Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

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

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

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

If Pelagianism = Heresy, Then Calvinists = Anathema?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
    The literal definition of television is "far-seeing" --- literal definition often have little to do with the actual definition. You are taking terms with established referents and using them inappropriately. The ergism is the work BEING DONE by God. It is foreign to a system, in theological terms, where God is not required.
    Would you prefer something made up on the spot, maybe "anergism"? Whatever it is, Pelagianism is not synergism.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

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

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by hedrick View Post
      It's hard to know what "heresy" can mean in a Christian community that's as divided as the current one. Traditionally we could judge it by a set of doctrinal standards, but those are normally associated with a specific part of Christianity, and are often not broad enough to use to represent judgements of the Christian community as a whole.

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

      There is an equivalent on the other side, but it's really hypercalvinism, not orthodox Calvinism. I realize that some people throw around words like fatalism to describe Calvinists, just like Calvinists throw around Pelagian to describe everyone that they disagree with. But Calvin and actual Reformed theologians (as opposed to Internet apologists) do try to balance grace and human responsibility. They just do it differently than either the Lutheran or Arminian tradition.
      But what about denial of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin?
      The fact that science cannot make any pronouncement about ethical principles has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are no such principles; while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics. - Karl Popper, 1987

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        Would you prefer something made up on the spot, maybe "anergism"? Whatever it is, Pelagianism is not synergism.
        I would prefer you simply use historic categories. Perhaps it simply doesn't fit in them.
        The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

        sigpic

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Dante View Post
          I know Calvinists are monergists in that they believe God does all the work in a person's salvation, but Pelagianism would be synergistic at best since Pelagianism teaches that moral perfection is attainable in life without the assistance of divine grace, meaning it is possible that one does not need God at all in getting to God's kingdom.
          . . . meaning it is possible that one does not need God at all in getting to God's kingdom.
          Which is an explicit denial of Romans 3:23! ". . . For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; . . ."


          And a denial of Galatians 2:21, ". . . for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Dante View Post
            But what about denial of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin?
            Sorry, I don't understand your question.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Dante View Post
              I know Calvinists are monergists in that they believe God does all the work in a person's salvation, but Pelagianism would be synergistic at best since Pelagianism teaches that moral perfection is attainable in life without the assistance of divine grace, meaning it is possible that one does not need God at all in getting to God's kingdom.
              That's not quite what Calvinism says. That is, it doesn't say that we do nothing. Rather, it says that all we do is a result of God's work in us. Not that our work merits salvation, of course, but faith is necessary in the Calvinist scheme. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not what is involved in salvation. Faith, repentance, etc, play the same role for both The difference is in how faith starts. Both agree that it starts from God's gracious decision to save us. But for Arminians we have to cooperate with God's grace in order to come to faith, or at least not resist it whereas for Calvinists, our faith results entirely from God's work in us.

              The view that we are saved or damned independent of any faith or lack would be some kind of fatalism. Despite accusations to the contrary, that is not Calvinism.

              This is why I said that Calvinism does in fact try to do justice both to God's grace and human responsibility. You can think of God's plan and our actions as operating in parallel. There are two accounts of our salvation, both of which are true. At one level, we hear the Gospel and respond to it in faith. It is an actual choice, just as those who are not saved make an actual responsible choice not to respond to the Gospel. But at another level, whether we respond that way or not is part of God's plan. He has determined in advance who will and will not have faith, but that determination is carried out through the normal course of human life.

              In at least one place in the Institutes, Calvin speaks quite clearly of these multiple levels of understanding. He speaks of the beginning of Job, where robbers kill everyone around Job. He says that there are in this case actually three accounts of this event. First, on a human level, the robbers are motivated by human desires, e.g. for loot. God doesn't force them to do bad things, although it is part of his plan. On a second level of explanation, they are operating in accordance with Satan's plan to test Job to destruction. But even Satan doesn't have the whole picture. Because on a third level, God is using Satan to test and develop Job's faith. But all three levels of understanding are true.

              Comment

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