quote from William Law that is semi-Pelagian

[Relztrah]

Upon re-reading A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life which I read many years ago, I found this disturbing passage:

And yet if the way is narrow, if none can walk in it but those that strive, is it not as necessary for me to consider, whether the way I am in be narrow enough, or the labour I take be a sufficient striving, as to consider whether I sufficiently observe the second or third commandment? The sum of this matter is this: From the abovementioned, and many other passages of Scripture, it seems plain, that our salvation depends upon the sincerity and perfection of our endeavours to obtain it. [italics mine]​

​

Does this not sound at best semi-Pelagian? So much of this book is encouraging and challenging and yet this an other passages suggest that Law had semi-Pelagian tendencies.

 

[JimmyH]

If I may be so bold as to say, William Law was not a semi Pelagian ... he was a bona fide, dyed in the wool Pelagian. At least in his earlier years when he wrote Christian Perfection, and a Serious Call To A Devout And Holy Life. The second of the two nearly put my faith to shipwreck in the late 1980s. For those without a firm understanding of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone it's dangerous waters.

John, and Charles Wesley were greatly influenced by Law, and as the linked bio PDF below notes, fell out with him after Law changed his theology considerably under the influence of Jacob Boheme's writings, as well as other 'mystics.' I read Law's 'The Spirit of Love', written quite a ways after A Serious Call, and it was a different man. Far from Reformed, or Calvinist, but not as rigorous as he had been in his younger years. Wesley publicly disowned him. The PDF bio is rather long, if you are particularly interested in the relationship with John Wesley scroll down a ways to find it.

https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1614&context=asburyjournal

 

[Relztrah]

Thank you for your insight.

 

[moral necessity]

Yep...I found this out also with other books heavily promoted for their ability to challenge me, such as Hannah Whitall Smith's "The Christian's Secret to a Happy Life". More semi-Pelagian material that left me scraping my insides for assurance. Finding none or nothing stable, I had to look outside of myself to Christ.

Blessings!

 

[psycheives]

John, and Charles Wesley were greatly influenced by Law

This is exactly why I never read William Law -- I read he was strongly influential on Wesley (and I believe mystical Wesleyan Arminian AW Tozer) and Wesley's and Tozer's theology turned out so bad, that's not saying much about the influencer. Plus Law being Church of England (against the Calvinistic Puritans) and Arminian -- definitely a no-go.

From experience, I've come to believe most non-fiction books (maybe 95%) are basically false -- completely fictional historical narratives, false theology, false political agendas, false worldviews, bad fake "science" or "stats" or "fake experts". So when I pick up a new book, the assumption is that it is trash or highly biased (everyone has an agenda!) and needs to be very carefully discerned. Thus, a new book or unfamiliar author is not something/someone to be trusted and devoured. With 95% odds the book is false, I discern every claim and look for a "proofnote" = footnote." I have come across SOOO many published books that made a claim but actually gave no footnote (proof) or provided a false footnote (didn't actually say what the author claimed).

If it helps, I've have had success discerning authors by drawing connections between theology and denominations, recommendations, influences etc. I always look up the denomination. 95% of the time, that says all we need to know. People go to the denomination that backs their theology. So if you know the ~15 most trustworthy Reformed denominations (RPCNA, PCA, URC, OPC, ARP, PRC, PRCA, RCUS, HRC, FRCNA, FPCS, FCC, RPCGA, AFC, KAPC etc), you can screen out all the bad authors easily into Roman Catholic, Arminian, etc. You will also know which version of Reformed theology you are being taught (there are strands that are passed down that follow a certain unique interpretation). If I'm reading a Scottish Reformed guy, he's probably teaching some version of the Marrowmen's unique theology going back to ~1645-1730s.

If no denomination, I look up the author and try to gather his theological/worldview/political beliefs. If he's Arminian, I'll skip him unless I'm reading to evaluate/critique -- then I pray to God for discernment first because many "a wise man" have read a Roman Catholic or an Arminian and slid right down into it and been lose. You can also discern authors/pastors by the seminary they went to. Or who his influencers were. Who he quotes in the book. You can tell AW Tozer is going to lead you astray because he's always quoting Roman Catholic mystics! So basically, when you read Tozer, you're reading Rome filtered through an Arminian mystic. Yipes!

Hope this helps your future reading!

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Thank you all, very helpful.

 

[JimmyH]

Yep...I found this out also with other books heavily promoted for their ability to challenge me, such as Hannah Whitall Smith's "The Christian's Secret to a Happy Life". More semi-Pelagian material that left me scraping my insides for assurance. Finding none or nothing stable, I had to look outside of myself to Christ.

B

Hope this helps your future reading!

Sister, I appreciate you concern. If you go back to the first paragraph of my original post you'll find that I mention A Serious Call To A Devout And Holy Life, "nearly put my faith to shipwreck in the late 1980s."

When I was a babe in Christ, @ 37 years old, I went to Christian bookstores and devoured quite a bit of what I thought to be classic Christian doctrinal literature. The title of Law's book seemed very attractive.

OTOH, I find reading disparate views instructive. For instance G. Campbell Morgan, and Arminian, has a lot of wheat amongst the chaff. I've not read Tozer, but have listened to some of his sermons.

I recall posting some years ago that I had discovered Alexander Whyte and was quite taken with his style. Reverend Winzer told me to be careful, he is a mystic, and needs to be read with discernment. I have taken that advice with various material that I have read, and still read. The same can be said for A.W. Pink, who I greatly admire. Richard Baxter would be another.

Anyway, thanks for the protective thoughts and advice.

 

[retroGRAD3]

You can tell AW Tozer is going to lead you astray because he's always quoting Roman Catholic mystics! So basically, when you read Tozer, you're reading Rome filtered through an Arminian mystic. Yipes!

Hope this helps your future reading!

I have heard of Tozer, but have never read him. He is usually mentioned favorably though. I didn't realize he was an Arminian mystic. Yikes.