|
Post by Brother Adiel on Aug 3, 2008 13:42:51 GMT -5
So you are saying that there is something that happens before the person is accountable that guarantees that the person will sin immediately once he becomes accountable. And this thing that happens is "not loving Christ". But in this case "not loving Christ" is not sin but yet it somehow guarantees that you will sin instantly when you become accountable. Correct? Is this what you are saying?
Yet, people sinning as soon as they become accountable is guaranteeable. Right?
Wait so you are saying that this child has never sinned (because he is under the age of accountability) but also that since he loves Christ he will not sin when he does become accountable. So, lets say, there he is loving Christ Jesus, then he becomes accountable yet he does not sin. He is accountable for lets say 1 hour without sinning when he dies. Correct? Is this what you believe is a possibility? People becoming accountable and dying without ever sinning?
Regarding the case of John the Baptist I would have to give further consideration. Was the John the Baptist born regenerate or does Him being filled with th Spirit mean something a bit different etc? Good questions. I will need to consider them.
But in the meanwhile I will ask you this... Did John the Baptist need forgiveness of sins? And do you believe that all babies are born filled with the Spirit of God? Do unaccountable children walk in the flesh or in the Spirit or in neither? In what do they walk?
No. But if he gives the command to bomb Iran. We will definitely be held accountable.
No, because breathing is not sinful.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 3, 2008 15:16:30 GMT -5
Adiel,
Thanks for answering my questions.
I had just a few more that I had asked earlier but forgot to repost.
If infants are "saved" even though they "deserve" hell, are they saved without faith and without repentance? And if so, how can this be?
And if infants are saved by the blood of Christ, does that mean that at the age of accountability they lose their salvation? If so, what causes them to lose their salvation? But if all infants are saved, and salvation cannot be lost, do you believe all men are saved?
Also, why doesn't the blood of Jesus cover everyone without faith and without repentance?
If you say that they cannot be obligated to repent and believe, because they are not able to repent and believe, do you believe that obligation is limited to ability? And if so, are we obligated to live our entire lives without sinning? And if we are obligated to do so, doesn't that mean that we are able to do so?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Aug 3, 2008 15:51:19 GMT -5
Adiel, Thanks for answering my questions. I had just a few more that I had asked earlier but forgot to repost. No problem. And I would also like to say that these answers are tentative as I am a student who is still learning. Infants have neither faith nor disbelief. Right? And they have no type of works to be judged on. Right? They have no works, no faith or disbelief. I mean I'm confused. What do you expect an infant to repent of? Is he born in sin? Yes. Is he sinful in heart? Yes. Has he personally sinned in an accountable state? I don't think so. He is still an infant. As the word suggests, I believe that at the age of accountability they become accountable for their sins. Before this age they weren't. But at this moment they are. I think this question was answered above. I think all infants who die in their infancy are saved by God's grace by the blood of Jesus. However, once they become accountable, they become accountable. Once they become accountable they continue to produce the fruit of their wicked hearts- the only difference is that before accountability their fruit was produced unknowingly but after accountability they are produced knowingly thus condemning them. In both cases they are spiritually dead. Another thing to consider is that I am in nowise saying that infants are regenerated or indwelt by the Holy Spirit which is what you seem to think I am saying. I am saying that lost sinful babies, perhaps are regenerated as they are dying but like I said I don't really know for sure. I am not saying that lost sinful babies are all regenerated and once they reach the age of accountability God removes His Spirit from them. I am not saying that they were sealed by the Spirit and given a new nature and then once they reached the age of accountability and sinned God removed their new nature and broke the seal. I am saying that perhaps God in His grace saves them as they are dying. Why would it? The command is to repent and believe the Gospel. Whoever does not repent will perish. I believe that once they reach the age of accountability thus sinning instantly, producing the fruit of their wicked hearts, they are to repent and believe the Gospel. God commands them so they must. If they don't they will perish. If they do they will be saved. More so we are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel. Jesus commanded cripples to walk and dead people to rise from the dead. Whats your question?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Aug 4, 2008 12:10:03 GMT -5
So you are saying that there is something that happens before the person is accountable that guarantees that the person will sin immediately once he becomes accountable. And this thing that happens is "not loving Christ". But in this case "not loving Christ" is not sin but yet it somehow guarantees that you will sin instantly when you become accountable. Correct? Is this what you are saying? I never said that not loving Christ is not a sin. No, because, the child might have eternal life & walking after the spirit before that. Tell me, can you sin while you are walking after the spirit? He is anle to never ever sin, now that he sa eternal life. Are you able to never ever sin if you walk after the spirit so that you do not fulfill the lust of the flesh? Sure. Why wouldn't you think do?
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 12, 2008 22:49:51 GMT -5
Personally, after hearing the show it sounded like logical fallacies were being presented like equivocation, by primarily the Pelagians. One thing that is essential for debate or discussion on these very important topics are clear definitions. For example, if Jesse and Paul are talking about Human Nature both need to define what they mean.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Aug 12, 2008 23:56:59 GMT -5
Personally, after hearing the show it sounded like logical fallacies were being presented like equivocation, by primarily the Pelagians. One thing that is essential for debate or discussion on these very important topics are clear definitions. For example, if Jesse and Paul are talking about Human Nature both need to define what they mean. Can you give an example of a logical fallacy that we "Pelagians" presented my Gnostic Friend? As far as defining things, I have no disagreement. Essential to understanding Biblical Doctrine is defining terms found in the Bible rightly. BUT, that is NOT essential in a debate or discussion as part of the debate/discussion would be the definition of words. By the way, do you mind telling us your name?
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 13, 2008 17:08:51 GMT -5
Specifically, with Jesse shouting things to Paul about sin and a sinful nature it sounded like equivocation because his word's could be interpreted more than one way. My suggestion is clear definitions. My humanistic pelagian friend my name is Ryan Dozier.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Aug 13, 2008 18:19:11 GMT -5
My humanistic pelagian friend... You guys are a riot. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 13, 2008 20:00:14 GMT -5
RC,
What do you think? Is homosexuality human nature or is it against human nature?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Aug 13, 2008 20:58:04 GMT -5
Specifically, with Jesse shouting things to Paul about sin and a sinful nature it sounded like equivocation because his word's could be interpreted more than one way. My suggestion is clear definitions. My humanistic pelagian friend my name is Ryan Dozier. Ah, young lad, you are Paul Kaiser's preaching buddy. I understand now. Let me ask you a question, how much of Pelagius have you read, if any? And IF you have read any, how much of it is second hand (from a source other than Pelagius himself)? I doubt you have read any of him and if you have, it has probably been from a Calvinist. They typically burn the Straw Man of Pelagius and think that by using ad hominen tactics in calling someone a Pelagian that they automatically win the debate. Pertaining to Jesse's discussion with Paul, he was simply stepping into the Calvinist worldview and destroying it from the inside out. You say that we are born with a "sinful nature" (whatever that means) that causes us to sin. Jesse simply asked if homosexuality is against human "sinful nature". They said that it was. Homosexuality is a sin and they therefore said that a certain sin was against the "sinful nature." What is your answer young man?
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Aug 14, 2008 9:49:11 GMT -5
Ah, young lad, you are Paul Kaiser's preaching buddy. I understand now. Let me ask you a question, how much of Pelagius have you read, if any? And IF you have read any, how much of it is second hand (from a source other than Pelagius himself)? Kerrigan.... Why do you always bring this up yet you yourself claim to have never read "any or much" of Pelegius. Are we to suppose that the information you have in regards to Pelegius is second hand as well? My Young Brother RC has reviewed some of the sources you have provided on the Library of Theology... Would those be creditable?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 14, 2008 9:56:59 GMT -5
I think Kerrigans point is that if someone is going to use the name "Pelagian" they ought to at least know what they are talking about. Kerrigan doesn't go around labeling things "Pelagian" so he doesn't have to thoroughly study the teachings of Pelagius and his followers. Often, those who label stuff as "Pelagian" don't even know what Pelagianism taught.
For example, I have heard some call Pelagianism "salvation by works" when Pelagius himself, in his commentary on the Romans, said that we are justified "by faith alone". Pelagius was saying "faith alone", before Martin Luther, during a time when the Catholic Church was teaching salvation by other things. Augustine for example taught salvation by infant baptism, and that of course has no faith in it at all. So Augustine denied salvation by faith, but Pelagius affirmed it. Interesting huh? It reminds me of that book, "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up". Pelagius never denied any of the essentials of salvation, but Augustine did.
RC, do you believe in salvation by infant baptism like Augustine? Or do you believe in salvation by faith like Pelagius? Should we label as a "Pelagian" everyone who believes in salvation by faith?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Aug 14, 2008 11:37:27 GMT -5
Ah, young lad, you are Paul Kaiser's preaching buddy. I understand now. Let me ask you a question, how much of Pelagius have you read, if any? And IF you have read any, how much of it is second hand (from a source other than Pelagius himself)? Kerrigan.... Why do you always bring this up yet you yourself claim to have never read "any or much" of Pelegius. Are we to suppose that the information you have in regards to Pelegius is second hand as well? My Young Brother RC has reviewed some of the sources you have provided on the Library of Theology... Would those be creditable? Big brother Paul coming to the rescue! If he can't stand the heat, maybe he needs to stay out of the kitchen brother. Jesse explained my purpose in asking that and when I asked you as well. I DON'T call people Pelagians, Calvinists do. YET, I haven't met ONE CALVINIST who has even read first hand sources about Pelagius. Now there are some who have read about Pelagius from our website and those articles are good, but there isn't anything negative about him on the website. Calvinists need to keep a MUCH tighter rein on their tongue or their religion is worthless according to the Jesus' half brother James...
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 14, 2008 21:41:16 GMT -5
I believe in Savation by faith alone through God's grace (Eph 2:8-9) God can use a donkey to speak the truth (Numbers either cpt 22 or 23), thus God can speak the truth even through someone that teaches things that are not Biblical (like Pelagius). However, just because someone says something that is true does not mean their understanding is true or the things they teach are true, this includes Pelagius. Jesse concerning Augustine and infant baptism; I do not see it in scripture, so I have to say he was wrong concerning this belief. Kerrigan, I have read some of Pelagius on the library of theology site so I only have read a bias viewpoint. But I must ask have you read Augustine's responses to Pelagius?
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 14, 2008 21:45:13 GMT -5
Jesse concerning Homosexuality and Romans chapter 1; I will respond when I have more time to articulate a response. Scripture does have an answer.
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Aug 14, 2008 23:38:52 GMT -5
Big brother Paul coming to the rescue! If he can't stand the heat, maybe he needs to stay out of the kitchen brother. Jesse explained my purpose in asking that and when I asked you as well. I DON'T call people Pelagians, Calvinists do. YET, I haven't met ONE CALVINIST who has even read first hand sources about Pelagius. Now there are some who have read about Pelagius from our website and those articles are good, but there isn't anything negative about him on the website. Calvinists need to keep a MUCH tighter rein on their tongue or their religion is worthless according to the Jesus' half brother James... It amazes me how you would refute a Calvinist for making asertions without reading Pelagius and accuse us for being in error for doing so yet you make the same error. You have said yourself you have not even read Calvin, Agustine, or any body else's Theology other than McArthur's notes in the NKJV Study Bible... Correct? So then by default your information must needs be second hand information. I agree that there are a many inconsistant Calvinist so I would suggest you look into the historical theology for yourself rather than refuting inconsistant arguments. As far as reading many first hand sources of Pelegius' work can you point me to any "first hand" resources other than a few obscure fragments? Aren't they all or mostly recorded from the hand of primarially Agustine and others? Correct me if I am wrong and I will stand humbly corrected... And as for the "Big Brother" statement.... Jesse sure does answer for you quite a bit.... In regards to this we could all do well.... Let me ask you are Gnostics "Damnable Heretics"? Jesse My friend, Ad Homeniem attack doesn't refute Augustinianism or Calvinism it just points out where Augustine was inaccurate... If a child molester teaches you math does that make the math he taught you wrong or untrue? I would suggest refuting the argument rather than the man - after all we have Dave Hunt to do that.... Would this negate all of what you believe in regards to Pelegius or do you, as the Romanists do, believe in the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the ever Virgin Mother of Seven Sorrows? "Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it." This is a core Marian Doctrine... Would you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Aug 15, 2008 0:22:24 GMT -5
It amazes me how you would refute a Calvinist for making asertions without reading Pelagius and accuse us for being in error for doing so yet you make the same error. You have said yourself you have not even read Calvin, Agustine, or any body else's Theology other than McArthur's notes in the NKJV Study Bible... Correct? So then by default your information must needs be second hand information. I agree that there are a many inconsistant Calvinist so I would suggest you look into the historical theology for yourself rather than refuting inconsistant arguments. Paul, to be precise, I have not ready any books on theology or systematic theology. That doesn't mean that I haven't read any of Augustine's or Calvin's quotes or that I haven't seen videos or audios of Piper, Sproul and MacArthur. What is your point anyway, Paul? I get my doctrine from the Bible. The whole point you always try to make by bringing up that I read Jesse's stuff, Finney, etc. is that I have been influenced by them and therefore got my doctrine from them. Not true brother, not true at all. The theological books I have read, I read with a Berean eye and only agree with it when it lines up with Scripture. But, in reference to the issue pertaining to this thread, I only called RC a gnostic to prove a point. You don't win an argument by going around and calling people names, specifically ones that most consider derogatory. I have seen this many times in the past. A Calvinist is losing a Biblical discussion and he just blurts out, "You're a Pelagian!" He then thinks he has won by default. How ridiculous is that. Plus, I don't go around calling people Calvinists unless I know what Calvin believed and what they believe. I don't go around calling people Augustinians unless I know what Augustine believed and what they believe. I don't go around calling people Gnostics unless I know what the Gnostics believed and what they believe. I'd like to see ONE, just ONE Calvinistic book that speaks badly about Pelagius that cites ANY resource AT ALL. What I have seen and heard is Straw Man...that's it... Well, then, let me get you some humble pie brother ;D Just kidding, here's some books that you can pick up, if you are willing to pay the price. They are on my list of books to buy. So, next time you ask me if I have read Pelagius, hopefully I can speak in the affirmative: Life and LettersCommentary on RomansCommentary on Thirteen Epistles of Paul Volume 1Commentary on Thirteen Epistles of Paul Volume 2All you had to do was ask brother. You know, us "Pelagians" go looking for our leaders writings so we can blindly follow them Really, is that right? Give me some examples brother, otherwise that is slander. He didn't seem to need to answer for me on your radio show not too long ago Are you referring to this message board? If a question is directed towards me on this message board and Jesse answers it before me, how is that "answering for me" Paul? And if Jesse answered the same way or close to the same as me, why should I waste my time answering as well? I have many other responsibilities to attend to. If this is what you call "answering for me", then I have done the same for him many times. But, we both know that is ridiculous when it comes to message boards... Yes, gnostics are DAMNABLE Heretics. If your next question, "Do I think Calvinists are damnable heretics?", the answer is no. I have explained why I used this term with RC earlier in this post. Besides, 5 Point Calvinists are just Semi-Gnostics or Inconsistent Gnostics ;D Hey, just so you know, it is ad hominen, not ad homeniem. ;D Do you really think that Jesse does ad hominen attacks on Augustinianism or Calvinism Paul? I know you have read more than that of what Jesse has to say Paul. Why don't you try responding to some of his Scriptures on this issue? Or BETTER YET, agree to having a formal debate? It could be the first one on our new upcoming radio show Oops, did I just "answer for Jesse" Oh know, I guess that means I am smarter then him and that he can't answer for himself...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 15, 2008 7:44:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Aug 15, 2008 9:39:34 GMT -5
Oh... I am so on my way to work (I hate that we are in different timezones) and will have to save this friendly banter until 7:00 PM! So as a 5 pointer I would be a "semi-d**nable heretic" or better yet an "inconsistant d**nable heretic"? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.... P.S. - Do us all a favor - No need to correct my spelling or poor english... Ask Jeff Fuller and you will quickly see that becomes a daunting and futile task.... ;D TTFN.... I'll be back tonight. P.P.S. - Jesse - Please email the PDF!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 15, 2008 11:11:02 GMT -5
Sure thing.
It is a great book. It is an unbiased presentation of what Augustine taught and what Pelagius taught taken from original sources.
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Aug 15, 2008 21:23:23 GMT -5
Brother Paul, glad to see you out of the shadows! Welcome also to Brother RC. Interesting point you make here Paul, but did you know that Augustine was a Mary worshipper? I am digging out the resource as I write now. Back in a bit to modify this post... Praise the Lord, found it...here we go.
Blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay you with praise and thanksgiving for having rescued a fallen world by your generous consent? What songs of praise can our weak human nature offer in your honor, since it was through you that it has found the way to salvation? Accept then such poor thanks as we have to offer, unequal though they be to your merits. Receive our gratitude and obtain by your prayers the pardon of our sins. Take our prayers into the sanctuary of heaven and enable them to bring about our peace with God.
May the sins we penitently bring before Almighty God through you be pardoned. May what we beg with confidence be granted through you. Take our offerings and grant our request; obtain pardon for what we fear, for you are the only hope of sinners. We hope to obtain the forgiveness of our sins through you. Blessed Lady, in you is our hope of reward.
Holy Mary, help the miserable, strengthen the discouraged, comfort the sorrowful, pray for your people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God. May all who venerate you, feel now your help and protection. Be ready to help us when we pray, and bring back to us the answers to our prayers. Make it your continual care to pray for the People of God, for you were blessed by God and were made worthy to bear the Redeemer of the world, Who lives and reigns forever.
—Saint Augustine (d. 430) Dictionary of Mary (Catholic Book Publishing Co.: New Jersey, 1997, 1985, p. 531.)
True salvation is only found in the Lord Jesus. He is our life (1 John 5:12) and the only way to the Father (John 14:6). Praying to Mary is not going to assist in obtaining forgiveness of sins for us. It is also disobedience in itself to how the Lord taught for us to pray.
How did Augustine get into Heaven? Notice Sinner Augustine's prayer to Mary refers to our weak human nature, this must be the prelude to his 'sinful nature' doctrine. Also in the second para line four, "for you are the only hope of sinners. We hope to obtain the forgiveness of our sins through you. " What!!!!, blasphemy alert, d**nable heretic alert.
The Mary of Calvinism’s Augustine (and Catholicism) is not the Mary of the Bible.
Please don't justify Augustine by saying we are conducting slander or ad hominem attacks against him and that he is not perfect, you know this is a very serious issue. The Apostle, Saint Paul had no problem calling out false doctrines and teachers by name. It is not enjoyable to do, but most necessary as we seek to be refined by God's Word, not the traditions or doctrines of men.
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Aug 16, 2008 2:33:31 GMT -5
Okay... I am going to try and address a few points here but we are going to have to narrow them down a bit or else we get all over the place... Kerrigan, I'm a simple man and I'm making a simple observation. It seems that you call to the carpet anyone that makes an assertion towards Pelegius (forgive me if I spell it wrong) as reading only second hand information yet you yourself readily admit that you have only read quotes of Augustine or Calvin, I would assume these were compiled by others since you have not read the actual theologies written by the men. Wouldn't that make your information "second hand" as well and does that make it any less reliable? My point is what makes it wrong for the Calvinist to use second hand information but yet it is okay for you to use second hand information? Seems a little inconsistant... What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander... As far as contemporaries go I wasn't addressing them. Very well... I will concede on this point although I do believe that all of us are somewhat shaped by what we read if not what is the purpose of reading commentators and other theological works? And yes I would agree we should all be good Bereans if it is not consistant with Scripture we should reject it. I guess my next question would be could you have fully assesed what RC believed from his inital post to the extent to call him a Gnostic? I do understand the point you were trying to make and this leads to my next question... Would you consider yourself a Pelagian if you had to use a term to identify your Soteriology? Would you consider it an honor to be associated with Pelagius? Just wondering..... Call me a dirty rotten Calvinist or a filty stinking Christian and I don't get offended (I may offer a defense but not offended), They are simple terms to define what I believe and hold to as true. Again what is good for the Goose is good for the gander.... All I did was address a question that was directed to RC before he got around to it... And why do you always use my name like that, Kerrigan? No slander intended, I stand corrected if wrong, but I do offer an example.... Again no slander intended... Maybe a little bantering fun, but not slander... There you go using my name like that again, Kerrigan... I think this will answer your question as well John... Jesse offered this question in an effort to prove the Calvinistic position incorrect because Augustine believed in infant baptism. You offer the portion on the doctrine of Mary. Pelagius and Augustine were both Catholics and clearly by the "must needs of Mary's piety being sinless" we can see that they both held to similar views regarding Mary as Catholics. Although none of you addressed my question...? How about I offer up a Wesley Quote: Disciple all nations - Make them my disciples. This includes the whole design of Christ's commission. Baptizing and teaching are the two great branches of that general design. And these were to be determined by the circumstances of things; which made it necessary in baptizing adult Jews or heathens, to teach them before they were baptized; in discipling their children, to baptize them before they were taught; as the Jewish children in all ages were first circumcised, and after taught to do all God had commanded them.Would you say because Wesley professed infant baptism and contrasted it to circumcision all that he taught was wrong? Do you baptize your babies? Would the doctrine of Holiness or perfection be wrong ( humor me for a moment as you know we differ here as well)? The point I'm trying to make is like when unregenerate God haters sa, "Christianity is wrong because of the crusades!" Ad hominen (is that better ) doesn't prove the position is wrong. This is exactly what Dave Hunt did in his book... He brought up the flaws of Agustine, Luther, and Calvin as a refutation to the Doctrines of Grace. You commit a logical fallicy. I just wouldn't use Wesley's view of infant baptism to refute Perfection or Prevenient Grace - rather I'd appeal to the testimony of Scripture. Maybe I miss understand you guys... I look forward to listening in to your show and eventually calling in and I will make sure to identify myself.... Kinda like you like people to do when they first register for this board. As far as the engaging in debate on the MB or via podcast due to the fact of equivocation (as RC pointed out and I believe Steve Noel in the past) it is best that I get a better understanding of your theology first. That way you are not always forced to define every little term and I am not forced to unveil OZ... Yes it's a horrible "proof text" but I'm sure you get my point... Basically it is a daunting task to refute something you don't have a proper understanding of without setting up straw men or misrepresenting the other side's position. I don't do it with Mormons and I surely won't do it with friends. Don't worry we'll get there patience, patience... It will be worth the wait and, Lord willing, profitable for all. Thanks for all the links to resources but I am having a hard enough time keeping my "Gnostic Heresy" library wish list under wraps. However anything in PDF you would like to share please send me a link or forward. Rest assured I will read it! Sorry if I didn't address all of your questions... Let me know if there is something I overlooked? I'm tired, this took a long time, and I'm going to bed.... God Bless
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Aug 16, 2008 7:48:53 GMT -5
Hey Brother Paul. Was that an ok use of your name ? I really don't know what you mean concerning that. Maybe you could elaborate on it some more Brother. Concerning the Pelagius thing and calling Calvinists to the carpet, maybe I haven't explained myself well enough. I attempted to do so here: All I have ever heard Calvinists do is talk bad about Pelagius. They don't cite "from the horses mouth" per say. Maybe using the words "second hand" was the wrong terminology. Maybe I should have called it "no hand". It seems as if a bad rumor was passed on over the years and people just accept it as fact because "everyone knows its true." Can you give me one Calvinist who cites from Pelagius' work in a book, video, article, sermon or whatever else? I can give you TONS of videos, books, articles, sermons, etc. that cite Augustine, Calvin and Luther. They cite directly from their writings. That is my point. Calvinists DON'T DO THAT. They just slander, slander, slander Pelagius. Again, that is what I mean by keeping a tight rein on your tongue. You should know what you are talking about before you go around calling people "pelagians". As far as me being a Pelagian, I'd say that I'm not. From what I understand about what Jesse has shared with me and from the little I have read about Pelagius on www.LibraryOfTheology.com, I don't agree with a lot of what Pelagius said. As far as Soteriology goes, I'll tell you what I believe: 1) I believe in Free Will 2) People are not "born sinners" and are not born with a "sinful nature" 3) Babies NEVER go to Hell (but they don't need to be baptized like Pelagius believed) 4) Every person has the ability to Repent and the ability to Follow Jesus 5) No one ever has to sin, so YES Christians CAN live perfectly 6) A person who is genuinely saved can fall away from the faith, depart from the faith or be cut off (then again, you know all of these things by now) If believing these things makes me a "Pelagian", then so be it. I prefer the term Biblinian. From what I understand, Pelagius was a GREAT GUY! He stood up for holiness and lived a very pure life. I have even heard that Augustine said he was a really Holy person. If I lived during that time, I think that we would have gotten along very well. I probably wouldn't have been one of his "followers" or anything, but we would have been friends for sure!
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Aug 16, 2008 9:36:46 GMT -5
Kinda like me and you! The name thing was just a joke.... It just kept making me feel like I was being questioned or corrected by my Dad.... Did you clean your room, Paul? What did you do that for, Paul? Get the belt, Paul! or like a big brother.... Get out of my room, Paul! How stupid you think that,Paul! Give me your lunch money, Paul! I don't know maybe it's just me... I can't handle it when kids call me "Hey Mr." either... I much rather "Hey Bro!"....LOL Maybe I was just such a bad sinnful little kid that people always used my name attached to a correction or rebuke and now I think of it as a dirty word when someone uses it at the end of a sentence. Thanks for the clarification on the Pelagian position as well.... How did I know you were going to say "Biblian"...! I was almost going to put in my post... "and don't say I'm Biblian".... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Aug 16, 2008 15:04:51 GMT -5
Hahaha! I see what you mean with the name thing now. That wasn't the way it was happening in my head. Maybe I had just got done disciplining my son or something ;D . Oh yeah, and when it comes to Wesley, I disagree with him on a lot of things as well: Original Sin, Sinful Nature, Prevenient Grace, Second Blessing, etc. We agree on living a Holy Life, on the Gospel and on Conditional Security though...
|
|