The following is an unedited comment section exchange
between myself and the Pelagian Open Theist Jesse Morrell in regards to my refutation
of his film "Beyond Augustine." Normally I wouldn't post stuff like
this but it is highly instructive insofar as the inability of the Pelagian to
be honest with history is concerned. Morrell is "biblicaltheology"
and at the end I guess he switched to his other account
"OpenAirOutreach." Before reading take note of Abraham Kuyper's model
of noetic effects of sin (how sin affects the mind); especially concerning
history:
bibletheology 4 hours ago
Why did you completely ignore the quotes from Ireneaus, Eusebius, and Methodist on free will. Even John Calvin himself admitted that the Early Church Fathers taught free will. Augustine himself taught free will at first and wrote a book on it. Your presentation of Church history is deceptive and misleading.
keith thompson 3 hours ago
I interacted with Irenaeus in the 3rd section and made it clear some fathers affirmed a sense of free will but that doesn't mean they denied original sin. I never argued Augustine didn't at first write a book on free will. But his later view of grace, and his denial of free will, were not based on Manicheasm as I argued. Please watch whole presentation and see article for sources. The fact is your main premise is wrong - this doctrine is pre-Augustine.
· in reply to bibletheology (Show the comment)
And as for Calvin, I will address his comments on the
fathers in part 2 of the reply. I will
also show the doctrine of predestination in the pre-Augustine fathers to show
that that didn't come from Gnosticism either. You should not be so careless
since this stuff is available for you to find.
Lastly, why did you delete my comments off your video where I talk about how
you quoted forgeries attributed to church fathers and that those fathers'
actual writings affirm man's
fallenness and need for enabling grace? Are you afraid people will know truth?
Are you for error?
Since the early church fathers did teach "a sense of
free will" they automatically denied the Augustinian doctrine of original
sin. Original sin, in Augustine's doctrine, completely lost man's free will. To
affirm free will in any sense therefore denies Augustine's doctrine. And some
of the
Fathers, like Origen, taught that men were born sinners because he held to the
preexistence of the soul. He said we sinned in a previous world. That is far
from Augustinian original sin of Adam.
Not concerned with Origen or Origenists. Was Tertullian an
Origenist? He affirmed
human freedom, as you quoted him, but elsewhere affirmed we contract sin and
sin because of Adam, the very teachings you allege Augustine introduced from
Gnosticism. So you're wrong. Many in the east
who were not Origenists affirmed men's nature's are wounded/inflicted due to
Adam while maintaining freedom. I quote Kelly on that. Others as I showed
denied man's natural ability explicitly affirming original sin.
· in reply to bibletheology
(Show the comment)
Tertullian view was not the same as Augustine, as Tertullian
taught that the soul was physical or material. Tertullian taught that death was
the result of Adam's sin, which is no doubt true, but said absolutely nothing
about imputation as Dr. Wiggers
and others pointed out. He agreed with Augustine in the idea that we existed
and sinned in Adam (which logically would make us guilty of all the sins of all
our ancestors) but denied Augustinian original sin by affirming free will
Also, my documentary was about free will and only touched on original sin as it relates to free
will. Tertullian clearly and explicitly taught free will, as your own quote
from Schaff admitted.
Your film clearly claimed original sin was Gnosticism
introduced by Augustine and that before Augustine everyone affirmed natural
ability and denied Gnostic original sin. That's wrong as I proved so don't try
to now change what your film stated. As for Tertullian, yes Schaff says he
maintained freedom, but also
emphasized the hereditary sin and hereditary guilt of man which you argued
Augustine brought in from Gnosticism, that's the point you're not getting. I
even quote Tertullian on that.
Also, there are some in modern times who question the
authenticity of Recognitions by Clement, but there is not universal agreement.
This seems to be a modern debate. There are those who hold to their
authenticity today. They were believed to be authentic throughout history..
Even Origen quoted from them in commentary in Genesis. So the Early Church, atleast
Origen, thought them authentic.
Consensus is Recognitions and Homilies are forth century and
rest on common source from the 3rd century called "Grundschrift." No
scholars, I repeat NO SCHOLARS say the Recognitions in the form we possess from
Rufinus goes back to Clement himself. Name one and quote him. The earlychurch did not
accept it and Origen didn't have access to the form we have today. He quoted
from something which later found its way into the Recognitions which form we
possess today comes from 360-380 long after Origen
The reason why
what you quoted in the Recognitions can't be from Clement is the
pseudo-Clementine literature which was in use by the earlychurch was revised,
abridged and translated to Latin by Rufinus, which is what we have. So you're
not quoting from the original Greek psuedo-clementine literate early church
writers did, you're quoting from a Latin translation of the Greek which was
changed/revised i.e., corrupted. That's why no scholar would say what you quote
in the film goes back to Clement
There is debate over the longer version of Ignatius'
writings. There is not universal agreement amongst modern scholars.. One source
says, "the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the
letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As
an intimate
friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr's death, bears contemporaneous witness to the
authenticity of these letters".
Man you are a deceiver, you claim there is not universal
agreement about the longer versions being forgeries? Yes there is! The quote
you gave to try to prove some believe they're authentic isn't even talking
about the long versions! The quote about Polycarp accepting the authenticity of
Ignatius material is not about the longer versions you quoted. That Catholic
Encyclopedia is saying Polycarp attests to
the 7 authentic letters, not the longer versions of them. Learn to read!
In fact, I quote from his letter to Magnesians, which is one
of the seven considered to be
authentic. It is not part of the nine letters which is considered by some as
pseudo-Ignatius. ... But, even if your false assumption is true, that they are
forgeries, what do you expect of me? Calvinism says no man can stop sinning or
be perfect. You can't expect honest. I have to sin every day. And I have no free
will. God made me post the video and He, by His sovereign decree, is keeping it
online.
You quoted from the "long" version of the letter
of the Magnesians. The longer
parts are forged. The short version is the original. So don't try to deceive
and smoke screen by saying the short version of the Magnesians is not part of
the inauthentic letters, I already know that. That's a red herring. Doesn't
matter.
Augustine's doctrine of original sin, which he brought in
from Gnosticism, was that man had a ruined nature without free will. This Augustinian doctrine of
original sin is contradicted by all of the Early Church and was not taught by
any of them. It was Gnostic in origin.
I already proved Manichaesm didn't believe man had a ruined
nature as you allege. They said
man's nature/soul was divine and good (Schaff, Karfíková), but that only his
flesh was wicked since matter is bad. And Manichaens didn't say grace was
necessary to obey like Augustine did (Karfíková), so stop crediting them with
his teachings you deceiver! I proved this from the serious scholars!
In Julian of Eclanum's statement of faith, which he
submitted to Pope Zosimus, he explicitly
denied the transmission of sin. Yet the Pope declared his statement of faith to
be orthodox. This, as Dr. Wiggers pointed out, proves that Augustine's doctrine
of original sin was not yet taught or believed in the church, as Keit here
tries to claim.
·
Wiggers was
unreliable for bringing up Zosimus, and I think you meant that at first Zosimus
declared Pelagius' confession Orthodox. That doesn't prove original sin wasn't
in the church before that, it proves Pelagius deceived him. Zosimus even
reversed his initial position and ended up condemning Pelagius anyway. Plus in
411 a synod in Carthage condemned Caelestius, before Zosimus was Pope. So
claiming original sin wasn't in the church before his papacy is error (see also
Cyprian, Ignatius etal)
And I find it funny you deleted all my comments off your
video, yet you continue with your error-ridden comments on my video. Don't you find that a bit
disingenuous and hypocritical?
Since Caelestius was declared orthodox by Zosimus, Wiggers
noted “This is very remarkable, as we may hence condlude, that the doctrine of
original sin and of its remission by infant baptism, which Caelestius
explicitly rejected in his
confession of faith, did not yet belong to the Romanish system of doctrine.”
Wiggers is one of the best authorities on this topic. And I did not mean Julian. Nor did
I mean Pelagius. I meant Caelestius. Pelagius was declared orthodox at the
councel of Diospolis, not because he lied, but because Augustine lied about
what Pelagius taught. Pelagius was always acquitted when he was present to
defend himself.
Zosimus also accepted Pelagius's confession too - but then condemed both him and
Caelestius later. But Wiggers is wrong for claiming because Zosimus was
deceived to grant Caelestius's confession which included a rejection of infant baptism washing original
sin, therefore the Roman Church didn't believe original sin prior to Zosimus.
How do we know? Because prior to Zosimus, Pope Innocent I condemned
Pelagianism! Zosimus was just an ignorant fool who had to retract his stand
supporting heresy
· in reply to bibletheology
Everyone knows Pelagius denied his own theology as a liar
when on the stand at Palestine and that's why he was acquitted. As Augustine
noted, "Pelagius acquitted by bishops in Palestine, in consequence of his
deceptive answers." This can be easily proven since we have the questions
and answers from that tribunal as well as Pelagius's prior views documented.
Here is the
proof synaxis (dot org/cf/volume14/ECF00007 (dot) htm
When Pelagius could clarify his views against the false
accusations of Augustine, he was acquitted. As Wiggers said, "Thus was
Pelagius formally acquitted and pronounced orthodox by fourteen oriental
bishops." When Pelagianism was condemned, Wiggers was keen to note that
"Pelagius never maintained the propositions maintained in these letters...
The Pelagians had never
taught what was here charged upon them... Thus, therefore, were the pretended
doctriens of Pelagius... declared and condemned."
The only one who lied was Pelagius at the council of
Diospolis in Palestine where he denied his own theology to be declared
innocent. Augustine proved this in the
work "A WORK ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF PELAGIUS, ADDRESSED TO BISHOP
AURELIUS." Go read it.
Pelagius wrote in Latin and the bishops of the Council of
Diaspora were
Greek-speaking. They couldn't compare Pelagius's answers with his Latin works.
But we can and when we do we see he lied his way out of that council. The
seventh question to Pelagius was if he said Adam's sin injured only himself. He
denied he taught that so was let off the hook. But he did teach Adam's sin only
injured himself. So he agreed with the anti-Pelagianism of the council and
condemned his own teaching you hold to!
· in reply to bibletheology
Ok. Let's grant that Zosimus was an ignorant fool. Then it
is apparently that he falsely condemned Pelagius because he was fooled by Augustine's false accusations
against him.
·
Morrell, Was Augustine false to accuse Pelagius
of saying Adam's sin doesn't affect us, but only by example? That's what
Pelagius denied he taught at the council of Diospolis,
and that's why the council let him off the hook, even though he did teach that,
and even though you believe that as a Pelagian. In 411 a Synod in Carthage condemned Pelagius's
errors. Augustine wasn't present or involved in the debate yet. So stop
with the lie that he tricked the church to be against Pelagianism.
No comments:
Post a Comment