Unraveling the confusion of God’s Decree: 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

[praise_yeshua]

I often speculate on what God means, or where he draws the line, as to what is sin and what only leads to sin, and on other related matters. I find James' descriptions so specific that I'm pretty sure God doesn't see it very much like we do.

One of my notions has to do with good vs everything else. I'm pretty sure that when one dies without Christ, they are resurrected into abandonment that reveals their true nature —bereft of virtue, because I think all virtue is of God, and none intrinsic to man.

As CS Lewis describes them, "a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare."

A quote from The Weight of Glory

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one...

www.goodreads.com

I have issues with what is credited with "James". Not that the writing doesn't contain some truth. It does.

A person changes throughout life. I believe everyone does. It is not a revelation solely of origins.

2Co 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

There is one targeted image but there are many changes. The final one being at last being conformed completely into the image of Jesus Christ.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I would add that, even among the saved, anything intrinsic to man's own will, no matter how good it seems, shall be burned up. All true good comes from God.

Act 14:17 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

Yes. God's good benevolence to all men. God is good to sinners.

 

[TedT]

That should silence all objection. But it won't. People cling to their notion of free will out of unassailable pride.

ImCo,
our free will is an absolute necessity for the heavenly marriage to be true marriage, a communion of souls, and for any condemnation for sins.

These verses do not change this necessity so they must be understood from that perspective.

 

[civic]

No free will then it’s a forced marriage not a willing one.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

ImCo,
our free will is an absolute necessity for the heavenly marriage to be true marriage, a communion of souls, and for any condemnation for sins.

These verses do not change this necessity so they must be understood from that perspective.

That is the same reasoning C.S. Lewis expressed in his book Mere Christianity, I think. I used to believe it. I no longer believe Scripture supports that if you simply take Scripture for what it says, and not run it through a philosophical filter.

 

[makesends]

I have issues with what is credited with "James". Not that the writing doesn't contain some truth. It does.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying you don't accept what James says as plenary verbal inspiration? Or are you saying that you don't trust my take on it?

A person changes throughout life. I believe everyone does. It is not a revelation solely of origins.

I don't know what you are saying here. I know we all change. But I don't see what that has to do with what I was saying.

2Co 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

There is one targeted image but there are many changes. The final one being at last being conformed completely into the image of Jesus Christ.

I agree with that. Not sure why you are pointing it out. Maybe to continue what you said above that I didn't understand.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying you don't accept what James says as plenary verbal inspiration? Or are you saying that you don't trust my take on it?

We can discuss the doctrine of Inspiration but the short answer is I have an issue with how most try to use "plenary" to ignore mistakes within the Bible. The word "Bible/Biblio" means nothing more than "Book". It is a collection of writings over thousands of years. Every single Bible in existence contains "words of men", inspired words of men and "thus saith the Lord". There are issues in every single collection. Whether they be translation or continuation, some human beings canonical choices does not have to be my own. I do not believe that James is apostolic. However, I still include it in my "canonical" list but I rightfully recognize where it is wrong. "James" included some good things and some bad thing".

I don't know what you are saying here. I know we all change. But I don't see what that has to do with what I was saying.

Sorry for the confusion. I'll try to restate.

Conformity requires change. Since Adam was incomplete, Adam, regardless of any thoughts of "original sin", would have to mature. Adam in his original "state" was never Eternal. Adam needed change. Maturity. We all change throughout our lives.

In this, (incompletion), no man is different from another. They are all the same. However, being "born again" is a maturity in the human experience that not every human experiences.

I agree with that. Not sure why you are pointing it out. Maybe to continue what you said above that I didn't understand.

If I work my way backwards in my thoughts (which I don't like to do..... but seems appropriate here),

I see Divine Providence in the last step of conformity to the image of God in Jesus Christ. It is a change that only God can perform. Such did not begin with the new birth (conformity that is).... it began with the original creation of Adam.

I believe if you can accept this, then there is no reason to see Adam as losing "Eternal life" when he sinned nor experiencing a change in nature that made Adam "total depraved".

I hope that makes sense. Thank you for the consideration!

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Man is not like Adam as created. Man is like Adam as fallen. So to compare Adam's "free will" with ours is a non-sequitur.

Inaccurate. "Man" NEVER CHANGED, and TODAY is identical to Adam as he was created - HUMAN NATURE and all.

Remember, your "Perfect pre-fall Adam" followed the "Temptation sequence" in James perfectly into SIN, just like YOU DO. the ONLY THING that changed was our "Environment", since the ground was cursed.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Inaccurate. "Man" NEVER CHANGED, and TODAY is identical to Adam as he was created - HUMAN NATURE and all.

Remember, your "Perfect pre-fall Adam" followed the "Temptation sequence" in James perfectly into SIN, just like YOU DO. the ONLY THING that changed was our "Environment", since the ground was cursed.

I guess that makes you a full-fledged Pelagian, not even a semi-Pelagian.

 

[civic]

I guess that makes you a full-fledged Pelagian, not even a semi-Pelagian.

no it makes him not an augustinian who invented the doctrine which he brought over into christianity from paganism, gnosticism, platonism and greek philosophy. He is a biblicist not a pelagian.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

@civic, you're on ignore. I've had enough of your trolling.

 

[civic]

@civic, you're on ignore. I've had enough of your trolling.

stating historical facts on the origin of doctrine is not "trolling" lol. But to each their own as they saying goes. Bob is not a pelagian by any means.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You do understand how "ignore" works, right? I can't see any of your posts, and I'm not going to use "show ignored content".

 

[civic]

You do understand how "ignore" works, right? I can't see any of your posts, and I'm not going to use "show ignored content".

Yes lol its my forum and I understand how forums operate.

 

[atpollard]

Bob is not a pelagian by any means.

Could you define "pelagian" for me?

What exactly does a "pelagian" believe about man and sin [irrespective of Augustine and anything he wrote].

 

[civic]

Could you define "pelagian" for me?

What exactly does a "pelagian" believe about man and sin [irrespective of Augustine and anything he wrote].

Here is a good historical and unbiased view of Pelagius as Augustine made him his boogie man

In praise of Pelagius

In the 1600th-anniversary year of his condemnation as a heretic, rehabilitation is long overdue, argues Ali Bonner

www.churchtimes.co.uk

 

[atpollard]

Here is a good historical and unbiased view of Pelagius as Augustine made him his boogie man

In praise of Pelagius

In the 1600th-anniversary year of his condemnation as a heretic, rehabilitation is long overdue, argues Ali Bonner

www.churchtimes.co.uk

Typical ... I ask for a simple definition of a term in a narrow scope (man and sin) ... I get a wall of text [via link] about Augustine and Pelagius that summarizes to "Mr. Augustine bad, Mr. Pelagius good" and never actually answers the one simple question that I actually asked.

How about this starting point:
Wikipedia SUCKS as an authority, but it offers a common ground as a reference. Here is the Wikipedia explanation of the teachings of Pelagius (with minimal mention of Augustine). You can correct whatever they got wrong:

Manichaeism stressed that the spirit was God-created, while material substance was corrupt and evil. Theologian Gerald Bonner felt that part of Pelagius' analysis was an over-reaction to Manicheanism. Pelagius held that everything created by God was good, therefore, he could not see how God had made humans fallen creatures. (Augustine's teaching on the Fall of Adam was not a settled doctrine at the time the Augustinian/Pelagian dispute began.) The Pelagians accused Augustine of bringing Manichaeian theology into the Christian church, which Augustine himself denied.​

​

The view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that humans can freely choose to obey God's commandments, stands at the core of Pelagian teaching. Pelagius stressed human autonomy and freedom of the will; an illustration of Pelagius' views on man's "moral ability" not to sin can be found in his Letter to Demetrias.​

​

For Pelagius, "grace" consisted of the gift of free will, the Law of Moses, and the teachings of Jesus. According to Augustine, Pelagians saw baptism of infants as useless because they had no sin. Celestius, who was a disciple of Pelagius, also denied original sin and the necessity of infant baptism for salvation.​

Extracting just the relevant definition portion:

Pelagius held that everything created by God was good, therefore, he could not see how God had made humans fallen creatures. The view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that humans can freely choose to obey God's commandments, stands at the core of Pelagian teaching. Pelagius stressed human autonomy and freedom of the will. For Pelagius, "grace" consisted of the gift of free will, the Law of Moses, and the teachings of Jesus. Celestius, who was a disciple of Pelagius, also denied original sin and the necessity of infant baptism for salvation.​

Is that a fair definition of Pelagian teaching on "Man and Sin"?

 

[civic]

Typical ... I ask for a simple definition of a term in a narrow scope (man and sin) ... I get a wall of text [via link] about Augustine and Pelagius that summarizes to "Mr. Augustine bad, Mr. Pelagius good" and never actually answers the one simple question that I actually asked.

How about this starting point:
Wikipedia SUCKS as an authority, but it offers a common ground as a reference. Here is the Wikipedia explanation of the teachings of Pelagius (with minimal mention of Augustine). You can correct whatever they got wrong:

Manichaeism stressed that the spirit was God-created, while material substance was corrupt and evil. Theologian Gerald Bonner felt that part of Pelagius' analysis was an over-reaction to Manicheanism. Pelagius held that everything created by God was good, therefore, he could not see how God had made humans fallen creatures. (Augustine's teaching on the Fall of Adam was not a settled doctrine at the time the Augustinian/Pelagian dispute began.) The Pelagians accused Augustine of bringing Manichaeian theology into the Christian church, which Augustine himself denied.​

​

The view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that humans can freely choose to obey God's commandments, stands at the core of Pelagian teaching. Pelagius stressed human autonomy and freedom of the will; an illustration of Pelagius' views on man's "moral ability" not to sin can be found in his Letter to Demetrias.​

​

For Pelagius, "grace" consisted of the gift of free will, the Law of Moses, and the teachings of Jesus. According to Augustine, Pelagians saw baptism of infants as useless because they had no sin. Celestius, who was a disciple of Pelagius, also denied original sin and the necessity of infant baptism for salvation.​

Extracting just the relevant definition portion:

Pelagius held that everything created by God was good, therefore, he could not see how God had made humans fallen creatures. The view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that humans can freely choose to obey God's commandments, stands at the core of Pelagian teaching. Pelagius stressed human autonomy and freedom of the will. For Pelagius, "grace" consisted of the gift of free will, the Law of Moses, and the teachings of Jesus. Celestius, who was a disciple of Pelagius, also denied original sin and the necessity of infant baptism for salvation.​

Is that a fair definition of Pelagian teaching on "Man and Sin"?

It’s not that simple lol. I’ll get back later hopping in the shower and heading to work but I’ll get back with you tonight

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Typical ... I ask for a simple definition of a term in a narrow scope (man and sin) ... I get a wall of text [via link] about Augustine and Pelagius that summarizes to "Mr. Augustine bad, Mr. Pelagius good" and never actually answers the one simple question that I actually asked.

How about this starting point:
Wikipedia SUCKS as an authority, but it offers a common ground as a reference. Here is the Wikipedia explanation of the teachings of Pelagius (with minimal mention of Augustine). You can correct whatever they got wrong:

Manichaeism stressed that the spirit was God-created, while material substance was corrupt and evil. Theologian Gerald Bonner felt that part of Pelagius' analysis was an over-reaction to Manicheanism. Pelagius held that everything created by God was good, therefore, he could not see how God had made humans fallen creatures. (Augustine's teaching on the Fall of Adam was not a settled doctrine at the time the Augustinian/Pelagian dispute began.) The Pelagians accused Augustine of bringing Manichaeian theology into the Christian church, which Augustine himself denied.​

​

The view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that humans can freely choose to obey God's commandments, stands at the core of Pelagian teaching. Pelagius stressed human autonomy and freedom of the will; an illustration of Pelagius' views on man's "moral ability" not to sin can be found in his Letter to Demetrias.​

​

For Pelagius, "grace" consisted of the gift of free will, the Law of Moses, and the teachings of Jesus. According to Augustine, Pelagians saw baptism of infants as useless because they had no sin. Celestius, who was a disciple of Pelagius, also denied original sin and the necessity of infant baptism for salvation.​

Extracting just the relevant definition portion:

Pelagius held that everything created by God was good, therefore, he could not see how God had made humans fallen creatures. The view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that humans can freely choose to obey God's commandments, stands at the core of Pelagian teaching. Pelagius stressed human autonomy and freedom of the will. For Pelagius, "grace" consisted of the gift of free will, the Law of Moses, and the teachings of Jesus. Celestius, who was a disciple of Pelagius, also denied original sin and the necessity of infant baptism for salvation.​

Is that a fair definition of Pelagian teaching on "Man and Sin"?

"God had made humans fallen creatures" is somewhat questionable, since it is more likely an inherited condition.

Regardless, doesn't Pelagianism basically match what Bob was saying? Bob?

 

[atpollard]

Regardless, doesn't Pelagianism basically match what Bob was saying? Bob?

I thought so, too.

People are so "anti-labels" that they reject them even when those labels accurately describe what you believe. Pelagianism is not an EVIL thing. It is a "Free Will"-centered belief system (which I think is incorrect) ... but it is not evil.

I am "antinomian" - I believe that the LAW has no power over us. The term sounds terrible and is used to accuse people of advocating a "get saved and live in sin" attitude. I very much do not hold to a "carnal Christianity" belief system ... but it is not "fear of the Law" that drives my motivation. I am motivated by gratitude for the LOVE and the reality of the METAMORPHOSIS ... salvation is TRANSFORMATIVE or it is not real. So the TERM does not frighten me.

Pelagians and semi-Pelagians need to embrace the reality of their beliefs as I embrace the reality of my Reformed "Sovereignty, Doctrines of Grace, TULIP" Particular Baptism.

[I am not fond of "Calvinism" simply because the term is never clearly defined. It means "WCF Reformed" - which I am not - to some and "T.U.L.I.P." - which I am - to others.]