Comment of the Day

I appreciate this re-assessment of one who has been maligned and condemned but who had obviously responded to a very gracious God!

It's always great to see Godwin's law in action.

I like this link:

http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yMTo0Ny53amVv

no way you can be without sin and keep the commandments, unless by "commandments" you mean in a very simple sense

i have never murdered anyone

however, i have not done what i could for the hungry, the sick, the lost boys, etc.

and this failure amounts to murder

Pelagius was wrong

tim

wow. I can't express how strongly I disagree with Brian's support for Pelagius' teachings. I find such theology to be soul-crushing, gospel-destroying, and faith-squelching. In my eyes, it truly amount to no less than a "different Gospel" - just as Paul calls the legalistic tendencies of the Galatians.

Here's a punch list of disagreements:
1. I find no biblical support for "prevenient grace" - does Pelagius make this point from the Bible or simply experience?
2. The Bible presents our sin-problem as a nature problem, not just a habit problem. (Eph 2:3)
3. It seems to create a doctrine of works - like American individual-self-improvement of the worst ilk. For those who do well at this project, it would seem to necessarily lead to pride; and for those who feel they continually fail, it would seem to lead to great despair.
4. It diminishes the work and power of God, and particularly the efficacy of Christ's work on the cross.
5. Augustine never claimed to "relinquish human responsibility." He saw his theology clearly as affirming the completeness of God's grace for sinners while also affirming man's responsibility. One famous phrase was "Give me what you command, and command what you will" indicating his perceived compatibility between these two ideas of God's sovereignty and human responsibility.
6. Augustine clearly confronted the institutionalization of the Church as well - he wrote the classic work, "The City of God."
7. Pelagius was denounced as a heretic by his contemporaries and every orthodox theologian since. Sure, some folks in history were rail-roaded unjustly by those in power, but others are dismissed for good reason.
8. Augustine's theology clearly "demanded change" in the believer - and his life surely showed this. Do any of the Reformation folks NOT speak about the necessity of obedience in a believer's life???
9. One may think that the freeness of God's grace would produce licentiousness (which Paul clearly confronts as a possible objection in both Romans and Galatians) but this potential misapplication doesn't invalidate the message. In fact, in my experience, being daily amazed by God's free grace to such a sinner as I provides the strongest, purest love for God and love for others that I have ever experienced and ever seen displayed by others.

It's for good reason that defending Pelagius would be "unthinkable" to Tony. Humbly but truthfully I confess that Pelagius' teaching makes me sick. It seems to utterly erode the beauty, freedom and abounding grace of the Gospel that excites my heart, builds up our church, and gives me a great hope in God. It was this same understanding of the Gospel that led Charles Wesley (an Arminian, but certainly no Pelagian) to compose these beautiful lines from "And Can It Be":

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

This clearly affirms man's bondage to original sin, the necessary primacy of God's grace, the resulting life-change and obedience of a redeemed person, a righteousness found in Christ's atonement and the confidence secured in Christ's sufficient work. One does NOT need to resort to Pelagianism to affirm man's responsibility, the necessity for holiness, and the great value of human beings before God. All these have been affirmed by Augustine and other orthodox theologians throughout church history.

It's not just the NeoReformed who would speak out against defending Pelagianism. There was after all the Second Council of Orange in 529. This council, while not affirming all of Augustine, did rule out Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism for the West.

I wonder how hard it is to have a meaningful conversation when so much time and energy is spent building your enemy (neoreformed). Does this actually build the kingdom in anyway? Do these derogatory labels and labels foster fellowship? Or only create division and discord.

I wonder is there any other group, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, gay, who you would malign or is your animosity reserved for your self constructed "bad guy."

I was one of those who had so much hope when "A New Kind Of Christian" dropped in what seems like decades ago. I thought the conversation was really going to be something different and focused on loving our enemies and being the Church. I am sad that it seems it is more just a return to liberalism with a ferocious desire to demonize conservatives. History truly is a merry go round.