Tag Archive | heresy

Pelagius var ingen irrlärare, men däremot Augustinus som förnekade människans fria vilja

Sep25

free will 2.jpgPelagius hade samma teologiska syn som kyrkofäderna före honom

Pelagius levde ca 354-418 e.Kr. och var en brittisk präst och en respekterad teolog med goda kunskaper i latin och grekiska (till skillnad från Augustinus). Pelagius var samtida med St. Patrick på Irland, och Pelagius främsta elev var Caelestius. 

Tyvärr har Peagius namn blivit som ett slags skällsord, speciellt från reformert håll, som grundar sig på att man tillskrivit honom lömska åsikter på mycket osäkra grunder. Pelagius har inte bara fiender idag, utan även under hans egen tid fanns teologer som inte höll med honom – och Augustinus verkar vara den man som startat schismen. Därför bör vi vara väldigt aktsamma så att vi inte hämtar vår information om Pelagius från Augustinus håll, för vem vill bli bedömd baserad på människor som ser sig själva som motståndare? Dessutom är det fullt möjligt att den före detta gnostikern Augustinus är den kyrkopersonlighet som introducerade de flesta irrlärorna till kyrkan. Än idag är vi drabbade av kalvinismen som använder Augustinus som den stora inspirationskällan.

Augustinus populariserade framför allt den falska gnostiska läran om arvsynden (med idén att allt kött är korrupt), och tanken att människan har en syndig natur redan från födseln. Det är av denna anledning som barndop blev populärt i många kyrkor, och ibland den enda formen av dop som tillåts. Pelagius tog avstånd från Augustinus läror om arvsynden, som inte heller någon av de tidigare kyrkofäderna höll med om (se denna artikel).

Eftersom Pelagius hade samma syn på frälsning, fri vilja, arvsynd, människans natur, etc, som kyrofäderna före honom, så finns det heller ingen anledning att mynta ett begrepp efter Pelagius (men det är förstås redan gjort). Det hade i så fall varit mer logiskt att beskriva folk som irenaeusianer, ignatianer, klementianer, el. dyl. De hade ju samma åsikter och levde före Pelagius. Augustinianer, hade också varit ett logiskt begrepp för att beskriva anhängare av Augustinus nygamla gnostiska läror.

Pelagius läror fördömdes på katolska möten, och därmed är saken klar?

Reformerta kristna, som vanligtvis kritiserar den katolska kyrkan, använder sig konstigt nog gärna av beslut från katolska kyrkomöten (koncilier, eller synoder) för att motivera varför Pelagius är en irrlärare. Men det finns flera faktorer som gör att deras fokus på katolska kyrkomöten (i stället för sola scripta) faller:

  • Alla kyrkomöten kom inte till slutsatsen om en fällande dom. 
  • Medan Pelagius läror deklarerades vara i sin ordning under möten där han var närvarande, så blev han fördömd under tre kyrkomöten där han inte vara närvarande och kunde försvara sig. Det kanske finns ett samband?
  • Det finns stöd för att åtminstone några av Pelagius fällande domar senare vändes till hans fördel under senare möten.
  • En människa (Augustinus) var drivande för att eliminera motstånd till sin egen lära och för att få pelagianism på fall. Vad hade hänt om Augustinus inte valt den vägen?
  • Kyrkomötet i Orange, som fördömde pelagianism, fördömde senare också kalvinismen som grundar sig i Augustinanism. 
  • Om dessa katolska kyrkomöten anses ha auktoritet, borde inte fler (alla?) katolska kyrkomöten vara ledande för oss? 

Många kyrkosamfund kallar ofta sitt högsta beslutande organ för synod, och ett möte inom en sådan ledning kallas alltså för synod eller kyrkomöte. Ibland även koncilium. Ett koncilium brukar vara en bredare sammankomst inom den kristna kyrkan för att avgöra lärofrågor och regler. Det finns sju koncilier som kallas ekumeniska och är erkända av både den östliga (ortodoxa kyrkan) och västliga kristenheten (Katolska Kyrkan och många protestantiska kyrkor).

Pelagius besökte Israel år 412, och 415 stod han framför synoden i Jerusalem, anklagad för att sprida irrläror. Han kunde dock försvara sig och klarade sig. För att slippa ytterligare attacker från Augustinus och prästen/teologen/historikenr/bibelöversättaren Hieronymus (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, eller Jerome) så författade Pelagius De libero arbitrio (“Om den fria viljan”) år 416, men den blev sedan grunden till att han några år senare anklagades igen av två afrikanska kyrkomöten där han ej var närvarande och förlorade. Hans motståndare hade alltså chansen att förvränga hans åsikter.

Det var alltså Augustinus som lyckades få Hieronymus att ansluta sig till idén att Pelagius propagerade för en farlig irrlära som måste stoppas så att den inte spreds vidare till öst. I stället blev Augustinus teologi den officiella, och tyvärr finns inte mycket av Pelagius originaltexter kvar. Det är inte helt otroligt om de förstördes i hög grad av Augustinus och Hieronymus eftersom de ansågs vara irrläror. I stället frodades och överlevde Augustinus beskrivning av Pelagius läror, vilket alltså inte alltid är detsamma som källan själv. Hieronymus lära om Jesus moder Maria som evig jungfru orsakade däremot inget larm om irrlära.

Det var till slut tre kyrkomöten som under Pelagius frånvaro fördömde pelagianism; I Kartago (Tunisien, Augustinus hemvist) år 418, Efesus år 431; och Orange år 529. Kyrkomötena i Orange och Kartago var inte fullt ekumeniska möten, och det betyder att det inte var en närvaro av biskopar från alla regioner. Resultaten från dessa möten var heller inte universellt accepterade av både östra och västra kyrkor (möjligen med undantag av beslutet i Efesus.)

Både Pelagius och Caelestius riskerade inledningsvis att fördömas och bannlysas av Påven Innocent I, men Innocents efterträdare Zosimus proklamerade Pelagius oskuld baserat på hans skrift Libellus fidei år 417. Zosimus ändrade sig sedan efter en förnyad undersökning av kyrkomötet i Kartago samt under påtryckningar. Det handlar alltså om vanliga dödliga människor som gör sina bedömningar, och som ändrar sig ibland beroende på åtalspunkter och försvarslinje.

En kompromiss mellan de två ståndpunkterna blev snart opulärt under namnet “semi-pelagianism, men även där händer det att människor gör sina egna tolkningar vad begreppet betyder och vad som inbegrips i kompromissen.

Doktrinerna inom kalvinismen fördömes också under kyrkomötenchurch

Kyrkomötet i Orange fördömde även kalvinismens doktriner. Om mötet anses vara en auktoritet i ett avseende kanske de borde vara det i samtliga avseenden? Vidare har det förekommit kyrkomöten även på senare tid, och kanske dessa också måste anses vara   auktoritativa trots att det handlar om vanliga människor som röstar?

Om man måste acceptera att en lära är en irrlära för att ett kyrkomöte beslutat om det, så måste kalvinism anses vara det ännu mer än pelagianism med tanke på att fler kyrkomöten kom fram till att kalvinismen är en irrlära. Kalvinismens doktriner om predestination, begränsad försoning, och oemotståndlig (tvingande) nåd har alla blivit fördömda som läror genom historien genom diverse förespråkare (såsom Lucidus och Gotteschalcus). Vidare kan man undra hur kalvinisterna ser på andra beslut under andra möten, såsom kyrkomötet i Konstance år 1414 gällande John Huss, Worms år 1521 gällande Martin Luther, och Trent år 1561 gällande protestanter i sin helhet?

Ett kyrkomöte fördömde även “arminianism” i Dort år 1618-1619, där arminianer tvingades stå på de anklagades sida. Det betyder att även arminianer borde akta sig för att förlita sig på kyrkomöten (som fördömer Pelagius), med tanke på att de själva är fördömda baserat på andra kyrkomöten.

ireneausPelagius teologi

Det mesta av material om Pelagius finns i händerna på hans fiender. Augustinus anklagade Pelagius för att förneka Guds nåd och för att anse att Guds nåd inte är nödvändigt för frälsning. Det är dock inte en korrekt beskrivning av Pelagius läror.

På liknande sätt är det vanliga spåret att man tillskriver pelagianism idén att människor har kapacitet att lyda Guds bud genom sin fri vilja och “utan Guds nåd”. Men Pelagius inställning skiljer sig inte från Titus 2:11-12 där budskapet är att Guds nåd hjälper oss att leva gudfruktigt här och nu – vilket enligt verserna är något som erbjuds ALLA människor. Alla kan alltså använda sig av Guds nåd för att lyda Guds bud och sina samveten.

Titus 2:1 Ty Guds nåd har uppenbarats till frälsning för ALLA MÄNNISKOR. 12 Den fostrar oss att säga nej till ogudaktighet och världsliga begär och att leva anständigt, rättfärdigt och gudfruktigt i den tid som nu är

Rom. 2:6 Han skall ge var och en efter hans gärningar: 7 evigt liv åt dem som uthålligt gör det goda och söker härlighet, ära och odödlighet, 8 men vrede och dom åt dem som söker sitt eget och inte lyder sanningen utan orättfärdigheten. — 13 Det är inte lagens hörare som blir rättfärdiga inför Gud, utan lagens görare skall förklaras rättfärdiga. 14 Ty när hedningar som saknar lagen, av naturen gör vad lagen befaller, då är de sin egen lag, fastän de inte har lagen. 15 De visar att det som lagen kräver är skrivet i deras hjärtan. Om det vittnar också deras samveten och, när de är tillsammans, deras tankar, som anklagar eller försvarar dem.  

Om Guds nåd har uppenbarats till frälsning för ALLA MÄNNISKOR, så innebär det att människorna är skapta med en grundkapacitet att söka och finna Gud ( se Apg. 17). Vi är också skapta för att kunna omvända oss och lyda Guds bud. M. a. o. är det inte en korrekt beskrivning att säga att pelagianer tror att människor kan lyda Guds bud “utan Guds nåd”.

Joh. 1:8 Själv var han inte ljuset, men han kom för att vittna om ljuset.9 Det sanna ljuset, som ger ljus åt alla människor, skulle nu komma till världen. 

Apg 17:26 Och han har av en enda människa skapat alla människor och folk, för att de skall bo över hela jorden. Han har fastställt bestämda tider och utstakat de gränser inom vilka de skall bo, 27 för att de skall söka Gud, om de möjligen skulle kunna treva sig fram till honom och finna honom, fastän han inte är långt borta från någon enda av oss. 

Pelagius ansåg INTE att människan kan frälsa sig själv, såsom Augustinus anklagade honom för. En sådan lära hade onekligen varit en irrlära, men det är alltså ingenting som Pelagius lärde ut. Pelagius ansåg däremot att även om människan är helt förlorad utan Gud och hans nåd, så kan människan absolut undvika synd eftersom människan inte är ur stånd att kunna välja det goda. Även “andligt döda” människor (som lever i synd) kan välja den goda vägen – att omvända sig och vända sig till Gud.

En annan teologisk åsikt som kopplas ihop med Pelagius är att han INTE tror på arvsynden. Detta är däremot inte en felaktig beskrivning av Pelagius åsikter eftersom han mycket riktigt inte alls håller med Augustinus om arvsynden. Augustinus  trodde starkt på både arvsynden och att människan efter syndafallet hamnat i ett annat läge där hon är ur stånd att kunna omvända sig till Gud.

Pelagius höll med kyrkofäderna före honom gällande människans fria vilja och arvsynden, medan Augustinus läror överensstämde mer med gnostikernas. Kalvinismen har sin start i Augustinianism, och Augustinus har sin start i gnostisism. Detta tydliggörs när man läser citat från tidigare kyrkofäder. Tertullian, Hippolytus och Irenaeus skrev mycket material emot gnostiska läror. Pelagius, precis som kyrkofäderna före honom, ansåg att nyfödda barn är precis lika oskyldiga som Adam var innan han syndade.

Pelagius ansåg att människans natur inte var drabbad av Adams synd (synder är något som inte kan ärvas), och därför förtjänar människor helvetet endast genom sitt eget agerande och inte pga dåliga gener. Pelagius ansåg att människan är skapt för att kunna välja mellan gott och ont, utan vara bundna till en viss natur som tvingar dem till det ena eller det andra alternativet.

Pelagius ansåg att Augustinus hade en väldigt mörk syn på människan, där hon ansågs vara syndfull till sin natur redan från födseln och inte kapabel till att segervisst vända ryggen åt det onda. Pelagius ansåg i stället att människan har en naturlig förmåga att välja det goda i stället för det onda. Jesus krav “var fullkomliga” (“be ye perfect”) tolkade Pelagius som att människan verkligen har en inbyggd kapacitet att kunna lyda det kravet.

Matt. 5:48 Var alltså fullkomliga, såsom er Fader i himlen är fullkomlig.

Pelagius utmanade den nya formen av Kyrka som Augustinus varit med om att forma, och hävdade att både lagen och evangelium kan leda en människa till himlen. Annars skulle ingen under det gamla testamentet kunna bli frälst. Pelagius menade att det handlar om att leva i rättfärdighet. Inte på ett sådant sätt att han lärde ut att gärningar allena kan frälsa, men tro allena kan heller inte frälsa.

Jesus dog för människorna på korset en gång för alla (det finns ingen förlåtelse utan blod), och därmed upphörde det temporära djuroffersystemet.

Frälsning enligt Nya Testamentet (tro och rättfärdighet!):

Jak. 2:20 Men vill du inte inse, du tanklösa människa, att tron utan gärningar är död? 21 Blev inte vår fader Abraham erkänd som rättfärdig genom gärningar, när han bar fram sin son Isak på altaret? 22 Du ser att hans tro samverkade med hans gärningar och att det var genom gärningarna som tron blev fullbordad. 23 Så uppfylldes Skriften som säger: Abraham trodde Gud, och det räknades honom till rättfärdighet, och han kallades Guds vän. 24 Ni ser alltså att en människa erkänns som rättfärdig genom gärningar och INTE bara genom tro. 25 Blev inte skökan Rahab på samma sätt erkänd som rättfärdig genom gärningar, när hon tog emot sändebuden och förde ut dem en annan väg? 26 Liksom kroppen utan ande är död, så är tron utan gärningar död.

Frälsning enligt Gamla Testamentet (tro och rättfärdighet!):

Hes. 18:4 Se, varje levande själ tillhör mig, fadern såväl som sonen. De är mina. Den som syndar skall dö. 5 Om en man är rättfärdig och gör det som är rätt och rättfärdigt, —  9 om han lever efter mina stadgar och håller mina föreskrifter, så att han gör det som är rätt och gott, då är han rättfärdig och skall förvisso få leva, säger Herren, Herren.—- 19 Men ni frågar: “Varför skall inte sonen bära på sin fars missgärning?” Sonen har gjort det som är rätt och rättfärdigt. Han har hållit alla mina stadgar och följt dem, och därför skall han förvisso få leva. 20 Den som syndar skall dö. En son skall inte bära sin fars missgärning, och en far skall inte bära sin sons missgärning. Den rättfärdiges rättfärdighet skall vara hans egen, och den ogudaktiges ogudaktighet skall vara hans egen.21 Men om den ogudaktige vänder om från alla de synder som han har begått och håller alla mina stadgar och gör det som är rätt och rättfärdigt, då skall han förvisso leva och inte dö. 22 Ingen av de överträdelser han har begått skall då tillräknas honom. Genom den rättfärdighet han har visat skall han få leva. 23 Skulle jag finna någon glädje i den ogudaktiges död? säger Herren, Herren. Nej, jag vill att han vänder om från sin väg och får leva.24 Men när den rättfärdige vänder om från sin rättfärdighet och handlar orätt och gör samma vidriga gärningar som den ogudaktige, skulle han då få leva? Ingen av de rättfärdiga gärningar som han har gjort skall då bli ihågkommen. Genom den trolöshet som han har begått och genom den synd han har gjort skall han dö.25 Ändå säger ni: Herrens väg är inte rätt. Hör då, ni av Israels hus: Är inte min väg rätt? Är det inte era vägar som inte är rätta? 26 När den rättfärdige vänder om från sin rättfärdighet och gör det som är orätt, så dör han på grund av det. Genom det orätta han har gjort skall han dö. 27 Men när den ogudaktige vänder om från sin ogudaktighet och gör det som är rätt och rättfärdigt, skall hans liv bli bevarat. 28 Därför att han kom till insikt och vände om från alla de överträdelser han hade gjort, skall han förvisso leva och inte dö. 29 Ändå säger Israels hus: Herrens väg är inte rätt! – Är inte mina vägar rätta, ni av Israels hus? Är det inte era vägar som inte är rätta?30 Därför skall jag döma er, var och en efter hans gärningar, ni av Israels hus, säger Herren, Herren. Vänd om och vänd er bort från alla era överträdelser för att er missgärning inte skall få er på fall. 31 Kasta bort ifrån er alla de överträdelser genom vilka ni har syndat och skaffa er ett nytt hjärta och en ny ande. Ty inte vill ni väl dö, ni av Israels hus? 32 Jag finner ingen glädje i någons död, säger Herren, Herren. Vänd därför om, så får ni leva.

Pelagius ansåg också att man kunde bli frälst helt separat från både kyrka och präster, genom tro och lydnad av Gud. Därmed inte sagt att Pelagius rekommenderade en församlingslös tillvaro. På Pelagius tid var det förstås inte alltid en populär lära att det fanns chans till frälsning utanför en kyrkokrets, och framför allt inte utanför den romerska kyrkan som hunnit etablera sig som den yttersta instansen för lärofrågor i form av biskopen av Rom (påven). Pelagius besökte Rom och han fick inga goda intryck av den romerska församlingen. Exempelvis motsatte han sig den hierarkiska strukturen, och framför allt fokuset på påven. Den romerska kyrkans avslappnade attityd gentemot synd kopplade Pelagius ihop med dess lära om nåden som alltid förlåter oavsett vad du gör.

Citat från Pelagius själv, och några av hans närmastebibles

Julian of Eclanum systematiserade Pelagius läror. Tack till Jesse Morell för de flesta av citaten nedan.

“We [Pelagians] maintain that men are the work of God, and that no one is forced unwillingly by His power either into evil or good, but that man does either good or ill of his own will; but that in a good work he is always assisted by God’s grace, while in evil he is incited by the suggestions of the devil.” / Julian of Eclanum’s Pelagian Statement of Faith

We, the Pelagians, teach] that nothing of evil passed from Adam upon the rest of humanity except death, which is not always an evil, since to the martyrs, for instance, it is for the sake of rewards; and it is not the dissolution of the bodies, which in every kind of men shall be raised up, that can make death to be called either good or evil, but the diversity of merits which arises from human liberty.” / Julian of Eclanum’s Pelagian Statement of Faith

Pelagius: “I anathematize the man who either thinks or says that the grace of God, whereby ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,’ is not necessary not only for ever hour and for every moment, but also for every act of our lives: and those who endeavor to dis-annul it deserve everlasting punishment.”  / On The Grace Of Christ, And On Original Sin by Augustine

Pelagius: “This grace we do not allow to consist only in the law but also in the help of God. God helps us through His teaching and revelation by opening the eyes of our heart, by pointing out to us the future so that we may not be preoccupied with the present, by uncovering the snares of the devil, by enlightening us with the manifold and ineffable gift of heavenly grace.”  / Life and Letters by B. R. Rees, 1988 Edition, p. 33.

Pelagius: “God always aids by the help of his grace. God aids us by his doctrine and revelation, while he opens the eyes of our heart; while he shows us the future, that we may not be engrossed with the present; while he discloses the snares of the devil; while he illuminates us by the multiform and ineffable gift of heavenly grace. Does he who says this, appear to you to deny grace? Or does he appear to confess both divine grace and the freewill of man?” / De Gr. Chr. 4, 7

Pelagius: “Behold, before your blessedness, this epistle clears me, in which we directly and simply say, that we have entire freewill to sin and not to sin, which, in all good works, is always assisted by divine aid. Let them read the letter which we wrote to that holy man, bishop Paulinus, nearly twelve years ago, which perhaps in three hundred lines supports nothing else but the grace and aid of God, and that we can do nothing at all of good without God. Let them also read the one we wrote to that sacred virgin of Christ, Demetrias, in the east, and they will find us so praising the nature of man, as that we may always add the aid of God’s grace. Let them likewise read my recent tract which we were lately compelled to put forth on freewill, and they will see how unjustly they glory in defaming us for denial of grace, who, through nearly the whole text of that work, perfectly and entirely profess both free will and grace.”/ De Gr. Chr. 31, 35, 37, 4, Pelagius i ett brev till Innocent

Som vi kan se så ansåg Pelagius att nåd verkligen är nödvändigt för människor ska kunna välja det rätta för att uppnå frälsning. Även den fria viljan ansåg han vara en nådegåva – given till alla vid skapelsen. Han ansåg därför att människan i allra högsta grad är frälst av nåd, och att vi omöjligt skulle kunna bli frälsta utan denna nåd. Däremot motsatte sig Pelagius Augustinus tolkning av nåd, som i stället handlar om en nåd som förlorades genom arvsynd och som resulterade i människans oförmåga att lyda vilket vidare resulterar i att nåden måste förnyas av Gud (och som tyvärr inte är något som erbjuds alla människor enligt samma tankegång). Pelagius bejakade alltså både människans fria vilja och och behovet av Guds nåd, medan Augustinus förnekade friheten att kunna välja eftersom han missförstod betydelsen av Guds nåd:

 “I have tried hard to maintain the free choice of the human will, but the grace of God prevailed.”/ Retractations by Augustine

Det ska också sägas att Augustinus ändrat ståndpunkter genom sitt liv, vilket framkommer i hans böcker. Det började med gnosticism (i form av manikeism), men även om Augustinus lämnade det spåret så kan man ibland se en del liknande tankegångar i texterna. Det han skriver om den fria viljan i en skrift kanske skiljer sig från vad han skriver i ämnet ett senare skede. Precis som kalvinister inte lyckas vara konsekventa med sina doktriner idag, så kunde inte heller Augustinus vara konsekvent under sin tid. Augustinus har ställt till mycket problem för oss kristna idag eftersom han lyckades få in så mycket gnosticism i kyrkosystemet som många kristna människor fortfarande tror på. Arvsynd, predestinationsläran, monergism, den katolska kyrkans övergripande makt, böner för döda, tillbedjan av Maria, barndop, sex är syndigt även inom äktenskapet, upphörande av andens gåvor, etc. Du kan läsa om avsaknad av  “arvsynden” i Rom. 5 här.

 “I verily believe, the real heresy of Pelagius was neither more nor less than this: The holding that Christians may, by the grace of God, (not without it; that I take to be a mere slander,) ‘go on to perfection;’ or, in other words, ‘fulfill the law of Christ.’” / The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., 1840 Edition, p. 310

“What is plainer than that the ancient divines, for three hundred years after Christ, those at least who flourished before St. Augustine, maintained the liberty of our will, or an indifference to two contrary things, free from all internal and external necessity!” / An Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism by John Fletcher, Volume Two, p. 209, Published by Carlton & Porter

  • Encyclopedia Britannica
  • Encyclopedia Columbia
  •  ”Augustine of Hippo”, Peter Brown
  • Jesse Morell, Open air outreach

Jesse Morrell Debates Sye Ten Bruggencate on Calvinism, Sovereignty, Abortion, Open Theism

Jan25

If you want to see Jesse’s debate with Matt Slick, you can check this link.

 

Sye Ten Bruggencate said: “Nothing happens outside of God’s plan Jesse, nothing.”

Hugh McBryde said: “Yes. Abortion is God’s plan Jesse Morrell. If the book of our days is written, that is also.”

“So given Sye’s premise that all abortions, rapes, murders, molestations, genocides, etc, are God’s plan:

1. Calvinists are upset with God’s plan.

2. Calvinists are upset with God’s plan because God decreed that they would be.

3. God hates His own plan.

4. Calvinists pray for the abortion of babies when they pray “thy will be done.”

5. Sin is better than righteousness in all instances of its occurrence.

6. God prefers sin over holiness in every instance that it occurs.

7. God prefers the slaughter of millions of babies in abortion over saving their lives.

8. Nothing is better than the slaughter of millions of babies in abortion whenever it occurs.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that Calvinism is reduced to absurdity, blasphemy on God’s character, and worthy of all mockery, ridicule and scorn.  

Biblical Truth Resources

56423944

FREE BOOK

objectionstocalvinismfrontcover-2

I am giving away a free copy of the classic book, “Objections to Calvinism As It Is” by Randolph Foster! I pray that this blesses your life.

You’ll also receive in the same email two other theological books that I won’t name, just to spark your curiosity some more.

And lastly, you’ll also be subscribed to our free email newsletter and will receive biblical articles and great content from time to time.

JESSE MORRELL DEBATES SYE TEN BURGGENCATE
On Calvinism, Sovereignty, Abortion, Open Theism, etc.

It seems that I continue to rattle the devil’s nest as the attacks from Calvinists continue to come against me. (For those of you who don’t know, Calvinism is a teaching that says Jesus did not die for everyone, God does not want everyone to repent and be saved, etc. It claims to be ‘the Gospel’ but is really an utter denial of the Gospel. It…

View original post 8,119 more words

Did AUGUSTINE corrupt the church with gnostic doctrine? (Yes)

Jan25

This is a well researched must-see film for all who are curious about the views prior to Augustine of Hippo who lived between 350-430 AD. We often hear about the views of Martin Luther and Jean Calvin, but many of their views actually derive from Augustine. What views did the early church fathers have who lived beyond him? We can see that they unanimously and without exception believed in man’s free will and none of them believed that man is born with a sinful nature or inherited Adam’s sin. You can read more quotes from the website eternaltruth.us or my blog article here.

The Bible says:

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints

This means that we should pay close attention to what these early saints had to say about salvation since the “faith” was once delivered to them and since Jude here exhorts us to earnestly contend for this faith. (Naturally this doesn’t exempt us from our responsibility to compare everything we read and hear with scripture. ) Since ALL of the early church fathers (before the time of Augustine) believed in free will, and NONE believed in “once saved always saved“ NOR that man is born with a sinful nature AND (most importantly) since the BIBLE teaches the same things, then we should be completely confident about what the true doctrines really are which Jude is referring to. The only ones who taught the opposite were the GNOSTICS, and Augustine (a former gnostic) sadly brought in many gnostic ideas into church which we have been deceived by ever since. It’s time to go back the teachings of the early church, which are based on the Bible. God is not a God of confusion and is able to reveal the real truth to us in the Bible. The false idea that babies are born in sin is nothing but gnostic heresy and yet this falsehood is rather common worldwide in our churches today.

Jesus did not PAY a DEBT and was not PUNISHED on the cross (penal satisfaction)

Dec3

cross1

The error of the Penal Satisfaction theory

/Thanks to my friend Lyndon Conn for the below

Jesus suffered greatly, taking many stripes, was bruised and beaten, etc. He did all of this FOR us, but those things were not Atonement themselves. It was His death (shedding of blood and Life for a life – innocent for the guilty) that made atonement. Animals were never beaten or punished BEFORE they were finally killed for atonement.

The Penal Satisfaction atonement teaches that Jesus was punished in our place as He was beaten and bruised by God. This is not true at all! He was mistreated by MEN as a form of punishment for something He did not do. He could not be truly punished by God for any reason whatsoever since He was without sin. God not only NEVER punished a sacrifice (but only accepted the acceptable sacrifice), but sin was never literally on either the animals or on Jesus – since sin is not a substance that can be moved or transferred. When the Bible speaks of “Taking away” sins, it is talking about the born again experience and the transformation that takes place when a person confesses their sins. Sins are then “taken away” but the person being made into a new creation – as old things pass away and all things become new. Jesus made provision for all men so that all they need to do is confess Him as the acceptable sacrifice, and in turn also offer themselves a living sacrifice. These are likened unto the day of atonement in the 2 goats for the entire nation (as Christ represents both, the acceptable sacrifice in goat 1, and the scapegoat in goat 2 by taking away the sins of the world). And our repentance is likened unto the offering of the bull for personal sins.

Sin is not punished in Christ and they are not “paid for”! These are both lies passed down through the RCC and not biblical at all. We have had bad theology so heavily imparted into our thinking that we think many things are fact that are not at all. We have never questioned them, and hear it all the time, preach it all the time, and never think otherwise, but I will challenge this thinking. Not to teach a different doctrine, but to show a different understanding of the same doctrine. The end is the same, but the path that takes us there is flawed.

Nowhere does the Bible literally teach the following: Jesus PAID FOR sins; He was PUNISHED by God;  He “took our place”; He “paid our debt”, and other financial terms that should only be understood figuratively. The literal is that He “provided” for forgiveness; He did for us what we could not do for ourselves; and so on. Incorrect terms lead to many false doctrines like Limited Atonement and Universalism, and many are very inconsistent by not believing one or the other. Incorrect terminology can lead in 2 directions – one towards truth and the other towards error. With payment for sins – we might be able to draw a proper understanding from it (as I did for many years as well) – understanding that Jesus died for our sins and making the way of salvation for us – but the problem with the terminology is that it’s misused and could lead to error.

If Jesus “paid for” our sins on the cross, then something that is paid for is completely finished and nothing else needs to be done at all. If Jesus “paid for” the sins of the whole world, then all men are saved and do not even need to repent because their sins are already paid for. It is all done for them. This is why Calvinism has to create their doctrine of Limited Atonement – teaching that Jesus only died for the elect – in order to prevent Universalism. So then, Jesus “paid for” the sins of the elect only, and did not die for the sins of the non-elect. As wrong as this is, it is actually more consistent with the teaching of “payment for sins”.

The fact that WE are “bought with a price” does not teach a payment for SINS. “We” and our “sins” are 2 different things. The wages of sin is and always will be death! Men still go to hell for their sins. Our only hope is to confess our sins to Jesus, the scapegoat of God, so He can “take them away”. This is figurative! Sin is not a substance that can be put on another or literally taken anywhere. Sin is an attitude of the heart. It is a mindset that leads to actions that displease God. Man’s only hope is to have this part of him changed (transformed). It all starts with being Born Again. Old things are PASSED AWAY, and all things are become new. Sins are never punished IN man in this life (except by chastisement for the Christians if they sin and need to learn something). Sin itself is not punished at all. Man is punished and will be punished in eternity. So our only hope is to have sins “taken away”.

Atonement terminology is mostly all figurative, but the figurative ALWAYS points to the literal! So we have to seek understanding of the literal, and be careful not to take the figurative itself too literally. This WILL lead to error. You cannot have “actual and factual” without literal.  We just need to understand what it actually and factually is! It is NOT a payment, but a provision! It is not punishment of Christ by God, but abuse of Christ by men – which He endured FOR us – but not literally in our place. No man could ever die for his own sins, therefore it could never be our place, but only HIS place to die as atonement. Men will still die for their own sins. There is no “debt” that we owe, but only “wages” to be paid. A debt is something to be paid to another, while wages are what we have earned and have coming to US. We do not owe God anything, but repentance and our lives. There is nothing at all that we could possible “pay” to God to “buy” our souls back. These are all financial terms, including ransom and redeem, which both refer to the work of Christ on our behalf. The financial terms are all used to help give us understanding by using terms we can understand , but they are all figurative and not to be taken too literally. We must look to the literal they point to.cross7

The Bible says that He is the “propitiation” for our sins – which literally means, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins”. Propitiation is a term used in pagan rituals of offering their children to their gods as a sacrifice to appease their anger. It can give a picture of Jesus removing the anger of God against us, but should not be taken to the extreme to teach that He was an object of God’s wrath – with our sins literally on Him! Truth can be drawn and understood from this word; yet error can be as well if taken too far. There is no forgiveness of sins at all without repentance. There is provision for forgiveness that has to be received, but there is no actual forgiveness until then. The idea of a payment gives a false idea here, and it leads to false doctrines – making it easy for those who teach them to draw others into their errors. And Calvinism is growing stronger every day. I just heard a story yesterday about how so many Churches are turning Calvinist, and this has a great deal to do with it!

If you believe atonement is a literal payment,  then who was paid? The devil? The Father? And if paid, then a payment cannot be unpaid, right? A provision is something that is done FOR us that we could not do for ourselves; while we must RECEIVE it through faith – or reject it. Sins are not “carried away” until we receive Him and confess our sins to Him so He can take our sins away – and then, where there are no sins and there is no guilt. But if sins are “paid for”, you cannot have them paid for one a person is “justified”, or have payment applied only at that time. This can work in the figurative, but not in the literal.

If we go back to Leviticus, sins were never “paid for”. The only difference is that Jesus was without sin and He could be the one-time sacrifice for all time. But the idea of atoning for sins was the same. There had to be an ACCEPTABLE sacrifice and a scapegoat for the yearly offering. This was provision for the nation as a whole, but individuals still had to bring their own personal sacrifices of a bull for their owns sins – which is likened unto our repentance and offering of ourselves unto God as a living sacrifice. Neither were any form of a payment! Such an idea is added by men, starting with the RCC in the 12th century under Anselm.

We are figuratively covered in His blood, in that because of the shedding of His blood and out acceptance of Him as the atoning sacrifice for our sins, as the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled, we receive Him and all that He did for us as we confess our sins before Him. Our acceptance of Him as the one-time sacrifice that was without sin allows us to confess our sins and be forgiven of our sins. Our act of true repentance and accepting Jesus is accepted as if His blood were literally sprinkled on us, but no person has ever had His blood literally on them. Let’s get real here. This is what the RCC would have us believe. In communion they teach that the literal body and blood of Jesus is transferred to the bread and wine. So then we are cannibals and guilty of drinking blood – which is forbidden in the law of God.

True atonement is very simple and not half as complex as men have made it. God provided a Lamb in Jesus. We can accept His provision and confess our sins over Him and have them taken away, or we can choose to go our own way. God did not die for only some. He did not choose some and reject others. His atonement was for ALL men – the WHOLE WORLD as a provision for whosoever will call upon His name. Now it is up to men to offer themselves (their bull) to God in the confession of sins and acceptance of His provision. Very simple. Very biblical. And with no need of the additions of men. God’s wrath does not need to be appeased! If sins are “taken away” by changing the man, then there is nothing for wrath to be against. However, if sins return, and repentance does not, wrath will be against such a man – as it is against the world. Very simple and completely scriptural.

Can sins be inherited?sheep 2

Sin is not a substance that can be passed down from one to another, but men inherit a condition that is passed down, and this condition is one that could lead us to sin. Romans 5:12 says that death is passed down. Men are born innocent, and therefore a baby is without sin and saved in its innocence. Sin is a choice – NOT something we inherit. Can the murderer blame their crime on their Father, or on Adam? No. Each man is responsible for his own choices and will be judged for them justly. Blame can never be passed to another, and neither can sin. Sin is defined in scripture as knowing to do right and not doing it, in which the opposite is just as true, in knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway. Sin is therefore a willful rebellion against a known law of God. For those who do not have His laws, Romans 2 says that their conscience becomes a law unto them. So whether we go against God’s law or our conscience, these are what define sin.

Every man and women are faced with choices between right and wrong. And each have the ability to choose what is right. Otherwise they could not be rightly judged for their choices, but because of spiritual death (separation from God), mankind will turn to his own lusts, having no guidance in life. They cannot choose what they do not know.

John 3:19 – “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.”

Men are sinners because they sin – which is contrary to popular belief. It is the majority of the Church today that has been infected with false teachings and cannot see it. They are not the worst errors out there but they do lead to them. If we want to rid the Church of error and keep Christians from confusion, then we need to get rid of the little errors that serve as stepping stools for the true heresies. The “Sinning Religions” of our day, the OSAS teachings (once saved always saved), and Calvinism all gain strength from these erroneous atonement ideas and false understandings of sin and death.

Tertullian – On Repentance, chapter 6 “For repentance is the price at which the Lord has determined to award pardon: He proposes the redemption of release from penalty at this compensating exchange of repentance. If, then, sellers first examine the coin with which they make their bargains, to see whether it be cut, or scraped, or adulterated, we believe likewise that the Lord, when about to make us the grant of so costly merchandise, even of eternal life, first institutes a probation of our repentance.”Chapter 9 – “but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled, of confession repentance is born; by repentance God is appeased.”

Interesting calvinistic contradictions and paradoxes

Nov14

CALVINISM and its contradictions and paradoxes

If you engage yourself in discussions with calvinists you must be prepared for that they will contradict themselves and express themselves with lots of “theological fog” and paradoxes. It’s like they believe many fancy words will cover up for their contradictory claims and poor doctrines, and there are sadly listeners out there who are not able to look through their smoke screens but instead swallow what they have to say. But there is no way that they can ever solve the many problems that are hidden in the TULIP, and they are not able to clear the name of their God who they make to be the author of sin – which is the only logical conclusion of their doctrines. Here they might protest and tell you they do NOT make God the author of sin! But don’t they believe that nothing happens against the will of God? Don’t they believe that man must act according to whatever nature he was created with? Don’t they believe man certainly cannot be totally depraved against God’s will? They must respond in the affirmative to all those questions in order to be consistent with their own doctrines, and that means their God IS the author of sin after all. They believe God predestines man to sin, at the same time as man is responsible for his own sins and for some reason should have acted otherwise – despite that he was forced by God to act the way he did. The same man will also be punished and sent to hell – for committing the sin that God caused him to do. (With other words – people who do the will of God will be sent to hell for doing the will of God). Anyway, below is a list of some contradictions that I stole from my friend William Hughes. I saved the best ones to make the list shorter 🙂

Reformed contradiction #3

From an email on facebook I received:

Calvinist: “any time you say Calvinism is not true I will rebuke you extremely severely in the name of Jesus Christ! Calvinism is the gospel, you heretic! I read your stupid post even though you are not on my friends list.”

Me: “I am unable to believe in Calvinism because God has decided I don’t believe it. Why are you getting mad at me? I cannot help it.”

Calvinist: “you are blinded by the devil. Do not blame God for your inability to believe the gospel.”

Me: “Are the unelect ‘unable’ to believe the truth?”

Calvinist: “No one is able to believe the truth unless God opens their eyes…”

Blaming me for not believing in Calvinism is like blaming a mentally handicapped person for not thinking.

Reformed contradiction #4

Tony Miano is witnessing to someone on video. During the conversation a Christian named Marco walked up to Tony and said he was being too hard and needed to teach more on God’s love. Tony then berated him and said, “So if me in my flesh can push people away from God then you believe in a weak God.” Tony then accused this Christian of “blaspheming God” because “Marcos, you think the gospel needs our help…You don’t believe the gospel is sufficient, Marco.”

Later in the video Tony explained the “correct” gospel to Marco by witnessing to Marco!

Why is Tony showing Marco the “correct” way when he just finshed telling Marco “you think the gospel needs our help?”

Apparently Tony’s god is “weak” too since he needs Tony to correct Marco.

Reformed Contradiction #5

Tony Miano is preaching to a crowd and tells them to repent and believe. A few minutes later Tony says “God is a God of love and if He CAUSES you to be born again, THEN you can repent and THEN you can believe.”

I thought he told the crowd “they” must repent and believe and now he is saying GOD MUST DO IT…very confusing to unbelievers….and everyone else.

Reformed contradiction #6

“God is sovereign in all things. If you don’t believe God gave you the faith to believe you are going against Gods sovereignty!”

But if I can go against Gods sovereignty than God isn’t sovereign in all things.

Reformed contradiction #7

“God does not predestine people for heaven and hell. He simply passes over those people not saving them”

“Don’t Calvinists believe God hated Esau before he did anything good or bad?”

“Yes.”

Sounds like God predestines people for heaven or hell.

Calvinist contradiction #8

“God isn’t obligated to respond to a person’s faith. God is completely sovereign and isn’t controlled by what people do.”

“Does God get angry at a sinners sin?”

“Yes.”

Then I guess God is controlled by what men do.

Calvinist contradiction #9

I decided to take a systematic theology class at my old church which was taught by a 5 point Calvinist named — this time in my life I believed what Calvinists told me, that Calvinism is not an essential issue. In the very first class we listened to a sermon on God’s sovereignty and in that sermon the speaker said If I didn’t believe in God’s sovereignty (as he was defining it by Calvinism) I’m an idolater.

But I thought Calvinism is not an essential issue?—, who is leading the class told me Calvinism is not an essential issue, then why is he showing the class a sermon that says the opposite?Answer: Because he really believes Calvinism is essential.

Calvinist contradiction #10

“Calvinism is not an essential issue. The essentials are the Trinity, the deity of Christ, Christ’s physical resurrection, salvation by grace through faith.”

Later in the conversation…”If you believe people can respond to the gospel using their free will you are a heretic.”

Calvinist contradiction #11

“Unbelievers are blinded by total depravity, they are unable to believe.”

Then why did God blind some of the Jews from believing if they are already blinded?

Calvinist contradiction #12

“Christ saved His own at the cross.”

But wouldn’t that mean when you were born you were saved?

Calvinist contradiction #13

“What do you think God does with mentally handicapped people who might be unable to believe in Christ?”

Calvinist: “God is merciful and would choose them for salvation”

“What do you think God does with other people who are unable to believe in Christ because they are totally depraved?”

Calvinist: “God sends them to hell.”

Calvinist contradiction #14

“The word ‘chosen’ means chosen for salvation”

“You mean like this?”

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Calvinist contradiction #15

Calvinist: “The bible says to rightly divide the word of truth so any contradictions should be studied until they are no longer contradictions.”

“What about the contradiction between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility?”

Calvinist: “Thats ok if we don’t understand that…that’s a mystery.”

Why are contradictions in other ministries exposed by Calvinists but not the ones in their own doctrine which are accepted as “mysteries?”

Calvinist contradiction #16

Calvinist: “Do not add or take away from God’s Word.”

“The bible says Christ died for the world, for whosoever, for any, for all of mankind.”

Calvinist: “No it doesn’t! ‘World’ doesn’t mean all and ‘all’ doesn’t mean ‘all.’

Calvinist contradiction #17

Calvinist: “God showed me the truth of Calvinism through the bible.”

“What did God show you?”

Calvinist: “If you read <insert reformed teachers name here> book that sums up my beliefs.”

Are you sure you got this new doctrine from God?

Calvinist contradiction #20

Calvinist: “People go to hell because they reject the gospel.”

“I thought you said the unsaved were people whom Christ never died for?”

Calvinist: “Yes thats true.”

“So the unsaved are going to hell for rejecting a salvation that isn’t mean’t for them? Isn’t that like saying I’ll get mad at you for not coming to my party when I never invited you and don’t want you at my party?”

Calvinist contradiction #21

Calvinist preaching to a crowd: “God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. God wants all to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

Wait, you don’t believe that, you believe God is not willing that the elect should perish and God only wants some people to come to a knowledge of the truth, so why are you lying to the crowd?

Calvinist contradiction #22

“If a body builder grabbed your arm, put a gun in your hand, and forced you to shoot someone are you responsible for it?”

Calvinist: “No, because the body builder forced me to do it.”

“Was Judas forced by God to betray Christ?”

Calvinist: “Yes.”

“Then how is Judas responsible for betraying Christ if God forced him to do it?”Answer: God didn’t force Judas to betray Christ.

Calvinist contradiction #23

Calvinist: “While witnessing I would never tell a sinner God loves them because I wouldn’t want to give them a false hope.”

“What happens when the sinner is concerned about going to hell?”

Calvinist: “I would share with them the good news that Christ died for their sins on the cross.”

“Why would Christ die for their sins?”

Calvinist: “Because…um…He…loves them.”

Calvinist contradiction #24

Calvinist: “In John 17:9 Christ prays only for believers in the Gospel of John which proves He doesn’t love unbelievers.”

“Have you ever prayed for your children?”

Calvinist: “Yes.”

“Does this imply you love them and no one else in the world?”

Calvinist: <Silence>”Christ prayed ‘Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.’ Sounds like Christ is praying for unbelievers.”

Calvinist contradiction #25

Calvinist 1: “I believe <insert doctrine here>”

Later that day talking to another Calvinist…

Calvinist 2: “Your misrepresenting Calvinism! We don’t believe <insert doctrine from Calvinist 1 here>.”

Calvinist contradiction #26

Calvinist: “I like Calvinism because I don’t have to worry about whether I spoke incorrectly to a sinner while witnessing. God does it all.”

“Is there a wrong way and a right way to preaching the gospel?”

Calvinist: “Oh yes! The gospel must be presented accurately.”

Then I guess you better be careful how you speak.

Calvinist contradiction #27

Calvinist: “<insert false teacher here> is teaching <insert false doctrine here>!”

“You sound concerned. Can someone predestined for heaven go to hell?”

Calvinist: “No.”

“Can someone predestined for hell go to heaven?”

Calvinist: “No.””Then why are you concerned?”Calvinist: “Because God uses the gospel to save people and false teachers are preventing that.”False teachers are more sovereign than God

Calvinist contradiction #28

Calvinist: “Sinners cannot respond to the gospel without the Spirit in them (1 Corinthians 2:14).”

“The Apostle Paul believed without the Spirit in Him until days later.”

Calvinist contradiction #30

Calvinist: “The bible says unbelievers cannot do anything good. Romans 8:7 says unbelievers cannot obey God’s law.”

“Does the bible say the conscience is God’s law written on the hearts of everyone?”

Calvinist: “Yes.”

“When you were an unbeliever did you ever obey your conscience, even once?”

Calvinist: “um…well…yes.”

Apparently Romans 8:7 is not teaching unbelievers are not able to do “anything good”.

Calvinist contradiction #31

Calvinist: “Calvinists are the most humble of Christians since we believe God does everything and we can do nothing.”

“You sound proud of your humility.”

Calvinist contradiction #34

Calvinist: “Jesus said anyone who does the will of the Father goes to heaven. The unelect do not do God’s will.”

“Did God predestine the unelect for damnation?”

Calvinist: “Yes.”

“Then they are doing God’s will.”

Calvinist contradiction #38

“Take a classroom of say 20 people and put earplugs in their ears. Now give them some instructions. Then take their earplugs out. Will they obey your instructions?”

Calvinist: “No, they couldn’t hear me.”

“Are you angry at them for disobeying your instructions??”

Calvinist: “Why would I be angry, they can’t hear me! It wouldn’t be right for me to get angry.”

“Then why is God angry with sinners in the same condition?”

Calvinist: “Because the bible says so!”

“You might want to reinterpret the verses you hold to, your ideas don’t make sense and you are confusing people about who God is and what He wants.”

Here is another good analogy by William

Lets say I have a time travel DVR and I record a football game before it happens. I can fast forward the game, play it slow motion, reverse it, fly around the stadium in 3D (that would be cool!). No matter how many times I do this the outcome is the same.  Now lets say that you can also see yourself in this video and the choices you make that affect others. You can see how your actions affect others. Are the players using their free will in response to you? Yes. Are events in the game predetermined? Yes, because you know the outcome. Events are both predetermined (because God knows how humans will use their freedom to respond to Him) and freely chosen. What about Judas?

1) God knows all things.
2) Whatever God foreknows must come to pass (i.e., is determined). If it did not come to pass, then God would have been wrong in what He foreknew. But an all-knowing [omniscient] God cannot be wrong in what He knows.)
3) God knew Judas would betray Christ.
4) Therefore, it HAD TO COME TO PASS (i.e, was determined) that Judas would betray Christ.
5) These events are predetermined and freely chosen at the same time.

Shipwreck example Acts 27

Paul assured his fellow travelers in advance that “not one of you will be lost; only the ship will be destroyed” (v 22). Yet a few verses later he warned them, “Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved” (v. 31). Both are true. God knew in advance and had revealed to Paul that none would drown (v.23), But He also knew it would be through their free choice to stay on the ship that this would be accomplished.

Response to Tony Miano’s Article at Carm.org about Mark Cahill

Nov12

Response to Tony Miano’s Article at Carm.org on Mark Cahill (CALVINISM) – Kerrigan Skelly

The unchristian attack by Tony Miano against some innocent christian brothers was so nasty and hypocritical, so I’d like to take the opportunity to display the rebuttal/defense also here on my Blog. Also check the article here by Jesse Morell in the same matter.

I’d also like to warn others from the website http://www.carm.org where the article was found. The website contains lots of truths, but sadly mixed with heresy since the founder Matt Slick promotes calvinism here and there. Calvinism is based on TULIP and you can read more about what TULIP stands for here. TULIP maligns the character of God by directly or indirectly making him the author of sin. I write this warning because I love calvinists and I hope they will turn away from their gnostic teachings and find the one true God whose son died for ALL. We will never know how many people have been absorbed by carm.org and and lost their ways into the false doctrine of calvinism.

From pinpointevangelism:

The unbiblical TULIP (five points of calvinism) stands or falls together

Oct22

Calvinist theology is usually identified with the five points of Calvinism – TULIP, and this concept derived around the year 1619 due to the happenings in the famous Synod of Dort. John Calvin himself died 1564, so long before the “five points of calvinism” started to be used in this way. While not all calvinists necessarily agree with John Calvin to 100%, most of them (if not all) would agree with the five points of TULIP.

If a person chooses to believe in T in TULIP (Total Depravity) then he MUST believe in the rest of the points/letters in TULIP because TULIP stands or falls together. However, it is possible (and common) to believe only in P (which boils down to “unconditional eternal security” or “once saved always saved”) and not in the other points. There are some believers who still SAY they are 2-point/3-point/4-point calvinists but it’s not possible for obvious reasons. I can also say that I’ve encountered NO calvinists who are consistent with their own teachings. They all frequently express themselves as though man has free will to accept/reject God and that we all have an option to get saved, but this is not what their own theology allows.

The doctrines within Calvinism was originally introduced to church by Augustine (who the Roman Catholic Church views as one of their founding fathers) in the fourth century, and he taught that Christ did not die for all men but for a chosen few whom God had chosen and predestined to become His children. John Calvin revived this teaching and continued to spread this idea, and today this dangerous soul-damaging doctrine continues to spread and deceive people. This is why we must not be silent and let it spread in peace, because we are dealing with people’s SOULS here. TULIP is based on the gnostic idea that we are all born with a sinful nature, but do we get this nature according to God’s will or against his will? Calvinists will not tell us.

  • Total Depravity. Also called “total inability” . This doctrine asserts that every person born into the world is enslaved to  sin and not by nature inclined to seek or love God. (Whose fault is that?). This means, that in order to ENABLE people to seek and find God, God must first “wake him up” from his spiritual death (calvinists wrongly use the term “regenerate”). The ones God chooses to wake up are the same as those who will get saved. This doctrine results in that 1)  GOD is the one CHOOSING whom to wake up. 2) The ones he does not wake up have no chance to get saved which God is aware of 3) God does not want all to be saved because then he would have “woken up” more people 4) Most people will remain in their wicked sinful way of living only because God want them to, 4) It wouldn’t make sense for Jesus to die for people who God never intended to save, but for the elect only.
  • Unconditional election. This doctrine asserts that God has chosen from before the foundation of the world those whom he will save, and this choice is not based on anything the individual does or believes (not merit, faith, etc) because it’s unconditional. Rather, this doctrine means that God’s unconditional election causes individuals TO repent and believe in him, and further that the chosen ones WILL end up in the Kingdom of God. This doctrine results in that 1) God has WITHHELD mercy from all the rest and those individuals WILL end up in hell 2) Repentance and faith are not conditions for salvation since God WITHOUT them will choose to whom he will provide the means of repenting and believing, 3) God could save everyone if he wanted but he wanted to save only some, 4) It wouldn’t make sense for Jesus to die for people who God never intended to save.
  • Limited atonement. This doctrine asserts that Jesus’ only died for a few people (the elect) and his death was CERTAIN to bring about salvation for all those he died for. This  doctrine results in that 1) only the sins of the elect were covered through Jesus’ death and not the sins of the whole world, 2) God never had a goal to save “as many as possible” but only the elect, and that’s why the atonement was limited for the elect only, 3) Those who end up in hell do NOT do so for rejecting Jesus sin offering because his sin offering was never meant for them or intended for them. 4) Most individuals are born doomed (even if we can never know exactly who they are) since the atonement was never meant for them.
  • Irresistible grace. This doctrine asserts that God’s desire/decision to save individuals cannot be resisted, but WILL cause them to obey his calling. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual WILL be saved. The Holy Spirit causes the chosen individuals to cooperate,  repent and believe. This doctrine results in that 1) God chooses who will end up in heaven or hell and we have nothing to do with this choice, 2) It’s not totally fair to say that individuals are saved through “faith” since the truth is that they are saved by ELECTION, 3) Those who are lost were never offered any grace because IF they were offered grace they wouldn’t be able to reject it,4) It’s not fair to say that individuals end up in hell due to their SINS, since they are only doomed because God never enabled them to believe in him, and he never intended to save them in the first place. This choice was made BEFORE they were born and BEFORE they could think about sinning, so sinning has nothing to do with their destiny.
  • Perseverance of the saints. This doctrine asserts that the “saints” (those individuals who God has chosen to save before the foundation of the world) WILL continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return. This results in that 1) It’s impossible for an individual to at any time know if he is truly saved and “eternally secure” because if he falls away in the latter part of his life this shows “he was never saved to begin with”. 2) Individuals can safely place the responsibility to avoid sinning on GOD since HE is the one who are to “preserve” those he has chosen to save. 3) Christians might easier fall for temptations because they know they will be preserved to the end anyway, if they are among the elect (which all calvinists believe they are). 4) It can bring a false sense of security and that you can be saved in your sins.

P in TULIP is the most dangerous point since the TRUTH is that we cannot serve two masters and be saved in our sins – and Satan knows it. This doctrine might cause people to easier fall for temptations, and then their SOULS are at risk! This is a good reason to highlight the danger of Calvinism/Gnosticism to the world to prevent more people from being deceived.

When exposed to the contradictions within TULIP (which makes God the author of sin), the ordinary excuses are soon to follow:

1) God’s ways are higher than our ways!

2) Who are YOU to question GOD?

3) It’s impossible for our finite minds to fully understand the infinite mind of GOD!

4) This only seems contradictory to us – NOT to God!

5) The potter always forms the clay to what he wants!

6) I believe in paradoxes – so what? The trinity is a paradox…!

7) The Roman Catholic Church teaches like you do!

Any cult in the world can defend any contradiction at all by using the above excuses, resulting in that anything goes even if it’s totally against the Bible and makes no sense whatsoever.

NONE of the early church fathers taught against free will the first 300 years AD (this can easily be proven), and none of them taught that we are born with a sinful nature or that we are unconditionally eternally secure. ONLY the gnostics taught such unbiblical doctrines. Calvinists have no answer for why ALL the church fathers were “wrong” (and the gnostics actually RIGHT) for so many years until Augustine entered the scene and got it “right”. Most will say that it’s the Bible that is important for us and not the views of the church fathers, councils, etc. While it’s of course true that it’s the BIBLE that should correct us, they must still explain why both the Bible AND the early church fathers taught free will, and they must also explain why they put so much emphasis on the events in the Synod of Dort, and the unfair treatment of Pelagius in councils where he was not even present to defend himself. Suddenly councils are very important….

2 Tim. 4:2-3 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.

Was Pelagius really a heretic?

Aug18

The original blog article can be found here, and read my own blog article about Pelagius here

 

This is an excerpt from the footnotes of Jesse Morrell’s  upcoming book, “The Vicarious Atonement of Christ.”

Calvinists typically accuse the teachers of free will, like Charles Finney and John Wesley, of being “Pelagians.” However, this is fallacious on many levels, not only because it is used as an ad hominem attack, but also because it is a non sequitur. Just because Pelagius taught free will does not mean that everyone who believes in free will is a Pelagian. The same logic would make everyone who believes in the Trinity a Pelagian, because Pelagius taught that too. But the doctrine of free will was the universal doctrine of the Christian church, long before Pelagius even existed. On the doctrine of free will, Pelagius certainly was orthodox as he agreed with all of the Early Church Fathers before Augustine on that point. (See the article on the bottom of this post that proves this)

Calvinists also like to point out that, “Pelagianism has been condemned as heresy by councils all throughout Church history.” I always find it amazing when the so called “Reformed” and “Sola Scriptura” crowd will point to Catholic councils about Pelagius. They are not very reformed if they appeal to Rome, and they are not sola scriptura if they appeal to councils.

There were three councils that condemned Pelagianism; the Council of Ephesus in the year 431; the Council of Carthage in the year 418; and the Council of Orange in the year 529. This is because Pelagius was not invited nor present to defend himself but his opponents and adversaries stated his doctrine for him. When Pelagius was able to defend himself, the Council of Diospolis in 415 declared Pelagius orthodox. And Pope Zosimus also declared Pelagius’ orthodoxy in 417. He was always acquitted when present to clarify and defend his views. If these are our authorities to determine orthodoxy, do we accept the ones in favor of Pelagius or the ones against him?

In addition, the Council of Orange and the Council of Carthage were not ecumenical councils. They did not consist of Bishops from the entire church, which mean that the rulings of the Councils were not universally affirmed by the Eastern and Western churches.

If heresy is heresy because a council says so, or because of majority vote, Calvinism must be more heretical than Pelagianism was because there were more councils that condemned Calvinism than condemned Pelagianism. The Calvinist doctrines of predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace were condemned throughout history. Lucidus was condemned by the Council of Oral in 473, Council of Arles in 475, and Council of Orange in 529. And Gottschalk (Gotteschalcus) was condemned by the Council at Mentz in 848 and the Council of Chiersey (Quiercy) in 849. And what do Calvinists think of the Council of Constance in 1414 for John Huss, or the Council of Worms in 1521 for Martin Luther, or the Council of Trent in 1561 for the Protestants? Are these Councils not the voice of Orthodoxy as Ephesus and Carthage supposedly were?

In fact, the Council of Orange that condemned Pelagianism also condemned the doctrines of Calvinism. If the council is authoritative in the former case, it must be equally authoritative in the latter as well. But if it was mistaken in the latter case, maybe it was mistaken in the former as well.

On the other hand, the Synod of Philadelphia declared Albert Barnes as orthodox in 1829, after he presented his case for rejecting limited atonement, natural inability, and the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt to all his posterity. And Lyman Beecher was accused of heresy for his new school theology in 1835 but was acquitted by the Synod of Cincinatti. Though “New England Theology” or “New School Theology” was accused of being “Pelagian” by “Old School Calvinists,” it was nevertheless declared orthodox by Christian Synods.

And just so that nobody feels left out, the Synod of Dort condemned the doctrines of Arminianism in 1618-1619. Certainly the Arminian camp should not, therefore, give credibility to councils which determine orthodoxy by popular vote.

But to determine if Pelagius really was a heretic, we should go to his actual words to see what he taught. It is a common error for Calvinists to quote from Pelagius’ opponents and accusers to express what Pelagius taught, rather than to quote from Pelagius himself. Certainly, Calvinists would not like it if people quoted from the opponents of Reformed Theology to state what Calvinism teaches. We should give Pelagius the same honesty and fairness that we would want our doctrine to be treated with.

The idea of the DUAL NATURE is GNOSTIC in origin

Apr5

The idea of the dual nature was condemned in the first century as the Gnostic heresy.

To say that sin is inevitable is to attribute to Satan power he no longer has. The Bible teaches that the old man is dead.

Rom. 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Col. 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

2 Cor.  5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

If you are in Christ, the old man has passed away, and all things are new, and ALL THINGS ARE OF GOD. Temptation however does not cease, but even with the temptation we are given assurances by God that He will not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to withstand.

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

The enemy might lie to you and convince you that you cannot be free of his control. You have been taken captive to continue to obey his will.

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

The gnostics believed the flesh was inheritably evil, but the spirit was inheritably good. They taught that regardless what you did in the flesh, your spirit was not affected. They were going to whores, and getting drunken and claiming to be in good with God. To them their spirits were good and could not be corrupted by the flesh. That is what John was talking about in 1 John 2:19. People who sin and then justify it. Notice there are 4 places where John referred to lying or liars:

1) 1Jo 1:5 ¶ This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

2) 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.8 ¶ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

3) 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Here is the Gnostic heresy. They claim to walk with God but continue to walk in darkness by sinning. But then they claim to have no sin because of the dual nature. But by saying they have not sinned they make God out to be a liar. Why? Because he that says he knows God but does not keep His commandments is a liar.

1Jo 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 4 ¶ Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

This clearly says that anyone who is born of God does not sin any more. Anyone who sins is of the devil, and not of God. And it is not because of a dual nature. Verse 7 equates the righteousness of a believer to the Lord’s righteousness. “he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous”. The second he in that verse refers back to the Him in verses 5 and 6, which is Jesus. Did Jesus have an old man corrupting Him? As to the absolute necessity to cease from sin, the Bible says this:

Heb 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord

As to the ability to do this in this lifetime, (cease from sin), we have this passage in 1 Peter.

1Pe 4:1 ¶ Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; 2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. 3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

This says ceasing from sin happens in this life before death. Death is nothing more than a cop out for most people who refuse to take on the suffering necessary to cease from sin. Death while you are still in your sins will not suddenly fix you. It will send you to hell.

//Thanks to BRO COPE