Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

If Pelagianism = Heresy, Then Calvinists = Anathema?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Dante View Post
    The desire is still one's own. The responsibility of sin still lies with us, not the devil.
    It's our responsibility to ask God's help fighting desire/temptation/sin, of course. If we go with the devil it's also our responsibility and fault.

    Originally posted by Dante View Post
    All that is just nothing more than arguments from silence.
    Well we (or I am) are looking at what the Bible really says. It doesn't say Adam was born desiring the Tree of Knowledge all on his own -- that is an argument from silence. It says:

    1. Adam sinned after the Serpent influenced Eve and Eve influenced him, and that the Serpent was responsible for the initial temptation.
    2. Sin entered the world by Adam, and Satan has tempted men from Job to Jesus.
    3. After Satan, demons, and wicked humans go into the Lake of Fire, temptation and sin seem to exist no more.

    The Bible goes on and on about not being tempted by Satan. If man doesn't need Satan to be tempted, what's the big deal, such warnings would be entirely redundant. So the view that Satan tempts men as entered into humanity by way of Adam is biblical, as is the position we need God to fight Satan and temptation.

    Whereas Pelagianism says you don't need God to fight temptation and cast Satan off of you, you can do it on your own. So I fail to see how my position even remotely resembles Pelagianism.
    Last edited by JohnnyP; 01-26-2014, 10:12 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
      Biblically there was nothing to cause Adam to sin until the external influence of the Serpent appeared. Anything else is add-on fairy tales speculating he would have sinned anyway even without Satan. This position is not Pelagianism, it's biblical.

      Further, Adam could have chosen to avoid the Serpent with God's help, as all of humanity can do. Jesus proved that, being fully human and tempted as we are, but sought the Father's help perfectly and didn't sin. If we say man is totally depraved and bound to sin no matter what, we either deny Jesus was ever fully human, or we must admit Jesus sinned at some point.

      This is also not Pelagianism, which suggests humans can of free will choose not to sin, without God. So I think my position is simply misunderstood.
      The Bible doesn't say what would have happened to Adam if Satan had not tempted him and Eve. The Bible does not say what would have happened if Eve had succumbed to the temptation but Adam had not, or vice versa. All we know for certain from Genesis 3 is that Satan occasioned the particular temptation which led to Adam and Eve's sin.

      Similarly, I would not be too quick to extrapolate from the experience of Jesus the God-Man what must be true of the rest of us. No one doubts that Jesus was a special case of "man." He represents the best that man can be (and, for some, will be eventually), but his atypicality makes him a poor model for assuming what everyone must be like.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by RBerman View Post
        The Bible doesn't say what would have happened to Adam if Satan had not tempted him and Eve. The Bible does not say what would have happened if Eve had succumbed to the temptation but Adam had not, or vice versa. All we know for certain from Genesis 3 is that Satan occasioned the particular temptation which led to Adam and Eve's sin.
        True, but to say Adam was created from the start with temptation and desire to sin even without Satan is also speculation.

        Originally posted by RBerman View Post
        Similarly, I would not be too quick to extrapolate from the experience of Jesus the God-Man what must be true of the rest of us. No one doubts that Jesus was a special case of "man." He represents the best that man can be (and, for some, will be eventually), but his atypicality makes him a poor model for assuming what everyone must be like.
        I think the following suggests that Jesus was tempted as we are and as such, was as able to sin as anyone else is. Else he would not be tempted in all points if we say he could have never sinned. I don't believe he emptied himself to become flesh yet had some kind of special protection because he is also God, but rather that he also emptied himself of that protection and was open to sin but didn't. So I would say he was the best of men during the incarnation, not because he was also God, but because he really was the best of men in relying on the Father for strength to resist Satan.

        Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Dante View Post
          If that is how you want to define monergism...
          "Monergism" = "one work." It is the literal meaning of the word. In the case of Calvinists, it refers to the work of the Holy Spirit. In the case of Pelagians, it refers to their own work.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #20
            That is not how the term is theologically applied, there is a history and meaning that can't be ignored
            The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

            sigpic

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
              That is not how the term is theologically applied, there is a history and meaning that can't be ignored
              Oh, I agree that it's only been historically applied to Calvinists. On the other hand, Pelagians can hardly be called synergists.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #22
                They are outside of the categories-- the categories have as their referent the relationship of God's working to man. If God isn't needed then the category doesn't apply.
                The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                sigpic

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
                  They are outside of the categories-- the categories have as their referent the relationship of God's working to man. If God isn't needed then the category doesn't apply.
                  This seems fair.
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
                    They are outside of the categories-- the categories have as their referent the relationship of God's working to man. If God isn't needed then the category doesn't apply.
                    But if man isn't needed the category does?
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      But if man isn't needed the category does?
                      You don't say?
                      The fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles; while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics. - Karl Popper, 1987

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Man is needed as the object. You simply don't get to redefine theological terms. The "ergism" is God's part. God alone or God with man. You can't take a heresy and shove it in--- that's the same sleight of hand HPs do when they refuse to recognize the grounding of the Second Coming, and once you remove that grounding it is nonsense to speak of traditional Christian theological categories.
                        The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
                          Man is needed as the object. You simply don't get to redefine theological terms. The "ergism" is God's part. God alone or God with man.
                          You're begging the question. The "ergism" is the work being done. "Mon-" or "Syn-" is who is doing the work.
                          You can't take a heresy and shove it in--- that's the same sleight of hand HPs do when they refuse to recognize the grounding of the Second Coming, and once you remove that grounding it is nonsense to speak of traditional Christian theological categories.
                          What sleight of hand am I doing? I am admittedly unfamiliar with the parallel you're drawing, but I'm arguing from the literal definition of the word.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The literal definition of television is "far-seeing" --- literal definition often have little to do with the actual definition. You are taking terms with established referents and using them inappropriately. The ergism is the work BEING DONE by God. It is foreign to a system, in theological terms, where God is not required.
                            The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
                              The literal definition of television is "far-seeing" --- literal definition often have little to do with the actual definition. You are taking terms with established referents and using them inappropriately. The ergism is the work BEING DONE by God. It is foreign to a system, in theological terms, where God is not required.
                              I want to call my TV "farseer" now.
                              I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                It's hard to know what "heresy" can mean in a Christian community that's as divided as the current one. Traditionally we could judge it by a set of doctrinal standards, but those are normally associated with a specific part of Christianity, and are often not broad enough to use to represent judgements of the Christian community as a whole.

                                Things that I would want to call heresy are generally failures of balance. In the case of Pelagianism, almost all Christians agree that we must do justice both to human responsibility and to God's sovereignty and our need for his grace. We call something Pelagian when it denies the role of and our need for grace. Now Calvinists at times call Catholics Pelagian. It's not uncommon that these heresies get thrown around in internecine argument. But Catholics, Arminians, and Calvinists do all attempt to balance both human responsibility and grace. They do it differently, and at times don't even recognize that the others are doing so. But Pelagius really did seem to say that humans could follow God without the need for grace. He used the term grace, but I believe he meant it to be the fact that God gave us the Gospel and Jesus, not that God actually works spiritually in individuals. Nor did I get the sense of the shepherd leaving the 99 to go after the 1, or the mad lover of Hosea who still loves Israel even though it has become a whore.

                                There is an equivalent on the other side, but it's really hypercalvinism, not orthodox Calvinism. I realize that some people throw around words like fatalism to describe Calvinists, just like Calvinists throw around Pelagian to describe everyone that they disagree with. But Calvin and actual Reformed theologians (as opposed to Internet apologists) do try to balance grace and human responsibility. They just do it differently than either the Lutheran or Arminian tradition.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X