Calvinism

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

You blow a lot of smoke but have very little substance to what you write.

Take this thread for example.

#9 I bring up the problem of "inability" as it relates to the Doctrine of Total Depravity and how this teaching supports the contention that a Christian convert remains in a double minded state still n bondage to sin. I also make the point (using the Scripture) that we are not born dead as the Totaly Depravity teaches.

#58 I make the point that both John Calvin and Martin Luther heavily relied on Augustine of Hippo in the formulation of their theology especially as it relates to the "inability" and "inborn sin."

#62 I reference a video by brother Mike where he is teaching that we cannot serve two masters.

#75 I state the fact that Penal Substitution is a "recently invented doctrine" and how under Reformed Theology justification is disconnected from the manifest character of an individual.

#76 You then respond to my post by indicating that:-
1. You find my ideas extremely disturbing.
2. You object to the concept that Christ's death did not satisfy the wrath of God.
3. You assert confusion over "saved FROM sin" and "saved IN sin" indicating in your mind there is no difference.
4. You claim that we are in "sinful bodies" and that due to this we won't actually be saved from sin until glorification (clearly you believe the problem of sin is rooted in being in a flesh body as opposed to CHOICE).

#77 I respond to you with concise references in regards to the development of the various doctrines of the atonement. Penal Substitution is of recent invention. I also make a concise and reasoned list of my chief objections to Penal Substitution.

#78 You respond by indicating that you:-
1. Are not interested in looking at history.
2. My posts are too long.
3. You claim I make connections which do not exist.
4. You claim there is no difference between ransom and wrath satisfaction.
5. You also claim that there doesn't seem to be any practical implications to what I am saying (in other words my writings are some abstract theological constructs which are not really relevant.

#80 I reemphasise the practical implications I have already clearly outlined in my previous posts, in particular that a genuine Christian cannot serve two masters. We cannot serve sin and righteousness at the same time and that these doctrines I am refuting teach that we can and do.

#81. You respond by claiming that:-
1. Vice and virtue are indeed transferable properties because the old has died and the new is Christ.
2. In regards to justice what is man to conform God to man's ideas (thus you resort to argumentum e silentio).
3. Jesus is legally liable for our sin.

#82 I cite specific verses which Reformed Theology and Penal Substitution flat out deny.

#83 You claim I am reading thing into Penal Substitution and thus I am viewing it how I choose to see it.

#84 I allude to the parable of the unforgiving servant and how forgiveness was granted without a payment being made. Thus forgiveness is conditional on repentance and faith NOT on a "sin debt" having to be paid. The death of Christ has to do with the REMISSION of sin in that the blood of Christ purges the conscience of sin.

#85 You respond by saying you are "getting a whiff" that I don't believe in a sinful nature which "causes" us to sin. (I respond to this in #89)

#86 I again address the problem of double mindedness as it relates to forensic justification which disconnects manifest deeds from faith.

#87 You claim that everything you mention is in the Bible and that because the blood cleanses it is the eternal evidence that the penalty has been paid.

#89 I examine the sinful nature with the Scripture. I address Rom 5:12 and how Augustine erred in understanding that verse due to his dependance on the Latin Vulgate which translates it wrong (this verse being the foundation upon which Augustine established his erroneous doctrine of sin being passed down in the male sperm). I also explain Eph 2:3 and examine Rom 7:9. I then explain that dualism (ie. the flesh in and of itself is sinful, the soul is not) was Gnostic heresy which was actually refuted by Christian's before Augustine.

#91 You then claim I make distinctions without difference. Yet like every single post you have so far made you do not explain WHY. You then make a double-tongued statement that sin is not ok but permissible.

and so on...

Not a single response of yours actually specifically addresses anything I write with any reasoning whatsoever.

All you do is say things like, "it is not so." "The Bible does not teach that." "You are wrong." "I don't need to examine that," etc.

Every single response is just a smoke blowing exercise.

Now your latest response is this...



You just blow everything off and never address anything. I don't even know why you honestly post replies, to fill up space perhaps?

For the record I am not a disciple of Mike DeSario. Mike DeSario is a sound teacher who preaches repentance and faith proven by deeds. Thus he is a preacher of righteousness who contends earnestly that sinners forsake their sin and turn to God.

Mike's preaching definitely caused me to re-evaluate my doctrine and thus led me to a strong conviction of the Holy Spirit and thus to repentance. Yet I follow Christ, not Mike. God gives the increase and people like Mike water the plants.

Instead of making simplistic blanket statements why don't you SPECIFICALLY address the SUBSTANCE of what I post? Otherwise you are just proving yourself irrelevant in this context.

I am Skinski7 on christianchat.com by the way.

Because I don't allow myself to get entangled in vain reasonings. You never give direct simple responses, to simple direct questions. It always has to be these lengthy elaborations, that are apparently required to make all the necessary connections you need to support your contrived edifice. I've learned to be suspicious of people like yourself because they have a lot of words, but when it comes to the truth they generally don't have much to say. When I read what you write, I immediately detect fallacies. When this happens repeatedly, I simply cease to be interested. It's not my job to set you straight or correct your errors. I simply wait and pray. And I'm glad I did because I think I've found the definitive scripture that defines this whole dialectic: Romans 8:1

 

[Wormwood]

ScottAU,

Thanks for your responses. I am going to try to address some issues here without going on too long. However, you seem to lump major theological doctrines together in catergories that simply do not belong together or make conclusions that I find to be in direct conflict with the actual teachings of the theological system. I will point to a few here:

The issue is that conversion under Reformed Doctrine necessitates the serving of two masters. At the root of Reformed Theology is the complete denial of the teaching that the "eye must be single" and that fact that we "cannot" serve two masters,

Due to the doctrine of Total Depravity man is viewed as UNABLE to obey God thus they teach...

I would say that the "serving two masters" context has to do with God an money, so I dont see the connection here between this verse and the doctrine of Total Depravity. I am not even sure how to follow your reasoning here that Total Depravity and responsiblity (or lackthereof) has anything to do with our service to God. Arminians believe in Total Depravity as well and they are certainly not Reformed and certainly believe in personal responsiblity.

They attach "sin" to the "flesh." This is what Augustine did when he introduced dualism into Christianity. Augustine saw concupiscence (natural desire) as evidence that the "flesh itself" was sinful and thus the problem with mankind was not the choices he made but rather it was being in a flesh and blood body which had been corrupted by the sin of Adam.

Its true that sin is attached to the flesh in some of these doctrines (although not limited to Reformed Theologians...Cathoics teach the same thing). However, I dont buy the idea that this leads to dualism or that Reformed Theologians are dualists. I think the Bible does speak significantly about sin (even personified in Romans 7-8) tied to flesh (sarx) vs. those who live by the Spirit. But clearly Paul is not being dualistic (which is why the NIV errantly translates sarx as "sinful nature"). This is a grace and law issue in the context of Romans 7-8. In any event, I dont see the problem that a corrupted flesh leads to evil choices. This certainly does not alleviate responsibility for evil acts because humanity is depraved (Reformed Theologians and Catholics would both roll their eyes at such a notion).

This doctrine completely and utterly throws the concept of human responsibility out the window and denies that human beings can obey God (unless God offsets the inability with some kind of irresistible or prevenient grace).

So I take it by this statement that you are Pelagian? Again, I think you either do not understand these doctrines or you are wildly caricaturizing them. Arminians believe in prevenient grace and certainly hold to human responsibility. Total depravity by no means suggest that people are not responsible for their actions. It simply means that not only are they responsible, but they are corrupt. No one is arguing that the evil humanity does is not an act of will and consent. However it does mean that every human being needs a savior and cannot save themselves. The fault with the Pelagianism you are arguing for here is that it suggests that humanity is not broken but is clean at birth and has the capability of saving itself...entirely able of living a sinless life and thus quite able to be without need of a Savior. Prevenient grace or preventing grace simply means that God has to give grace in order for them to respond and turn to God. However, Arminians believe that this grace can be resisted. God's grace must always be cooperated with and it ilicits and not destroys free will responses of faith. I think this is very consistent with Biblical teaching as we are "by nature" objects of wrath, selfish, violent and cruel (which you seem to agree with). Children do not have to be taught to be mean and selfish. It is very much part of our nature and I think both the Bible and modern studies verify this fact.

They totally misunderstand the inherent passions of the flesh. Temptation IS NOT sin. The flesh "draws" people to sin due to the natural passions and desires. Those natural passions and desires are not sinful at all, they are to be ruled over responsibly.

Here I agree with you that original sin is false. I believe we are all corrupted by the original sin of Adam and Eve, but not that we all hold the "guilt" of that sin. So prevenient grace is quite the opposite of what you are describing here...it agrees with you that we are led to sin by our natures, but this temptation is not sin. Yet Calvinists would argue that by our sinful acts we "agree" with the original sin with Adam and so our acts (not temptations) verify the fact that we are depraved and guilty of Adam's sin by our agreement with it in our own acts. Of course I disagree with this logic, but nonetheless, this is not Gnosticism or dualism. Calvinists and Arminians both believe that the flesh can be good and holy (unlike dualists) through the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, I think your quoting of 1 John in reference to those born of God do not sin is neglecting the historical setting of this writing. In my opinion, John is writing to Christians who are being influenced by the beginnings of Gnosticism. Some Gnostics taught that because the flesh was bad and only the spirit was good, that one could do anything they wanted with their body because it didnt matter...only the spirit and the knowledge (gnosis) they recieved spiritually mattered. Jesus came not to die for the sins of people and purify them by his blood, but to communicate special knowledge by which people could be saved. So, when John writes things like, "You have no need for someone to teach you...." he is not saying that teachers are evil or unnessary (clearly the Holy Spirit gives some the gift of teaching!). Rather, he is saying, "You do not need some enlightened teacher to give you special knowledge of how to become children of God...you already have the Holy Spirit..and He is the one who teaches you all things" (my paraphrase). In the same way, when he says, "Anyone born of God does not sin..." he is not saying that a true Christian will no longer sin (for he says in chapter 1 that if anyone DOES sin we have an advocate with the Father) but that those who are born of God do not indulge sin but walk as Jesus walked...unlike these Gnostics that taught you could do whatever you wanted with the flesh since it was corrupt anyway.

I agree with you that we should not wink at sin and say "Well, Im only a sinner saved by grace...so what do you expect." Certainly God gives us his grace and power by the Holy Spirit to live transformed lives that overcome sin and temptation now. Our lives should be holy now...not just one day in heaven. But we are still earthen vessels subject to weakness, poor memory, ignorance, and many other struggles. We rely on grace each day and know that grace is sufficent not only to transform us, but to pick us up when we fall so that we can continue to strive toward Christ-likeness. I think Calvinists would agree with this entirely as well...as they believe that once a person is "quickened" by the Holy Spirit and chosen by God that they have to power (and the desire...if the Spirit is truly present) to live a holy life. So I dont think your case fits here unless you are trying to argue that non-Christians who do not have the Holy Spirit are capable of living holy and sin-free lives....this is Pelagianism and completely wrong.

 

[ScottAU]

Because I don't allow myself to get entangled in vain reasonings. You never give direct simple responses, to simple direct questions. It always has to be these lengthy elaborations, that are apparently required to make all the necessary connections you need to support your contrived edifice. I've learned to be suspicious of people like yourself because they have a lot of words, but when it comes to the truth they generally don't have much to say. When I read what you write, I immediately detect fallacies. When this happens repeatedly, I simply cease to be interested. It's not my job to set you straight or correct your errors. I simply wait and pray. And I'm glad I did because I think I've found the definitive scripture that defines this whole dialectic: Romans 8:1

Again you say nothing of substance whatsoever.

Romans 8:1 teaches...

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

There is no condemnation for those who are IN Christ Jesus. What does it mean to be IN Christ Jesus?

Well Paul goes on...

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

The law of the Spirit IN Christ Jesus has set him free from the law of sin and death then Paul goes on to state...

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do (it could not bring life), in that it was weak through the flesh (yielding to temptation lead to death), God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (Jesus overcame temptation by always yielding to righteousness)
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (We are to follow Christ's example by abiding in Him and walking as He walked).

It is in walking/abiding/living in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ that there is no condemnation, One cannot be IN Christ and be IN sin at the same time.

1Jn 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
1Jn 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

1Jn 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

So many people will isolate and proof text Romans 8:1 in an attempt to prove that being identified in Christ is merely FORENSIC apart from their deeds.

God won't be mocked by such twisting of His words. We will reap the results of what we do. Hence Jesus commanded us to be DOERS of the word and not hearers only.

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Gal 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Exactly. You chose the version I knew you would. Many scholars consider the last 10 words to be added because they are not in the older manuscripts and the church fathers don't mention them. So what does Romans 8:1 say now:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1

I think you get my point.

And again, extensive elaboration on your part. You just don't know how to keep it simple. I'm getting the feeling you 'found' Christ through reason instead of faith.

 

[williemac]

Exactly. You chose the version I knew you would. Many scholars consider the last 10 words to be added because they are not in the older manuscripts and the church fathers don't mention them. So what does Romans 8:1 say now:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1

I think you get my point.

And again, extensive elaboration on your part. You just don't know how to keep it simple. I'm getting the feeling you 'found' Christ through reason instead of faith.

I like that angle. However, there is another one. Most people who use Rom.8:1, get the wrong message and give the wrong message, concerning walking in the spirit. In so many words, their interpretation amounts to law keeping. Some try to word it in such a way that this is not so evident, but really, that is the bottom line of what is being suggested; that walking in the spirit is done by keeping the law.
This of course, is not what the text says. Paul, in Rom.8:5, explains that walking in the spirit is a mindset. Plain and simple, it is where the mind is at, that determines whether a person is walking in the spirit. But now, just where do we find an example from Paul in the context? In the previous chapter. As you know, Paul did not write the letter in chapters and verses. He had just gotten through telling them what his mindset is. In Rom.7, he reveals that he has sin, but because in his mind he is in agreement with the law, then...." it is no longer I who sin, but sin in me" He even repeats this incredible statement. It is found in ch.7:17&20.
This is precisely why he begins what is known as Rom.8:1 with the use of the word "therefore". It means "in light of", or "in conclusion". I marvel that so many will quote Rom.8:1 to promote law keeping and neglect to notice that the verse is given as a conclusion to a topic, not an introduction to another topic. He is not changing the subject in 8:1. If it is read and understood on its own without grasping the truth of what Paul just got through saying, then of course the legalists and such, will have a hay day.

The conclusion is in this light: Paul knew and understood that his sinful flesh was in conflict with his inner man. He was able to see a clear separation between the two, in their agenda. He also knew and admitted that he was not perfect, and that there was sin in his life. However, he identified himself with the righteous part of him in his inner man rather than the sinful part of him, in his flesh.

So ....."THEREFORE" ....no condemnation. This is how we mortify the flesh. It begins with our self identity. And sadly, those who are sin conscious have a bigger problem than they think. Because further back in Rom.7, Paul explained that it is actually the law that triggers sinful desires in a person (vs.5,8&11). The reason for this is that the law points out sin. That is its purpose. Therefore those who put themselves under the law, will have a self image that identifies with the sinful flesh. The law is not for the righteous, but for the unrighteous. Therefore as a man thinks in his heart, so is he, as the bible states. And what do sinners do? They sin. This is how the law causes sinful passions to arise. It is out of a sin conscious self image.

This is precisely why we are not under the law but under grace. The strength and power that we need in order to live a godly life comes from a healthy self image. God has given us His righteousness and holiness (Eph.4:24) . The beginning of our success in a godly life comes when we no longer identify ourselves with the sin in us, but rather the righteousness in us. But the law will pull us back, for the strength of sin is the law.
The order of things is meant to be that, first we are set free from condemnation, then we bear fruit. The bearing of fruit is not what sets us free from condemnation. There are those who have reversed the order.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3)

"The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble" (Prov. 4:19)


Now this darkness which envelops the natural man is a moral one, having its seat in the soul.

Our Saviour declared, "The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matt. 6:22-23).

The heart is the same to the soul as the eye is to the body. As a sound eye lets in natural light, so a good heart lets in spiritual light; and as a blind eye shuts out natural light, so an evil heart shuts out spiritual light.

There is in the unregenerate mind an incompetence, an incapacity, an inability to understand the things of the Spirit; and Christ’s repeated miracle in restoring sight to the naturally blind was designed to teach us our imperative need of the same divine power recovering spiritual vision to our souls.

A question has been raised as to whether this blindness of the natural man is partial or total, whether it is simply a defect of vision or whether he has no vision at all. The nature of his disease may best be defined as spiritual myopia or shortsightedness. He is able to see clearly objects which are nearby, but distant ones lie wholly beyond the range of his vision. In other words, the mind’s eye of the sinner is capable of perceiving natural things, but he has no ability to see spiritual things.

Not only is the understanding of the natural man completely under the dominion of darkness, but his will is paralyzed against good; and if that is so, the sinner is indeed impotent. This fact was made clear by Christ when He affirmed, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44). And why is it that the sinner cannot come to Christ by his own unaided powers? Because he has no inclination to do so and, therefore, no volition in that direction. The Greek might be rendered "Ye will not come to me." There is not the slightest desire in the unregenerate heart to do so.

The will of fallen man is depraved, being completely in bondage to sin. There is not merely a negative lack of inclination, but there is a positive disinclination. The unwillingness consists of aversion: "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom. 8:7). And not only is there an aversion against God, there is a hatred of Him. Christ said to His disciples, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you" (John 15:18). This hatred is inveterate obstinacy: "The Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people" (Exodus 32:9). "All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people" (Rom. 10:21). Man is incorrigible and in himself his case is hopeless. "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" (Ps. 110:3) because they have no power whatever of their own to effect such willingness.

Jeremiah said, "O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (10:23). All power to direct our steps in the paths of righteousness was lost by us at the fall, and therefore we are entirely dependent on God to work in us "both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

So much for human ability or the will to choose. Without the assistance of God we would be left in our sins.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I like that angle. However, there is another one. Most people who use Rom.8:1, get the wrong message and give the wrong message, concerning walking in the spirit. In so many words, their interpretation amounts to law keeping. Some try to word it in such a way that this is not so evident, but really, that is the bottom line of what is being suggested; that walking in the spirit is done by keeping the law.

WM,

I think that Scott doesn't believe each believer has abiding within an intrinsic reality of no condemnation through the baptism into Christ's death, which enables each believer to progressively put to death the works of the flesh through the new law of life.

Instead, a position of no condemnation is achieved through approaching GOD in repentance and not sinning.

It's a very subtle twist because the latter is most definitely the path one walks into sanctification. The distinction is that in the former the reality of no condemnation produces godly fruit through faith; in the latter, the position of no condemnation is achieved through an act of the will.

Subtle twist, big difference.

 

[Wormwood]

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do (it could not bring life), in that it was weak through the flesh (yielding to temptation lead to death), God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: (Jesus overcame temptation by always yielding to righteousness)
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (We are to follow Christ's example by abiding in Him and walking as He walked).

ScottAU,

I could not disagree more with your interpretation here. This looks like nothing more than the cross as a moral example.

The key transitional verse at the end of chapter 7 is, "Oh wretched man that I am, who will rescue me from this body of death." Paul is not arguing that Jesus provides a moral example, but that by his death he frees us from the law (which rightly taught a good moral example, but because of the flesh, we are unable to live up to that example). The flesh is a problem because in and of ourselves we cannot meet God's righteous requirements. Paul is clearly using the "flesh" vs. "Spirit" dynamic in Romans 7-8 to contrast grace and law. We walk by the Spirit when we trust in the work of the Son and have the Spirit living in us to empower us to live righteously. When we seek to justify ourselves by our own moral goodness (law) then we walk in the flesh and cannot please God. But when we, by faith, trust in the grace of God in Christ through his death, the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead lives in us and confims in us that we are God's children (Rom. 8:11). God is the one who calls, justifies, and glorifies. By the sacrifice of Christ, God is for us and graciously gives us all things (Rom. 8:31-32).

Thus, it is the joy of recognizing God's completed work for us in Christ that we become freed from the moral obligation of the law and can live a life of love in response to the Spirit of grace. We are God's children, not because we tighten our shoe laces and try to follow the perfect example of Christ perfectly. That is merely substituting one law for another. Rather, we are freed from the law by the grace of God through faith in Christ. By faith and gratitude of being God's children, we respond by living for the Spirit, not for the flesh. The whole point of Romans 8 is bringing to conclusion Paul's question in Romans 6: "What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning that grace may increase?" Paul is clearly arguing that freedom from the law does not mean that we have license to sin. Rather, by gratitude and living for the Spirit we seek to do what is pleasing to Christ rather than indulging the flesh. Our obligation is to the Spirit which has given us new life so we can offer our bodies as insturments of righteousness rather than wickedness.

 

[jiggyfly]

Well, I think that this passage is clearly not speaking of God or his attributes. It's talking about the gift we receive from God, and doesn't actually have anything to do with the character of God. Notice how it says again and again "I"....
We already know from Christ's teaching that for his followers love is the most important. But I do not think we can look at that chapter and see anything that is talking about God or his character. How do you see that it does...?

John said God is love, it seems strange that you believe that the love God gives as a gift is a different love than He employs. You may want to rethink or at least rephrase.

No....but I put it in harmony with every other scripture that tells us that to be saved we MUST believe in Jesus. How on earth do you deal with all the scriptures that tell us that only those who are covered in the blood of Christ will be saved? Do you refute them? And I'm asking honestly here...how do you deal with all those scriptures?

Not at all, I believe that everyone must come through Christ to get to Father, I don't recall ever saying otherwise. So now can you express your understanding of John 1:29?

 

[ScottAU]

Wormwood,

Thanks for your replies which I would like to address.

Reformed Theology clearly teaches that man is "unable" to obey or even seek out God due to being in a Totally Depraved state, the depravity (wickedness) of man is TOTAL in their system of theology and this doctrine is the bedrock of everything they teach (the T in TULIP).

Due to this perceived state of Total Depravity it is the "Irresistible Grace" of God which is granted to the "Unconditionally Elected" which OFFSETS this inability of man to seek/obey God. Due to the notion that this grace is "irresistible" and thus is EFFECTUAL then necessity of Perseverance of the Saints is evident, a doctrine which has morphed into what is today often termed, "Once Saved Always Saved."

Under this doctrine the "Christian" must be "saved first" IN their disabled and depraved state. Thus the "choice" of man as a "response" to God has NOTHING to do with the outworking of salvation.

If man is in a DISABLED state then he is NOT RESPONSIBLE for anything he does because he simply is not able to make the virtuous choice UNLESS it is offset by some from of "enabling" grace. Reformed Theology teaches that 'Common Grace" is given to all men, by which the Totally Depraved can do some perceived good, yet the "Irresistible Grace" which is effectual to salvation is only given to the preordained Elect. These doctrines completely refute any notion of genuine free will or exercise of free agency on the past of man, to the reformed mind such a notion is an infringement on the Sovereignty of Omnipotence of God.

The Bible clearly teaches that the "grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL MEN teaching us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, uprightly and godly in the present age" (Tit 2:11-12). Men have the CHOICE as to whether they will yield or rebel against the appeal of that grace.

The problem with the accusation of "Pelagianism" is that the charge of "denying grace" is rooted in the Reformed/Augustinian notion of an "enabling grace" offsetting the "natural disability of man" when in the Bible the grace of God is available to all men and thus men were NEVER disabled in the first place.

I am not a disciple of Pelagius but I do agree with his defence of the "ability of man," Pelagius NEVER denied grace, he denied Augustine's "perversion of grace." Pelagius has been much maligned in history by people who have NEVER actually read his writings and simply believed the reports of others.

I am a follower of Christ who called all men everywhere to repent and to follow Him. It is a very simple message.



The Arminian's are in error due to their adherence of "inborn sin" yet they differ to the Reformed view in that they teach that man can in fact choose to yield or reject the grace of God (which they call Prevenient Grace or the grace which comes before). In the Arminian theological system as "Second Work of Grace" is needed to cleanse the "stain which remains" in order to bring about "Entire Sanctification." Thus, just like Reformed Theology, they are in denial of the heart being purged of iniquity through repentance and one being cleansed of "all sin" by the blood of Jesus Christ. They oppose heart purity.

Thus both systems make an allowance for a continuation in rebellion, albeit the rebellion is LESS than before. This is why if you ask Pastors today if there are any sin or sins which must cease BEFORE forgiveness can be granted the vast majority will answer with an emphatic NO.

When Jesus taught about it being impossible to serve two masters he was not simply speaking about money, the term is MAMMON and it is a word which alludes to "material things/wealth and gain." Just prior to making that statement Jesus clearly taught that the minds eye must be SINGLE in order that the body be full of light, thus one cannot be double-minded in regards to the things of this world and the things of God. That is clearly the context of that passage and this notion is in perfect harmony with the rest of the Bible.

Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Mat 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Mat 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

1Jn 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1Jn 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The eye must be single.


Modern Theology has totally made a mess of the above teaching of Scripture due to the underlying doctrine of Original Sin and its associated inability. It IS dualism simply because the "deeds done in the body" are disconnected from the "state of the soul." Thus they teach (especially on the Reformed side of the church) that one has been washed in the blood of Christ and thus been reconciled to God and yet remains the Roman's Wretch, the chief of sinners (in action), and is in a perpetual state of sinfulness (hence 1Joh 1:8).

John made it emphatically clear that the "deeds done in the body" MUST MATCH "that which has taken place in the heart."

1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
1Jn 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

In other words there is NO SUCH THING as a "Forensic" or "Positional" righteousness. Righteousness is what WE DO and in order to produce the fruit of righteousness we must be plugged into God (ie. in submission to that leading of the Spirit).

The difference between the Spirit and the flesh is very simple. The flesh is the "base man" and is purely "passion" whilst the Spirit is that which is meant to RULE OVER the "base man." Hence sin has a desire for us (through the base passions of the flesh) yet God calls us to rule over it by the Spirit.




My understanding is that the Holy Spirit existed and was freely available in the Old Testament, it had just not been manifested in conjunction with the outworking of the supernatural signs we see evidenced in the book of Acts, which was something God did in order to bear witness to the Gospel of the New Covenant as it was introduced to the world.

Psa 51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Psa 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

The major difference under the Old Covenant is that their sins had not yet been purged by the blood thus they had their hope on the future offering. They were also subject to a nationalism for God was doing the groundwork of establishing a nation which would be the launching platform for the Word being made flesh. The New Covenant is of the Spirit and thus supercedes that of the letter.



I hope the above clarifies a few things because I see in your words a lot of harmony with my contentions. I think much of where we differ is in understanding as well as in confusion about the logical fallacies of modern theology. Today there exists a vast and firmly entrenched system of error which is leading many people astray,

WM,

I think that Scott doesn't believe each believer has abiding within an intrinsic reality of no condemnation through the baptism into Christ's death, which enables each believer to progressively put to death the works of the flesh through the new law of life.

Instead, a position of no condemnation is achieved through approaching GOD in repentance and not sinning.

It's a very subtle twist because the latter is most definitely the path one walks into sanctification. The distinction is that in the former the reality of no condemnation produces godly fruit through faith; in the latter, the position of no condemnation is achieved through an act of the will.

Subtle twist, big difference.

There is only no condemnation if you have been baptised into the death of Christ through REPENTANCE whereby the old man has been crucified with the associated passions and desires, hence the body of sin is destroyed, and henceforth you do not yield to sin.

If one is still yielding to sin as their master then they are not IN Christ, they have not crucified their old man, and thus they are still under condemnation.

The lying teachers today deny that the old man is crucified with the passions and desires. Instead they teach that the death of the old man is a gradual process thus the convert remains in a double-minded state serving two masters.

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.


Satan teaches...

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

That lie is preached far and wide today.



1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Eph 5:7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

There is only no condemnation if you have been baptised into the death of Christ through REPENTANCE whereby the old man has been crucified with the associated passions and desires, hence the body of sin is destroyed, and henceforth you do not yield to sin.

If your body of sin no longer exists and you are only a new man, when you do sin, what causes you to sin? Christ cannot sin.

 

[ScottAU]

Appendix on Pelagius

Pelagius is today known as the arch-heretic of Christianity. Pelagius was finally declared as a heretic at the Council of Carthage where he was not able to defend himself from his accusers (Pelagius had been deemed orthodox previously when he had been able to defend himself at two previous synods where Augustine attempted to have him declared a heretic). Augustine detested Pelagius for he opposed the Augustinian notion that man was born with a corrupted nature due to the sin of Adam and thus was disabled from making the virtuous choice. Pelagius taught that man could indeed obey God if he chose to do so.

When Pelagius and his followers were finally deemed heretics and his teachings banned by the Catholic Church the doctrine of "inborn sin" went without refutation and thus the doctrine of Original Sin was able to establish itself in the bedrock of Christian teaching.




Extracts below are from Pelagius's Commentary on the Book of Romans.

(Rom 3:24)
24 Having been freely justified by his grace. Without the works of the law, through baptism, whereby he has freely forgiven the sins of all, though they are undeserving. Through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. By which he has redeemed us with his blood from death. Through sin we had been sold to death--as Isaiah says: You were sold by your sins but Christ, who did not sin, conquered death (Isaiah. 50: 1). For we were all condemned to death, to which he handed himself over, though it was not his due, so that he might redeem us with his blood. This is why the prophet prophesied: You were sold for nothing, and without money you will be redeemed (Isaiah. 52: 3). That is, because you received nothing for yourselves, and have to be redeemed with Christ's blood. At the same time it should be noted that he did not buy us, but bought us back, because previously we were his by nature, although we were alienated from him by our transgressions. If we stop sinning, then indeed will our redemption be profitable.


Those who teach that Pelagius was a heretic will never show people this quote...
(Rom 3:28)
28 For we deem that a person is justified through faith without the works of the law. We are sure' or we judge. Some misuse this verse to do away with works of righteousness, asserting that faith by itself can suffice for one who has been baptized, although the same apostle says elsewhere: And if I have complete faith, so that I move mountains, but do not have love, it profits me nothing 1 Cor. 13: 2); and in another place declares that in this love is contained the fullness of the law, when he says: 'The fullness of the law is love (Rom. 13: 10). Now if these verses seem to contradict the sense of the other verses, what works should one suppose the apostle meant when he said that a person is justified through faith without the works [of the law]? Clearly, the works of circumcision or the Sabbath and others of this sort, and not without the works of righteousness, about which the blessed James says: 'Faith without works is dead (Jas. 2: 26). But in the verse we are treating he is speaking about that person who in coming to Christ is saved, when he first believes, by faith alone. But by adding 'the works of the law he indicates that there is also a work of grace which those who have been baptized ought to perform.

Pelagius understood the distinction between the "works of faith" (a faith which works by love Gal 5:6) and the "works of the law." Thus the charge made against Pelagius that we can "save ourselves apart from the grace of God" is a total misrepresentation of his teachings. Pelagius taught that salvation is wrought in yielding to God whereby His grace is made effectual to the saving of the soul and I complete agree with Him.



(Rom 4:5)
35 But to one who does not work, but who believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. When an ungodly person converts, God justifies him by faith alone, not for the good works he did not have. Otherwise he should have been punished for works of ungodliness. At the same time one should note that he did not declare the sinner justified by faith, but rather the ungodly, that is, one who has just come to believe. According to the plan of God's grace. By which he planned to forgive sins freely by faith alone.

Note: The "faith alone" of Pelagius is vastly different to the "faith alone" of Martin Luther. Pelagius viewed faith as total committment whilst Luther viewed faith more as "trust without having to be totally committed." The downfall of Martin Luther was him highly esteeming the writings of Augustine and thus concluding that man's will was bonded to a corrupted birth nature (hence Bondage of the Will).

(Rom 4:6)
36 As also David describes the blessedness of the person. It is great blessedness to obtain the grace of the Lord without the labor of the law and of penance, as if one were to receive gratuitously some public honor. To whom God credits righteousness without works. One's initial faith is credited as righteousness to the end that one may be absolved of the past, justified for the present, and readied for future works of faith.

16 Therefore, it is by faith, so that by grace the promise to all his seed is sure, not only to one who is of the law, but also to one who is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. Because, then, faith cannot be voided, nor the promise annulled, heir-ship is not by the law, but by faith. For the law does not forgive sins, but condemns them, and therefore cannot make all nations children of Abraham, since all must finally be punished, inasmuch as all are found under sin. But faith makes all believers children of Abraham, their sins having been forgiven by grace. For where there is no law, there is also no transgression.(ref. Rom 4:15) Either: There is nothing to be transgressed, where there is no law. Or: There is nothing to be punished, where the law is not necessary.

This next quote clearly blows away the lies about Pelagius preaching that we are saved by works apart from grace.

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. He has discussed the point that none of them is justified by works, but all by faith, and he proves this with the example of Abraham, of whom the Jews think they alone are children. He has also explained why neither race nor circumcision but faith makes people children of Abraham, who was justified initially by faith alone. Now, having finished this argument, he urges them to be at peace, because none is saved by his own merit, but all are saved in the same way by God's grace. Let us have peace with God. Either, let us both submit to God; or, let us have the peace of God, not merely of the world.


(Rom 6:16-20)
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to obey someone as slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey, whether of sin or of obedience to righteousness? If you wish to be in the service of sins, you [will] begin to subject yourself to the judgment of the law, which exacts punishment against sinners: but if you obey righteousness, you are not under the law, but under grace.

17 But thanks be to God that you were slaves of sin. Were, he says, not are. But have obeyed from the heart. That is, faithfully. According to the form of teaching to which you were delivered

18 and having been set free from sin, have been made slaves of righteousness. According to the teaching and example of Christ, who taught one to eliminate not only sins, but also occasions for sins.

19 I speak in human terms on account of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members to serve impurity and wickedness upon wickedness, so now present your members to serve righteousness unto sanctification. I speak in human terms because you are not yet able to listen entirely 'in divine terms'. For although you ought to serve righteousness much more than you previously served sin, I nevertheless make allowance for your weakness, so that you may serve righteousness merely as much as you served sin. Or: I speak in terms befitting human reason so that everyone can agree with me and no one dissent. He says, You presented your members, because whatever the soul does in a carnal fashion is held against the flesh; but if the flesh performs a spiritual deed, the whole person is made spiritual: or, as the saying goes: The body that is corrupted weighs down the soul! (Wisdom. 9:15). The fact is, we presented our members to serve sin; it is not the case, as the Manichaeans say, that it was the nature of the body to have sin mixed in.

20 For although you were slaves of sin, you have become free for righteousness. That is, since you are in no way slaves to sin inwardly, so now also become free from every sin.


The bottom line of the teachings of Pelagius is that we all have the ability to yield to God and that we must do so. He did not make excuses for an ongoing life of sin like many do today.

 

[Hepzibah]

Pelagius understood the distinction between the "works of faith" (a faith which works by love Gal 5:6)
and the "works of the law." Thus the charge made against Pelagius that
we can "save ourselves apart from the grace of God" is a total
misrepresentation of his teachings. Pelagius taught that salvation is
wrought in yielding to God whereby His grace is made effectual to the
saving of the soul and I complete agree with Him.

Me too.

However, Pelegius` position can be seen in the dispute with Augustine over Romans 7, whereby Augustine changed his stance from that of a man (Paul as a Jew) to that of the normal Christian life, neither of which were Pelegius` position - his was that the speaker was a believer who had yet to submit entirely.

 

[excubitor]

The heresies of Pelagianism are rife today.
The following beliefs are commonly believed.

Infants do not need to be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.
Children dying without baptism are excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.

Often an individual like Pelagius will advance a novel and controversial teaching and get a following and then his followers run off and add to it a great many more novel teachings that the founder never anticipated. This is why the church usually came up with a list of heresies that they oppose. Then when they confront the heresiarch he folds under the scrutiny of the council and recants or denies that he ever taught any of those things. However the cat is by then well out of the bag and the teachings and the movement continue to spread throughout the christian world.

So whether or not the heresiarch originally taught those things is almost irrelevant. I think it is far more constructive to oppose the Pelagianism as it flourishes today than to waste time trying to figure out whether Pelagius himself directly taught it.

 

[Wormwood]

ScottAU-

You seem unwilling to reply to my remarks, but I will continue to make them as long as you continue to make the same errant claims. You can believe in total depravity and also believe that progressive sanctification is necessary for salvation. I don't know how this can be more clear. The error of Pelagius is not that works are necessary for salvation, but that Christ is not necessary since humans have the potential to live a life free of sin. Moreover, Pelagius was deemed a heretic due to his writing, "On Free Will" in 416, not because he was unable to defend himself at a council meeting.

Pelagius left for Palestine c. 412. There, although accused of heresy at the synod of Jerusalem in 415, he succeeded in clearing himself and avoiding censure. In response to further attacks from Augustine and the Latin biblical scholar Jerome, Pelagius wrote De libero arbitrio (“On Free Will”) in 416, which resulted in the condemnation of his teaching by two African councils. In 417 Pope Innocent I endorsed the condemnations and excommunicated Pelagius and Celestius.

-Encyclopedia Britannica

 

[Butch5]

I'm a bit confused by the concept of Satan receiving payment for something. Mankind was never a debtor to satan, but it was to the law, and by extension to GOD. Satan is only a deceiver, and has no standing or authority except that which he can deceive man to do for him.

The ransom was a debt payment paid by the kinsman redeemer to deliver his brethren out of bondage to their sins. It is not sitting in satan's coffers, but is now deposited in the bank of the one to whom the debt was owed. The blood abides on the mercy seat as evidence that the one who forgave mankind their debt, sacrificed his own blood as payment in their stead.

Scott continually brings up the parable of a king forgiving debt to advance the idea that GOD forgives debts without requiring payment. That is not true, by any means. GOD said that he will not forgive sin. That is the whole reason for the blood of sacrifices on the mercy seat, ie, to cover sin until one could appear who could pay the debt.

And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he [is] an holy God; he [is] a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. Joshua 24:19

Good Himself said He would forgive sins. Joshua made that statement to certain group of people, it was not a universal statement. Where does Scripture say that God requires payment for sins?

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3)

"The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble" (Prov. 4:19)


Now this darkness which envelops the natural man is a moral one, having its seat in the soul.

Our Saviour declared, "The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matt. 6:22-23).

The heart is the same to the soul as the eye is to the body. As a sound eye lets in natural light, so a good heart lets in spiritual light; and as a blind eye shuts out natural light, so an evil heart shuts out spiritual light.

There is in the unregenerate mind an incompetence, an incapacity, an inability to understand the things of the Spirit; and Christ’s repeated miracle in restoring sight to the naturally blind was designed to teach us our imperative need of the same divine power recovering spiritual vision to our souls.

A question has been raised as to whether this blindness of the natural man is partial or total, whether it is simply a defect of vision or whether he has no vision at all. The nature of his disease may best be defined as spiritual myopia or shortsightedness. He is able to see clearly objects which are nearby, but distant ones lie wholly beyond the range of his vision. In other words, the mind’s eye of the sinner is capable of perceiving natural things, but he has no ability to see spiritual things.

Not only is the understanding of the natural man completely under the dominion of darkness, but his will is paralyzed against good; and if that is so, the sinner is indeed impotent. This fact was made clear by Christ when He affirmed, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44). And why is it that the sinner cannot come to Christ by his own unaided powers? Because he has no inclination to do so and, therefore, no volition in that direction. The Greek might be rendered "Ye will not come to me." There is not the slightest desire in the unregenerate heart to do so.

The will of fallen man is depraved, being completely in bondage to sin. There is not merely a negative lack of inclination, but there is a positive disinclination. The unwillingness consists of aversion: "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom. 8:7). And not only is there an aversion against God, there is a hatred of Him. Christ said to His disciples, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you" (John 15:18). This hatred is inveterate obstinacy: "The Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people" (Exodus 32:9). "All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people" (Rom. 10:21). Man is incorrigible and in himself his case is hopeless. "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" (Ps. 110:3) because they have no power whatever of their own to effect such willingness.

Jeremiah said, "O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (10:23). All power to direct our steps in the paths of righteousness was lost by us at the fall, and therefore we are entirely dependent on God to work in us "both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

So much for human ability or the will to choose. Without the assistance of God we would be left in our sins.

I disagree with your assessment of man's condition. According to Paul the natural man "does not" not "cannot" accept the things of God. It's not an inability, it's a choosing to reject the things of God.

Also, Jesus' words in John 6 were not saying that man is unable to come to God for salvation. In the historical context Jesus was addressing Jews who were being blinded so that the crucifixion could take place. The one that could come to Him were those given to Him by God. These would be the disciples. Jesus makes this clear in John 17 when He speaks of these same men, 'them men you gave me', in the past tense. He was not making a universal statement about mankind, He was speaking of certain individuals at a specific time. He went on to indicate that that drawing of the Father would change. In John 12 Jesus said if He was lifted up He would draw all to himself. Thus after the cross the specific drawing of the Father ended and the universal drawing of the Son began.

Regarding God's assistance, John said that Christ gives light to every person coming into the world.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Good Himself said He would forgive sins. Joshua made that statement to certain group of people, it was not a universal statement. Where does Scripture say that God requires payment for sins?


I disagree with your assessment of man's condition. According to Paul the natural man "does not" not "cannot" accept the things of God. It's not an inability, it's a choosing to reject the things of God.

Also, Jesus' words in John 6 were not saying that man is unable to come to God for salvation. In the historical context Jesus was addressing Jews who were being blinded so that the crucifixion could take place. The one that could come to Him were those given to Him by God. These would be the disciples. Jesus makes this clear in John 17 when He speaks of these same men, 'them men you gave me', in the past tense. He was not making a universal statement about mankind, He was speaking of certain individuals at a specific time. He went on to indicate that that drawing of the Father would change. In John 12 Jesus said if He was lifted up He would draw all to himself. Thus after the cross the specific drawing of the Father ended and the universal drawing of the Son began.

Regarding God's assistance, John said that Christ gives light to every person coming into the world.

So you're a dispensationalist. I can see why your eyes only see blurry. Ask the Lord and he may grant to you eyes fully open. So that you may escape from this heresy.


... instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 2 Tim 2:25

 

[Rach1370]

John said God is love, it seems strange that you believe that the love God gives as a gift is a different love than He employs. You may want to rethink or at least rephrase.

No...I don't believe I do need to rephrase. Too many doctrinal and theological mistakes come from the assumption that God works on and is judged by, human standards.
Consider....God calls us to be selfless. But God is about his own glory....sounds kind of selfish, right? In human standards it would be. But God is not human, He is the Great I AM....the one who breathed out the universe and formed us with his hands. For him it is right and just for him to seek his own glory. It is right because he IS God. For us to seek our own glory is about us putting ourselves in his place....clearly sinful.
My point being that what God demands of us, and what he holds for himself, are different. We cannot judge them equally....to do so is to set ourselves up as gods....blasphemy!!
As far as God's love goes....I do not understand why people say that if he was truly loving he wouldn't judge. The exact opposite is true! For God to be perfectly loving, he must also uphold perfect justice. It is quite clear in scripture...that God is loving, but he also will judge. To believe anything else is deny his own words to us.

Not at all, I believe that everyone must come through Christ to get to Father, I don't recall ever saying otherwise. So now can you express your understanding of John 1:29?

You do say that you believe all will be saved though. Which is hard to understand....you say people must come through Jesus to be saved...and that all will be saved...only millions of people deny Christ and die denying him. The bible tells us that we live once, we die once, and are then to be judged (Hebrews 9:27). So I cannot understand how you biblically pull these thoughts together.

As far as John 1:29....it's true. Of course it is. When Jesus died on the cross he broke sin. He defeated death. His triumph has allowed everyone who believes in him to be saved of all their sin. That power is full and un-ending....enough to cover the whole world, should they repent and turn to him.
But sadly that will not happen.

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matthew 25:41, ESV)



46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:46, ESV)

We clearly see that to some, judgement and eternal punishment will be there's. There can be no misunderstanding these words straight from Jesus....some will reject him, and they will be judged accordingly.

And then....after John 1:29, we see this:


16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (John 3:16-21, ESV)

Again the word "world" is used, but clearly it cannot be understood in a manner that allows "everyone will be saved"...as clearly it says that those who do not believe in Jesus are condemned.

It all comes back to how we read all of scripture and put it together. We must not take a single word and impose upon it meanings that God did not intend. Scripture tells us again and again that people who die without Jesus will be punished. It's not a particularly happy thought, but instead of fighting against God, we should understand our role in it....get out there are reach lost people.

 

[ScottAU]

ScottAU-

You seem unwilling to reply to my remarks, but I will continue to make them as long as you continue to make the same errant claims. You can believe in total depravity and also believe that progressive sanctification is necessary for salvation. I don't know how this can be more clear. The error of Pelagius is not that works are necessary for salvation, but that Christ is not necessary since humans have the potential to live a life free of sin. Moreover, Pelagius was deemed a heretic due to his writing, "On Free Will" in 416, not because he was unable to defend himself at a council meeting.

-Encyclopedia Britannica

Yes it is true that Pelagius was deemed a heretic due to asserting that man had free agency and thus had the capacity to choose between good and evil. According to this view men are completely responsible for their own sin due to it being rooted in the free exercise of the will. I totally agree with this view.

Augustine viewed this assertion of free will as pure heresy because it contradicted his view of Original Sin which taught that man sinned by necessity due to being born with a corrupted nature.

Augustine thus won the day and thus took the honour of being the man who introduced the most insidious piece of leaven into church orthodoxy upon which an entire system of error has been constructed.

Augustine was the real heretic for his doctrine necessitated the death of the repentance message. Instead of repentance bearing the fruit of the cessation of rebellion to God, it became an admission of sinfulness and inability.

Pelagius never taught that Christ is not necessary to overcome sin. Pelagius taught that Jesus Christ does not have to offset some inability of man to not sin. We all need Jesus Christ because He is the light of the world, without Christ we would be stumbling around in the dark not knowing which way to go. Also due to having defiled our consciences due to sinning we need to be cleansed by the blood otherwise we would simply not be able to stand before God.

People condemn Pelagius without seriously having studied what he taught and they also study it from within the framework of Augustinian theology. If one holds to the inability doctrine of Augustine then of course Pelagius is going to be an arch heretic because he was opposed to such a notion.

 

[excubitor]

The heresies of Pelagianism are rife today.
The following beliefs are commonly believed.

Infants do not need to be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.
Children dying without baptism are excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.

Not that anybody read my post but I meant to say.
The heresies of Pelagianism are rife today.
The following heresies are commonly believed. That:

1. Infants do not need to be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.
2. Children dying without baptism are NOT excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.