Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Behe's Boy,
I wrote that free will was a teaching of the early church fathers and gave a number of examples. You responded:
I don't know which Bible you are reading, but the Bible is loaded with teaching on election and the free will of human beings. Only those who don't want to see it, don't see.
In Christ, Oz
The Canons of the Council of Orange, from which you have posted, are a refutation of the doctrine taught by Pelagius that all of Adams descendants were born with a depraved nature due to Adams sin. Arminius, in his writings, also refuted that doctrine. Moreover, NONE of the TULIP doctrines are found in the Canons of the Council of Orange. Furthermore, The Canons of the Council of Orange are a Roman Catholic document, and the Roman Catholic Church has NEVER agreed with ANY of the TULIP doctrines!
Check your history - Pelagius taught just the opposite of what you claim he did. Pelegius did not believe in the concept or original sin.
Everything you said here is irrelevant my friend. My point was, monergistic soteriology existed long before the 16th century.
Monergistic theology is the very core, the root, the foundation of "Calvinism".
Further, TULIP is only 5 distinct doctrines because the Arminians first posed 5 disagreements with the reformed protestant church.
There was no such thing as "5 points of TULIP" before the Arminians turned it into 5 by their initial protest. The only thing that mattered was monergistic theology. So of course you won't find a reference to "TULIP" doctrines prior to the Arminian Remonstrance.
But as i said, all of this is irrelevant. The point is, men for thousands of years believed that we are saved because of God's mighty work, not ultimately because of some human decision.
As for it being a roman catholic document, your saying this shows an ignorance of church history my friend. Is it your belief that the RCC was and always has been the exact same as it is today? Of course not, that is silly, for we know that the reformation happened precisely because it had been changed too much over time! Hence the need for a reformation!
The council of orange was used by the Reformers to show the RCC that it had strayed from its own roots. The same church that once affirmed monergistic (God honoring) salvation eventually denied it (See Council of Trent)
The council of orange was used by the Reformers to show the RCC that it had strayed from its own roots. The same church that once affirmed monergistic (God honoring) salvation eventually denied it (See Council of Trent)
Paul Enns notes very clearly;
These statements indicate a commendable emphasis on a godly walk, but at the same time confuse the salvation message and detract from the free grace of God. This is one of many doctrinal errors that surfaced very early in the history of Christian thought. [all indented quotes taken from The Moody Handbook of Theology, page 411]jm
The distinction between Pelagius and Augustine was sharp. Pelagius believed man was born neutral without a depraved will, and without an inherant tendancy toward evil. He believed man had the ability to choose to serve God without any need of God's grace. Augustine believed Adam's fall had affected the entire human race so that man was throughly corrupt, his will inclined toward evil. Only the intervention of GOd's grace could save man; man was not free to choose good. Salvation was not man cooperating with God, but man was completely dependant on God's grace for salvation.
Pelagius was ultimately accused of heresy at the Synod of Jerusalem, and Pelagianism was condemned as heresy in AD 416 at the Synods of Carthage and Mileve. The Council of Ephesus also condemned Pelagianism in AD 431.
In 416, Bishop Innocent condemned the movement. After his death that year, Bishop Zosimus publicaaly approved the teachings of Pelagius and Coelestius. In the following year, the North African bishops condemned the Pelagian movement. Even the Roman Emperor Honorius in Constnatinople issed an edict condemning the Roman bishop and any others holding to this heresy. Finally Bishop Zosimus of Rome changed his position and approved of the African view, ordering all western bishops to make the shift in doctrine at the same time.
...man is born neutral with the ability and freedom to choose good or evil; man is not born with original sin. Because God creates each soul individually at birth, each person is born free and neutral as Adam...each person was born with a free will and the ability to choose good as well as bad. He rejected the notion that man's will had been affected by the fall of Adam.
and the Roman Catholic Church has NEVER agreed with ANY of the “TULIP” doctrines!
Unfortunately semi-Pelagianism, which attempted to follow a mediating position, resulted. Followers of this new mediating theology stressed both the grace of God and the free will of man were operative in salvation. Man could co-operate with God in salvation because his will was weakened but not fatally injured by the fall. Semi-Pelagianism ultimately came to full fruition in the Roman Catholic church.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?