| Author | Message | ||
| Jody Registered user Username: Jody Post Number: 75 Registered: 7-2007 |
I have been having some thought provoking discussions with an Adventist Pastor friend of mine.He gave me some Cds to listen to entitled "Victory in Jesus". The guy making the presentation on the Cd talks about the Arminian/Calvinist debate,but suggests that although SDA's lean towards Arminianism they are really neither.Yes of course you guessed it they have the real truth that both the Arminians and Calvinists missed (LOL!!) Anyway i suggested to my friend that SDA's were considered by most Evangelicals to be what is known as Semi Pelagians,and i sent him a link from CARM that explained the term.He claims that SDA's do not rightly fit into that category.I realize we cant always put a neat label on a person but can anyone tell me where they would consider SDA's to be on this grid? Also for clarification purposes can anyone suggest the differences between an Arminian and a Semi Pelagian? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9500 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jody, I'm not an expert on these topics, but my understanding is that Arminians do believe God is sovereign over everything, including inherently lost man. While they say, in varying degrees, that the Holy Spirit quickens the dead person so as to respond to the gospel, Pelagians (and semi-pelagians) would say that God gives ALL men free will to choose as part of their human package. Pelagians hold the free will of man to be the most important value in the universe, with God restricting Himself in order to honor man's free will. Arminians do not believe in a "restricted" God, and they do hold that God's sovereignty is the ultimate value in the universe. Basically, pelagianism and its form exalts man in the universe, while Arminianism holds God to be the ultimate value. My understanding is that to people with pelagian leanings, God honors and serves man; Arminians and Calvinists both see man honoring God. Others may have more to offer here..! Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4315 Registered: 9-2006  |
Jody, I personally talked to a guy that lives near area 51 and he told me that the government snuck Adventist in on a Terillian ship from outer Rahaa, bound for the Sabian Galaxy they ran out of gas. The government took them in thinking they may know something and disguised as humans they have been running around ever since looking for some kind of toad stool. Says it will give them enough gas to get back on. I offered to eat beans, but they turned me down on that, said it wasn't Pelagian enough. They mimic pretty good, they sound real evangelical, but their minds were fried by the heat crossing the Nevada desert, poor things. It sounds like your pastor friend may be one of those. Thats all I have to offer Colleen. I know, I know, your so thankful for the contribution,thats perfectly alright. Anytime. River | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 285 Registered: 4-2007 |
You might try these: http://www.leaderu.com/theology/augpelagius.html http://www.ondoctrine.com/2hoa0101.htm (most extensive) http://www.tecmalta.org/tft189.htm | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 340 Registered: 2-2003  |
Hello Jody, I don't know if we've met before, but I could mention a couple of things on this subject. The debates over these areas arose in the Reformation period, and a little after, the Calvinist/Arminian controversy arising over the subject of unconditional election and predestination. At present, there are still "Evangelical" churches which hold both views. I would say the Semi-Pelagian view lies more outside the Evangelical camp. Just considering how the two views see the process of sanctification in a Christian's life, I think the opinions are as follows. The Arminian view sees that a person becomes sanctified by yielding to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, (as confirmed by the Word of God, of course, not independently), but this is only possible if the Holy Spirit helps him to do it. So the Holy Spirit gives the guidance and then the power to do it. It is, however, possible to resist the Holy Spirit, so someone may get stuck in their development. The Semi-Pelagian view is that God has revealed what he wants us to do, and we have to obey him, but we do that by our own efforts, as our own will is sufficient to give us the power to do what God says. So there is a huge difference, like the difference between sanctification by faith, or by works. It seems to me Adventism is on the Semi-Pelagian side. The more you grow as a Christian, the less you need God's help to do his will. Which, to me, seems completely wrong. Hope this helps, God bless, Adrian | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4316 Registered: 9-2006 |
Thanks Doc. Also it is well to remember that not all Adventist hold to this view, or at least don't seem to as I have heard them God to assist them in doing his will. However the same folk seem to hold to the view that is is Gods will for everyone to abstain from such things as smoking, use of alcohol in any quantity and meats. That this applies to everyone equally in other words. The question I would ask is, which of us does Gods perfect will with or without the Holy Spirits help? While I think it is possible to resist the Holy Spirit's ministrations and thus do without his the blessings the person would otherwise have (and I think this happens often)in some areas of a persons life. I would be very interested to hear other views. River P.S. Sorry about the joking manner Jody, I just can't stay serious all the time. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1604 Registered: 4-2000  |
Arminianism is a modified form of Pelagianism that ultimately leads to universalism and salvation by works. This view requires the cooperation of the fallen will of man which is impossible. The spiritually dead (Eph. 2:5) cannot save themselves in any manner (i.e., so-called "cooperative grace" or "partnership salvation") nor do they have a desire for Jesus. Obviously, we cannot choose what we do not desire. Arminianism is also the Catholic view that one can lose their salvation due to mortal sin that requires a parish priest's intervention to save you. In short, the Pelagianist/Arminian view is ultimately man-centered whereas the Augustinian/Calvinist view is solely God-centered. Indeed, salvation is from the Lord--not merely due to our being "somewhat sick" or "slightly dead" in sin but actually "dead" in trespasses and sins. We are not saved merely by an Exemplar, as our SDA friends insist, but more importantly, we desperately need a Substitute (stand-in). All in all, our Christological and soteriological stance makes a world of difference in our doxology as well. Soli Deo Gloria! In awe of His saving grace, Dennis Fischer Snackbar for the Soul: "We occupy a house, which is evidently not our own, and therefore there must be some rent to pay. The rent that God asks of his tenants is that they should praise him as long as they live." --Charles Spurgeon | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9506 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dennis, it is misleading to place Arminianism and Pelagianism in the same category. Here is Wikipedia's definition of Pelagianism: …original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because men are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon. In contrast, Arminianism holds that natural man is not able to choose God. Here is Wikepdia's definition of Arminianism: Arminianism is a school of soteriological thought within Protestant Christianity based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609)[1] and his historic followers, the Remonstrants. The doctrines' acceptance stretches through much of mainstream Christianity, including evangelical Protestantism. Arminianism holds to the following tenets: Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation (see also prevenient grace). Salvation is possible only by God's grace, which cannot be merited. No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation. God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ's atonement was made on behalf of all people. God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ. Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith. Calvinism, in contrast with Arminianism, holds that man is reborn by God without the "help" of personal decision, and man cannot lose his salvation. This is what Wikipedia says: Despite the various contributing streams of thought, a distinctive issue in Calvinist theology that is often used to represent the whole is the system's particular soteriology (doctrine of salvation), which emphasizes that humans are incapable of adding anything to obtain salvation and that God alone is the initiator at every stage of salvation, including the formation of faith and every decision to follow Christ. This doctrine was definitively formulated and codified during the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), which rejected an alternative system known as Arminianism. I personally don't see either Arminianism or Calvinism as perfectly summarizing the mystery of salvation. The Bible teaches we are by nature objects of wrath. I do not believe we can escape the fact that each human is born totally depraved. That obviously means we must be brought to life by God alone. In His sovereign power, however, He does bring each of us to a place of spiritual clarity where He asks us to believe. This is obviously not possible apart from the Holy Spirit's work in us. And after we are born again, the Bible clearly teaches that nothing can snatch us out of God's hands, that those who go out from us were never part of us (1 John 2:19). And yet, our decision does not save us. Even our decision to believe is a gift from God. People can, however, resist deciding. Bottom line: Arminianism is emphatically NOT in the category of Pelagianism. Rather, Arminianism and Calvinism are related, and true born-again Christ-followers can have either Calvinistic or Arminianistic "leanings". Arminianism is not a heresy. Pelagianism, however, IS heresy, and I doubt a true Pelagian can be truly Christian. Colleen | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 818 Registered: 7-2005  |
Dennis, thank you for clarifying this issue. While I was in Adventism those 16 years, I always felt they had it wrong on this topic. I would quote this verse to them: "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." And, "Without me [Jesus], you can do nothing." They would always agree, but go right back to their "effort-based" admonitions to gain God's approval. Honestwitness | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9507 Registered: 12-2003 |
Adventism in NOT Arminian. Adventism is Pelagian (or semi-Pelagian). They believe that each person is born with free will, and God's purpose is to protect our free will. Moreover, they say God has to protect Satan's free will as well. This absolutely is heresy. God alone has "free will"—and we are free only after He brings us to life by His Spirit. Only then do we have the ability to choose to live by the Spirit. Only then do have any hope of choosing not to sin. Pelagianism (Adventism) teaches that everyone has the ability to choose whether or not to sin. This is not biblical. I personally have disagreements with classic Arminianism; but by the same token I have some disagreements with classic Calvinism. I do not believe the mystery of God and of His Christ and our salvation can be summarized by any formula. I have to live with the "tension" of knowing that ALL of salvation is of God; I contribute NOTHING. And I must believe—which in itself is a gift! It's paradoxical, but the Bible teaches only truth, and all the Bible says is true. Pelagianism is founded on complete heresy. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4322 Registered: 9-2006 |
Amen Colleen and thank you! Keeps my blood pressure down.  | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1605 Registered: 4-2000 |
Honestwitness, Thank you for your comments. As the great reformer, Martin Luther, well stated: "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ alright." Amazingly, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the soteriological stance of Seventh-day Adventism is basically the same as that of Catholicism. Both groups ultimately depend upon the fallen human will for salvation--a man-centered theology. This teaching reverses the Biblical view of sinful humankind being at the total mercy of our sovereign God. Such faulty reasoning places God at the total mercy of the fallen will of man--a most unthinkable position. Ultimately, according to their view, there is nothing He can do to save anyone because His love prohibits changing their desires or altering their fallen will. Man thereby becomes the captain of his eternal destiny. I find it puzzling that when Adventists pray for others they are Calvinists (frantically and desperately asking God to somehow overrule the fallen will in their friends and loved ones), and when they arise from their knees in prayer they are once again devout freewillers. Their cognitive dissonance is most extensive and burdensome. In the realm of prayer, it is only fair to add that most Christians do the same thing. Colleen, Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't do justice for either the Arminian or Calvinist view of salvation. The ideas that one is born without an original sin condition (the ability to take one's initial steps toward salvation by one's efforts) or being only "slightly dead" or just a "little sick" in trespasses and sin are very closely related. The keystone of Pelagianism, originating in the late fourth century, is the notion of unconditional free will. Both Pelagianism and Arminianism teach that saving grace is offered equally to all. If Jesus paid the price for the sins of all mankind, then He paid the debt for those in hell as well. In that case, the penalty for sin is punished twice and thereby making the sacrifice of our Lord an insufficient payment. Sadly, Pelagius passionately opposed Augustinianism, the forerunner of Calvinism. Throughout church history, we often see a subtle blend of truth and error. May God graciously grant each of us the wisdom to decipher the difference. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Angelcat Registered user Username: Angelcat Post Number: 70 Registered: 11-2008 |
Colleen. thank you for that post. This issue has been really confusing me. So I was raised pelagian then. I do believe in free will, I guess. But, I know that even when I tried to leave God, He never left me. He was always there, no matter what. he was there when I doubted if there was a God. He was there when I decided I was gonna do my own thing and do whatever I wanted, right or not. I remember wondering many times why I could feel His presence when according to what I was taught, and still beleived, He wouldn't be with me. Life certianly goes better when I listen to God, and follow His leading. But, He is there no matter what. I so agree that we contribute nothing to salvation-it's all God. I don't know how it all works. I just know how God has worked in my life, and it's nothing short of amazing. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9509 Registered: 12-2003 |
You know, I believe the "problem" with "original sin" may have begun with the physical, as opposed to spiritual, understanding of it that Augustine had. He believed sin was transmitted by sperm, and Jesus was therefore sinless because He was conceived by a woman and the Holy Spirit, thus being free of the human transmission of sin. Marriage, then, was inherently problematic, and all sorts of perversions, etc., are likely related to this misunderstanding: celibate clergy, etc. If one understands "original sin" to be a dead spirit, a great deal of the historic count-counterpoint arguments about this subject become moot. Jesus died for sin. It's not possible for us to formulate how He paid for sin or how He broke its power and restored us to Himself. We only know what the Bible says, and we aren't intended to make the biblical statements fit into a "mathematical" formula. We are to accept the Bible's statements as they are, using the plain meaning of the words without interpreting them to fit a formula. Of course there will some points where the reality of Jesus' saving us is a mystery. Of course there is tension between election and the command to believe. But the answer is not to discount either one. Both are true. 1 Timothy 4:10: "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." I cannot explain it. I know that God elected me from creation. (I believe all those who know Jesus are conscious of having been chosen.) I know that I did NOT in any way contribute to my being saved. And I know we are commanded to believe—an act of obedience which we cannot generate apart from the Holy Spirit. I simply cannot explain it, and neither Calvinism nor Arminianism explains it. We can't formulate a system within time and three dimensions that articulates God's work. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4332 Registered: 9-2006 |
Quote:I simply cannot explain it, and neither Calvinism nor Arminianism explains it. We can't formulate a system within time and three dimensions that articulates God's work. Colleen, those are pretty much the same words as the theology instructor used when he finished up with both those two view's. I think it left soteriology class scratching their heads a little and it certainly did me. To some Calvinist, the only correct view is the Calvinist view otherwise you are unlearned and ignorant dolts. Some Armenians are the same way. Anytime you enter into the study of theology without being willing to struggle with it, your just coming in with a made up mind already and you'll go out the same way. If the theology instructors are teaching their own beliefs, they are not really teaching the Bible they are just making Calvinist or Armenians or Catholics or some other thing of you or trying to. This lemming sort of thing is what propagates Adventism from generation to generation. A good theology instructor will tell you "We're not here to tell you what to believe, we are here to teach theology." We need to be prepared to struggle with these questions that arise out of the Bible. It doesn't mean that because God is outside our three dimensions that we cannot know anything, it simply means that we cannot know everything. If we don't let the Bible speak for itself then where is the learning? River | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4337 Registered: 9-2006 |
Quote: You know, I believe the "problem" with "original sin" may have begun with the physical, as opposed to spiritual, understanding of it that Augustine had. He believed sin was transmitted by sperm, and Jesus was therefore sinless because He was conceived by a woman and the Holy Spirit, thus being free of the human transmission of sin. Colleen, did you mean the reverse of that first line to the second comma? Or am I confused? If augustine believe that sin was transmitted through sperm, then he must have believed that it was Physical, not spiritual. Have I got my head on right? Or is the bill of my cap actually facing my behind? River | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1844 Registered: 8-2004  |
Augustine did, in fact, believe that sin was transmitted by sperm. He believed that that was how Adam's sin was transmitted to each of his decedents - and that that is how Jesus could be born without sin, since he was born of a virgin. Strange, eh? | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1606 Registered: 4-2000 |
In the truest sense, our original sin condition is transmitted to our offspring. Everyone born into this world is a rebel against God. The fallen nature of Adam is upon his entire posterity. The curse of sin is seen everywhere. It may initially sound strange, but it is certainly biblical. However, Adam's sin did not impact the sinless nature of Christ. Jesus had the pre-Fall nature of Adam (having no propensity toward evil). On another note, based on seriously-flawed agnostic assumptions, some well-meaning religionists take the view that we should not come to any conclusions in theology (i.e., formulate doctrine) because of the "mystery" involved. If such reasoning is really valid, then we should not attempt to define the Trinity either because of the elements of mystery therein. Such ruinous views of the Christian faith sound overwhelmingly Adventistic. I hear these type of excuses on nearly a daily basis in my online chaplaincy. Moreover, somehow implying that Arminians and Calvinists have merely an "external" formula which is not taken from the Bible is a straw man argument. The hard evidence for such a conclusion is unavailable. The idea that elements of both views are somehow correct is an old Arminian stance. All too often, however, disputes over minor points escalate into bitter controversies that say more about our pride than our humility. The gospel includes at its heart the content regarding the person of Christ and his redemptive work. Getting the gospel right should be our top priority. Let us not grow weary in exposing the many false gospels in our day. Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on March 08, 2009) (Message edited by Dennis on March 08, 2009) | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 236 Registered: 8-2008 |
Sounds like Adventism to me. I disagree to an extent: At least the Catholics have the (false) hope of purgatory, so that if they don't perfect their characters here on earth, but still believe in Jesus, they can have a few millenia to fix themselves there. Adventists have no such hope. Regardless of how strong one's faith is in Jesus, true EGW-based Adventism teaches that a person must become morally perfect to enter heaven, and man only has one shot at it. As for free will/non-free-will, I think the reality is we cannot know. The Bible does not seem to indicate free will, yet it indicates responsibility for choices. I think it may just be that causality is a lot more complex than we understand. I think many efforts by Christians to support the concept of free well are rooted in deistic Enlightenment philosophy, not a Biblical worldview. As for the Bible's demand on our responsibility to believe, and even responsibility not to depart, I suspect there may be an existential aspect to this is often overlooked: Believers will not depart, and the elect will believe, but their belief comes through a response, willed by the Spirit in them, to the command to believe, which is prompted by the Spirit. In other words, the command to believe, and not depart from belief, and the act of believing and not departing, are both done by God in us, as the means by which we both believe, and stay believing. God tells us to believe, at the same time He wills in us to believe. And God tells us to remain believing, at the same time that He wills in us to remain believing. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9512 Registered: 12-2003 |
And now, I've been told, purgatory has been changed or removed...not sure what has taken its place, but I guess it's not what it was. And definitely, we have all inherited Adam's sin—but I don't think our dead spirits are DNA-determined except in a general sense that God bound all creation to decay and frustration (see Romans 8). Our dead spirits are God's judgment on Adam's sin—which Jesus paid for and the Holy Spirit reverses in the elect when they come to faith. Colleen |
