Replies

Someone has called you a Pelagian. I would hasten to say that I do not consider you a Pelagian. It is a pretty deadly insult. But you are no doubt aware that there is a great deal of careless accusation on these threads. 256 posted on 1/16/02 5:11 AM Pacific by George W. Bush

FWIW, in this case the accusation is probably warranted.

You know the only way your usage would work would be to say God knew the most private thoughts that we would have, one being, who would respond to the Gospel and who would not. - fortheDeclaration

This denial of God's Determinate Foreknowledge places fortheDeclaration well beyond the errors of mere Pelagianism, deep into the fatal error of the Socinian heresy.

The problem with a heretic who denies God's omniscient foreknowledge is that you are no longer debating with a fellow Nicene-creed Christian about the nature of God's relations to Man; you are debating with someone who is fatally confused about the nature of God Himself. Since he apprehends that God's perfect Foreknowledge of Man's choices necessarily implies predestination (for if God sovereignly intended that the Man should make different choices, He could simply create the Man differently in the first place), he has sought to resolve the difficulty in favor of "Man's Will" by denying God's omniscience.

The trouble is, a "god" whose omniscience is denied is not the God of the Bible at all, but a stupid, bumbling little "god" of ftD's own imagining. FortheDeclaration may call his "god" by the name of "Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit", but he might as well call him "Big Guy, Junior and the Spook". He's NOT the God of the Bible, he's just an impotent little Hearth Idol who doesn't know the End from the Beginning.

While it would be tempting to avoid the danger of false accusation by simply considering fortheDeclaration to be a "Semi-Pelagian" rather than a full-blown Pelagian, in past tangles with Woody, ftD has gone so far as to deny the omniscient foreknowledge of God in regard to free human choices.

Actually, I gave this some thought. I can't decide if he belongs in the semi-Pelagian camp. But since that is where I consider the RC church to be, I don't like that.

I've decided he's an ordinary Arminian.

You know the only way your usage would work would be to say God knew the most private thoughts that we would have, one being, who would respond to the Gospel and who would not. - fortheDeclaration

This reminds me of when the Nazarene minister Randy was here and telling us that God used a crystal ball to look into the future and create the prophecy of the Bible and then threw away his crystal ball so He wouldn't violate our free will. Well, he didn't write it exactly that way. But the case is similar. One sees a retreat from obvious Bible truth in order to support the radical free-will position, a view of human history in which the entire point of God's plan was man's choice.

It seems we fight the pro-choicers on all fronts, doesn't it? They ask "What have I decided?" and we ask "What has God ordained?". It's a Great Divide.

I was reading some material by Custance on the history of the period between Augustine and the Reformation, the rise of semi-Pelagianism and such. In some respects, it seems that these classifications are a little bit plastic. And the history of this period has some strange turns, perhaps something that people would enjoy reading more about. I know I did. But the chapter from the Custance book is just too long to post on FR.

Are semi-Pelagian and Arminian essentially interchangable terms? How does one distinguish? Is the difference merely theological or is it salvific (involving fatal error)?

FWIW, in this case the accusation is probably warranted. While it would be tempting to avoid the danger of false accusation by simply considering fortheDeclaration to be a "Semi-Pelagian" rather than a full-blown Pelagian, in past tangles with Woody, ftD has gone so far as to deny the omniscient foreknowledge of God in regard to free human choices. You know the only way your usage would work would be to say God knew the most private thoughts that we would have, one being, who would respond to the Gospel and who would not. - fortheDeclaration

What quote is this from? I would like to see the enire context please. For the record I believe in the omniscience of God totally and completely. (Psa.139)

This denial of God's Determinate Foreknowledge places fortheDeclaration well beyond the errors of mere Pelagianism, deep into the fatal error of the Socinian heresy.

It does, does it? You guys are very funny! So, one cannot deny TULIP without being a Socinain!

The problem with a heretic who denies God's omniscient foreknowledge is that you are no longer debating with a fellow Nicene-creed Christian about the nature of God's relations to Man; you are debating with someone who is fatally confused about the nature of God Himself. Since he apprehends that God's perfect Foreknowledge of Man's choices necessarily implies predestination (for if God sovereignly intended that the Man should make different choices, He could simply create the Man differently in the first place), he has sought to resolve the difficulty in favor of "Man's Will" by denying God's omniscience.

There is the issue, right there you louse. Omniscience does not mean Predestination. God could choose to allow certain things to happen (the fall of Satan and Adam) to accomplish what He wanted to accomplish, the preservation of free will creatures who will freely respond to Him.

You, are just like 'doc' nothing more then a philosophical determinist (B.F Skinner). Moreover, your blasphemy makes God the author of since since as you say 'He could have made him differently'. Yea, thats right, He could have made Him without free will!

The trouble is, a "god" whose omniscience is denied is not the God of the Bible at all, but a stupid, bumbling little "god" of ftD's own imagining. FortheDeclaration may call his "god" by the name of "Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit", but he might as well call him "Big Guy, Junior and the Spook". He's NOT the God of the Bible, he's just an impotent little Hearth Idol who doesn't know the End from the Beginning.

One, I never denied God's Omniscience, only your preverted view that it meant that no free will could exist. God knows everything that is going to happen. The question is does He make everything happen or does He allow certain things to happen that are not His will (like sin and death) in order to accomplish His long term Plan, an eternal Kingdom with free will creatures. Now, when Willy brought up the lie the first time that I had denied omniscience, I rebuffed him at once. Ofcourse, you guys are always looking to find a 'heresy' on someone who doesn't join your Calvinistic 'lovefests'.

You are a liar-period! I haven't even posted to you before this thread, what do you know what I believe.

Even so, come Lord Jesus