The Pelagian Heresy is Alive and Well in America

[JesusFan]

I have seen them used as a reference to what a true Reformed believer should believe, more often than as a substitute for Scripture. It's not the same thing.

That would be the way that the Confessions should indeed be used, but have encountered them being quoted and use as the litmus test for anyone to even have an "orthodox Faith"

 

[JesusFan]

I have not had that experience. I admit when I first began reading Sproul's books and found he often quoted the WCF, it irritated me because I thought he was using it in place of the Bible. But he always backed up what he quoted with the Bible. I didn't just beleive Sproul either but checked.

The interesting thing, and this slides a bit off topic, but I am going to say it anyway. The interesting thing is that in my checking I discovered that there was so much in the Bible, so many specific words that were being used over and over again (called, elect, chosen, grace, justified, atonement, etc.) that for years I had read often and slid right over them, if you know what I mean. The content found in the DoG are all over the scriptures. One of the most valuable things I learned from studying Reformed theology was how to read the Bible.

That would tier into seeing the scriptures from both the perspective of biblical and systematic theology, and from a Covenant theology framework and viewpoint

 

[Josheb]

No, as those doctrines highlighted from and in the Bible are indeed objective truth

Post 53 says otherwise. A "he says she says" condition is the antithesis of objective truth. Only the creed correctly formed from scripture's objective truth can be said to describe objective truth - the objective truth of scripture, not itself.

 

[JesusFan]

Post 53 says otherwise. A "he says she says" condition is the antithesis of objective truth. Only the creed correctly formed from scripture's objective truth can be said to describe objective truth - the objective truth of scripture, not itself.

I was addressing the question of what if 2 people used 2 creds/confessions, the only way to see who has the truth of any manner would be to see that the scriptures themselves are the objective supreme authority

 

[Josheb]

I was addressing the question of what if 2 people used 2 creds/confessions, the only way to see who has the truth of any manner would be to see that the scriptures themselves are the objective supreme authority

Yep. So skip the extra-biblical source and stick with scripture . Or..... understand a sound creed is merely a summary thereof and the unsound creed is nothing.

 

[JesusFan]

Yep. So skip the extra-biblical source and stick with scripture . Or..... understand a sound creed is merely a summary thereof and the unsound creed is nothing.

Sound advice, for if we try to get other sources then the bible, end up with books such as in Mormonism, JW and Sda with their Ellen White

 

[Arial]

Sound advice, for if we try to get other sources then the bible, end up with books such as in Mormonism, JW and Sda with their Ellen White

Also 1 Enoch and Jubilees. They have made quite the invasion into sola scriptura and the hermeneutic that scripture interprets scripture, in some circles.

 

[makesends]

Yep. So skip the extra-biblical source and stick with scripture . Or..... understand a sound creed is merely a summary thereof and the unsound creed is nothing.

I would have agreed 100% except for the word, "skip", there. Not sure what you mean by, in, "skip the extra-biblical source". If all you mean is that Confessions and Creeds are not Scripture, and not authoritative, then yes. If you mean a Confession/Creed is useless for argument, no.

 

[JesusFan]

I would have agreed 100% except for the word, "skip", there. Not sure what you mean by, in, "skip the extra-biblical source". If all you mean is that Confessions and Creeds are not Scripture, and not authoritative, then yes. If you mean a Confession/Creed is useless for argument, no.

Sola Scriptura means that the bible alone is inspired and authoritative to us, but also can use Creeds/Confessions/Commentaries text books etc, but just remember that none of them teach perfect theology

 

[JesusFan]

Also 1 Enoch and Jubilees. They have made quite the invasion into sola scriptura and the hermeneutic that scripture interprets scripture, in some circles.

Heard of 1 Enoch, but Jubilees?

 

[Arial]

Heard of 1 Enoch, but Jubilees?

It is another of the documents found in the Qumran caves purported to be written by Enoch the seventh from Adam (but could not have been) detailing Enoch's visions and visits to heaven where he received revelations that are not found in the Bible. It is used to support the Gen 6 interpretation of fallen angels intermarriying with human women and producing evil giants. It is a 5th to 1rst century B.C. belief among some Jewish sects. It has been proven that they were produced in the 5th to 3rd centuries B.C. and copied likely by the Essenes and found in the Qumran caves. To the Essenes and whoever wrote the original manuscripts, this is what explained the corruption of mankind. It is not what the Bible teaches.

 

[Josheb]

I would have agreed 100% except for the word, "skip", there. Not sure what you mean by, in, "skip the extra-biblical source". If all you mean is that Confessions and Creeds are not Scripture, and not authoritative, then yes. If you mean a Confession/Creed is useless for argument, no.

I will gladly clarify. When Christians discuss topics in internet discussion boards we should first and foremost discuss what scripture says, beginning with what scripture explicitly states (because that does not require any additional interpretation) and work our way exegetically through scripture (because the precepts of exegesis are designed to prevent anyone from making scripture say things it does not and cannot otherwise be made to say). The only time we should appeal to extrabiblical sources is when those sources are the topic of discussion.

This is why I do not quote Calvin (or Arminius, or Bert, Ernie, Lucy, Ricky, Fred, or Ethel) unless Calvin is the subject of discussion. This is why I do not quote extra-biblical doctrinal sources unless doctrine is the subject of discussion. This is why no one can ever blame me for preaching some ~ism. I happen to be fairly well read and can quote sources other than the Bible all day, every day, for months (if not years). I have a personal library with about 1500 books (most of them I have actually read ) in literally three steps away from where I am typing this post and that doesn't include the many books I've read and either borrowed and returned or red and given away or sold over the last 40+ years. I just don't do extra-biblical sources. I can, but I do not. I like to read diversely. I can argue Arminianism better than most Arminianism, and I can do the same with Calvinism. I can argue Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, Open Theism, and even non-Christian points of view using nothing but extra-biblical source sources written by those considered authorities in each of those viewpoints. I can, but I do not..... unless that viewpoint is the subject of discussion.

Why do I stick with scripture and generally eschew extra-biblical sources?

Because the single best argument any of us can ever make is.....

A polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture.


Is that not THE standard to which we should all aspire and encourage one another to pursue?

When we are willing, we serve as each other's students and teachers.

Ephesians 4:11-16
11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into him who is the head, even Christ, 16from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

• Equip the saints for works of service
• Build up the body of Christ until we attain the unity of the faith
• Build up the body of Christ until we attain the knowledge of God's Son
• Build up the body of Christ to the measure of the stature which belongs to Christ's fulness

When that happens we...

• Will no longer be children
• No longer be tossed about and carried by every wind of doctrine
• No longer be tossed about and carried by the trickery of others' crafty deceitful schemes
• Be able to speak the truth in love,
• Be able to grow in all aspects into our Lord, Christ
• Be fitted together as a body by what each member supplies according to the proper working of that part
• Cause growth of the body
• Build the body in love

It is a high calling.

Creeds and other sources beside the Bible a not necessarily wrong or bad to use but, in most cases, they are unnecessary and, in many cases, often misused because well-rendered scripture is sufficient.


Is that sufficiently clarified?

 

[JesusFan]

It is another of the documents found in the Qumran caves purported to be written by Enoch the seventh from Adam (but could not have been) detailing Enoch's visions and visits to heaven where he received revelations that are not found in the Bible. It is used to support the Gen 6 interpretation of fallen angels intermarriying with human women and producing evil giants. It is a 5th to 1rst century B.C. belief among some Jewish sects. It has been proven that they were produced in the 5th to 3rd centuries B.C. and copied likely by the Essenes and found in the Qumran caves. To the Essenes and whoever wrote the original manuscripts, this is what explained the corruption of mankind. It is not what the Bible teaches.

Is that where they get the idea of "watchers", as in that Noah movie?

 

[JesusFan]

I will gladly clarify. When Christians discuss topics in internet discussion boards we should first and foremost discuss what scripture says, beginning with what scripture explicitly states (because that does not require any additional interpretation) and work our way exegetically through scripture (because the precepts of exegesis are designed to prevent anyone from making scripture say things it does not and cannot otherwise be made to say). The only time we should appeal to extrabiblical sources is when those sources are the topic of discussion.

This is why I do not quote Calvin (or Arminius, or Bert, Ernie, Lucy, Ricky, Fred, or Ethel) unless Calvin is the subject of discussion. This is why I do not quote extra-biblical doctrinal sources unless doctrine is the subject of discussion. This is why no one can ever blame me for preaching some ~ism. I happen to be fairly well read and can quote sources other than the Bible all day, every day, for months (if not years). I have a personal library with about 1500 books (most of them I have actually read ) in literally three steps away from where I am typing this post and that doesn't include the many books I've read and either borrowed and returned or red and given away or sold over the last 40+ years. I just don't do extra-biblical sources. I can, but I do not. I like to read diversely. I can argue Arminianism better than most Arminianism, and I can do the same with Calvinism. I can argue Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, Open Theism, and even non-Christian points of view using nothing but extra-biblical source sources written by those considered authorities in each of those viewpoints. I can, but I do not..... unless that viewpoint is the subject of discussion.

Why do I stick with scripture and generally eschew extra-biblical sources?

Because the single best argument any of us can ever make is.....

A polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture.


Is that not THE standard to which we should all aspire and encourage one another to pursue?

When we are willing, we serve as each other's students and teachers.

Ephesians 4:11-16
11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into him who is the head, even Christ, 16from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

• Equip the saints for works of service
• Build up the body of Christ until we attain the unity of the faith
• Build up the body of Christ until we attain the knowledge of God's Son
• Build up the body of Christ to the measure of the stature which belongs to Christ's fulness

When that happens we...

• Will no longer be children
• No longer be tossed about and carried by every wind of doctrine
• No longer be tossed about and carried by the trickery of others' crafty deceitful schemes
• Be able to speak the truth in love,
• Be able to grow in all aspects into our Lord, Christ
• Be fitted together as a body by what each member supplies according to the proper working of that part
• Cause growth of the body
• Build the body in love

It is a high calling.

Creeds and other sources beside the Bible a not necessarily wrong or bad to use but, in most cases, they are unnecessary and, in many cases, often misused because well-rendered scripture is sufficient.


Is that sufficiently clarified?

Agree witrh you that all theological and doctrinal discussions need to start and end with scriptures, but we can also use extra biblical source by godly teachers and textsbooks to aid our points

 

[Arial]

Is that where they get the idea of "watchers", as in that Noah movie?

Yes.

 

[Josheb]

Agree witrh you that all theological and doctrinal discussions need to start and end with scriptures, but we can also use extra biblical source by godly teachers and textsbooks to aid our points

Not as proof an argument is logically correct.

The reason the Pelagian heresy is incorrect is because scripture proves it incorrect, not some extra-biblical post canonical creed or confession says so. When Arminius disputed Pelagianism he asserted a reasonable and rational argument, but he justified that argument with scripture, not creed (or, in his case, an appeal to the ECFs).

VII. In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man.

VIII. The mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God. For "the animal man has no perception of the things of the Spirit of God;" (1 Cor. ii. 14 in which passage man is called "animal," not from the animal body, but from anima, the soul itself, which is the most noble part of man, but which is so encompassed about with the clouds of ignorance, as to be distinguished by the epithets of "vain" and "foolish;" and men themselves, thus darkened in their minds, are denominated "mad" or foolish, "fools," and even "darkness" itself. (Rom. i. 21, 22; Ephes. iv. 17, 18; Tit. iii. 3; Ephes. v. 8.) This is true, not only when, from the truth of the law which has in some measure been inscribed on the mind, it is preparing to form conclusions by the understanding; but likewise when, by simple apprehension, it would receive the truth of the gospel externally offered to it. For the human mind judges that to be "foolishness" which is the most excellent "wisdom" of God. (1 Cor. i. 18, 24.) On this account, what is here said must be understood not only of practical understanding and the judgment of particular approbation, but also of theoretical understanding and the judgment of general estimation.[/i] (from Disputation 11)​

See hot that works? Because I wanted to prove what I claimed Arminius said, I quoted Arminius. When I want to prove what God said, I quote God . God's word is the measure of Pelagius' words, not Arminius (or Augustine, Calvin, Flowers, etc.).




.

 

[makesends]

I will gladly clarify. When Christians discuss topics in internet discussion boards we should first and foremost discuss what scripture says, beginning with what scripture explicitly states (because that does not require any additional interpretation) and work our way exegetically through scripture (because the precepts of exegesis are designed to prevent anyone from making scripture say things it does not and cannot otherwise be made to say). The only time we should appeal to extrabiblical sources is when those sources are the topic of discussion.

This is why I do not quote Calvin (or Arminius, or Bert, Ernie, Lucy, Ricky, Fred, or Ethel) unless Calvin is the subject of discussion. This is why I do not quote extra-biblical doctrinal sources unless doctrine is the subject of discussion. This is why no one can ever blame me for preaching some ~ism. I happen to be fairly well read and can quote sources other than the Bible all day, every day, for months (if not years). I have a personal library with about 1500 books (most of them I have actually read ) in literally three steps away from where I am typing this post and that doesn't include the many books I've read and either borrowed and returned or red and given away or sold over the last 40+ years. I just don't do extra-biblical sources. I can, but I do not. I like to read diversely. I can argue Arminianism better than most Arminianism, and I can do the same with Calvinism. I can argue Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, Open Theism, and even non-Christian points of view using nothing but extra-biblical source sources written by those considered authorities in each of those viewpoints. I can, but I do not..... unless that viewpoint is the subject of discussion.

Why do I stick with scripture and generally eschew extra-biblical sources?

Because the single best argument any of us can ever make is.....

A polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture.


Is that not THE standard to which we should all aspire and encourage one another to pursue?

When we are willing, we serve as each other's students and teachers.

Ephesians 4:11-16
11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into him who is the head, even Christ, 16from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

• Equip the saints for works of service
• Build up the body of Christ until we attain the unity of the faith
• Build up the body of Christ until we attain the knowledge of God's Son
• Build up the body of Christ to the measure of the stature which belongs to Christ's fulness

When that happens we...

• Will no longer be children
• No longer be tossed about and carried by every wind of doctrine
• No longer be tossed about and carried by the trickery of others' crafty deceitful schemes
• Be able to speak the truth in love,
• Be able to grow in all aspects into our Lord, Christ
• Be fitted together as a body by what each member supplies according to the proper working of that part
• Cause growth of the body
• Build the body in love

It is a high calling.

Creeds and other sources beside the Bible a not necessarily wrong or bad to use but, in most cases, they are unnecessary and, in many cases, often misused because well-rendered scripture is sufficient.

Is that sufficiently clarified?

Only in that "well-rendered scriptures" are not always intelligible to us, whereas, hopefully, the confessions and creeds are. If what you are thinking allows for that, then, yeah, we are good, here.

 

[Josheb]

Only in that "well-rendered scriptures" are not always intelligible to us,

To you.

1. I've have exhorted you before to be more discerning of your belief others do not understand what you don't understand. Limit that kind of statement to yourself and don't over-generalize to make your personal lack of understanding applicable to everyone else or provide proof everyone is as lacking in knowledge as you are.
2. "Well-rendered" means properly examined and presented so as to correctly communicate understandable information. That sentence is, therefore, self-contradictory.
3. Scripture is revelation revealed for the express purpose of understanding. It is, therefore, by definition, intelligible. One particular passage or concept may not be understood at some point in time, but what has been revealed is intelligible.

.

whereas, hopefully, the confessions and creeds are.

.....are not scripture.

Here again there's an internal contradiction. If the scriptures are unintelligible, as you've asserted) then how can that which is unintelligible be made intelligible? Scripture is not unintelligible. That is a very poor choice of words to say scripture, God's revelation to humanity, is unintelligible. What the creeds and confessions do is summarize that which is intelligible. They consolidate what the intelligible scriptures that are spread throughout the many books of the Bible say about given subjects.

If what you are thinking allows for that, then, yeah, we are good, here.

My thinking does not allow for contradictory statements to be true.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Only in that "well-rendered scriptures" are not always intelligible to us,

To you.

1. I've have exhorted you before to be more discerning of your belief others do not understand what you don't understand. Limit that kind of statement to yourself and don't over-generalize to make your personal lack of understanding applicable to everyone else or provide proof everyone is as lacking in knowledge as you are.
2. "Well-rendered" means properly examined and presented so as to correctly communicate understandable information. That sentence is, therefore, self-contradictory.
3. Scripture is revelation revealed for the express purpose of understanding. It is, therefore, by definition, intelligible. One particular passage or concept may not be understood at some point in time, but what has been revealed is intelligible.

1. It is pride that makes us think we understand more than we do. Thus, the exhortations.
2. Notice that I put the words, "well-rendered", in quotes. In other words, the "so called 'well-rendered' scriptures", or "the supposedly 'well-rendered' scriptures". The sentence is not self-contradictory. Furthermore, no matter how well rendered the scriptures are, the creeds and confessions are not built upon single verses, but on the whole of the council of God, which is more than we can understand [in its entirety]. Confess it.
3. I should not have used the word, "intelligible", but "understandable". Nevertheless, the fact that I say "not always intelligible" should give you some hint of what I was meaning. Somehow you habitually take this strawman to task. It is wasted effort, though I admire your industry.

makesends said:
whereas, hopefully, the confessions and creeds are.

.....are not scripture.

Here again there's an internal contradiction. If the scriptures are unintelligible, as you've asserted) then how can that which is unintelligible be made intelligible? Scripture is not unintelligible. That is a very poor choice of words to say scripture, God's revelation to humanity, is unintelligible. What the creeds and confessions do is summarize that which is intelligible. They consolidate what the intelligible scriptures that are spread throughout the many books of the Bible say about given subjects

This is not the first time that I 'have exhorted you' not to misrepresent me as though I thought that the scriptures are entirely "unintelligible". What I think is that some scriptures are not entirely understandable to us, and that in some sense, i.e. in its wholeness/entirety, it is not entirely understandable. At present, we do not know all.

makesends said:
If what you are thinking allows for that, then, yeah, we are good, here

My thinking does not allow for contradictory statements to be true

Well, good, then, because, after all, there was no contradiction.

 

[By the Book]

No wonder Provisionism is far more popular than it should be.

I've always understood provisionalism to be nothing more than Pelagianism with a Southern Baptist twist.