One will suffice. Name one
The Myth of Pelagianism
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
there were actually multiple councils according to Waren McGrew and other sources
those when he was present to defend himself declared him orthodox
he was condemned in absentia
Wikipedia states
ogether, they publicly condemned Pelagius. Bishop John of Jerusalem, a personal friend of Pelagius, called a council in July 415. Church sources claim Orosius' lack of fluency in Greek rendered him unconvincing and John's Eastern background made him more willing to accept that humans did not have inherent sinfulness, yet the council rendered no verdict and passed the controversy to the Latin Church because Pelagius, Jerome, and Orosius were all Latin.
Diospolis[edit]
A few months later in December of 415, another synod in synod in Diospolis (Lydda) under the bishop of Cæsarea was called by two deposed bishops who came to the Holy Land. However, neither bishop attended for unrelated reasons and Orosius had left after consultation with Bishop John. Pelagius explained to the synod that he did believe God was necessary for salvation because every human is created by God. He also claimed that many works of Celestius did not represent his own views. He showed letters of recommendation by other authoritative figures including Augustine himself, who for all their disagreements, thought highly of Pelagius' character.The Synod of Diospolis therefore concluded: "Now since we have received satisfaction in respect of the charges brought against the monk Pelagius in his presence and since he gives his assent to sound doctrines but condemns and anathematises those contrary to the faith of the Church, we adjudge him to belong to the communion of the Catholic Church."[13]
I asked for a council that actually affirmed his teachings.
Warren McGrew? LOL That's some source
Did you not read
Wikipedia states
ogether, they publicly condemned Pelagius. Bishop John of Jerusalem, a personal friend of Pelagius, called a council in July 415. Church sources claim Orosius' lack of fluency in Greek rendered him unconvincing and John's Eastern background made him more willing to accept that humans did not have inherent sinfulness, yet the council rendered no verdict and passed the controversy to the Latin Church because Pelagius, Jerome, and Orosius were all Latin.
Diospolis[edit]
A few months later in December of 415, another synod in synod in Diospolis (Lydda) under the bishop of Cæsarea was called by two deposed bishops who came to the Holy Land. However, neither bishop attended for unrelated reasons and Orosius had left after consultation with Bishop John. Pelagius explained to the synod that he did believe God was necessary for salvation because every human is created by God. He also claimed that many works of Celestius did not represent his own views. He showed letters of recommendation by other authoritative figures including Augustine himself, who for all their disagreements, thought highly of Pelagius' character.The Synod of Diospolis therefore concluded: "Now since we have received satisfaction in respect of the charges brought against the monk Pelagius in his presence and since he gives his assent to sound doctrines but condemns and anathematises those contrary to the faith of the Church, we adjudge him to belong to the communion of the Catholic Church."[13]
And nowhere do I see affirmation of his teachings on orginal sin or anything else. Did you actually read my question?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
If I name one you will not care. You will simply ignore your failure. Which is one of the points of my comments.
I grew tired of arguing over various supposedly "authoritative" councils a very long time again. They all were just men and disagreed with one another. That is the "best" you'll ever get out such arguments.
I agree with you believe it or not.
The issue was wether he was deemed orthodox did you not read
we adjudge him to belong to the communion of the Catholic Church."[13]
Catholic = universal not RCC
BTW no church father P.A. wrote of man being guilty of Adam's sin
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Which is recognized in the Scriptures.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Man was driven away from life in God. Peccable. Weak without God. Powerless to help themselves.
Thank God... He didn't abandon us. We feel the pain of loneliness that only His Presence can fill. We search for it our entire lives and once we have it, nothing is ever the same. To "drink" of Eternal Life in Christ is beyond imagination. Hope against hope.
No. I mentioned specifically affirmation of His teachins on orginal sin for example.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Paul mentioned those that had not sinned as Adam did. Abel is a perfect example.
You mean the same sin? Obviously Abel was not in the garden.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Is Abel excluded?
civic
Well-known member
Obviously not. Context, context, context. Unless your a universalist. Are you a Universalist?
So Abel was sinless like Christ?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
There is context to the words you're referencing. Just like you're ignoring the fact that Paul clearly said that there men that did NOT sin like Adam sinned.
Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Paul is referencing Jews and Gentiles in Romans 3:9. He wasn't referencing Abel.
Read what God said about Abel.
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
Prove the "all" that have sinned is a reference to all of humanity. It is all of a two kinds that are referenced. Jews and Gentiles.
We know Paul isn't talking about anyone else because Paul clearly states that the righteous have "gone out of the way". Which means, they once existed. Paul is referencing the continued downfall of men absent God.
Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Sin so permeated mankind that the righteous ceased to exist among mankind.
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
The battle for humanity didn't center around Adam and Eve. It began there but it didn't end there. Abel was born innocent and we have ZERO examples of him ever sinning or acting contrary to the will of God.
So deal with it. Prove that Abel sinned. Go for it.
To be clear, Abel still didn't have the right to Eternal life. Your view does not deal with any of these facts.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Calvinist can't seem to understand their own arguments.
Able was not a Jew or Gentile?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Geesh......
The word "Jew" comes from the Southern tribes of Israel. Which included "Judah"...... "Get it"?
No Abel wasn't a Jew. Nor was he a Gentile. Before Abraham and Noah, there is no such distinctions.
Last edited:
Similar threads
