a problem.
We have a situation on this board where we are allowed to accuse one another of heresy, but not of Semi-Pelagianism. But a moderator then opens a thread entitled Semi-Pelagianism and gives a definition of it but gets all stressed when people start discussing it.
The first thing that needs to be done is to ban the words 'heresy' and 'heretic.' Then doctrines can be discussed without all this blame game.
I write as someone who has been accused of heresy for believing in Reformed Baptist Theology. It doesn't matter; I wear it as a badge of honour, but it does show how people who should know better splash the word around and fail to apologize.

So, it seems to be your idea that accusing someone of holding a heretical doctrine is fine, so long as you leave the word "heresy" out of the discussion?

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Paul and Isaiah plainly stated that none seek God on their own , were they both wrong?
van states that unsaved persons can receive the spiritual truths of the bible, yet Paul disagrees with him, do you disagree with Paul then here?

 

[JesusFan]

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.

How many seek after God apart form the working of the Holy Spirit according to isaiah and Paul?

 

[JesusFan]

A few Calvinists just like calling non-Calvinists heretics....not by using the word "heretic" but by attributing to them historical heresies that those non-Calvinists have rejected.

That is dishonest. It is an attempt to shut down an argument via slander. Usually that type of behavior is seen when one cannot defend their position.

If a member says he does not believe something then he does not believe that something.

The same reasoning should be applied when one states that holding to the accepted reformed and majority Baptist views regarding the Psa view of Calvary, and yet that view gets ridiculed as being "not biblical, not true, making God out to be pagan etc!"

 

[JonC]

How many seek after God apart form the working of the Holy Spirit according to isaiah and Paul?

To echo Van's post, nobody seeks after God except that God draw them.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, I have said with regard to 1 Corinthians 2:14 that unregenerate individuals can hear, understand and respond affirmatively to Spiritual Milk, the fundamentals of the Gospel, but not Spiritual Solid Food. This view is no where found in Semi-Pelagianism and I expect you know it.

Since salvation depends 100% on God and 0% on man, it is slander to claim my view is Semi-Pelaganism. And it is just as much a slander to claim the Holy Spirit's work is not a required prerequisite for any fallen individual to seek God or trust in Christ.

Likewise, post #139 misrepresents me yet again.

Do they understand and receive by faith the truth of the bible on their own , by exercising inherit faith and their free will then?

 

[JesusFan]

To echo Van's post, nobody seeks after God except that God draw them.

Van just posted that the lost person can hear and receive spiritual milk on their own, but Paul stated even milk is for babes in Christ, not any lost!

 

[JonC]

The same reasoning should be applied when one states that holding to the accepted reformed and majority Baptist views regarding the Psa view of Calvary, and yet that view gets ridiculed as being "not biblical, not true, making God out to be pagan etc!"

Depends on what you mean.

It is fair to question any of the theories of atonement (including mine). Historical comparisons is fine. Expressing an opinion they are unbiblical is fine.

This applies to most beliefs.

The problem is not expressing opinions. It is not even historical comparisons.

The problem is attributing to members beliefs that those members have denounced.

 

[JonC]

Van just posted that the lost person can hear and receive spiritual milk on their own, but Paul stated even milk is for babes in Christ, not any lost!

Then argue that with Van. Don't lie about him.

 

[JesusFan]

Depends on what you mean.

It is fair to question any of the theories of atonement (including mine). Historical comparisons is fine. Expressing an opinion they are unbiblical is fine.

This applies to most beliefs.

The problem is not expressing opinions. It is not even historical comparisons.

The problem is attributing to members beliefs that those members have denounced.

Or in stating that one theology must be non biblical and wrong period, such as some have stated Psa view is, but most one should say is that I think bible affirms or rejects that, but not that it means is categorically wrong!

 

[JesusFan]

Then argue that with Van. Don't lie about him.

The problem is though van seems to shift around his positions at times!

 

[JonC]

Or in stating that one theology must be non biblical and wrong period, such as some have stated Psa view is, but most one should say is that I think bible affirms or rejects that, but not that it means is categorically wrong!

No. There is nothing wrong with a member saying another's view is wrong.

 

[JonC]

The problem is though van seems to shift around his positions at times!

@Van has been very consistent since he has been a member here.

He told you what he believes. Argue he doesn't and see what happens (last warning).