UMM Skinski,
My point is and was is that you do leave out the fact that He was declared a heretic multiple times,by multiple councils over years. You have NEVER been honest about that part at all. Look at the end result of what Pelagus said and you will understand WHY he declared a heretic.
Sarah,
As a response to my mention of the documentary I put together entitled “Augustine and Original Sin” you asserted that we should take a look at Pelagius and what he taught and how it was deemed heresy. You then posted a video where the authors clearly misrepresent the teachings of Pelagius where they said, among other things, that “eternal life is obtained by free will and not by grace.”
If you have an issue with what I write why don’t you actually discuss what I actually write?
Instead of actually discussing what I actually write you persist in alluding to fictions which can be easily debunked and try to connect those fictions to me. Is such deceit rooted in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ?
I don’t believe that you are interested in the truth. It appears to me that you are willing to bend reality to fit your perception as opposed to conforming your perception to reality. Thus anything I say is really moot and only of benefit to other who may read it. You just ignore anything I write and pretend I have written something else and then ask your questions within the context of the pretense.
You are the one who raised the issue of the man Pelagius not me. Not only did you bring up Pelagius but you presented a link to a video where the authors clearly misrepresented what Pelagius taught.
In that video they made reference to Pelagius’ Commentary on the Book of Romans and made some charges as to what Pelagius taught in that Commentary. I have a copy of that commentary and know what it says and those men were clearly giving false information. I put forth a couple of direct quotes taken from that commentary which clearly contradict the assertions made in the video, I could have spent more time and given many more.
By referencing material which is demonstrably false you have revealed that your understanding of the dispute between Pelagius and Augustine is based off what others write about him (particularly reformers) instead of the source material itself. All you are doing is “parroting” the perception of others. In other words you are repeating the demonstrable lies of other people.
In your subsequent posts you have done exactly the same thing. I see inaccuracies presented as well which are very easily proved inaccurate by referencing the source material.
For example you parrot this statement,
There are fundamentally only two doctrines of salvation: that salvation is from God, and that salvation is from ourselves. The former is the doctrine of common Christianity; the latter is the doctrine of universal heathenism.
To assert that Pelagius taught that “salvation is from ourselves” is a bold faced lie. Pelagius clearly taught that salvation is from God but within a context that man has the ability to turn to God and yield to him. Why do all these people you reference totally misrepresent what Pelagius taught?
The doctrine of Pelagius actually has no bearing on what I believe because I am not a Pelagian. I did not read Pelagius in order to conclude my position. I read the Bible and have carefully reflected on it.
I was not writing a dissertation on Pelagius thus whether he was declared a heretic or not is irrelevant. Again, I am not a follower of Pelagius. Where I do agree with Pelagius is where he refuted the Augustinian notion that human beings sin by necessity due to the fall of Adam.
Augustine was philosophically in agreement with gnostic dualism in the sense that he believed that a human being had a dual nature, that of the soul and that of the flesh. This philosophy taught that sin was an actual substance of the flesh passed down in the sperm of Adam whereby being "born in flesh" necessitated transgression against God. Augustine taught that not only did all human beings inherit this "indwelling sin" in the flesh but they also inherited the "guilt" of Adam. Thus Augustinian theology teaches that men are born already condemned and unable to choose virtue. I decry that teaching.
Pelagius saw the absurdity of this teaching of inherited sin for he realized that sin was an act and not a substance. He also realized how absurd it was to teach that the act of infant baptism somehow washed away this substance of the flesh and yet this substance of the flesh was still passed on in the sperm. The entire framework of Augustine’s doctrine collapses when put to reason. Not to mention that the Bible soundly refutes such ideas. Even Augustine had no answer for the objections of Pelagius which is one reason that he asserted that the Pelagian’s have strong and active minds. Thus like the false teachers of today he would engage in semantic word games where he would conjure up fictions he could then debunk.
The false teachers are simply not honest when they oppose well reasoned objections and therefore are forced to continually twist such objections into strawmen like “your teaching that man can save himself apart from God,” or “you deny that grace is not needed,” or “you teach that man can save himself by his own power.” Those statements are blatant lies.
Pelagius taught no such thing and I teach no such thing.
Pelagius opposed this dualist philosophy as do I. Pelagius also understood that this dualist philosophy was rooted in the philosophy of the Greeks, specifically that of Plato which developed into Neoplatonism from which Manichaeism was born. Augustine was a Manichaean Gnostic for almost a decade before he converted to Catholicism.
The issue of contention here is ABILITY and not Pelagius. You are using diversion to avoid a discussion of the fundamental points I raise. By bringing up Pelagius you are attempting to discredit me by association without having to address directly what I write. That is a very devious tactic.
Does man have the ability to yield to God by choice? Pelagius taught YES and Augustine taught NO. I teach YES whilst Reformed theologians teach NO.
Augustine taught that man was born "naturally evil" and was thus "unable" to make the virtuous choice as far as yielding to God UNLESS God first offset this inability with some form of grace.
Pelagius on the other hand taught that man was born "naturally good" and became corrupted when he chose to yield to unrighteousness.
I disagree with both views for I believe that man is created upright (undefiled) but in a neutral state, neither good nor evil. A young baby is born in a state of ignorance subject to the natural passions of the flesh. The natural compulsion of these passions is towards self gratification. Yet these passions in and of themselves are not evil, evil is when the passions are misdirected due selfishness whereby the knowledge of doing right is suppressed and such misdirection involves a conscious act of the will.
All human beings are endowed with a conscience forGod has given light to all men. When the ability to reason has sufficiently developed God holds people accountable for the choices they make. When a human being CHOOSES to do evil, knowing better, it puts them under condemnation and also defiles the conscience (hence the blood of Christ is needed to cleanse this defilement). This choice of doing evil over time establishes itself as the natural thing to do and thus it can be said that sinners develop a sin nature.
We are not born with a sin nature, a sin nature is resultant of the choices made. The word for nature in Eph 2:3 is Phusis in the Greek and it means "growth." Human being are born with a proclivity to sin due to the draw of the flesh and a lack of understanding of the consequences of such a choice. Thus the choice which brings condemnation is taken lightly and is thus the road of least resistance. It is no surprise that all human beings choose to sin.
The heresy of Augustine theology is the bedrock for a "saved in sins" gospel message. It is the foundational heresy which gives rise to the belief that a murderer does not have to cease murdering people BEFORE God will forgive them. Likewise child molesters don’t have to stop molesting children before God will forgive them because under Augustinian theology sin is a symptom of the birth nature and not the result of a choice.
Sarah, does a serial murderer have to actually CEASE murdering BEFORE God will forgive them? Does a child molester have to actually stop molesting children BEFORE God will forgive them.
Will you directly answer those questions? I put it to you that if you do answer those questions your answer would reveal the utter fallacy of your theology. If you were to categorically state that a murderer or child molester must STOP that wicked behavior BEFORE God will forgive them or that genuine salvation involves a cessation of that kind of behavior then you would be asserting that man has the full capability to CHOOSE not to sin, thus undermining everything you believe. On the other hand if you were to categorically state that that the murdering and child molesting does not have to stop then you would be clearly indicating that you believe in a sinning religion which denies that the heart of a Christian is made pure.
It is far easier to just ignore what I write and use diversion instead isn’t it?
The Protestant Reformation was firmly established on the theology of Augustine with very few exceptions (ie. some Anabaptists). Instead of going back to the doctrine of the early church which was firmly rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ (pick up your cross, deny self, follow Him, abide in Him, be a doer of the word, count the cost, don’t look back, seek, strive, endure etc.) they developed a religion where salvation was rooted in doctrine as opposed to abiding in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ. Thus salvation became purely forensic as opposed to being rooted in an actual transformation of the heart.
Under this false theological system the lie of “ye can sin and not surely die” was dressed up in Christian terminology and preached far and wide. It is this false gospel message which gives people the false allusion that they can serve both sin and Christ at the same time.
The truth is that human beings have the full capability to turn to God if they so desire. Such desire is wrought by yielding to the light given whereby a godly sorrow will manifest which will work the change of mind required that one abide in Christ. It is not saving oneself, it is simply turning to God for salvation and yielding to His lead. If we follow Christ He will lead us to victory. If we don’t follow Him we will perish.
God’s hand is outstretched to all men for He is not willing any should perish but that all come to repentance.
