My Photo
Location: MInneapolis, Minnesota, United States

I am now a simple Grandpa who's life is made richer as each grandchild is born. My wife and I have raised five children and the 30 year love labor of raising them has begun to yield sweet fruit..... And then there are fruits of 30 years in ministry ... I am a satisfied old man full of the joy of the Lord.

Thursday, March 09, 2006



Pelagianism derives its name from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome, though he was British by birth. It is a heresy dealing with the nature of man. Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God. He denied original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him.
Pelagianism fails to understand man's nature and weakness. We are by nature sinners (Eph. 2:3; Psalm 51:5). We all have sinned because sin entered the world through Adam: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12, NIV). Therefore, we are unable to do God's will (Rom. 6:16; 7:14). We were affected by the fall of Adam, contrary to what Pelagius taught.
Pelagius was condemned by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus and excommunicated in 417 A.D. by Pope Innocent I.


Anonymous Tiberius Gracchus said...

No wonder I scored so high on this guy's teachings; I was raised LDS. ;)

Thanks for posting this stuff; it's fascinating.

4:18 PM, March 10, 2006  
Anonymous Quistian said...

Hey, gotta a question for you. What if we *are* robots? It's God's prerogative. Actually, 2Peter3.9 reflects Reformed Theology more than you would probably imagine. A more literal (yet more accurate... wink, wink) translation is: "The Lord is not slow by the promise, as some consider slowness, yet long-suffers unto you(pl.), not wanting some to be annihilated yet all to make-way unto repentance." So, I'm not super-studied on Reformed Theology but I am quite studied on Linguistics. Furthermore, I've heard it said that everyone starts out Pelagian. And I think this is true with insight. Then a person gets saved, whether it be the transforming of the mind or what-have-you. And so, choice? There is real choice yet a couple things to say about it. First God has first choice, *and* his will is truely free. Being that his is over ours, our parameters are overruled regardless. Second, there's nothing wrong with being a pawn in the plan, as far as plans go. Moses gave the 10 C's and said it's not out of your reach. Then we see that no one could or *would* follow all of them. Then we see in the NT that the law was given for purpose: to show that sin is utterly sinful. What I wonder about in this point of the space/time continuum (okay: *my* space/time continuum) is *what* was not out of reach? The how or the what. The observance? The trust to observe? Merely the hearing? So third, is there real ability? choose. And 'D', ... sorry my humor is stretching as it gets late... finally 'D': TULIP is very misunderstood. I misunderstood it for the longest time. A good part of that problem is, though, the unclear terms and scope of the way it's explained and the way it's taken out of contextual history. All that said... Long live Brother Jedd.

1:33 AM, March 11, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correcting myself.

I gave a translation of the Bible:
"...not wanting some to be annihilated yet all to make-way unto repentance."

It might be better translated as follows:
"...not wanting ANY to be obliterated, yet all to make-way..."

The point would still hold in Reformed view that God does not WANT, in this situation, whereas he WILLS and/or PLANS otherwise. Consider, especially vis-a-vis Nestorianism, that Jesus may have "wanted" (per se) the cup to pass from him, but he may have "willed" to do the "plan" of the Father.
Sorry, please forgive my absent diligence. Yet this, as an addendum, makes for a stronger arguement.

6:18 AM, April 12, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home