The Pelagian Heresy is Alive and Well in America

[John Bauer]

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

Correct.

 

[makesends]

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

Like an intellectual-sounding name to put to the self-deterministic soteriology of the last 150 years or so.

 

[Josheb]

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

1. It is pride that makes us think we understand more than we do.

That is true but no one has claimed to know more than they know. No one has even remotely claimed to know and understand all of God's revelation.

 

[Josheb]

2. Notice that I put the words, "well-rendered", in quotes.

Which normally means the prior post is being quoted, NOT that some rhetorical meaning is being assigned. The proverbial "finger quotes" are much different in meaning than actual quotation marks.

In other words, the "so called 'well-rendered' scriptures", or "the supposedly 'well-rendered' scriptures".

Which means the original statement was changed and then the change was commented on to fit an irrelevant viewpoint. It's called a strawman. I said "well-rendered" and I meant well rendered. I did not post or mean a rhetorical "well-rendered" as if those words had meaning other than their normal meaning in ordinary usage. In the stated context of exegesis, the phrase cannot be made to mean something is unintelligible. Furthermore, my point of dissent was simply well-rendered scripture is intelligible, and a rhetorical "well-rendered scripture" is an oxymoron...... and that is not being addressed in Post 79.

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.

And I disagree for the reasons already posted. Repeating your position does not further the conversation. You may think whatever you want to think but if what you think is inconsistent with either explicit statements of scripture or the logical necessities thereof then the thinking is incorrect and should be changed. I can take this one step at a time with you if you like.

Is scripture revelation from God?

 

[Josheb]

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

Thinking revelation is unintelligibly unrevealing is a contradiction.

 

[makesends]

Thinking revelation is unintelligibly unrevealing is a contradiction.

Do you admit you don't understand all revelation? Of course you do. So, there's no contradiction. That is all I was saying.

 

[makesends]

Which normally means the prior post is being quoted, NOT that some rhetorical meaning is being assigned. The proverbial "finger quotes" are much different in meaning than actual quotation marks.

Ah! My bad. I shoulda used the scare quotes. I'm not going to the trouble to squabble further on this.

Which means the original statement was changed and then the change was commented on to fit an irrelevant viewpoint. It's called a strawman. I said "well-rendered" and I meant well rendered. I did not post or mean a rhetorical "well-rendered" as if those words had meaning other than their normal meaning in ordinary usage. In the stated context of exegesis, the phrase cannot be made to mean something is unintelligible. Furthermore, my point of dissent was simply well-rendered scripture is intelligible, and a rhetorical "well-rendered scripture" is an oxymoron...... and that is not being addressed in Post 79.

If you say so. Yes, that's dismissive. Use the report button.

And I disagree for the reasons already posted. Repeating your position does not further the conversation. You may think whatever you want to think but if what you think is inconsistent with either explicit statements of scripture or the logical necessities thereof then the thinking is incorrect and should be changed. I can take this one step at a time with you if you like.

Is scripture revelation from God?

Repeating your position does not further the conversation. Now, if you think you understand all of what God has revealed, we have no reason to further the conversation. If you do not, then we have no reason to continue this squabbling, as, rather obviously, from a few posts back, I did not mean what you are arguing against, which fact makes your argument sound to me like a strawman. It's like correcting one's spelling or punctuation when it is rather obvious what they were trying to say.

 

[makesends]

That is true but no one has claimed to know more than they know. No one has even remotely claimed to know and understand all of God's revelation.

Nor have I remotely claimed that none of it is understandable.

 

[Josheb]

Do you admit you don't understand all revelation?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with well-rendered scripture being unintelligible. Do you understand the difference between scripture not being understood and scripture not being intelligible?

Do you admit you don't understand all revelation?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with your claim you do not understand all revelation. I may understand parts of revelation you do not, and vice versa. The claim no one understands is wrong. Had you said no one understands ALL of scripture you'd have been accurate as far as that goes but it is still wrong to imply well-rendered scripture is not intelligible.

Of course you do. So, there's no contradiction. That is all I was saying.

Thinking revelation is unintelligibly unrevealing is a contradiction, and Post 86 wastes more space in the thread NOT addressing the problem.

Repeating your position does not further the conversation.

Neither does trying to change the subject or not answering valid questions when asked. The facts in evidence are that I have, in fact, added something new to each exchange. The problem is it's been ignored.

You said, "Only in that 'well-rendered scriptures' are not always intelligible to us, whereas, hopefully, the confessions and creeds are." That is incorrect. Well-rendered scripture is intelligible. Claiming the quotation marks are an indication of the scripture not being well rendered has nothing to do with what is stated in Post 72's metric.


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


It is the antithesis of Post 72. There is no "so called" in that metric. You don't get to move the goalposts and then blame me. The words "so called" are conspicuously absent from Post 77. All effort to communicate Post 77's use of quotation marks to indicate is rhetorical and ridiculing not-actually-well-rendered is absent. As written, Post 77 is incorrect. Well-rendered scripture is always intelligible. It might not be understood by all, or agreed with by all, but it is intelligible. That is part of what it means to say something is rendered well (within the context of exegesis).

.....I did not mean what you are arguing against....

Which means Post 77 was misrepresentative and off-topic or was in need of clarification from its inception. In either case Post 77 should have been corrected without diversion.

 

[Josheb]

nt

 

[Josheb]

Nor have I remotely claimed that none of it is understandable.

(josh shakes head incredulously) You just got done resolving one mistake. The words "not always intelligible," literally means "it is not always understandable."

I should not have used the word, "intelligible", but "understandable"

That would not have resolved anything because if something is intelligible then t is by definition, understandable.



Let's start over.

Well-rendered scripture is intelligible and, therefore, understandable. So called "well-rendered" scripture may or may not be intelligible, understandable, or correct.

Yes? Is that what you meant to communicate?

 

[Tambora]

Wow. I had no idea it was that bad.

Practically two-thirds of evangelicals in America believe "everyone is born innocent in the eyes of God" (source: Ligonier survey).

It's called "biblical" not "Pelagian".

Because the Bible tells us that Rebeckah conceived twins by Isaac and neither had done anything good or bad.
So what sin did God accuse them of doing the moment they were brought forth from the womb?

 

[John Bauer]

It's called "biblical," not "Pelagian," …

That remains to be seen.

… because the Bible tells us that Rebekah conceived twins by Isaac and neither had done anything good or bad.

Correct. That is exactly Paul’s point. He explicitly brackets personal works in order to establish that God’s purpose of election does not rest on anything in the creature. Whatever his reason for choosing Jacob, it had to do with something other than Jacob himself.

But that observation concerns the basis of election. Paul is excluding works as the ground of God’s choice, not teaching moral innocence at birth.

So what sin did God accuse them of doing the moment they were brought forth from the womb?

Question: If a person has not consciously performed any sinful acts, does it follow that the person is sinless?

If you answer yes, then you are affirming Pelagius against Augustine, for Pelagius explicitly denied original sin and defined sin exclusively as a matter of willful acts.

 

[Tambora]

Hello John, happy to share thoughts with you on this matter.

That remains to be seen.

Then open your eyes to what scripture says and let it be so.
MOD HAT Please refrain from remonstrance of this sort. It isn't even rational argument. Not only does it not move debate forward, but it implies derogatory assessments of one's opposition. It shows lack of respect. This is a violation of rule 2.2.

Correct.

I know.

That is exactly Paul’s point. He explicitly brackets personal works in order to establish that God’s purpose of election does not rest on anything in the creature.

"in the creature" ??????
That's not what scripture said.
It says that neither of them did anything right or wrong.
It does not say because of something "in them".

Whatever his reason for choosing Jacob, it had to do with something other than Jacob himself.

It doesn't matter which was elected.
Scripture specifically says that neither Jacob himself or Esau himself had done anything right or wrong.

But that observation concerns the basis of election. Paul is excluding works as the ground of God’s choice, not teaching moral innocence at birth.

And yet you still have a hard time admitting that neither child did anything that could be considered a sin.

Question: If a person has not consciously performed any sinful acts, does it follow that the person is sinless?

It obviously means that the person has not done anything that could be considered "sin".

If you answer yes, then you are affirming Pelagius against Augustine,

I don't affirm either of those people.
I affirm scripture.
And Augustine brought way too much of gnosticism into the church.

for Pelagius explicitly denied original sin and defined sin exclusively as a matter of willful acts.

Are you taking about the sin that Adam committed by eating the fruit as being the original sin?
Do you not believe Adam was innocent until he himself willfully did wrong by committing sin?

 

[John Bauer]

"In the creature"? That's not what Scripture said.

All right, I can play by those rules.

Scripture says that God chose Jacob while Rebekah was yet pregnant. They were two developing fetuses in her womb. That means neither of them had done anything yet—either good or bad. Did God choose Jacob because he did or said something right? No. Did he reject Esau because he did or said something wrong? No. They were fetuses. Still developing in the darkened quiet of the womb. They hadn’t done or said anything righteous or sinful.

We can agree on that, right?

It doesn't matter which was elected.

Yes, it does matter, because Scripture says which one was elected and we’re restricting ourselves to what Scripture says.

So, when Esau was born into this world he was already rejected by God, before he had done anything. When Jacob was born into this world he was already chosen by God, before he had done anything.

On this we are agreed, right?

And yet you still have a hard time admitting that neither child did anything that could be considered a sin.

That is a false characterization. Nothing in my response to you (here) can be construed as resisting that trivially obvious fact. On the contrary, it is indispensable to my argument. When God chose Jacob, neither one had done anything righteous or anything sinful—they hadn’t done anything at all. That, as I said, was exactly the point the apostle was exploiting.

It obviously means that the person has not done anything that could be considered "sin".

It also means that the person hasn’t done anything that could be considered righteous—because neither one of them had done anything at all.

I don't affirm either of those people.

Perhaps not consciously, granted. But that doesn’t change the fact that an answer of yes affirms Pelagius against Augustine. It is basic logic: To deny x is to affirm not-x because there is no middle option.

And Augustine brought way too much of gnosticism into the church.

False. But also irrelevant, so we will not explore that any further in this thread. If you want to argue that case, start a new thread on it.

Are you taking about the sin that Adam committed by eating the fruit as being the original sin?

That did not answer my question. I will try once more:

* If a person has not consciously performed any sinful acts, does it follow that the person is sinless?

Do you not believe Adam was innocent until he himself willfully did wrong by committing sin?

I do believe Adam was innocent until he transgressed. But he wasn’t under a federal head, he was the federal head (the first). A similar thing can be said of Christ, who was also innocent and for the same reason: he wasn’t under a federal head, he was the federal head (the last).

That innocence does not extend beyond those two. Everyone after the first Adam stands under a federal head and therefore has a legal status prior to any personal acts. We are all constituted sinners even before we have committed any sins ourselves. As Paul says in Romans 5:19, “By the one man’s disobedience the many were constituted sinners”—κατεστάθησαν (third-person plural aorist passive indicative of καθίστημι), a transitive verb that often takes either a simple object (“to appoint someone”), or a double construction with object + predicate (“to make/constitute someone something”).

 

[makesends]

Tambora said:
It doesn't matter which was elected.

Yes, it does matter, because Scripture says which one was elected and we’re restricting ourselves to what Scripture says.

Doesn't reason tell us that God had a particular end in mind when he created? Isn't it implied, then, that it does matter? Even in Christendom's libertarian free will structures, deistic and semi-deterministic, inspiration-believing and non, they pretty much all agree that God had a particular reason to create. That he had a definite end in mind. Doesn't it add up, then, that the members of that end would be of particular interest to him during this 'formative' temporal stage?

 

[Tambora]

All right, I can play by those rules.

It's not a rule.

Scripture says that God chose Jacob while Rebekah was yet pregnant. They were two developing fetuses in her womb. That means neither of them had done anything yet—either good or bad. Did God choose Jacob because he did or said something right? No. Did he reject Esau because he did or said something wrong? No. They were fetuses. Still developing in the darkened quiet of the womb. They hadn’t done or said anything righteous or sinful.

We can agree on that, right?

Sure, both were innocent of committing sin.

Yes, it does matter, because Scripture says which one was elected and we’re restricting ourselves to what Scripture says.

No it doesn't because I am not arguing about which was elected.
I am arguing that both were innocent of committing sin.
So when your OP stated that it was heretical to believe "everyone is born innocent", I joined the thread to argue that point.
I did not join the thread to argue about who was elected.

I do believe Adam was innocent until he transgressed.

Everyone is innocent until they themselves commit sin.

But he wasn’t under a federal head, he was the federal head (the first). A similar thing can be said of Christ, who was also innocent and for the same reason: he wasn’t under a federal head, he was the federal head (the last).

A "federal headship" is also not my argument.
Both Jacob and Esau were innocent of committing sin even though they both were descendants of Adam.
And scripture also tells us that a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. (Ezekiel 18)

We are all constituted sinners even before we have committed any sins ourselves. As Paul says in Romans 5:19, “By the one man’s disobedience the many were constituted sinners”—κατεστάθησαν (third-person plural aorist passive indicative of καθίστημι), a transitive verb that often takes either a simple object (“to appoint someone”), or a double construction with object + predicate (“to make/constitute someone something”).

Romans 5:19 also says by one man's obedience the many were made righteous.

 

[makesends]

Sure, both were innocent of committing sin.

No it doesn't because I am not arguing about which was elected.
I am arguing that both were innocent of committing sin.
So when your OP stated that it was heretical to believe "everyone is born innocent", I joined the thread to argue that point.
I did not join the thread to argue about who was elected.

Everyone is innocent until they themselves commit sin

Neglecting for the moment Adam's federal headship, the imputation of sin to every individual, the sinful/corrupted heart/mind begins before a person is born. Nobody has ever been innocent, but Jesus and Adam. Whether we want to say that a person has DONE anything good or bad, or we don't, the truth is that the heart already is at enmity with God, before the person has, as Romans puts it, DONE anything good or bad. To my thinking, Paul saying those words is a use of common thought, for the purpose of showing (among other things) how our thinking does not go deep enough as to God's purposes and deeds. Our enmity with God, and the death into which we are subjected, is in every motion, thought and deed, 'doing' sin —even before we are born.

Within the notion that it is not sin, if it was not consciously intended against God/fellow man/creation, is bogus. Before regeneration, our EVERY intent is sinful, whether we know it or not. If we are alive, we have committed sin. Praise God for his purposes and his grace.

 

[John Bauer]

Sure, both were innocent of committing sin.

On this we are agreed. They were innocent of committing sin. They were fetuses in the womb; they had not done anything yet.

But then a moment later you said something different, something I cannot agree with because it contradicts Scripture (emphasis added):

Everyone is innocent until they themselves commit sin.

That answers my question:

• If a person has not consciously performed any sinful acts, does it follow that the person is sinless?

Your answer is, “Yes. Until they commit sin, they are sinless.”

Let’s take this back to Jacob and Esau in the womb. They were innocent in a relative sense—of committing sins—but they were not innocent in an absolute sense. They were not innocent forensically before God. Scripture clearly says, “By the one man’s disobedience, the many were constituted sinners.” We are not innocent; Paul said we are sinners.

That is the historical conflict between Augustinian orthodoxy and Pelagian heresy:

• Augustine: We sin because we are sinners (i.e., what we do flows from who we are).
  
  ​
• Pelagius: We are sinners because we sin (i.e., what we are is the result of what we do).

Pelagius never dealt with Romans 5:19 on its own terms, reducing it to moral imitation, and that reduction is precisely what trapped him in error.

And his view being heretical is a matter of historical record. You can disagree with the historical record but that doesn’t change it.

So, when your [opening post] stated that it was heretical to believe "everyone is born innocent," I joined the thread to argue that point.

Well, good luck with that. You are relitigating a settled historical argument.

A "federal headship" is also not my argument.

That follows. But it’s definitely the argument found in Scripture.

Both Jacob and Esau were innocent of committing sin, even though they both were descendants of Adam.

Agreed. But they were not innocent simpliciter.

And scripture also tells us that a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. (Ezekiel 18)

You need to understand that the father in Ezekiel 18 is not a federal head of humanity.

Romans 5:19 also says by one man's obedience the many were made righteous.

Deal with the argument I presented, please. I will repeat it here:

That innocence does not extend beyond those two. Everyone after the first Adam stands under a federal head and therefore has a legal status prior to any personal acts. We are all constituted sinners even before we have committed any sins ourselves. As Paul says in Romans 5:19, “By the one man’s disobedience the many were constituted sinners”—κατεστάθησαν (third-person plural aorist passive indicative of καθίστημι), a transitive verb that often takes either a simple object (“to appoint someone”), or a double construction with object + predicate (“to make/constitute someone something”).

 

[makesends]

On this we are agreed. They were innocent of committing sin. They were fetuses in the womb; they had not done anything yet.

But then a moment later you said something different, something I cannot agree with because it contradicts Scripture (emphasis added):



That answers my question:

• If a person has not consciously performed any sinful acts, does it follow that the person is sinless?

Your answer is, “Yes. Until they commit sin, they are sinless.”

Let’s take this back to Jacob and Esau in the womb. They were innocent in a relative sense—of committing sins—but they were not innocent in an absolute sense. They were not innocent forensically before God. Scripture clearly says, “By the one man’s disobedience, the many were constituted sinners.” We are not innocent; Paul said we are sinners.

That is the historical conflict between Augustinian orthodoxy and Pelagian heresy:

• Augustine: We sin because we are sinners (i.e., what we do flows from who we are).
  
  ​
• Pelagius: We are sinners because we sin (i.e., what we are is the result of what we do).

Pelagius never dealt with Romans 5:19 on its own terms, reducing it to moral imitation, and that reduction is precisely what trapped him in error.

And his view being heretical is a matter of historical record. You can disagree with the historical record but that doesn’t change it.



Well, good luck with that. You are relitigating a settled historical argument.



That follows. But it’s definitely the argument found in Scripture.



Agreed. But they were not innocent simpliciter.



You need to understand that the father in Ezekiel 18 is not a federal head of humanity.



Deal with the argument I presented, please. I will repeat it here:

That innocence does not extend beyond those two. Everyone after the first Adam stands under a federal head and therefore has a legal status prior to any personal acts. We are all constituted sinners even before we have committed any sins ourselves. As Paul says in Romans 5:19, “By the one man’s disobedience the many were constituted sinners”—κατεστάθησαν (third-person plural aorist passive indicative of καθίστημι), a transitive verb that often takes either a simple object (“to appoint someone”), or a double construction with object + predicate (“to make/constitute someone something”).

Amen, bro. Ignorance is not innocence.

I know it hurts the sensibilities of those who assume that intention is necessarily conscious, and worse, that if God sets things out where some are, "before they did anything good or bad", already guilty of sin, that it is counter-justice and monstrous of God to do things that way. (Strange that they order individual treatment as far as guilt, but generality as relates to actually committing sin).