Running Into Some Pelegians And Holiness/pentecostal Types

[JerryNumbers]

Ask them to name one person outside of Jesus Christ that remained sinless. If they can't then their whole argument is moot.

 

If you ask the Catholics that question they would say at least these two, Mary the mother of Jesus & Job.

[JerryNumbers]

I must have missed it, but what is a peligian? Never heard of that before. For that matter, I thought I understood charismatics, is holiness a different denomination or off shoot of charismatics?

 

I'm 66 going on 67 & I did not hear about it till a few months back. On the internet I believe we hear about everything, & even something that are not! 

[TheSword]

I must have missed it, but what is a peligian? Never heard of that before. For that matter, I thought I understood charismatics, is holiness a different denomination or off shoot of charismatics?

 

Pelagius was a monk who lived in the late 4th-early 5th century that opposed the idea of predestination and argued vehemently with its main proponent (Augustine). He taught the absolute free will of man and that people could actually live a perfect and sinless life and get to heaven without Jesus. Pelagians are those who who follow his line of thought and argue for absolute free will. Arminianism (of which Methodism is a strand) is an expression of this kind of theology.

[John81]

Pelagius was a monk who lived in the late 4th-early 5th century that opposed the idea of predestination and argued vehemently with its main proponent (Augustine). He taught the absolute free will of man and that people could actually live a perfect and sinless life and get to heaven without Jesus. Pelagians are those who who follow his line of thought and argue for absolute free will. Arminianism (of which Methodism is a strand) is an expression of this kind of theology.

Does this also include the Nazarenes? Years ago somebody put my name on a Nazarene magazine list so I received their magazine for a year. Each issue had articles about living in holy perfection.

 

We are called to pursue holiness, as Scripture says, be ye holy, for I am holy, but this is a lifetime pursuit of learning to continually and more and more surrender fully to Christ, walking in the Spirit, not the flesh. Holiness is a target we are to aim for even though we know we will never attain perfect holiness in this life.

 

The idea we can walk in perfect holiness in this life isn't biblical.

[TheSword]

Does this also include the Nazarenes? Years ago somebody put my name on a Nazarene magazine list so I received their magazine for a year. Each issue had articles about living in holy perfection.

 

We are called to pursue holiness, as Scripture says, be ye holy, for I am holy, but this is a lifetime pursuit of learning to continually and more and more surrender fully to Christ, walking in the Spirit, not the flesh. Holiness is a target we are to aim for even though we know we will never attain perfect holiness in this life.

 

The idea we can walk in perfect holiness in this life isn't biblical.

 

I don't know a ton about the Nazarenes, but what I do recall is that they're some odd mixture of Methodism and Pentacostalism. It's definitely part of the holiness movement but accepts a modified concept of original and personal sin. I just did a quick scan of their articles of faith and it really seems to be a hodge podge of several strands of theology. It makes their overall belief structure a little confusing.  I think they definitely have a distinct bent toward Arminianism and Methodism, so I guess that puts them somewhere the semi-Pelagian spectrum.

[John81]

I don't know a ton about the Nazarenes, but what I do recall is that they're some odd mixture of Methodism and Pentacostalism. It's definitely part of the holiness movement but accepts a modified concept of original and personal sin. I just did a quick scan of their articles of faith and it really seems to be a hodge podge of several strands of theology. It makes their overall belief structure a little confusing.  I think they definitely have a distinct bent toward Arminianism and Methodism, so I guess that puts them somewhere the semi-Pelagian spectrum.

Thank you. I've only known a few Nazarenes and most of them was when I was a child. The few adults I knew who were Nazarenes seemed a bit odd but looking back I don't recall why I thought that.

 

I do know that Nazarene magazine I received for about a year was always pushing perfect holiness. That was 20 some years ago so I don't remember any details.

 

I know there are many strains of Methodists. I know some who seem more Pentacostal, some (very few these days from what I can tell) who lean more towards the Baptists, and those who seem to be worldly Christians, among those are the ones who think they are trying to live right for God but have no idea of biblical salvation.

[Left the Bldg]

Generally, when the Gospel is being discussed among Christians it means the message of salvation. When Christians spread the Gospel, they are spreading the message of salvation.

Which is the meat and core throughout the whole Bible starting from Genesis to Revelation.  

[Miss Daisy]

Thank you for an easy explanation!

[heartstrings]

Looking at Wayne's post where he references 1 John 3 and Romans 3, arguing that people sin under the Law, but that they which are born of God don't sin.

While the two verses state that, Scripture reveals that Paul was saved and found himself doing evil though he did not want to (Rom 7:18)

Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Many would argue that Paul is speaking of his life prior to Salvation in the verse above.  I disagree.  Paul said, "That I do" (present tense)  He did not say "That I did."

The Apostle John also stated that sinning is possible after Salvation.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

It is clear that when one rightly divides the Word of Truth, one will see that because of our flesh nature, we are tempted to, and do, sin.


 

A lost person only has one nature; the "sin nature", "the flesh", the "old man". But a child of God has two(2) natures; the sin nature and the new nature or "new man". The old nature can and still does sin, but the "new nature", which is born of the Spirit, cannot.  The problem is, most of the time, we don't walk in the Spirit. So, yes, you and I can and do sin but that new nature, which also lives inside those who are born of the Spirit, cannot sin.

[swathdiver]

Nazarene church teaches works salvation.  If you don't maintain fellowship with God, you can lose your salvation and have to earn it back.  

 

I imagine it can be exhausting for Christ and the hapless nazarene, Jesus on the cross many times a day and them being born again many times a day.

[John81]

Nazarene church teaches works salvation.  If you don't maintain fellowship with God, you can lose your salvation and have to earn it back.  

 

I imagine it can be exhausting for Christ and the hapless nazarene, Jesus on the cross many times a day and them being born again many times a day.

It seems many churches teach something like this. I was taught in Methodist Sunday school that the only way to heaven was to be "good enough", which meant one need to be "good" all the time, otherwise you might risk going to hell if you happened to die while in a state of not being good enough. That thought haunted me until I finally heard the true Gospel right after I turned 18.

[JerryNumbers]

Nazarene church teaches works salvation.  If you don't maintain fellowship with God, you can lose your salvation and have to earn it back.  

 

I imagine it can be exhausting for Christ and the hapless nazarene, Jesus on the cross many times a day and them being born again many times a day.

 

Yes, they hold to some of the church of Christ teachings. I believe there's several off shoots from the coC.

[2T3:16]

659f1c6db3b9f0f9bfbc43504d70daae

[Dr James Ach]

Pelagianism is normally a person that does not believe that we are born with a sin nature. But there's a lot more to Pelagianism than just that aspect of his teaching, so what most Calvinists do is refer to the Arminians that hold to this position as "semi" Pelagians.

 

Pelagianism is somewhat right, but we ARE born with a sin nature in that it is inherited from Adam. That much can not possibly be disputed according to 1 Cor 15 and Romans 5. I've seen the proof texts used to support semi-pelagianism, and how they misinterpret verses out of Psalm 139 and Psalm 58:3, Psalm 51:5, and it doesn't hold water.

 

The proper view of our sin nature, is that while we are born with it, we are not held accountable for it. "Blessed is the man whom the Lord does not impute sin". We are born under the curse of the law as a result of Adam's sin, but when we are aware of our sin nature after taking our first "bite of the fruit" so-to-speak, and our conscience is aware of our sin, we are then held accountable. So it is not that we are not born with sin, we are just not judged by it until we are not only able to know its evil and its remedy, and the ability to choose to continue in sin with the understanding that it is sinful (whether by instruction of the law or by conscience-Romans 2:14-16), and the ability to reject the Remedy.

 

This position is in between Pelagianism and Total Inability, but as usual, it is normally always a third option that is ignored by "scholars" and theologians so that liberal Christendom can force believers into categories (Pelagian or Augustine, Erasmus or Luther, Calvin or Arminius, etc..). It's a system of classification based on a false dichotomy. In other words, if you can convince the masses that there are only 2 options, you force them to choose one by conviction, or the other by default, and if you choose based on the belief that option A or B are the only available options, you will miss option C which is usually the right option.

 

As far as Nazarenes and Pentacostals, they have a very odd dilemma: The Nazarene believes in a "second blessing" which is an additional filling of the Holy Ghost subsequent to salvation. This filling takes over and prevents you from sinning. Dan Corner teaches that Christians are not sinners anymore (which is only a half truth. We are not sinners in the NOUN sense of the word, but still sin in the VERB sense-1 Cor 6:11 'and such WERE some of you.."). The conundrum in this is that they believe you can lose your salvation. Well common sense tells you that if you got a second blessing and are no longer a sinner THEN HOW COULD YOU EVER BACKSLIDE?? Since you have to backslide to lose your salvation, if you can't backslide, then you can't lose your salvation.

 

This is actually also no different than the Calvinist perseverance of the saints which holds that God causes you to persevere in your salvation. But, perseverance is still a functional element of the Calvinist's  compatibilistic system of soteriology, so while they claim salvation is an irresistible act of God, they become libertarian freedom followers after salvation. Perseverance of the saints and eternal security are NOT the same thing. In POS, even if God is the one causing your perseverance, it is still nonetheless a system of works by which you are saved. Eternal Security holds that salvation and its maintenance belong to God based upon a judicial act (justification) whereby we are declared righteous and pardoned which can then not be affected by our future works, and that sanctification is a process whereby we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ. We are set apart at salvation (Romans 6:11-18), set apart by putting on Christ and dying daily (2 Cor 3:18, Col 3:10, Phil 3:12, 1 Cor 15:31), and then we will be like Christ completely after the rapture (2 Cor 5:6-8, 1 John 3:2, Phil 3:21).

Most Arminians deny "progressive sanctification" which is why they don't believe in eternal security. They see sanctification as a one time setting- apart at salvation (whenever that may have occurred). Whereas the Calvinist will simply affirm that if a person backslides he was never one of God's elect in the first place. But to make the Arminian system work, they have to find an explanation to refute the Calvinists total inability that defines depravity, so instead of understanding the Biblical definitions of sin, accountability and imputation, they simply write off the inherent sin nature altogether and deny all of the implications that prove that babies can lie and be deceitful because it is in their nature to do so. Ephesians 2 also says that we were CHILDREN of wrath before we were saved, not ADULTS of wrath.

 

There's quite a bit more to this, but I hope I have summed it up enough

[Dr James Ach]

8c21568183063bd6e78c06e3e1362a5c