QuakerInfo.com Forum

[servant]

Which manifestation of the omnipotence of God do you favor? I find that there is a majority of Quakers favoring Arminianism, but more a simple majority, with many on the side of predestination; and happily, it does not seem to be that divisive of a topic from what I observe in meetings- there isn't a great deal of interest in this on the level of "things which effect our eternal salvation".

Augustine first really articulated this idea, speaking of double predestination. The church (Roman) decided to only accept the idea of being predestined to salvation. Calvin followed the Roman church in this. It seems to me Augustine's position was more tenable- if you're going to accept that some are predestined to salvation, then it seems only logical that the rest be predestined to damnation.
_________________
abdul muhib

Life *is* the parable.

[brenda]

Hello servant

I was a Calvinist for a long time and really believed in it. However some things niggled at me and made me question it. I have found that it is very important to not brush such feelings under the carpet in whatever theology one is in because it is our discernment working and we ignore it to our peril. It is better to be in no man's land even with our questionings than to sweep them aside thinking that we will be in an unstable position.

What really began to break the system open for me was when I saw that predestination is not about salvation but about SERVICE. We are predestined to be CONFORMED to the image of the Son of God, and we choose ourselves how much we want to be conformed to Him. Some do not want to give up some of their sins and so cannot be conformed. Now I see that Calvinism can only survive through a selected number of scriptures and a twisting of what 'world' means.

Next I read Arminianism as I had accepted Wesley's view of holiness after my own experieces in this area. But I have moved away from Arminianism now and think that Pelegius was greatly misquoted and misunderstood. One of the ways I come to this conclusion is because of the dipute he had with Augustine on Romans 7. Augustine had to change his position when Pelegius showed him wrong but he went to the other side and missed the middle position which Pelegius held and which I do too. I also do not believe in original sin any more. I know that this conflicts with early Quaker belief and it is an area where I am still learning. I cannot understand why Barclay would think Pelegius a heretic if he interpreted Romans 7 the same way because this understanding involves seeing man as utterly lost in his sin, whereas misinterpretation has claimed Pelegius to say that man is not so.

I am open to be persuaded that I am wrong to disagree with Arminius.

Brenda

[Themis]

Dear Brenda,

Pelagius denied that the grace of God is needed and also spoke of a natural Light (see Barclay)... Has thee read Pelagius own works? Is thee sure thee wants to go on the same side with someone who is called a heretic by serious Christians such as Barclay? Quakers believe that we do not have the seed of sin until we unite with it by our personal sins. This is Scripture. Does thee know that most of them who hold unto original sin accuse Robert Barclay and Early Friends of denying it? The doctrine of original sin says that we have Adams sin as our own, Quakers say we are untied with it when we sin, it is not the same thing. If man and woman did not have a fallen nature then people would not sin and we would not have needed Christ. Scripture says as death came to all through Adam, salvation come to all through the new Adam. What leads to death is sin.

I find that Pelagius doctrine is a 100% opposite to what thee says about entire sanctification being by the grace of God and not by our own works when Pelagius said that we earn salvation without Christ which is opposite to the entire Bible.

Please consider this. Thanks!

Thy Brother,
Themis Papaioannou

P.S.: We don't need to be Calvinists, Pelagians, Arminians, etc. we just need to follow what Christ teaches. I would not unite myself with any of the above it is too risky, I will unite myself only with Christ Jesus.
_________________
Christ is our Lord, Saviour, and Friend. He is EVERYTHING!

[Themis]

Criticism of the doctrine of Absolute Destination.

In the Christian world there are tendencies that support and teach a
strange and in our opinion antichristian doctrine which they call
"Absolute Destination" or Predestination although the more suitable name
would be fatalism. What is Absolute Destination? The doctrine that says
that God decided before He created the world who will be
saved and who will be lost and that people do not have free will
in order to choose good from evil. They have the audacity
to claim that such a god is a god of love and justice. In order to support
this horrible doctrine they twist sections of Holy Scripture
which they take out of context.

There are various groups that support this doctrine though they have
differences in the way they express it. The partisans of Reconciliation
of all (Universalists) teach that God created Satan from the beginning
evil, that substantially God is the author of sin provided that
at perception of sin was in the will of God, and people do
not have will thus it makes him the author of sin because
God created it. Of course how a fair God will blame a person
for something that he Himself made him do they do not answer. It
seems good to mark here that the group in question believes and
teaches that all (even the Devil) will be saved in the end when they finish
the sentences, sentences however that are for sins that they did not have
the chance not to do and that he Himself their God made them do.
Second and biggest group are the followers of Calvin who deny that God created sin
and Satan evil but accept that God chose from the very beginning who will be saved
and that this does not change.Their god in deed intended that some of his creatures
before even he created them go to eternal hell.


From start I would like to clear that we should not fall also in the other
direction, that of Pelagius (355-425 after Christ.) who taught that man is
saved by his personal efforts and without the help of Divine Grace
(Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p 1040). Man when separated from
God because of sin fell and does not have a natural light or no natural
possibility of being saved without God. For this reason we need Divine Grace, the Light of
Christ, in order to reconcile sinful man with God. Nevertheless the infants do not
have the seed of sin until they are linked with it by personal sins. We are all by
nature children of wrath (Eph.2:3-5).


God does not want the death of the sinner "Because, I do not want the death
of the deceasing, says the Lord God return and live" (Ezek.18:32) and "Said He to them I live,
says the Lord God, I do not want the death of the sinner,but I want the disrespectful to return
from his road and live...." (Ezek.33:11). God wants all the people to be saved with the condition they
return to Him. This should be the way we understand 1 Tim.2:4. If God decided before
the creation of the world who will be saved or if man does not have free will in order to
decide why would God say, "return, return from your roads." (Ezek.33:11). Who to return, those that
cannot? Lets be serious!

God gave His only Son in order to save each one that believes in Him (John 3:16). Christ is the genuine Light that
enlightens each person (John 1:9) and makes obvious everything that comes in the Light (John.3:20-21).

Predestination & Sin:

This is what absolute destination or predestination teaches:

Calvin: "I say that it was by the ordination and will of God that Adam fell. God wanted man to fall. Man is blinded by the will and command of God, and we refer the causes of our hardening to God."

Beza: "God has predestined whomever he saw fit, not only to damnation, but also to the causes of it". "The decree of God cannot be excluded from the cause of corruption."

Zanchious: "It is certain that God is the first cause of obduration. Reprobates are held so fast under God's almighty decree, that they can do nothing but sin and perish."

Martyr: "God inclines and forces the wills of wicked men into great sins."

Zwingli: "God moves the robber to kill. He kills because God forces him to. But, you will say, then he is forced to sin; I permit truly that he is forced."

Piscator: "Reprobate persons are absolutely ordained to sin...to undergo everlasting punishment..."

These quotations not only make God the author of sin but more unjust than the most unjust of men. This wicked doctrine was not heard of in the Christian Church for the first 400 years !!!!!!!
(see for references to the quotations:
Barclay's Apology in Modern English, edited by Dean Freiday, The Barclay Press, p.75-76)

Jacob & Esau (Rom. 9:10).

"And Jacob is called a supplanter, and Esau, a worker; is he not? And do you think he did not work hard, and willed hard, and ran hard, when he went hunting, and so lost the blessing? But Jacob tarried at home with his mother. Without any willing, or running, or working, he got the blessing. So the election is not of him who runs or wills, but of grace"
(George Fox and the Bible, by Arthur Berk, pp.2-3).

The question is if God created Esau bad for His purpose, if Esau had or not a free will. In truth God did not create Esau bad and God gave Esau free will. The thing is that Esau had bad judgement. God who is out of time knew this. So God "hated" the bad judgement of Esau but not Esau himself something you will understand if you read the complete story. God had promised to Esau's mother that Esau would become a nation too and yes, a nation did indeed come from him. Do you really think that God did not know what would happen before it did? He knew of course! It is like when I see a movie I tape it and show it to my friends they see it but don't know what will happen I do know because I have seen it. I know what the people in the movie did but I was not the cause for what they did.

In Christ the LORD,
Themis Papaioannou
_________________
Christ is our Lord, Saviour, and Friend. He is EVERYTHING!

[brenda]

Dear Themis

Yes I certainly agree with early Quakers in Quakers believe that we do not have the seed of sin until we unite with it by our personal sins. I agree that we are born innocent but very quickly become sinners and lost and in need of the grace of God otherwise we are lost for eternity, and that it is only through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ that we can be saved form sin and not through our own efforts, by Him imparting His righteousness to us when we are willing to be totally conformed to His will. So yes death comes to all men and none escape this.

But I think that Pelegius taught this because of how he interpreted Romans 7, the seed bed of all theology and if we are wrong on this chapter then we are on a path of darkness. I agree that we are to follow Christ and not man, but we do need to understand the main differences in theology to reach others in their errors. I agree that Arminius was wrong but Pelegius has been greatly misinterpreted and discredited through the hatred from Augustine. His works are still not interpreted yet from Latin and so are out of reach for me, but the works which were interpreted have been altered I think. Below is some of the discussion I had on an Arminian board explaining why I think Pelegius in misunderstood. I do not think he said that we can be holy without grace but only that we can use our free will to do good because Augustine was saying that we cannot do any good at all.


"The two interpretations of Romans 7 which have dominated church history are the Primitive one and the Post-Primitive. Augustine held to the Primitive in his early years but, and this is fascinating, HE CHANGED HIS POSITION LATER. The reason that he changed his position was through his heated discussions with Pelagius. I am interested in this debate. The thing is that there are two interpretations widely held since Augustine but the third has been rejected (because it says that sinlessness is possible) This was the opposite of the view held by Augustine and widely held by the church until he changed to the new third way. There can only be three interpretations of Romans7 and which one we accept shows our whole attitude and position about this important doctrine of entire sanctification.

The Primitive view according to the writer of this site, and which I think is wrong, and which is widely held today, is that Romans 7 describes the salvation experience and Paul is writing as an unregenerate soul. Augustine said

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is understood that man is here described who was never under grace


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Homilies.


This is the view which the writer says that Augustine held until Pelagius challenged him over his view that man is totally depraved.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in his argument, Pelagius referred to the passage under consideration, saying that this was a palpable case in which, by the universal assent of the church, the state and character of the unregenerate man is described. He then asked, if approving the right, and hating the the wrong, and 'delighting in the law of God' did not imply that there was something good even in such a man? Augustine could not deny the fact, the case being so palable, of the universal agreement of the church in the deduction that it was the unregenerate man referred to in the passage; nor did he perceive how, admitting the correctness of the universally received exposition, he could meet the argument of his opponent. Under such perplexity, Augustine denied the validity of his own and the universal, and adopted the few and before, unheard of, exposition, a most needlaess resort and a most calamitous one for the spiritual good of the church


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The whole point of what I am trying to say is that Augustine DID NOT MOVE TO PELAGIUS' VIEW. Why? Because:-

Pelagius taught that man could stop sinning and this was the point of the debate. Pelagius was trying to show Augustine that Romans 7 was not the so called Primitive view but the Apostolic view.. Augustine realised his first view was untenable that Paul described the unregenerate but the second view was untenable for Augustine because it says that man CAN stop sinning.

Pelagius taught the Apostolic view which is that Paul is speaking about the Christian in Romans 7 BUT NOT WHAT SHOULD BE HIS NORMAL CONDITION. Those who do not accept the view that it is a Christian speaking point to the fact that there is no mention of grace or of the work of the Holy Spirit in the chapter. But this is not because there is no Holy Spirit or grace. Far from it. THe opposite is true actually. BUT THE PERSON DESCRIBING THE EVENT IS NOT AWARE OF IT. It seems as though God has deserted actually, as the person comes to an extreme point because GOD HAS CONVICTED HIM OF HIS SINFULNESS. Paul is discussing experience here not doctrine. He came to a point of time when he saw himself as God saw him as he sought righteousness through the works of the law. And all Christians seek to do this unless they adopt Augustines position and excuse their sin.

The reason why the Primitive view is wrong IMO is due to misunderstanding of the early writers teachings in saying that Romans 7 is the unregenerate person. They meant by an unregenerate person A BELIEVER WHO HAD NOT COME TO THE SANCTIFICATION EXPERIENCE which was what Wesley meant by the 'Almost Christian' In the Bible, salvation sanctification and justification are all one event but describing the differing aspects of it. This means that one is not really saved until they are entirely sanctified. Jesus came to save us FROM our sins and until this is done, then we are still in them and not saved even though we have been given 'The power to BECOME the son's of God' as a possibility but not yet an actuality until the provision of sanctification through the cross, is appropriated by man and he is delivered from not just the penalty from sin but also the power and the presence.


To say that Romans 7 cannot be the experience of a true Christian only means that the person HAS NOT EXPERIENCED IT THEMSELVES. Many saints have and this is why they say along with Pelagius and Wesley and George Fox and myself, that this is the experience of the Christian, under the hand of God, being shown the utter utter inability of man to be righteous by obeying His law whilst still in the flesh. The crisis experience described by Paul, has to be gone through in order to come out in Romans 8, walking in the Spirit and pleasing God at last.

This Apostolic view has been rejected by most of the church through the ages and the reason why Pelagius has had such treatment. By his dispute with Augustine and his understanding of Romans 7, it is my contention that he did NOT teach that the Christian could stop sinning on his own accord. Far from it. It needed the divine interaction of God to bring about the change (entire sanctification) needed to get Paul from Romans7 to Romans 8 and Pelagius must have seen this. What he did teach and I agree with him that man is not born with Adam's sin."

Well Themis, I will now read carefully what Barclay had to say about Pelegius. I only wish I had stuck in with my Latin at school!

blessings Brother
Brenda

[Themis]

Dear Brenda,

Here are some pages on what Barclay said (Barclay was a Theologian he knew Latin but if thou art right about Pelagius he might have been missinformed from what others said Pelagius wrote). If Barclay and Pelagius agree then Barclay did not study Pelagius himself but just took for granted what others said.

Pages:

67, 170 (Pelagius is mentioned mainly on page 67)

The above are from "Barclay's Apology in Modern English" edited by Dean Freiday (The Barclay Press, 1991).

Read with caution. Licia Kuenning who published the original text says that Freiday did not translate everything correctly ( see http://www.qhpress.org/texts/barclay/apology/appendix.html ).

In Christ,
Themis Papaioannou
_________________
Christ is our Lord, Saviour, and Friend. He is EVERYTHING!

[BillSamuel]

I find there are many passages in scripture which clearly seem to support predestination, and also many which seem to clearly support free will. Even though I haven't figured it out (and haven't seen any explanation by others that is fully convincing), I presume these passages are not in contradiction but that the Truth somehow embraces both.

I am inclined to think all theologies about this subject have notional aspects in them. I have become content to accept that there are mysteries I haven't (and perhaps can't, in this life) grasped, and seek to live faithfully day by day in Christ.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Co-Coordinator, Friends in Christ

[brenda]

Thanks for that Themis. I suspect that Barclay did not have the time to read the original writings of all those whom he mentioned and quoted. Just to try to make things clearer

THE TWO UNDERSTANDINGS OF SANCTIFICATION BEFORE AUGUSTINE FROM ROMANS 7

One)Paul is describing his conversion from the Jewish religion (Augustine held this)

Two)Paul is describing the time when he was convicted by his remaining sin and as he came to entire sanctification ie walking the Christian life in the flesh and then coming into the state where he could walk in the Spirit (this is the view that Pelegius held in fact in must be so because he was disputing with Augustine on the chapter and there were only two views held then)

Augustine could not hold to his position as Pelegius argued his case so well and so Augustine decided then that Romans 7 is the NORMAL state of the Christian that they will not be able to stop sinning in this life. It was a new way at that time and an interpretation mainly held by the Reformed church since. View Two is only held by those who accept the doctrine of entire sanctification and I believe the early Quakers including Barclay held this view.

Brenda

[brenda]

In case anyone missed out the bit where Pelegius caught Augustine which I think was extremely clever and made Augustine retract his view, was on the point that Augustine said that man is totally depraved. Pelegius believed that man was not toally depraved but could will and then carry out good as in the way it can be witnessed amongst the unsaved. He did not mean that man could be sin free if he wanted just that man could do good works if he wanted.

Pelegius pointed to Paul saying that he willed to do good. If Paul was an unregenerate according to Augustine, then he could not will to do good. Augustine was in a corner and refused to move from total depravity and so found a way to enter heaven with sin ie by saying that Romans 7 is the regenerate state and all that can be expected.

I challenge anyone here who says man is totally depraved to answer Pelegius too.

Brenda

[Themis]

Man is not a 100% depraved, if he was he would be a 100% lost. Christ sends His Light to every person (John 1:9). The Light is from Christ not human nature.

In Christ,
Themis Papaioannou
_________________
Christ is our Lord, Saviour, and Friend. He is EVERYTHING!

[brenda]

Yes that's good Themis, it proves Fox right that there is a light in all men which Augustine would deny. So man CAN be totally depraved but still do good through the light though still not saved.

Brenda

[servant]

[brenda]

Dear servant

Is this another one where you are just going to say you got it from a seminary and not give any references?

blessings
Brenda

[cerewa]

"I presume these passages [ones apparently supporting predestination and, others, free will] are not in contradiction but that the Truth somehow embraces both. "

i agree with you on this one, bill.

[Keith Maddison]

I realse the thread is years old but I have just joined the Forum, and as supporter of Pelagius I felt I most say something, first all to Servant, Pelagius was not condemed by the whole Church, only the North African Church at the Council of Carthage in 411, he was cleared of Heresy by the Councils of Jerusalem and Diospolis, later he was condemed by the whole of the Western Chruch in 418, but Western Church is not the whole church. Since when have Quakers talken any notice of Church councils? They were a meetings of rich and extreamly powerful bishops they were not like Quaker Yearly meetings. Yes I have read Pelagius and I have also read Barclay who in the eyes of the Western Chruch is also a heritic. I find little to disagree with Barclay but I do with what he says about Pelagius. It is very possible that he had not read the man as his works have only really become available in the last few years. While I do respect Barclay he was like the rest of us only a man, and I doubt if he would want his words taken as some holy scripture. Anyway just like Brenda, to me Barclay seems to saying them same thing as Pelagius on the one hand and condeming as hertic on the other.
_________________
Don't follow leaders and watch the parking meters, the pumps don't work because the vandals took the handles.
Keith