Dueteronomy 30:6

fltom

Well-known member
To understand these topics and debates is to understand both sides, correct? You're more worried about party then the truth. Search your feeling, Luke!
Did john Murray define Pelagianism?

If he did not, then of what value are his words

Should one assume Pelagianism just because the Calvinist John Murray asserts it contrary to how it is in fact historically defined

If he did define it, can you show it differs from the 5-6 definitions i posted

or are you just going to ignore them






Both, again if you understand both sides, then you will understand. So, if party is more important to you, then okay. Then make up all the caricatures you want to try to justify your position.

See, these comments show your heterodoxy in these debates. Because Murray exposes your Pelagian tendencies in your theology. So, you can quote anything you want, it still doesn't change the fact, if it looks like a duck, walks like duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck!

You still need to put forth a historical definition of Pelagianism

If you can't do it or if you definition does not contradict the multiple sources I cited

you appear to be seemingly suggesting we ignore contrary argumentation and let John Murray and his Calvinism decide

No

Where is your definition of Pelagianism?

Where did John Murray define it?

Is his view historically justified?
 

fltom

Well-known member
You cannot understand Spiritual things without the Spirit. You should thank God
You can't address rebuttal

 

fltom

Well-known member
So, what, if we echo the great theologians of the Reformation or Modern-day theologians! Don't you????
Your problem is you defined my view and the view of Arminians as Pelagianism

According to multiple sources however you are wrong.

You may say you disagree with the stance but you may not say it is Pelagian
 

Ladodgers6

Well-known member
Did john Murray define Pelagianism?
Did you read John Murray's refutation? If not, then how can you assess? BTW, Murray is pointing out your Pelagian agreement on this point. He is not expounding the whole Pelagian belief system. But he is pointing out the heresy on Romans 5. Which you obviously agree with, even if you like or not, Tom.

You complain that we don't provide Scripture, but when we do you avoid it like the plague, when it doesn't serve your purpose.
If he did not, then of what value are his words
This is non-sense, only a frail attempt to sweep it under the rug. But you know what Tom, you make a lot of accusations toward us of not answering your questions or providing Scripture. I have done both, and still you're not satisfied? Just because you don't like how we present our arguments? If you are not afraid, or confident in your theology that address each comment without excuses! But I know why you are doing this, because you have no answers, so instead complain about nothing, to divert from the topic.
Should one assume Pelagianism just because the Calvinist John Murray asserts it contrary to how it is in fact historically defined
Regardless of John Murray's beliefs, the historical facts of Pelagius himself, and your comments in your posts are undeniable in agreement. No matter what you complain about.
If he did define it, can you show it differs from the 5-6 definitions i posted

or are you just going to ignore them








You still need to put forth a historical definition of Pelagianism

If you can't do it or if you definition does not contradict the multiple sources I cited

you appear to be seemingly suggesting we ignore contrary argumentation and let John Murray and his Calvinism decide

No

Where is your definition of Pelagianism?

Where did John Murray define it?

Is his view historically justified?
The rest of post is not worth addressing, because it's all a diversion.
 

Ladodgers6

Well-known member
Your problem is you defined my view and the view of Arminians as Pelagianism
Tom, are you reading the posts or not? We're talking about one specifically point here. Who said that the whole Arminian teaching is Pelagian? Sorry, Tom, but debating with you gives me a headache, because your lost, bro! If you have read Murray, you have understood the point. But since I am an ugly Calvinist, you'll just assume you know everything, and come to your own assumptions. This is why you're lost!!!

So, I'll help you here, and I already know you are not going to read it. But that's okay, because I do not like caricaturing people's beliefs or positions they hold to.

Here's the point: Is the judgment of condemnation & death imputed to Adam's progeny (human race) through the Sin and guilt of the One Man Adam? Or does God's judgment of condemnation & death fall upon all by their individual sins? Remember we're talking about HOW condemnation & death fell upon all here.

I have this to add to the conversation, according to you and Doug, Adam's sin, not his guilt is a consequence of Adam's sin to the human race. We're talking about Condemnation & death here, so according to you guys, how is this just of God to do, if the human race is not guilty of Adam's sin? Adam and Eve had not conceived a child before their act of sin. So, how do you guys explain this? Therefore, only the guilty are sentenced to punitive judgment, correct?
According to multiple sources however you are wrong.

You may say you disagree with the stance but you may not say it is Pelagian
Do you know why it's a Pelagian view Tom? Do you even care to know?

Paul's emphatic affirmation to the effects that the universal sway of condemnation & death is to be referred to the ONE SIN of the ONE-MAN Adam.
 

fltom

Well-known member
Tom, are you reading the posts or not? We're talking about one specifically point here. Who said that the whole Arminian teaching is Pelagian? Sorry, Tom, but debating with you gives me a headache, because your lost, bro! If you have read Murray, you have understood the point. But since I am an ugly Calvinist, you'll just assume you know everything, and come to your own assumptions. This is why you're lost!!!

Sorry but I gave you the Arminian position

I even quoted an Arminian systematic theology

You claimed it was Pelagian

So the answer to your question is you did

and here is the proof

Ladodgers6 said:
LOL...thanks for doing the leg work for me. So, did Pelagius believe in Adam's sin being imputed? Because you do not believe in Native Demerit, correct? So, your belief is Pelagian! You asked & answered your own question.

Hello

You clearly claimed Pelagianism

So do you read what you wrote

Well the fact is you were wrong

I gave you the definitions

and what I stated did not match the definition

Now you can argue about the interpretation of Romans 5 and we can do that once you deal with the fact the position is not Pelagian

Now are you willing to admit it is not Pelagian?

if so, we can go on to Romans 5

are you willing to dismiss that claim?
 

fltom

Well-known member
Did you read John Murray's refutation? If not, then how can you assess? BTW, Murray is pointing out your Pelagian agreement on this point. He is not expounding the whole Pelagian belief system. But he is pointing out the heresy on Romans 5. Which you obviously agree with, even if you like or not, Tom.

You complain that we don't provide Scripture, but when we do you avoid it like the plague, when it doesn't serve your purpose.

This is non-sense, only a frail attempt to sweep it under the rug. But you know what Tom, you make a lot of accusations toward us of not answering your questions or providing Scripture. I have done both, and still you're not satisfied? Just because you don't like how we present our arguments? If you are not afraid, or confident in your theology that address each comment without excuses! But I know why you are doing this, because you have no answers, so instead complain about nothing, to divert from the topic.

Regardless of John Murray's beliefs, the historical facts of Pelagius himself, and your comments in your posts are undeniable in agreement. No matter what you complain about.

The rest of post is not worth addressing, because it's all a diversion.
Sorry but that is a dodge

You claimed my position was Pelagian

i gave you multiple definitions

you did not address them

The definitions clearly show what I stated was not Pelagian

Now do you want to acknowledge that fact

then we can discuss Romans 5

The ball is in your court

I see no reason to move until you address this
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
The most conclusive refutation of the Pelagian interpretation is derived from repeated and emphatic affirmations of Paul in the immediate context, affirmations, to the effect that the universal sway of condemnation and death is to be referred to the one sin of the one-man Adam. On at least five occasions in verses 15-19 this principle is asserted---"by the trespass of the one the many died" (vs 15); "the judgment was from one unto condemnation" (vs 16); "by the trespass of the one death reigned through the one" (vs 17); "through one trespass judgment came upon all men unto condemnation" (vs 18); "through the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners" (vs 19). It is quite impossible to construe this emphasis upon the one sin of the one man as equivalent to the actual personal sin of countless individuals. It is indisputable, therefore, that Paul regards the universality of condemnation and death as grounded upon and proceeding from the one trespass of the one-man Adam. And the Pelagian insistence that death and condemnation find their ground solely in the personal voluntary sin of the individuals of the human race cannot be harmonized with this sustain witness of the Apostle Paul.

The Pelagian exegesis destroys the force of the analogy which Paul institutes in this passage as a whole. The doctrine Paul is illustrating by appeal to the analogy of the condemnation and death proceeding from Adam is the doctrine that men are justified by the free grace of God on the basis of the righteousness and obedience of Christ. What Paul has been controverting (denying) in the earlier part of the epistle is that men are justified by their own works. He is establishing the truth that men are justified and attain to life by what another has done, the one-man Jesus Christ. How vacuous and contradictory would be any appeal to the parallel obtaining in the relation of Adam to the human race if the Pelagian construction were that of Paul, namely, that men die simply because of their own sin and not at all on the ground of Adam's sin! Paul's doctrine of justification would be nullified if, at this point, the parallel he uses to illustrate and confirm it is after the pattern of the Pelagian construction. For it would mean that men are justified by their own voluntary action just as they come under condemnation solely by their own voluntary sin. This is indeed Pelagian doctrine but that it contradicts the teaching of Paul lies on the face of the epistle. The doctrine of justification which this epistle establishes is a doctrine which cannot tolerate as its analogy or parallel a construction of the reign of sin, condemnation, and death which bears any resemblance to the Pelagian. Hence the Pelagian view must be rejected on this ground as well as on that of the others mentioned. (John Murray, "Th

"It is quite impossible to construe this emphasis upon the one sin of the one man as equivalent to the actual personal sin of countless individuals..." (Murray)

We are "made to be sinners" by the one act of the one man. I see Murray saying that we did not individually sin, but that the guilt is comprehensive to all who will come from him. We are born outside of God's indwelling. It is a spiritual “genetics” issue. The deformity of our father’s nature in all its depravity is passed down and exampled by all Adam’s offspring, though they did not exist at the moment of Adam’s transgression!

We are born sinful, yet we haven’t yet actually sinned. We are separated and at enmity with God from the start. We will inevitably sin, because of our being in Adam, but we cannot have committed sin with Adam if we did not yet exist.

Doug
 

fltom

Well-known member
Tom, are you reading the posts or not? We're talking about one specifically point here. Who said that the whole Arminian teaching is Pelagian? Sorry, Tom, but debating with you gives me a headache, because your lost, bro! If you have read Murray, you have understood the point. But since I am an ugly Calvinist, you'll just assume you know everything, and come to your own assumptions. This is why you're lost!!!

So, I'll help you here, and I already know you are not going to read it. But that's okay, because I do not like caricaturing people's beliefs or positions they hold to.

Here's the point: Is the judgment of condemnation & death imputed to Adam's progeny (human race) through the Sin and guilt of the One Man Adam? Or does God's judgment of condemnation & death fall upon all by their individual sins? Remember we're talking about HOW condemnation & death fell upon all here.

I have this to add to the conversation, according to you and Doug, Adam's sin, not his guilt is a consequence of Adam's sin to the human race. We're talking about Condemnation & death here, so according to you guys, how is this just of God to do, if the human race is not guilty of Adam's sin? Adam and Eve had not conceived a child before their act of sin. So, how do you guys explain this? Therefore, only the guilty are sentenced to punitive judgment, correct?

Do you know why it's a Pelagian view Tom? Do you even care to know?

Sorry but it is not

You were given at least 6 definitions

none correspond to a position of native depravity

did you address them in any manner?

Did you even read them?

I see no evidence you did

If you want to go around tossing labels you need to back it up with proof

Murray's argument concerning Romans 5 does not do it

In fact whether Murray is right or wrong has no bearing at all on the case

The definition itself determines the truth whether a teaching is Pelagian or not

Now when you actually deal with the Pelagian issue i will discuss Romans 5 with you
 

fltom

Well-known member
"It is quite impossible to construe this emphasis upon the one sin of the one man as equivalent to the actual personal sin of countless individuals..." (Murray)

We are "made to be sinners" by the one act of the one man. I see Murray saying that we did not individually sin, but that the guilt is comprehensive to all who will come from him. We are born outside of God's indwelling. It is a spiritual “genetics” issue. The deformity of our father’s nature in all its depravity is passed down and exampled by all Adam’s offspring, though they did not exist at the moment of Adam’s transgression!

We are born sinful, yet we haven’t yet actually sinned. We are separated and at enmity with God from the start. We will inevitably sin, because of our being in Adam, but we cannot have committed sin with Adam if we did not yet exist.

Doug
Hey Doug did you notice he begins his Argument against the Pelagian position

It appears He labors under the impression anything but Murray position is Pelagian

I gave him multiple definitions of Pelagianism as well as the Arminian position

to show him they do not line up

but it seems he is not responsive to the evidence
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Hey Doug did you notice he begins his Argument against the Pelagian position

It appears He labors under the impression anything but Murray position is Pelagian

I gave him multiple definitions of Pelagianism as well as the Arminian position

to show him they do not line up

but it seems he is not responsive to the evidence
The problem is that he refuses to acknowledge that Pelagian thought doesn't hold to any type of depravity at all. We hold to depravity from birth, thus it cannot be Pelagian in nature.

He, and others, seem to need to create ways to make us Pelagian instead dealing with what we actually believe!


Doug
 

fltom

Well-known member
The problem is that he refuses to acknowledge that Pelagian thought doesn't hold to any type of depravity at all. We hold to depravity from birth, thus it cannot be Pelagian in nature.

He, and others, seem to need to create ways to make us Pelagian instead dealing with what we actually believe!


Doug
Its easier to label and deride someone with a fake label than to deal with scriptural argumentation
 

Ladodgers6

Well-known member
"It is quite impossible to construe this emphasis upon the one sin of the one man as equivalent to the actual personal sin of countless individuals..." (Murray)
Not so fast, Doug, you are a sneaking devil :devilish:, why not post the whole thought of Murray? "It is quite impossible to construe this emphasis upon the one sin of the one man as equivalent to the actual personal sin of countless individuals. It is indisputable, therefore, that Paul regards the universality of condemnation and death as grounded upon and proceeding from the one trespass of the one-man Adam. And the Pelagian insistence that death and condemnation find their ground solely in the personal voluntary sin of the individuals of the human race cannot be harmonized with this sustain witness of the Apostle Paul."

Talk about creating a strawman to fight against. Now, you believe that Condemnation & Death fell upon the human race through their personal sins. But Adam and Eve had not conceived a child before their act of sin. Therefore, God's judgment passed to all through Man-One & One-Sin! This is Paul's affirmation and why your view is Pelagian. Romans 5:15-19 is a refutation of the Pelagian view and is explicit and undeniable.
"
We are "made to be sinners" by the one act of the one man. I see Murray saying that we did not individually sin, but that the guilt is comprehensive to all who will come from him.
So, you agree that we are imputed with Adam's sin & guilt? Or is comprehensive a politician's term?
We are born outside of God's indwelling. It is a spiritual “genetics” issue.
It's a judgment of a curse, condemnation & separation issue.
The deformity of our father’s nature in all its depravity is passed down and exampled by all Adam’s offspring, though they did not exist at the moment of Adam’s transgression!
But why Doug if they personally did not sin? Why did God punish the innocent in your view? Only the guilty can be punished, correct, according to you, and Tom.
We are born sinful, yet we haven’t yet actually sinned. We are separated and at enmity with God from the start. We will inevitably sin, because of our being in Adam, but we cannot have committed sin with Adam if we did not yet exist.

Doug
I beg to differ, because Adam is our representative as is Christ for believers. This is the point you either avoid or just can't see. Paul's affirmation of the parallel between the two Adam's and their One Act is explicit to our solidarity or union with either Adam. In other words, we are either in the first Adam or the Last Adam, there's no, in between. Sorry Doug, but you're way off on this one. Why hold to a Pelagian view on this point is beyond me.

Psalm 51:

1Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your steadfast love;
according to your abundant mercy
blot out my transgressions.
2Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin!

3For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
4Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.
5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

6Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,
and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.
 

Ladodgers6

Well-known member
Sorry but I gave you the Arminian position
That's fine if your Arminian position holds that point, but Pelagius said it first, and it's a Pelagian view, no matter what you say or believe.
I even quoted an Arminian systematic theology

You claimed it was Pelagian

So the answer to your question is you did

and here is the proof
This goes to show you lack church history here, Tom. I will not spoon feed you, you do the leg work.
Hello

You clearly claimed Pelagianism

So do you read what you wrote

Well the fact is you were wrong

I gave you the definitions

and what I stated did not match the definition

Now you can argue about the interpretation of Romans 5 and we can do that once you deal with the fact the position is not Pelagian

Now are you willing to admit it is not Pelagian?

if so, we can go on to Romans 5

are you willing to dismiss that claim?
Instead of posting this that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, to which you are just diverting once again, and avoiding the tough questions! When I was Arminian, I did not avoid the tough questions, but took the challenge head on to find the truth, and that was the only thing that matter to me, not party, but the truth! You guys are struggling so hard to escape the quicksand, that you are sinking in further in!
 

Ladodgers6

Well-known member
Sorry but it is not

You were given at least 6 definitions

none correspond to a position of native depravity

did you address them in any manner?

Did you even read them?

I see no evidence you did

If you want to go around tossing labels you need to back it up with proof

Murray's argument concerning Romans 5 does not do it

In fact whether Murray is right or wrong has no bearing at all on the case

The definition itself determines the truth whether a teaching is Pelagian or not

Now when you actually deal with the Pelagian issue i will discuss Romans 5 with you
Still avoiding the passages of Romans 5:15-19! You asked for Scripture and here it is! Answer them if you dare!
 

fltom

Well-known member
Still avoiding the passages of Romans 5:15-19! You asked for Scripture and here it is! Answer them if you dare!
Did you not read?

Deal with the definition of Pelagian then we can deal with Rom5

Once we have taken your false claim out of the way we can deal with it
 
Top