Featured How many here hold to the heresy of Pelagianism

Yes. ALL of that (not just part).

You cannot say that someone holds to Pelaganism because they deny that human nature is tainted by the Fall. Pelaganism is more than that. Many orthodox Christians believe that Adam was created with a human nature as we are. The issue of the relationship to the Fall or Adam's sin (the "in" , "in and with", and "representative" issues) have been debated within Christianity for centuries.

For example, you believe that God must draw people to Christ for them to be saved. Arminianism holds this doctrine as well. So you must be Arminian. But you are not. You are a Calvinist. Arminianism is more than just the belief that God draws people to Christ (and so is Calvinism).

 

People can be difficult. I do not hold to Pelaganism or semi-Pelaganism. I just hate to see these beliefs used as clubs and false attributed to people as some sort of insult. I am a compatabilist (I'm not on the fence but have a foot over each side of the fence). So both sides see me as wrong (I believe that God's will is not man's will...that when we consider divine sovereignty and human responsibility our conclusions are by virtue of the eternal nature of God anthropomorphic). In short....I don't play well with others.

 

You can disagree, and that is fine. Perhaps the difference is in definitions.

As I have stated previously, I believe that God has chosen from the foundation of the earth those who will be saved and those who will not be saved, and this is based solely on the will of God. God has elected, unconditionally, those who will be saved and decreed their salvation. I disagree with many Calvinists because I also believe that God has elected who will be damned (a double-predestination) and decreed their damnation. There is nothing, IMHO, that occurs outside of God's divine sovereignty and all things have not only been ordained that they would occur but they have been decreed that they should occur (including this present pandemic) so as this world itself is within God's sovereign plan.

I believe that no one seeks God and no one can truly do that which is good except that this be the work of God in them. No one can approach God without God drawing them. Men are turned towards the flesh and their own desires, not toward God.

I do not define my belief above as Pelaganism. I find it VERY interesting (perhaps telling) that this is what you view as Pelaganistic belief.

Knowing that you would define my view as synergist and falling squarely into both Pelagain and semi-Pelagain positions I think that we may hold very different definitions of those terms and question that you know what they mean. How do you define those terms?

 

Yes, it would. But who here holds such a position????

This is a straw-man thread.

 

@AustinC ,

For my part, I need to provide my definition of those terms as well (it was an oversight that I asked you to provide your definitions but I did not....sorry).

I define Pelagianism as the belief (expressed by Pelagius) that God made men free to choose between good and evil and that sin is a voluntary act committed by a person against God's law.

Pelagius viewed sin is a voluntary act committed against God, and he rejected infant baptism and the doctrine that sin is transmitted by heredity to Adam's descendants.

By the normal definition of Pelagianism I am far from that doctrine because here I hold a very Calvinistic view in that while I do believe we are free to choose between good and evil I believe that apart from divine intervention we will choose evil.

I define Semi-Pelagianism as a mixture of Pelagianism and Augustine thought. Semi-Pelaganism does not go so far as to say that men can choose God (choose salvation) but that there is in man enough moral aptitude to repent and turn towards God. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that the initial steps of grace are taken by the human will and divine grace takes over.


Arminianism, on the other hand, is a reverse of Semi-Pelagianism. Arminianism holds that no one can turn to God except God draw him. God takes that initial step and draws all men. But then it is up to man to choose God.

Synergy is an interaction or cooperation in salvation between man and God. Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism are Synergistic positions. God and man works together to accomplish salvation.

Obviously my beliefs fail to meet my definition of these terms, but they also fail to meet the traditional definitions.

1. I believe that salvation is entirely a work of God (man is unable to contribute to his salvation).
2. God has chosen from the foundation of the world who will be saved and who will remain condemned. This is a part of God's will and design and for His glory.
3. The heart of man is wicked, turned to evil, and will not seek God except God draw him.
4. God chooses men, God draws men, the Father gives men to the Son, and God changes the heart of men, puts His Spirit in them. Men contribute nothing.

Please define those terms and explain how you come to believe that my view is synergism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism.

Thanks,

 

My pleasure .

 

Yes. I never said otherwise.

 

No. What bothers me about Calvinism is the same thing that bothers me about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and that is the judicial philosophy that is assumed (and rarely defended). If that philosophy is correct then I believe Penal Substitution Theory has to be correct and Calvinism is the logical conclusion to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

 

Who do you believe has stated that men come to God without the work of the Spirit?

 

But you are confusing Pelagianism with "seeing people as not affected by the fall".

You are also calling into question the fact that Calvinism (Calvin's own writings and the Canons of Dort) affirm human free agency (that men are able to freely decide themselves).

So I take it your real answer is that no one here has affirmed Pelagianism (no one on the BB has denied the necessity of God working in the life of those who will believe towards salvation) and you just hesitate to admit it....correct?