Posted on 09/30/2005 2:39:10 AM PDT by Gamecock
Cicero observed of his own civilization that people thank the gods for their material prosperity, but never for their virtue, for this is their own doing. Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield considered Pelagianism "the rehabilitation of that heathen view of the world," and concluded with characteristic clarity, "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." /cut/
In his Commentary on Romans, Pelagius thought of grace as God's revelation in the Old and New Testaments, which enlightens us and serves to promote our holiness by providing explicit instruction in godliness and many worthy examples to imitate. So human nature is not conceived in sin. After all, the will is not bound by the sinful condition and its affections; choices determine whether one will obey God, and thus be saved. /cut/
According to Finney, Christ could not have fulfilled the obedience we owed to God, since it would not be rational that one man could atone for the sins of anyone besides himself. Furthermore, "If he obeyed the law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as the sine qua non of our salvation?" /cut/
The fact that recent polls indicate that 77% of the evangelicals today believe that human beings are basically good and 84% of these conservative Protestants believe that in salvation "God helps those who help themselves" demonstrates incontrovertibly that contemporary Christianity is in a serious crisis. No longer can conservative, "Bible-believing" evangelicals smugly hurl insults at mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics for doctrinal treason.
(Excerpt) Read more at modernreformation.org ...
Come on P-M, you know that site is only valid for non-Calvinist critiques. Any Calvinist critique was probably caused by a hacker or tongue-in-cheek humor.
Gamecock, thanks for posting the picture! Months ago, I was looking for "the one where laser beams shot out of his eyes." This is the picture I was trying to find.
And sheltonmac, I've read Finney's Revivals of Religion. You don't know the half of it.
It's like you think you've found something to like about the guy that 1,600 years of scholars have over-looked.
"Humanism, in all its subtle forms, recapitulates the unvarnished Pelagianism against which Augustine struggled. Though Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome, and its modified form, Semi-Pelagianism was likewise condemned by the Council of Orange in 529, the basic assumptions of this view persisted throughout church history to reappear in Medieval Catholicism, Renaissance Humanism, Socinianism, Arminianism, and modern Liberalism. The seminal thought of Pelagius survives today not as a trace or tangential influence but is pervasive in the modern church. Indeed, the modern church is held captive by it..."
I think you underestimate the desire of men to rule themselves. To deny original sin and its profound effects on the human race denies the very words of Scripture and makes into a quaint fable the actions of Adam and Eve, not to mention the predestining will of a sovereign Creator.
Pelagius got a bad rap for a very good reason. And to try to rehabilitate him is disingenuous. But you'll be the darling of the unitarians who idolize him.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; and a heretic is just a heretic.
Bump to 23. The effort to rehabilitate a heretic like Pelagius is sad.
Same as it ever was. It's all about me and I'm as good as a wanna be.
Thanks for the ping. It is clear that I will have to do more reading on this subject. I know just enough to be dangerous! It is a fine line, when I read about some of the distinctions.
Brother in Christ
I read a statement from Augustine the other day to the effect that Mary was the Spouse of God.
What do you make of that?
Could you explain the Eastern Orthodox view on this subject, just a sentence or two, on the concept of the Fall/original sin. I realize they are different, but never researched the difference. I promise I will just listen and not irritate!
Brother in Christ
"Unitarian history differs from that of most denominations. If you want to know the history of Methodism you begin with John Wesley. George Fox founded the Quakers, John Calvin the Presbyterians, Joseph Smith the Mormons. The Unitarians, though, do not begin with any one person. The movement goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. Unitarian ideas can be traced back to Jesus or Socrates, Arius and Pelagius. In Europe all through the middle ages we find groups struggling toward Unitarianism. The movement became organized in the middle 1500's and such names as Michael Servetus, Sebastian Castellio, Faustus and Laelius Socinus, Francis David, and King John Sigismund are prominent..."
Do you deny Original Sin like Pelagius did and follow the humanistic, liberal path he encouraged?
"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." -- Eph. 2:1
The issue is not about Pelagianism; the issue is whether Pelagius is wrongly accused of the doctrines attributed to his name.
But, that's OK. It's only a historical question.
And I see where Sproul has endorsed some of Horton's books. Doesn't surprise me since both are clearly hyper-Calvinists.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6
How is this from +Maximos the Confessor:
"Man failed in achieving the purpose of his creation; he failed to achieve his destiny, his theosis. He tried to become a 'god without God.' This is his sin; this is the cause of his fall."
In some more detail, this from His Eminence Met. Maximos of Pittsburg:
"Unlike St. Augustine's doctrine of "original justice," which attributes to the first man several excessive perfections, perfect knowledge of God and God's creation, for example, that make the fall impossible, the doctrine of the Greek Fathers of the image of God in man as a potential to be actualized, allows the possibility of a deterioration, as well. St. Irenaeos speaks of the first man (Adam) as an infant (nepios), who had to grow up to adulthood. Instead, man failed himself, by not "passing the test" of maturity given to him by God.
In spite of God's prohibition, man chose to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis). Being "good by nature" man had to also become "good by choice." Unfortunately, it did not happen that way. Following the "snake's" advice (the devil's, that is), man also tried to do what the fallen angels did: to "become a god without God." Man's imperfection and innocence, or, better, naiveté, and his relative pride, cultivated by the "accuser," became the cause of man's fall from God's communion, due to his disobedience and rejection of God. Man put his purpose in himself, instead of putting it in God. Man's free will is responsible for his own decline.
The consequences of this revolt against God, which the West calls "original" and the East "ancestral" (propatorikon) sin, are that man lost his original innocence; the image of God in him was tarnished, and even became distorted; man's reason was obscured, his will weakened, the desires and passions of the flesh grew wild; man suffered separation from God, the author and source of life. He put himself in an inauthentic kind of existence, close to death. The Fathers speak of "spiritual death" which is the cause of the physical one, and which may lead to the "eschatological," eternal death: for "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6: 23).
The West teaches much of what you said.
Your quote from Maximos of Pittsburg probably is one case in point where the West, at least some, disagree. I believe Augustine and Aquinas taught (but it is not De fide) that Adam, before he sinned, was in a state of elevated nature, possessing sanctifying grace. Of course, it probably is somewhat speculative to determine what that meant, but I think the purpose was to show what WE will return to and what Christ sacrificed Himself for - a return of man to his original 'state'. There certainly seems to be some reasonable statements in his quote on "excess", but whose to say? Satan himself also rejected God, and we must admit that he was a graced being before his fall.
On original sin, I know this is De fide "Adam's sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent". He didn't lose sanctifying grace for himself alone. Does the East also believe this, although not De fide?
Thanks for the info regarding the Eastern faith.
Brother in Christ
Again, thank you for posting this. I do like to read articles from Horton.
It was fabulous. A year ago I started subscribing to Modern Reformation and listening to the White Horse Inn.
I really like Horton and Company. They do a great job of putting forth the "So What" of the Calvinist world view. After listening and reading Sproul for years (which I still do) the Modern Reformation crowd helps with the practical matters.
Two months ago Horton had Sproul on his show. I made the mistake of listening while driving 90mph on the Autobahn. I laughed so hard I almost ran off the road. They were both hysterical.
I have always wanted to drive on the Autobahn. Are you still in Germany now? I am assuming you were listening on satellite radio? I heard a 'prank call' by White Horse Inn once on the Internet. They called Billy Graham and he misheard and thought it was the 'White House Inn' and when they said no it was the White HORSE Inn he said he was sorry and he had to leave. I think it was probably an impersonation, but it was still very funny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.