Pelagius' teachings are the Kool-Aid Supporting Free-Willer Theology

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
1,573
783
113
#1
The teachings of the heretic Pelagius are listed below. Some of the points influence free-willer theology.

I have used boldness to define the points that are definitely in error.

Can you identify others?

1. God’s highest attributes are his righteousness and justice.
2. Everything God creates is good.
3. As created, nature cannot be changed essentially.
4. Human nature is indestructibly good.
5. Evil is an act that we can avoid.
6. Sin comes via Satanic snares and sensuous lust.
7. There can be sinless men.
8. Adam was created with free will and natural holiness.
9. Adam sinned through free will.
10. Adam’s progeny did not inherit from him natural death.
11. Neither Adam’s sin nor his guilt was transmitted.
12. All men are created as Adam was before the fall.
13. The habit of sinning weakens the will.
14. The grace of God facilitates goodness but is not necessary to achieve it.
15. The grace of creation yields perfect men.
16. The grace of God’s law illumines and instructs.
17. Christ works chiefly by his example.
18. Grace is given according to justice and merit.

1 - I would not divide out God's attributes and assign levels of importance to them
3 - This is a declaration that original sin is a false doctrine
4 - The claim is that man is not corrupted by the Fall which is a false claim
5 - Unsaved man is a slave to sin
7 - There is no one who sins, no, not one, according to Romans 3
10 - Romans 5 refutes this
12 - Adam was the "First Adam" and represents all those born of the flesh. His sin is imputed to all mankind per Romans 5, and condemnation results.
14 - The claim that God's grace isn't necessary for salvation is ludicrous. Fallen mankind needs to be born again according to Jesus in John 3
15 - I have no idea what he's talking about on this one but it's obvious that no man is sinless
17 - I believe this is a denial of substitutionary atonement, and a support of the moral example view of the atonement, claiming that Jesus didn't die
for sins but actually died as a moral example
18 - Grace is unmerited favor, and is not merited

Realize that the general overtone of "free-willer theology" relies on some of these points for their presuppositions. This type of thinking was the core of Charles Finney's teachings, and unfortunately this has affected all kinds of professing Christian organizations.

PS - For younger folks, I am referring to "kool aid" due to Jonestown and Jim Jones, who led a cult which ended by all its' members drinking poisoned kool-aid in a mass suicide in 1978. Since this happened in 1978, perhaps some won't realize the allusion.

They may not be full-bore Pelagians, but the presuppositions have affected their thinking.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
9,406
3,096
113
#2
The teachings of the heretic Pelagius are listed below. Some of the points influence free-willer theology.
Now list the teachings of the heretic Calvin alongside these.

You persist in posting (1) Calvinistic nonsense while (2) insulting Christians who reject it by calling the "free-willers". Why don't you take all this rubbish to a Reformed web site where they will love? I believe people (including myself) are getting sick and tired of this false theology.
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#3
Now list the teachings of the heretic Calvin alongside these.

You persist in posting (1) Calvinistic nonsense while (2) insulting Christians who reject it by calling the "free-willers". Why don't you take all this rubbish to a Reformed web site where they will love? I believe people (including myself) are getting sick and tired of this false theology.
Yes, the insulting term, "free-willers" is not helping the claim to reveal and explain Reformed theology, if that is in fact the goal.
 

Melach

Well-known member
Mar 28, 2019
1,215
842
113
#4
all this business is going into what we shouldnt even know i think

the secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us

thats it. we are told what to do, repent, believe, these things. we arent told the mechanics of how it all happens step by step perfectly. we just have to do what God says. who cares how it works really? as long as people are saved. from our human perspective it makes no difference in practical life
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
27,658
1,910
113
#5
Yes, the insulting term, "free-willers" is not helping the claim to reveal and explain Reformed theology, if that is in fact the goal.
In fact at first I thought the title mentioned 'free-Willy theology'. :p
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
1,573
783
113
#6
Yes, the insulting term, "free-willers" is not helping the claim to reveal and explain Reformed theology, if that is in fact the goal.
Those who hold the theology don't want to be called Arminians. Arminians isn't really a good term anyways, since there are free-willers who are much more heretical than Arminians. So, free-willer is as polite as it gets.

In fact, I don't even want to use the term free-willer because it implies that Reformed people don't believe in free will. I do believe in creaturely free will. It is a will that is subject to the person's nature, and isn't libertarian free will that can decide in a totally neutral manner. For the unbeliever, they are slaves to sin, because their nature is sinful.

If any claims he is not, I would recommend listing their current three top sins and vowing to never commit them again, by the power of their will, prior to being born again. See how long you last.

Additionally, I don't like being called a Calvinist but many here use that term to refer to me. I am like a Reformed Baptist, and don't believe everything John Calvin taught. However, I realize that it isn't handy for folks to remember to call me that, so I don't complain about it.
 

Mii

Well-known member
Mar 23, 2019
701
450
63
#7
What are you trying to expose with expounding on pelagianism?

Serious question... @UnitedWithChrist

I will admit the school of thought has come to my attention recently....I think perhaps in regard to my issue with imputed righteousness and works based righteousness (not salvation) just righteousness. I think I am saved regardless, it's just figuring out what that means and how to live it out in a way that glorifies the father. Anyways...

Why bring it up?
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
1,573
783
113
#8
What are you trying to expose with expounding on pelagianism?

Serious question... @UnitedWithChrist

I will admit the school of thought has come to my attention recently....I think perhaps in regard to my issue with imputed righteousness and works based righteousness (not salvation) just righteousness. I think I am saved regardless, it's just figuring out what that means and how to live it out in a way that glorifies the father. Anyways...

Why bring it up?
I am bringing it up because free-willer theology relies, in part, upon Pelagian presuppositions, and free-will theology has affected a lot of different groups within professing Christianity. It is a theology that is not God-honoring.

What I mean by free-willer theology is the theology of those who deny God is sovereign in salvation. They focus on man's decision, rather than God's sovereignty in salvation.

The Reformed position is that God is sovereign over all things, and he gives salvation to a specific group, called the "elect". This number will be many, not just a few, as Revelation 5 says, but they are given salvation by grace (in other words, not according to human merit).

My position is that Reformed theology is the only theology which really teaches Soli Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory). Other theologies may teach that God deserves some of the glory for salvation, but not ALL. Therefore, they cannot include the "Soli" part, as that would imply that God ALONE deserves the glory.

In free-willer theology, man deserves at least part of the glory, especially in regards to their faith decision.

There are three threads I created which talk about this....one on total depravity, one on unconditional election, and one on limited atonement. I have two more to create; one on irresistible grace and another on perseverance of the saints.

What issues do you have with imputed righteousness?

On virtually any topic like this, I would recommend the audio messages by Brian Borgman at SermonAudio.

He has one series on Reformed theology that would give a good overall perspective on my convictions in this matter:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....th&keyworddesc=Introduction+to+Reformed+Faith
 

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,493
963
113
Texas
#10
I am bringing it up because free-willer theology relies, in part, upon Pelagian presuppositions, and free-will theology has affected a lot of different groups within professing Christianity. It is a theology that is not God-honoring.

What I mean by free-willer theology is the theology of those who deny God is sovereign in salvation. They focus on man's decision, rather than God's sovereignty in salvation.

The Reformed position is that God is sovereign over all things, and he gives salvation to a specific group, called the "elect". This number will be many, not just a few, as Revelation 5 says, but they are given salvation by grace (in other words, not according to human merit).

My position is that Reformed theology is the only theology which really teaches Soli Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory). Other theologies may teach that God deserves some of the glory for salvation, but not ALL. Therefore, they cannot include the "Soli" part, as that would imply that God ALONE deserves the glory.

In free-willer theology, man deserves at least part of the glory, especially in regards to their faith decision.

There are three threads I created which talk about this....one on total depravity, one on unconditional election, and one on limited atonement. I have two more to create; one on irresistible grace and another on perseverance of the saints.

What issues do you have with imputed righteousness?

On virtually any topic like this, I would recommend the audio messages by Brian Borgman at SermonAudio.

He has one series on Reformed theology that would give a good overall perspective on my convictions in this matter:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....th&keyworddesc=Introduction+to+Reformed+Faith
I call it decision theology, or revivalism. So maybe they prefer the term revivalists.
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#12
Those who hold the theology don't want to be called Arminians. Arminians isn't really a good term anyways, since there are free-willers who are much more heretical than Arminians. So, free-willer is as polite as it gets.

In fact, I don't even want to use the term free-willer because it implies that Reformed people don't believe in free will. I do believe in creaturely free will. It is a will that is subject to the person's nature, and isn't libertarian free will that can decide in a totally neutral manner. For the unbeliever, they are slaves to sin, because their nature is sinful.

If any claims he is not, I would recommend listing their current three top sins and vowing to never commit them again, by the power of their will, prior to being born again. See how long you last.

Additionally, I don't like being called a Calvinist but many here use that term to refer to me. I am like a Reformed Baptist, and don't believe everything John Calvin taught. However, I realize that it isn't handy for folks to remember to call me that, so I don't complain about it.
The problem Mr. UWC is error refuting error.

As long as people are in that paradigm they cannot see the truth of what belief/faith is in scripture.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
1,573
783
113
#14
The problem Mr. UWC is error refuting error.

As long as people are in that paradigm they cannot see the truth of what belief/faith is in scripture.
Instruct us then, please. I haven't seen much from your remarks except a denial. I haven't seen any that provide insight into where I might be wrong.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
1,573
783
113
#15
I call it decision theology, or revivalism. So maybe they prefer the term revivalists.
The issue is that they don't like to be labeled. They want to remain like jello..hard to nail down.

I think free-willer is pretty fair, seeing as some of their own crowd use it.

Like I said, I'm not real fond of being called a Calvinist yet that's the most common name used for monergists.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
1,573
783
113
#16
What term would you prefer be used to describe the group that believe in "free will"?
I wish there was some way to work the "libertarian" thing into it, but when I say "free willer" I'm talking about libertarian free will.
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#17
Instruct us then, please. I haven't seen much from your remarks except a denial. I haven't seen any that provide insight into where I might be wrong.
Mr. UWC you are an intelligent man, no one really believes me so I have given up, but there are many who have cut through this false dichotomy and if you search you will find the truth.

In my own experience sometimes it takes God to really teach you something.
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
#18
I wish there was some way to work the "libertarian" thing into it, but when I say "free willer" I'm talking about libertarian free will.
You know "free will" is a complex concept, maybe you should define your terms and what you mean by them.
 

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,493
963
113
Texas
#20
The issue is that they don't like to be labeled. They want to remain like jello..hard to nail down.

I think free-willer is pretty fair, seeing as some of their own crowd use it.

Like I said, I'm not real fond of being called a Calvinist yet that's the most common name used for monergists.
The most recent movement in this idea of the free will decision for Christ theology, is revivalism, made popular by a pastor Charles Finney. So I call it revivalism, and it's subscribers revivalists.
This idea has caused so many to have doubt, questioning if they really meant their decision or if they were having an impulse response to emotions. It's a bad theology and a bad form to strum emotions to coax a decision.