Pelagianism

[Notthemama1984]

Quick question.....are all forms of insecurity of the believer based on some form of Pelagianism?

I am thinking so, but am curious what you guys think.

Even with what little reading of Luther I have done, in my mind I still see Pelagianism. Luther would wholeheartedly agree that justification is through faith alone. But if I can lose my faith based upon me committing a venial sin, is this still a form of Pelagianism?


PS I am not calling Luther a heretic. I am just trying to think through things and learn.

 

[Zimon]

What were you exactly reading of Luther? I experienced people seem to do not see the development of Luther's theology. I think there is a video around in youtube where some baptist preacher tries to refute Luther 95 theses as heresy because they still have some of catholic influence in them. This preacher did fail to understand that firstly there would be no baptists without Luther today and secondly that the theses were only the beginning of his career and that his theological position at the position was of course influenced very strongly by catholic theology, how could it be different if he started as a catholic and there were no protestants around yet? We see that he wrote the Bondage of the free will later in his life, when his theology had developped and spoke of it as his favorite work.

So what book of him are you referring to?

 

[Notthemama1984]

Therefore it is necessary to know and teach that when holy people--asde from the fact that they still have and feel original sin and also daily repent f it and struggle against it--somehow fall into a public sin (such as David, who fell into adultery,murder,and blasphemy against God), at that point faith and the Spirit have departed.

Smalcald Articles Part Three Concerning the False Penance of the Papists.

I had posted this quote previously and some on PB agreed that Luther believed (and Lutheranism today as well) that one could lose their salvation. I am not questioning whether Luther actually believed this. I am more curious if this insecurity of the believer is based upon some form of Pelagianism.

We would all agree that works based righteousness is some form of Pelagianism. Something we do is deemed meritorious and God grants salvation. The question then is this....is not the view that I must NOT perform certain deeds to maintain my justification status still a works based righteousness? I keep thinking of the Ten Commandments here. They all have a positive and a negative aspect. Would it be wrong to say the same applies here. If I am told NOT to perform certain deeds with the threat of losing my salvation, would this then make following the positive side of the command meritorious? I see that it would not be full Pelagianism, but maybe semi?

 

[Scott1]

When one fully understands the doctrines of grace and what has become known as the "five points of Calvinism," one understands that opposition at any point is Arminian influence, which is a stepped down form of Pelagianism, probably best referred to as semi-Pelagianism.

It all boils down to man taking at least some shade of "work" in obtaining salvation (election); that is, that man is not THAT sinful, and/or God is not THAT holy. Hence the terms are watered down to lose their meaning to accommodate shade of contradiction.

Fallen creatures just do not want to believe or accept what Scripture teaches- that they are 100%, totally, absolutely dependent on God for their salvation.

Keep in most people who repeat Arminian notions of doctrine do not know that is what they are- far less how they are related to Pelagianism. Even less how this error has come up historically and been dealt with by the Church.

Dr. Sproul's, What is Reformed Theology?, is especially helpful in explaining this.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Thanks for the info Scott.

I totally agree with people being not aware of their Arminian tendencies, much less Pelagian. I recently mentioned in one of my classes that one of my goals is to remove Pelagian tendencies out of my life (I denounce Pelagianism wholeheartedly, but it is natural to live our lives in a Pelagian manner without even realizing we are). The two students whom I was talking to had to ask what Pelagianism was.

Another question I now have is this....What are the differences between an Arminian and an Ockhamist?

PS I actually have Sproul's book. I will go read a bit right now.

 

[Scott1]

It is indeed freeing to life of gratitude to know that as we did nothing to get salvation, we can do nothing to lose it.

As it was not ours to get, nor is it ours to lose. The impact of that on a life is marvel at the fearsome consequence of sin and, at the same time, the praise of His glorious grace!

 

[Notthemama1984]

 

[CharlieJ]

Another question I now have is this....What are the differences between an Arminian and an Ockhamist?

Ockhamists, or rather, nominalists, were a branch of late medieval philosophers/theologians, best known for believing universals to be conceptual rather than "real." As such, they have no direct connection with Arminians, who operate on a modified form of Reformed theology.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Another question I now have is this....What are the differences between an Arminian and an Ockhamist?

Ockhamists, or rather, nominalists, were a branch of late medieval philosophers/theologians, best known for believing universals to be conceptual rather than "real." As such, they have no direct connection with Arminians, who operate on a modified form of Reformed theology.

Steve Ozment in his Age of Reform summarizes Ockhamism as 1. Moral effort: doing the best one can on the basis of natural moral ability 2. Infusion of grace as an appropriate reward 3. Moral cooperation: doing the best one can with the aid of grace 4. Reward of eternal life as a just due.

Ozment goes on to label this semi-Pelagian. This is what I have in mind when I ask about the difference between an Arminian and an Ockhamist.

---------- Post added at 11:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 PM ----------

nix the question. An Ockahmist has man making the first move; an Arminian has God making the first move.

I also found this.

Differences between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminian Beliefs

 

[MW]

Quick question.....are all forms of insecurity of the believer based on some form of Pelagianism?

I don't consider insecurity in a "believer" to be necessarily based on a form of Pelagianism. Insecurity arises as a result of realism about remaining sin. A believer should have an honest awareness of where and how he comes short. Even the idea of the Spirit departing admits of a biblical sense, i.e., the influences and comforts of the Spirit. As a part of the disciplinary process God gives His children over to feel the effects of their sinfulness so that He might lead them to fight more earnestly against it for time to come. A part of the effect of sin is insecurity. One should never feel secure in the contemplation of his sin. At the point where sin has been faced, owned, confessed, repented of, cleansed, and the person has purposed to forsake it and fight against it, then there is great security in knowing that it is by the Spirit that the believer mortifies sin, that is, the whole process of dealing with sin has been by the influence and comfort that the Holy Spirit ministers; so there is a wonderful reflection of having been carried even while the soul felt itself to be forsaken. We walk by faith and not by sight. The combat between sense and faith is experientially described throughout the Book of Psalms.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Rev. Winzer,

I was using "insecurity" as a way of talking about losing one's salvation.

 

[MW]

I was using "insecurity" as a way of talking about losing one's salvation.

As was I. Please consider chapter 18 of the Westminster Confession as reflecting a non Pelagian and Reformed view of insecurity.

 

[Notthemama1984]

My mistake.

I thought you were defining "insecurity" as doubtful.

 

[MW]

My mistake.

I thought you were defining "insecurity" as doubtful.

Actually, you haven't made a mistake. On reflection of your previous post I can see that you are dealing with security as an objective doctrine while I am looking at it as a subjective appropriation of the doctrine. To be doubtful about whether a genuine believer shall finally be saved is never reformed, doctrinally considered. My point was merely to show that as a matter of subjective experience, the "believer" who was so sure of his salvation one day might be quite shaken at the contemplation of his shortcomings. Yet even this can be seen as a work of the Spirit in leading him towards the prize of the high calling of God in Christ. Please forgive me for super-imposing another perspective on your thread.