Define Arminianism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism

You must thereby conclude that all who are Arminians are thereby heretics, and must be treated so. You must also repent, because in being on this board and interacting with known Arminians (=Semi-Pelagians=heretics) you are disobeying God's direct command to His Calvinist children to "come out from among them, and be ye Separate, saith the Lord."

JDale

 

In that case, read my above post to the Ripper.

You guys are gonna be in for a BIG surprise in Heaven!



JDale

 

Erin,could you please translate this into understandable English?Whatever do you mean by "they are both on the same spiritual level so whatever one is the other naturally follows."?I'm sure others here couldn't make heads of this statement of yours as well.

 

You're another one here who doesn't read too well. I had said that "The Synod of Dort pronounced Arminianism as heresy." But I went on to say that was "too strong." Care to eat crow now?

 

That's what he is indeed saying.
Do you agree ?
I don't.

Poor definition and not verbatim but: a heretic is one who does not hold to views that are popularly held.

In that case, a Calvinist will have to prove that his doctrine is the one that is popularly held, an Arminian will have to do the same thing, and so would a semi-Pelagian, and a Pelagian.

Now, if one Calvinist church or association points to another Calvinist church within their association and call certain aspects of their teaching heresy because they have closely examined it not to be "in step" with their association's member churches' teachings, then they are right, and the same thing with the other 'isms.

But since the majority of Baptists think of themselves as local, autonomous, and independent, and most abhor associations, where is heresy ?

 

I think a number of folks here (especially the non-Cals) would consider heresy as holding to soul-damning doctrines.That's what a mod said regarding Calvinists.

If one wants to reduce the severity of the word to holding a minority position then the question has to be asked "Do you mean a minority stance with respect to the last 2,000 years of Church History -- or the last 100 or so years?"

An even better way of addressing the subject of heresy is to ask what the Scriptures say.

I have used the term anti-biblical to those who depart from God's Word in certain areas.I regard this as serious.I do not mean to imply that they are unsaved and bound for everlasting burnings.

I have used the term sub-biblical in reference to those who distort portions of God's Word.It's not as bad as anti-biblical;but is still significant.

 

I am saying that, In my opinion, any theology that is synergistic is untrue, false, man glorifying, selfish, a works based salvation, and against scripture, therefore, it is (to some degree) heresy.

BUT, I would be very cautious to call anyone a heretic because 1: the heart is what Christ looks at 2: heresy comes in different shapes and forms 3: heresy is thought of differently by different people, some see it as always damnable while others view it as any untruth that is taught or believed. So I would not call an Arminian a heretic, I would just call them wrong...... No need for everyone to get offended, many of you think I am wrong and that is fine, I just stated what everyone believes about the people they disagree with

 

Peace, brother !
On these qualifications of what you mean by heresy, we are in agreement.

 

I stand corrected

I was mostly going off memory of what someone (who may, or may not have known what they were talking about) had told me quiet some time ago. Thanks for the CORRECT info. :thumbs:

 

No prob. Just so you know however I was only putting forth information on something you weren't sure of and nothing more. :thumbs: