dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

What I am curious about is the synergistic, semi Pelagian view that most Christians hold. What is it that differentiates you from your peers with a similar living environment which allowed you to choose within your own free will to accept God's gift of salvation? Are you smarter? Are your parents smarter? Did you hear a better gospel presentation that someone else?

---

To summarize my view, the thing that merits salvation is having the desire to act like Christ and then having the courage and conviction to actually do that to the best of your ability.

---

So, what forms our desires?

---

I believe when we choose Jesus as our Savior we are filled with the Holy Spirit and want to be Christ like.

---

This is pretty well the definition of pelagianism though?

dermdoc said:

---

"After this many of his disciples turned their backs on him and no longer walked with him."

To me this confirms their free will to reject the Gospel.

---

Correct. Man plays a role in the rejection of God only.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

What I am curious about is the synergistic, semi Pelagian view that most Christians hold. What is it that differentiates you from your peers with a similar living environment which allowed you to choose within your own free will to accept God's gift of salvation? Are you smarter? Are your parents smarter? Did you hear a better gospel presentation that someone else?

---

To summarize my view, the thing that merits salvation is having the desire to act like Christ and then having the courage and conviction to actually do that to the best of your ability.

---

So, what forms our desires?

---

I believe when we choose Jesus as our Savior we are filled with the Holy Spirit and want to be Christ like.

---

This is pretty well the definition of pelagianism though?

---

Not as I understand it. But I could be wrong.

Pelagianism believes that original sin did not leave us with a sin nature. And that we obtained salvation by our works. It was our responsibility, not God's grace.

I believe original sin gave us a sin nature that can only be reconciled by God's grace through our faith which is a conscious decision we make via our free will. At that point, we are filled with the Holy Spirit and are born again. Our hearts are changed and we work together with the Holy Spirit to become more Christ like.

Works and fruits are a natural by product of this transformation. But we are not saved by our works. We are saved by grace and putting our faith in Jesus.

This may be a useful analogy.

A father has five children. They venture into a lake and are drowning. He has five life preservers and the ability to save them all.

In Calvinist/Reformed theology, the father (God), would choose to only save two and pass the other three by, letting them drown. And somehow that is to the father's glory.

In Arminian/all other theology, the father throws life preservers to all five and they choose whether to use them or not. The father is still sovereign but has a completely different character than the first example. And I believe that character is much more like the character revealed by Jesus.

We are so blessed to have God reveal His character through the Incarnation.

I thought this was a pretty good article on pelagianism. And I do not agree with that at all.

https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-pelagianism-4783772

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

What I am curious about is the synergistic, semi Pelagian view that most Christians hold. What is it that differentiates you from your peers with a similar living environment which allowed you to choose within your own free will to accept God's gift of salvation? Are you smarter? Are your parents smarter? Did you hear a better gospel presentation that someone else?

---

To summarize my view, the thing that merits salvation is having the desire to act like Christ and then having the courage and conviction to actually do that to the best of your ability.

---

So, what forms our desires?

---

I believe when we choose Jesus as our Savior we are filled with the Holy Spirit and want to be Christ like.

---

This is pretty well the definition of pelagianism though?

---

Not as I understand it. But I could be wrong.

Pelagianism believes that original sin did not leave us with a sin nature. And that we obtained salvation by our works. It was our responsibility, not God's grace.

I believe original sin gave us a sin nature that can only be reconciled by God's grace through our faith which is a conscious decision we make via our free will. At that point, we are filled with the Holy Spirit and are born again. Our hearts are changed and we work together with the Holy Spirit to become more Christ like.

Works and fruits are a natural by product of this transformation. But we are not saved by our works. We are saved by grace and putting our faith in Jesus.

This may be a useful analogy.

A father has five children. They venture into a lake and are drowning. He has five life preservers and the ability to save them all.

In Calvinist/Reformed theology, the father (God), would choose to only save two and pass the other three by, letting them drown. And somehow that is to the father's glory.

In Arminian/all other theology, the father throws life preservers to all five and they choose whether to use them or not. The father is still sovereign but has a completely different character than the first example. And I believe that character is much more like the character revealed by Jesus.

We are so blessed to have God reveal His character through the Incarnation.

---

Excellent post.

I overheard a conversation one Sunday in McAlister's where a couple guys were talking about how concerned they were with the idea that men choose to follow God as a "works based theology". Reformed ideas seem to stem more from that fear than anything else. Doesn't make sense to me.

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

What I am curious about is the synergistic, semi Pelagian view that most Christians hold. What is it that differentiates you from your peers with a similar living environment which allowed you to choose within your own free will to accept God's gift of salvation? Are you smarter? Are your parents smarter? Did you hear a better gospel presentation that someone else?

---

To summarize my view, the thing that merits salvation is having the desire to act like Christ and then having the courage and conviction to actually do that to the best of your ability.

---

So, what forms our desires?

---

I believe when we choose Jesus as our Savior we are filled with the Holy Spirit and want to be Christ like.

---

This is pretty well the definition of pelagianism though?

---

Not as I understand it. But I could be wrong.

Pelagianism believes that original sin did not leave us with a sin nature. And that we obtained salvation by our works. It was our responsibility, not God's grace.

I believe original sin gave us a sin nature that can only be reconciled by God's grace through our faith which is a conscious decision we make via our free will. At that point, we are filled with the Holy Spirit and are born again. Our hearts are changed and we work together with the Holy Spirit to become more Christ like.

Works and fruits are a natural by product of this transformation. But we are not saved by our works. We are saved by grace and putting our faith in Jesus.

This may be a useful analogy.

A father has five children. They venture into a lake and are drowning. He has five life preservers and the ability to save them all.

In Calvinist/Reformed theology, the father (God), would choose to only save two and pass the other three by, letting them drown. And somehow that is to the father's glory.

In Arminian/all other theology, the father throws life preservers to all five and they choose whether to use them or not. The father is still sovereign but has a completely different character than the first example. And I believe that character is much more like the character revealed by Jesus.

We are so blessed to have God reveal His character through the Incarnation.

---

Sort of.

Pelagianism essentially argued that Adams fall into sin affected us in some capacity, but it did not affect our will in the sense that we could choose to not sin.

Said differently, Pelagius believed we could, of our own free will chose to do good or right.

That's where your statement gets dangerously close to his.

You said "I believe when we choose Jesus as our Savior we are filled with the Holy Spirit and want to be Christ like."

This reads as we, of our own free nature, outside of God, choose Him, and then at that point the Holy Spirit comes into us. This presupposes some sort of goodness outside of God that we have that allows us to make right decision on our own.

Pelagius probably would have agreed with you.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

What I am curious about is the synergistic, semi Pelagian view that most Christians hold. What is it that differentiates you from your peers with a similar living environment which allowed you to choose within your own free will to accept God's gift of salvation? Are you smarter? Are your parents smarter? Did you hear a better gospel presentation that someone else?

---

To summarize my view, the thing that merits salvation is having the desire to act like Christ and then having the courage and conviction to actually do that to the best of your ability.

---

So, what forms our desires?

---

I believe when we choose Jesus as our Savior we are filled with the Holy Spirit and want to be Christ like.

---

This is pretty well the definition of pelagianism though?

---

Not as I understand it. But I could be wrong.

Pelagianism believes that original sin did not leave us with a sin nature. And that we obtained salvation by our works. It was our responsibility, not God's grace.

I believe original sin gave us a sin nature that can only be reconciled by God's grace through our faith which is a conscious decision we make via our free will. At that point, we are filled with the Holy Spirit and are born again. Our hearts are changed and we work together with the Holy Spirit to become more Christ like.

Works and fruits are a natural by product of this transformation. But we are not saved by our works. We are saved by grace and putting our faith in Jesus.

This may be a useful analogy.

A father has five children. They venture into a lake and are drowning. He has five life preservers and the ability to save them all.

In Calvinist/Reformed theology, the father (God), would choose to only save two and pass the other three by, letting them drown. And somehow that is to the father's glory.

In Arminian/all other theology, the father throws life preservers to all five and they choose whether to use them or not. The father is still sovereign but has a completely different character than the first example. And I believe that character is much more like the character revealed by Jesus.

We are so blessed to have God reveal His character through the Incarnation.

---

Sort of.

Pelagianism essentially argued that Adams fall into sin affected us in some capacity, but it did not affect our will in the sense that we could choose to not sin.

Said differently, Pelagius believed we could, of our own free will chose to do good or right.

That's where your statement gets dangerously close to his.

You said "I believe when we choose Jesus as our Savior we are filled with the Holy Spirit and want to be Christ like."

This reads as we, of our own free nature, outside of God, choose Him, and then at that point the Holy Spirit comes into us. This presupposes some sort of goodness outside of God that we have that allows us to make right decision on our own.

Pelagius probably would have agreed with you.

---

I posted a link describing pelagianism. From my reading, it is not what you say it is. It specifically says he did not believe in a sin nature. It said he believed we could obtain our salvation through works.

I vehemently disagree with both of those.

I specifically stated we are saved by grace through our faith. All I said is that we have free will to accept or reject the Gospel. And then we are transformed by the Holy Spirit, born again.

I guess you think it is pelagianism if I say humans make a choice. Like that is a work. From my reading, that is nothing like pelagianism.

Sorry, but I totally disagree with you. Or maybe I am not communicating well.

How is "God called me and I accepted His call" the same as saying "God made me inherently good and I can do all these goods things on my own accord".

Not to mention he didn't believe original sin made us guilty along with Adam. This is a view held by many Protestants today.

For example, Pelagius is said to have listed Old Testament prophets and even some pagans as sinless/blameless. I don't know how that theology can really but up against whether or not we choose to cooperate with the free gift that God gave.

Synergism is not the same as pelagianism or semi pelagianism. Look up the definitions. Please do not cast unwarranted definitions of what synergism is trying to disparage it.

If we are going to discuss, let's discuss synergism vs monergism. This has zero to do with pelagianism which I agree is a heresy.

dermdoc said:

---

Synergism is not the same as pelagianism or semi pelagianism. Look up the definitions. Please do not cast unwarranted definitions of what synergism is trying to disparage it.

If we are going to discuss, let's discuss synergism vs monergism. This has zero to do with pelagianism which I agree is a heresy.

---

I agree, although I had initially connected the semi-Pelagian view that says if you do ascribe to a synergistic approach that can only mean that you believe after the fall we are still capable of moral good. So you would reject the idea of Total or Radical depravity as outlined by reformers.

So for me, if we don't agree on the idea of Total Depravity, I don't see how we can even consider the rest of it. It's a building block that the rest stands on.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Synergism is not the same as pelagianism or semi pelagianism. Look up the definitions. Please do not cast unwarranted definitions of what synergism is trying to disparage it.

If we are going to discuss, let's discuss synergism vs monergism. This has zero to do with pelagianism which I agree is a heresy.

---

I agree, although I had initially connected the semi-Pelagian view that says if you do ascribe to a synergistic approach that can only mean that you believe after the fall we are still capable of moral good. So you would reject the idea of Total or Radical depravity as outlined by reformers.

---

Hope you enjoyed your Happy Hour last night my friend. A pour of good bourbon, grand kids and entire family, a little red wine, good food, and college fb. And no stress since the Ags are off.

This is the day the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.

God is good.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

So for me, if we don't agree on the idea of Total Depravity, I don't see how we can even consider the rest of it. It's a building block that the rest stands on.

---

Depends on how you define total depravity.

Go back to my analogy of the father and five kids. I believe God's grace extends to all and we have a choice to accept or reject it.

Who did Jesus exclude from His grace? And Jesus is the Incarnation and revelation of God. So His character would obviously reflect God's.

Absolutely

Sproul's analogy that gets used is that there are not people at the surface drowning, but people at the bottom of the ocean, dead. The Lord dives down to the depths to pull us out and make us alive.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Synergism is not the same as pelagianism or semi pelagianism. Look up the definitions. Please do not cast unwarranted definitions of what synergism is trying to disparage it.

If we are going to discuss, let's discuss synergism vs monergism. This has zero to do with pelagianism which I agree is a heresy.

---

I agree, although I had initially connected the semi-Pelagian view that says if you do ascribe to a synergistic approach that can only mean that you believe after the fall we are still capable of moral good. So you would reject the idea of Total or Radical depravity as outlined by reformers.

---

We are still capable of "moral good" prior to salvation. We see this all over non-Christian nations. It's not like people everywhere are complete and utter A-holes. God has created the natural law that calls to all of us to do good. However:

1. Doing the good things doesn't get you to heaven. We don't earn our way there.

2. The moral good that we do is an acknowledgement of God's good rules. He is still the initiator. Pelagianism or even semi-pelagianism says that we are good enough in our own right to do these things. We would say that God is choosing to communicate with the lost to draw them to Him through their conscience, etc. It's still Him doing the calling.

Or maybe reformed theology has a different definition of moral good.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Absolutely

---

So if God's grace extends to all how can double predestination exist?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Sproul's analogy that gets used is that there are not people at the surface drowning, but people at the bottom of the ocean, dead. The Lord dives down to the depths to pull us out and make us alive.

---

Scripture says God tries to pull all men up and be saved, correct?

And if He did not, He obviously is not extending His grace all men.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Synergism is not the same as pelagianism or semi pelagianism. Look up the definitions. Please do not cast unwarranted definitions of what synergism is trying to disparage it.

If we are going to discuss, let's discuss synergism vs monergism. This has zero to do with pelagianism which I agree is a heresy.

---

I agree, although I had initially connected the semi-Pelagian view that says if you do ascribe to a synergistic approach that can only mean that you believe after the fall we are still capable of moral good. So you would reject the idea of Total or Radical depravity as outlined by reformers.

---

We are still capable of "moral good" prior to salvation. We see this all over non-Christian nations. It's not like people everywhere are complete and utter A-holes. God has created the natural law that calls to all of us to do good. However:

1. Doing the good things doesn't get you to heaven. We don't earn our way there.

2. The moral good that we do is an acknowledgement of God's good rules. He is still the initiator. Pelagianism or even semi-pelagianism says that we are good enough in our own right to do these things. We would say that God is choosing to communicate with the lost to draw them to Him through their conscience, etc. It's still Him doing the calling.

Or maybe reformed theology has a different definition of moral good.

---

I'm talking about moral good that exalts Christ or righteousness. Not just a random good deed - yes plenty of non-believers are "good people overall" according to the world's definition. Random good deeds are not to the glory of God.

Romans 3:9-18

No One Is Righteous

[9] What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, [10] as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
[11] no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
[12] All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
[13] "Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
[14] "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
[15] "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
[16] in their paths are ruin and misery,
[17] and the way of peace they have not known."
[18] "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Absolutely

---

So if God's grace extends to all how can double predestination exist?

---

Sorry that reply was to your nice evening and thoughts on a new day the Lord has made.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Synergism is not the same as pelagianism or semi pelagianism. Look up the definitions. Please do not cast unwarranted definitions of what synergism is trying to disparage it.

If we are going to discuss, let's discuss synergism vs monergism. This has zero to do with pelagianism which I agree is a heresy.

---

I agree, although I had initially connected the semi-Pelagian view that says if you do ascribe to a synergistic approach that can only mean that you believe after the fall we are still capable of moral good. So you would reject the idea of Total or Radical depravity as outlined by reformers.

---

We are still capable of "moral good" prior to salvation. We see this all over non-Christian nations. It's not like people everywhere are complete and utter A-holes. God has created the natural law that calls to all of us to do good. However:

1. Doing the good things doesn't get you to heaven. We don't earn our way there.

2. The moral good that we do is an acknowledgement of God's good rules. He is still the initiator. Pelagianism or even semi-pelagianism says that we are good enough in our own right to do these things. We would say that God is choosing to communicate with the lost to draw them to Him through their conscience, etc. It's still Him doing the calling.

Or maybe reformed theology has a different definition of moral good.

---

I'm talking about moral good that exalts Christ or righteousness. Not just a random good deed - yes plenty of non-believers are "good people overall" according to the world's definition. Random good deeds are not to the glory of God.

Romans 3:9-18

No One Is Righteous

[9] What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, [10] as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
[11] no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
[12] All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
[13] "Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
[14] "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
[15] "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
[16] in their paths are ruin and misery,
[17] and the way of peace they have not known."
[18] "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

---

Jeremiah 29 13

You will seek me and will find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

And I agree none are righteous until we choose Jesus, are indwelled with the Holy Spirit, and born again.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Sproul's analogy that gets used is that there are not people at the surface drowning, but people at the bottom of the ocean, dead. The Lord dives down to the depths to pull us out and make us alive.

---

Scripture says God tries to pull all men up and be saved, correct?

And if He did not, He obviously is not extending His grace all men.

---

If Grace was something God essentially had to divvy out equally to all, it really shouldn't be called grace at that point.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Absolutely

---

So if God's grace extends to all how can double predestination exist?

---

Sorry that reply was to your nice evening and thoughts on a new day the Lord has made.

---

No worties.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Sproul's analogy that gets used is that there are not people at the surface drowning, but people at the bottom of the ocean, dead. The Lord dives down to the depths to pull us out and make us alive.

---

Scripture says God tries to pull all men up and be saved, correct?

And if He did not, He obviously is not extending His grace all men.

---

If Grace was something God essentially had to divvy out equally to all, it really shouldn't be called grace at that point.

---

How so? How do you define grace?

Ever heard of prevenient grace? It does not mean all are saved. It means that God's grace is extended to all men in some degree. After all Scripture clearly states God desires all men to be saved.

That is a perfect definition of perfect grace. Extended to all and we can accept or reject it.

Jeremiah 29:10 says God will first visit and fulfill his promise.
Then, we will call upon him and seek him. What happens if God doesn't first visit?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Jeremiah 29:10 says God will first visit and fulfill his promise.
Then, we will call upon him and seek him. What happens if God doesn't first visit?

---

I am saying He visits all men. That is grace.

And I am going to watch fb and play with grand kids. And enjoy some pizza and wine.

We will agree to disagree which is okay with me. As long as we do not think anyone who does not agree with us is hell bound and we know we are all brothers in Christ, it is all okay.

Have a great weekend!

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Sproul's analogy that gets used is that there are not people at the surface drowning, but people at the bottom of the ocean, dead. The Lord dives down to the depths to pull us out and make us alive.

---

Scripture says God tries to pull all men up and be saved, correct?

And if He did not, He obviously is not extending His grace all men.

---

If Grace was something God essentially had to divvy out equally to all, it really shouldn't be called grace at that point.

---

How so? How do you define grace?

Ever heard of prevenient grace? It does not mean all are saved. It means that God's grace is extended to all men in some degree. After all Scripture clearly states God desires all men to be saved.

That is a perfect definition of perfect grace. Extended to all and we can accept or reject it.

---

"When we truly understand grace when we see that God only owes us wrath but has provided Christ's merit to cover our demerit then everything changes."

"With respect to the Lord, we are debtors who cannot pay. That's why the Bible speaks of redemption in economic language we were bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:20). Only someone elseChristcan pay our debt. That's grace. It's not our good works that secure our rescue but only the works of Christ. It's His merit, not ours. We don't merit anything. He grants us His merit by grace, and we receive it only by faith. The essence of grace is its voluntary free bestowal. As soon as it's a requirement, it's no longer grace."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-grace

dermdoc said:

---

And I am going to watch fb and play with grand kids. And enjoy some pizza and wine.

We will agree to disagree which is okay with me. As long as we do not think anyone who does not agree with us is hell bound and we know we are all brothers in Christ, it is all okay.

Have a great weekend!

---

Yep. I hope thoughtful discussion here or anywhere will only embolden your love of Christ. One day this will all be water under the bridge.

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on this topic. And I don't think there is as wide a chasm between the views as we make it seem. I say that because there have been some fairly gross mischaracterizations of reformed theology in this thread. It seems like these views come mainly from bad experiences with people in the reformed camp which is equally unfortunate.

I've read many comments like, well, since God is going to save who he saves, there's no need to evangelize... I guess the elect can behave however they want since they are saved regardless... God just picks a few people to save and damns the rest to hell, too bad. Can we stop with this? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone here believes anything like that. Properly understood, unconditional election is an inherently pride crushing doctrine.

Scripture tells us that the elect had their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the world. God will draw every single one of those names to Himself by whatever means necessary. It is our job to spread the word indiscriminately to all and let the Spirit move as it may. To quote Spurgeon, "If God would have painted a yellow stripe on the backs of the elect I would go around lifting shirts. But since He didn't I must preach 'whosoever will' and when 'whosoever' believes I know that he is one of the elect."

One last point - sure, there are those who believe that the majority of men will not be saved. This is not unique to reformed theology, and to be fair, there are a number of proof texts that appear to support that position. But postmillennialism is very popular in reformed circles and is about as optimistic as it gets when it comes to growing the Kingdom. As it says in Rev. 7:9-10, "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"

Praise God and enjoy the weekend everyone.

Agilaw said:

---

I don't think it is people having bad experiences with some outlier reformed churches or leaders, it is with the expressed theology itself.
Unconditional Election - which also means unconditional rejection of all others. Limited Atonement- Jesus died for a very few, even though the scriptures speak something totally the opposite. Irresistible Grace-you won the eternal lotto even if you have no desire for god or Jesus.
The example of going around pulling up shirts to look for stripes is foolish. There is no need to go around looking for anything- it is all predetermined. From birth a person is already in or out, so what is the purpose of evangelism, etc. I already know all the cherry picked scriptures-very few in the grand scheme of the scriptures. They don't say what you and others try to get them to say, and the theology itself goes against the nature of god expressed in the scriptures.

---

Calling Charles Spurgeon foolish. I must say that's the first time I've heard that one.

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

What I am curious about is the synergistic, semi Pelagian view that most Christians hold. What is it that differentiates you from your peers with a similar living environment which allowed you to choose within your own free will to accept God's gift of salvation? Are you smarter? Are your parents smarter? Did you hear a better gospel presentation that someone else?

---

To summarize my view, the thing that merits salvation is having the desire to act like Christ and then having the courage and conviction to actually do that to the best of your ability.

---

So, what forms our desires?

---

I believe when we choose Jesus as our Savior we are filled with the Holy Spirit and want to be Christ like.

---

This is pretty well the definition of pelagianism though?

---

Not as I understand it. But I could be wrong.

Pelagianism believes that original sin did not leave us with a sin nature. And that we obtained salvation by our works. It was our responsibility, not God's grace.

I believe original sin gave us a sin nature that can only be reconciled by God's grace through our faith which is a conscious decision we make via our free will. At that point, we are filled with the Holy Spirit and are born again. Our hearts are changed and we work together with the Holy Spirit to become more Christ like.

Works and fruits are a natural by product of this transformation. But we are not saved by our works. We are saved by grace and putting our faith in Jesus.

This may be a useful analogy.

A father has five children. They venture into a lake and are drowning. He has five life preservers and the ability to save them all.

In Calvinist/Reformed theology, the father (God), would choose to only save two and pass the other three by, letting them drown. And somehow that is to the father's glory.

In Arminian/all other theology, the father throws life preservers to all five and they choose whether to use them or not. The father is still sovereign but has a completely different character than the first example. And I believe that character is much more like the character revealed by Jesus.

We are so blessed to have God reveal His character through the Incarnation.

---

Sort of.

Pelagianism essentially argued that Adams fall into sin affected us in some capacity, but it did not affect our will in the sense that we could choose to not sin.

Said differently, Pelagius believed we could, of our own free will chose to do good or right.

That's where your statement gets dangerously close to his.

You said "I believe when we choose Jesus as our Savior we are filled with the Holy Spirit and want to be Christ like."

This reads as we, of our own free nature, outside of God, choose Him, and then at that point the Holy Spirit comes into us. This presupposes some sort of goodness outside of God that we have that allows us to make right decision on our own.

Pelagius probably would have agreed with you.

---

I posted a link describing pelagianism. From my reading, it is not what you say it is. It specifically says he did not believe in a sin nature. It said he believed we could obtain our salvation through works.

I vehemently disagree with both of those.

I specifically stated we are saved by grace through our faith. All I said is that we have free will to accept or reject the Gospel. And then we are transformed by the Holy Spirit, born again.

I guess you think it is pelagianism if I say humans make a choice. Like that is a work. From my reading, that is nothing like pelagianism.

Sorry, but I totally disagree with you. Or maybe I am not communicating well.

---

What you've tried to describe later is very different than what you said earlier. That's a good thing.

Man doesn't choose God. Man only rejects God.

Put it this way since you're a doctor.

How often does someone come in who has no symptoms come to you and say, "I'm very sick, and I need you to heal me?"Never. Augustine responded to Pelagius saying a healthy person doesn't need a doctor."

Likewise, a sick person only knows he's sick because of the symptoms he has. In our reality, those symptoms are the Law that God put into our hearts before our birth so we would be drawn to Him.

--------

The point is we don't choose because we'd never choose. We are slaves to sin. Children of wrath.

God chose us. All of us. That choice was made before our birth. Salvation is monergistic. We are saved because of God alone. In a legal sense (relating to Scripture), we are before the judge, and clearly guilty and yet the judge says Jesus will take our punishment. Do you claim you made that choice? Of course not. However, if you do stand up and say, No I don't want him to take my punishment, I'll take it myself, then you've actually made a choice.

This is why we should say our salvation is only the work of God, yet our damnation is entirely our choice.

Sorry to be harsh with you earlier, but we have to get away from this notion that we choose our salvation. We don't.

The Banned said:

---

How is "God called me and I accepted His call" the same as saying "God made me inherently good and I can do all these goods things on my own accord".

Not to mention he didn't believe original sin made us guilty along with Adam. This is a view held by many Protestants today.

For example, Pelagius is said to have listed Old Testament prophets and even some pagans as sinless/blameless. I don't know how that theology can really but up against whether or not we choose to cooperate with the free gift that God gave.

---

This is materially different than what he said. That's the point.

Derm said: "I believe when we choose Jesus as our Savior we are filled with the Holy Spirit and want to be Christ like."

You've said: "God called me and I accepted His call"

Those are two different situations.

One starts with man. The other starts with God.

To be fair to Pelagius, our understanding of original sin comes to be because of this very debate, so it's not as if it was some long standing doctrine. Pelagius big belief was that man retained the same original righteousness/justice that Adam and Eve were created with. That we could freely choose to sin or not sin. That we could freely choose God or not.

I'd probably quibble a bit with what you said in your sentence, but the key is that it is materially different than what Derm said.

You obviously didn't read my post or you are wanting to stir something up that isn't there. I believe I said it was a foolish example?! And I stand by it. What is such a person going around looking for in that example?