45:15: "The human nature was so corrupted by sin that the will post Fall cannot choose the Good without the enablement of the grace of God." Thank you for teaching me where this comes from! This was St. Augustine's view. Although this view diverges from that of the Eastern Church, I find Augustine's view to match my experience, not to mention Biblical. When you think the will is more efficacious than it is, it invariably leads to pride of self. Which leads to a more works-oriented soteriology. I think that's all a consequence of Pelagius' influence.
And he got it from Pagans, not the bible. Hebrews 4:12 says, “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” And His word will not return to Him void.
@@SugoiEnglish1 It is pagan philosophy that he imported and now Calvinist's read scripture through the lens of deterministic paganism. Read Dr Ken Wilson's, 'The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism. You want to exegesis of Romans 9, let them speak? Watch Dr Jonathan Williams series on Romans 9 vs Piper's explanation of it. Interested in Pelagius was smeared by Augustine? Look up Dr Bonner's work, the Myth of Pelagianism.
So telling though that the first episode of 'back to the Fathers' is about him. Its like saying 'back to the native Americans!' and then start talking about the founding fathers 🤦♂️🤷♂️
I think having a conversation about this interaction without even mentioning infant baptism really makes this come up short. Understanding Augustine’s arguments without discussion of infant baptism and it’s effects for him really means to toss out most of the context of the interaction.
Augustine is not early church at all. Over 300 years from Jesus and the apostles is not even REMOTELY the early church or defining when it comes to theology.
Augustine leaned on Manichaeism, neo-Platonism and a poor understanding of the Latin - as he couldn't read Greek or Hebrew. From here he formulated Original Sin. Pelagius rebuked Augustine for his slide towards heresy and in response Augustine invented 14 charges to accuse Pelagius of heresy. Of these Pelagius affirmed half of 1, thus being 1/28th "guilty". However, as Augustine had Pelagius brought in before 2 separate assemblies, each one declared him orthodox. In frustration Augustine condemned Pelagius in absentia and appealed to Pope Innocent who responded by excommunicating him. However, a year later Innocent died and Pope Zosimus replaced him. He began investigating the matter and declared his findings... that Pelagius was Innocent of heresy and quite orthodox. However, Zosimus saw Augustine and his men as wicked liars. Battling the Germanic tribes and seeing Rome in danger from Christian in fighting, Emporer Honorius stepped in and squashed Pope Zosimus' plans to pardon Pelagius. Now with the weight of the Roman state behind his version of "Christianity" Augustinian philosophy quickly spread. This led to even his mentor, Jerome, walking back his orthodox views to appease Augustine. Building upon Augustine's errors, men like Luther (an Augustinian monk) and Calvin (who quoted him over 4k times) Reformed Roman Catholicism into what we see today. However, the Eastern Orthodox who had the writings of the early Church and could read and speak Greek, never adopted Augustinian philosophy. They were quite insulated from Rome in Constantinople. Additionally we see many Anabaptist and non-denominational Christians likewise reject Augustinian Philosophy. Yet, Augustinians often assert this simply is orthodoxy and far too often others believe the claim. Pelagianism never existed apart from the mind of Augustine. Yet the label has been weaponized to smear and attack Orthodox Christians who reject Augustinian Philosophy. The public needs to be aware of these truths.
Augustine must have come back from the grave and hired Matt as his publicist for this "fight night." Same old "Pelagius bad man" arguments. Yes. Your Ali Bonner interview was outstanding. I know it's expecting a lot for someone to "defend" Pelagius, but how about deal with the sources honestly (as it appears that Ali Bonner does-on an academic level) without feeling the need to carry some Reformed agenda (even on a subconscious level).
This is SO good! Great podcast guys! 01:00:35: "The deficiency of Pelagius is not considering the ramifications of the Fall. And the deficiency of Augustine was in over-emphasizing the strength of predestination." Boom! Nailed it! Perfect summary. This is the conclusion I've been coming to of late and it's why I'm now exploring Lutheranism. Eastern Orthodoxy, as far as I can tell, is Pelagian-influenced (without even really knowing it).
Lutheranism has a perspective of predestination that is worth diving into. Matt was talking about the struggle of predestination and the Lord wanting to gather the leaders like a hen and I think a lot of clarity can come from the Lutheran perspective. I recommend watching a video of Jordan Cooper on his critique of Leighton Flowers to learn more about it. Side note: he has also been on The Remnant Radio for those who don’t know.
Dude, yes, Jordan Cooper is a great teacher and knows his stuff. If you wanna learn Luthernanism, he's your social-media guy! (and, hey, don't tell Jordan...I'm a provisionist, hehe... lol )
@@paulc1391 It'd be sweet if he interacted with The Provisionist Perspective (the best known Provisionst social media presence I know, besides Sot101). I'm just a random face on the facetubes.
Roger Olsen and Ken Wilson should most definitely be given an ear on the matter of Augustine and his theology. Unfortunately I noticed alot of bias in favour of Augustine in this episode and his high deterministic views of mans responsibility and mans decision making wasn't spoken about enough. How could you encourage men to "pray for grace" if they aren't "elect" or regenerated?
I'm not familiar with Remnant Radio, but WAS excited to listen to all 14 episodes on this topic but after hearing your take on Augustine & Pelagius i've decided otherwise. Yes, i've been exposed to the teachings, writings & interviews of Ali Bonner & Ken Wilson, & i believe are due a lot of respect.
The solution to all these questions is quite simple and biblical, Open Theism. You guys failed to mention how Augustine introduced Plato's imagined god and replaced the God of the Bible with Plato's imagination.
Matthew Esquivel claimed a lack of original documents from Pelagius & then gleaned Pelagius’ theological stances from the writings of his opponent, Augustine. According to the scholarly work of Dr Ali Bonner in “The Myth of Pelagianism” we have ample originals of Pelagius contradicting Augustine’s claims of what Pelagius supposedly believes. It seems not even Pelagius was a “Pelagian”, but in fact he was acquitted multiple times as orthodox before the final debacle in AD 418. Pelagius’ views were the dominant orthodox views of the time and seem to fall pretty much in line with Orthodox theology today. It was Augustine who contradicted 1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th century Christianity when he argued for a more deterministic reading of Scripture. Even John Calvin admits that Augustine’s teachings against free will were an anomaly when he wrote, “Further, even though the Greeks above the rest-and Chrysostom especially among them-extol the ability of the human will, yet all the ancients, save Augustine, so differ, or speak confusedly on this subject, that almost nothing certain can be derived from their writings.” Calvin pointedly rejects the first several centuries of Christian teachings, including direct disciples of the Apostles.
My dad was intrenched with the Ante-Nicene Church Father's, so I grew up hearing what they taught. I was blessed to inherit his 15 volume set. The first few look like coloring books just like the 20 Bibles he had highlighted with multiple colors. He was a true theologian. Former United Methodist clergy turned Wesleyan Methodist. I called him a walking Concordance.
This was an interesting discussion, but it seemed to be mostly about Augustine's views of grace. It seems to me that Augustine didn't condemn everyone who disagreed with him about grace, but did condemn the teaching of Palagius. It would be good to have heard more specifically what about Pelagius' view Augustine found dangerous.
Have a few problems with this video. The other two hosts didn’t provide much challenge or even hard questions regarding Augustine’s views and claims regarding Pelagius. None of the hosts mentioned Dr. Ken Wilson’s work, either his doctoral dissertation or his more accessible “The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism,” one of the most notable scholarly works on Augustine in the last decade. That book casts some serious doubt on Augustine’s veracity regarding his own doctrine and his accurate presentation of the views of his opponents. But most of all, they chose to lead off a series on the church fathers (if Augustine can indeed be considered one) in reverse order, not building upon the earliest fathers like Clement of Rome, Ignatius, or Polycarp, then working chronologically toward us. Overall, not up to Remnant Radio’s normal standards. Hopefully the series will improve.
Ken Wilson's work is not as good as you make it out to be. Below is the review from a Lutheran who has gone through and actually fact checked Ken Wilson's work.. Here is an example of Wilson omitting a lot of evidence that would have refuted his claims of Augustine bringing in novelties out of his supposed Gnosticism: Quotes, all of them prior to Augustine, affirming infant baptismal salvation to forgive sins of infants as a result of original sin: Ambrose of Milan’s On Abraham, Chapter 2: “Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments, but I do not know whether they have the honor of the Kingdom.” Origen’s Homily 8 on Leviticus: But if it pleases you to hear what other saints also might think about this birthday, hear David speaking, ‘In iniquity I was conceived and in sins my mother brought me forth,’ showing that every soul which is born in flesh is polluted by the filth ‘of iniquity and sin,’ and for this reason we can say what we already have recalled above, ‘No one is pure from uncleanness even in his life is only one day long. To these reasons can be added the reason why it is required, since that baptism of the Church is given for the forgiveness of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, that Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen’s Homily 5 on Romans 5:9: The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must by washed away through water and the Spirit. Irenaeus of Lyons’ Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 22: For He came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infant Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 21: And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. Irenaeus’ Fragment 34: And dipped himself, says [the Scripture], seven times in Jordan. 2 Kings 5:14 It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:5 Hippolytus’ Chapter 21: At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. Then they shall take off all their clothes. The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water... The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, saying, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the Holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen. Tertullian’s Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 40: Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration; Romans 6:4 and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame. Tertullian’s Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 41: Therefore, when the soul embraces the faith, being renewed in its second birth by water and the power from above, then the veil of its former corruption being taken away, it beholds the light in all its brightness. It is also taken up (in its second birth) by the Holy Spirit, just as in its first birth it is embraced by the unholy spirit. Cyprian’s epistle 58: But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them, Luke 4:56 as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost..But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted - and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace- how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins- that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.
@@chrisj123165 His dissertation wasn’t focused on paedobaptism but rather the conclusions Augustine reached regarding theistic determinism because of the practice. Even granting the point, ignoring the work was a significant oversight.
@@chrisj123165 No question that (many of) the ECFs taught baptismal regeneration. You've illustrated it well. For those who follow "Tradition" as their Authority, following their lead makes sense. For those, however, (including Lutherans and other Reformed groups) who claim Scripture to be their final authority -- even to judge or evaluate the EFC's teachings and positions -- it seems to provide a thin and questionable biblical basis. The logic is seemingly: A) David claimed HE was "conceived in iniquity/born in sin". Origen interprets this to mean that the entire human race was similarly born in sin, which is then interpreted to mean "born sinful" i.e. inheriting a "sin nature", passed down from Adam. And then Augustinian Calvinists interpret the nature of this sin nature (see what I did there?) to be completely depraved to the degree of being unable to cry out to God for help (against many biblical injunctions to do precisely that), and then to insist that of multiple metaphors for our impoverished, needy state, that only Paul's quotation from Ps. 14 (about the atheist who insists there is no God) to assert that all of us are spiritually "dead" (which is then interpreted to mean completely unresponsive), that this ("dead") is the only metaphor or imagery we need take literally (i.e. ignore references to being sick, needing a doctor, falling short, stumbling, being in rebellion, etc.). So, having moved from David being personally born in sin to the whole world being spiritually dead from Adam's sin... B) When Jesus tells Nicodemus in a single verse (John 3:5) that to "enter the kingdom of God" one must be "born of water and the spirit", the assumed inference is that water baptism as THE requirement for -- and the moment of -- spiritual regeneration, to undo the effects of Adam's sin and bring one into the Kingdom of God. Never mind that: - The same logic would have required water baptism for all Israelites up to the time of Jesus as well. - Jesus Himself never mentions "water baptism" as his intended interpretation of his usage of "born of water" in John 3 or elsewhere. - In the very next verse (John 3:6), Jesus clarifies that the nature of the new birth is NOT PHYSICAL, but rather is Spiritual. (So, Jesus' emphasis on "water and Spirit" is clearly on the "SPIRIT" part of the formula. - As the conversation continues, verses 15-16 clearly affirms the stated and actual cause for obtaining eternal life, and it is "belief" in Jesus. No word about attendant or preceding water baptism. - Conversely, v. 18 emphasizes the cause for the rejection of eternal life (i.e. standing still condemned) is not the lack of being baptized, but quite specifically the failure to believe in the name of God's one and only Son. - When Jesus gives His climax, what He calls "the Verdict", He speaks nothing of connecting water baptism as the solution to the problem spoken of by David, or presumed by the ECFs. Rather, according to Jesus, the problem to remedy for every individual is not Adam's sin via baptism of babies, but our own sins -- via belief in Christ. "The verdict is this: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL." So, we have a very real dilemma on our hands: Do we follow the Early Church Fathers who presumed certain connections to arrive at a theology of Baptismal Regeneration? Or, do we follow the clear teaching of Jesus who never connected the dots in the way these certain ECFs did, and actually went in a different direction?
Thank you for this, I was so ignorant of the fathers for so long but when I discovered them it was like a breath of fresh air. They are probably one of the main reasons why I'm in the process of joining the Lutheran church.
Glad I read through the comments before watching this -- looks like many viewers agree this was too stacked in Augustine's favor. It's cool to support Augustine, but I'm looking for conversations that are a little more even-handed -- perhaps that's impossible as we just don't know enough of what Pelagius actually thought.
I am very excited for the continuation of this series. I have missed out on the teaching of these foundations as well, having grown up in pentecostal/charismatic churches. I appreciate this conversation.
I LOVE Remnant Radio.. so I dont wanna thumbs down this video. So I wont. :) But this really does need to be either redone, replaced, or at least have some type of followup video (if not already done) with leading works at least mentioned on the debate. Bonner comes from an academic perspective so I think her work is very helpful and far less biased.
The jokes and framing, the kid gloves with Augustine and the deception with definitions of Pelagianism all point to the bias of the panel. Sad. Personal Opinion: either Dr. Ken Wilson or Dr. Ali Bonner would have added more well rounded scholarship on the matter at hand.
I love Remnant Radio!! !but I agree with you here on this, Kyle! Remnant Radio, would yall do a follow up to this? With Bonner or Wilson instead that have better and more accurate knowledge of Pelagius. I'd be interested in that.
If you haven't read " The Myth of Pelagianism" by Ali Bonner you don't know what you are talking about. You are spouting the party line and and the party line is wrong. Augustine was a slanderer. He used Pelagius as a bogey man to Redefine Orthodoxy!!! Which he had no right to do! Augustine was lousy at Greek and had no Hebrew. He worked from a bad latin translation. Dr. Peter Brown, the creator of the study of late antiquity, said Pelagius was a holiness preacher who emphasized Post Conversion! Righteous living! Sounds like Jesus and the apostles to me
Been reading Eusebius The Church History by Paul Maier. Amazing how many groups sprang up that Early Church had to go to battle with. There was a lot of sects out there. Against Heresies covers many of them. I found the early Church Fathers and the apologist were well-versed in scripture and were not strangers to Plato and other Greek philosophers. What’s sadly lacking was any writings from the Hebrew sector of the church. It looks like there were 15 Bishops from the Jewish portion of the church that was located in Jerusalem. Have not found much on these believers. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem lists mostly Gentile believers. I’ve come to the conclusion that the mixed Jewish/Gentile congregations were small in number. By second century it appears to be all Gentile. I’ve noticed when one rises up with a doctrine another one is not far off with a counter doctrine. I understand why churches ended up with creeds and confessions. Viewing Ready to Harvest with all the Denominations and splits of mainline denominations has been confusing until I found this going on in the early church as men would go out and start a group that followed his teaching. It seems today the world culture and thinking has infiltrated the churches.
The basics from the Church Fathers, what a novel concept. 😉 All soundly condemning a known heretic and his Pelagian teachings. If only we could learn from history. 🙏🏽
I have watched so much about Augustinian and Pelagian controversies. I have yet to think that either of them had the correct understanding in its fullness. I don't understand why Pelagius gets labeled a heretic
Pelagius soteriology requires spiritual superheroes. Because Pelagius rejects Original Sin the believer has to be perfect to be saved. If I put my life under a magnifying glass it's full of falls and compromises. I confess to God and take communion and pray for mercy. But Pelagius had no time for Grace. He believed human effort could win salvation. Pelagianism is not Christian.
With respect he wrongly describes "hyper grace" I don't know anyone who teaches that you can live however you want and be saved. Never heard that honestly. In fact many preach changing your life through grace and being free from sin.
@Dustin Neely In the early church all three views on hell were acceptable and we’re not divisive. I disagree with Brad with his ultimate restoration viewpoints and find myself seeing scripture pointing to a conditionallist perspective. I don’t agree with anybody wholeheartedly but I appreciate his viewpoints. Are there any other examples you can give me where you think he’s in the wrong?
@Dustin Neely I appreciate the heads up. I'm honestly asking for examples because I'm curious...Your telling me he's borderline heretic and he's friends with a controversial Bishop...but what are the specifics? Do you agree with his notion that any OT revelation of God has to submit to the revelation of the Abba revealed in Christ?
The influence of Augustine has so sullied the reputation of Pelagius that one wonders if we can ever know straight up what Pelagius believed and taught, unfiltered. Does anyone actually self-identify with the term "Pelagian" these days when to be labeled merely "semi-Pelagian" has become so demeaning?
@@chaddonal4331 i do identify myself as pelagian.. or i do hold to pelagianism, but the difference is that i based what i hold base from his surviving writings and not from misrepresentations of augustine:)
Augustine was repeatedly repudiated by early church councils, his denunciations of Pelagius dismissed, and once was called a heretic and a liar. You failed to mention that.
The panels is obviously supplicants of Augustinian philosophy. Augustine used a bad translation in eisogeting Romans 5:12 claiming we all inherit sinful nature and guilt from Adam. Blaming God for personal bad behavior is such nonsense. Augustine had a Gnostic Axe to grind who was taught regeneration by Mani. Augustine was rejected as a Gnostic Elect, now he can claim to define a Christianized version of it using the concept of Grace. Pelagius wasn't claiming man saves himself, but Augustine's false charges prevailed after Pelagius' death. Alli Bonner wrote a great book on this topic called The Myth of Pelagianism.
Yes your theology be biblically based and your teaching to compliment even be structured through that biblical foundation... that's it! That's His truth... Maranatha Yeshua
It's quite possible to believe that grace enables us to obey the moral law through the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit and still embrace our need for the cross to be forgiven both initially and when we fail. God provided a means for us to be saved from sin and its power over us by grace through faith and He is able to keep us from falling back into sin by that same grace through faith. If we do sin, mercy is there to forgive and cleanse us from all righteousness if we confess our sins.
People forget pelagius was a cymro. Like me & king arthur. Tywysog cymru dw i. I have been completely born again since returning home to my beloved cymru. The land of revival 🏴 God is moving in mighty ways
Your timeline ratio may need some work. (Augustine would still be late 1st quarter by now of Church History. Kennedy would be early 4th quarter at this juncture, of US History).
@@chaddonal4331 I'm not going to ratio the timeline because the point I'm making is you would not call JFK a founding father of the United States because he is so far removed from the founding it would be silly and the same could be said of Augustine and Christianity. A reformer, yes. A father, no.
49:44 I don't think that Proverbs 8:35 is the right reference here. [35] For whoever finds me finds life, And obtains favor from the LORD; (Proverbs 8:35 NKJV)
It seems to me that there is a glaring omission from all of this talk regarding Original Sin. Original sin was in fact first committed by Lucifer in Heaven. This was in the presence of God and the abode of Heaven. Pride was the original sin... the idea that we can become like God and share in His power and glory. Also, how does one account for the sin in the Garden when God made Adam and Eve upright? Where did they inherit sin from? Was there something in their blood or a DNA defect that caused them to eat of the Tree of Knowledge? There seems to be common elements here in both cases that allows for sin to occur. Free will being the unique quality that both angels and humans share. Also, you add the presence of temptation and pride... and you have THE recipe for sin to take root. We can bear the consequences of others sin no doubt, but the only sins in which we are guilty of are of our own doing. Ezekiel 18:20-21. To say that sin came through one man, Adam... speaks to this idea, moreso than any conjecture that sin transmits via the blood or DNA. Sin is not a material substance but a moral disposition. I agree more with Pelagian to be honest when looking at this objectively compared to Augustine of Hippo. I would definitely put an emphasis on the belief though, that we cannot live the Holy life that Pelagian says is possible (AND that the Bible clearly CALLS US to do more importantly), without the inner work of the Holy Spirit (God living within us). The Bible speaks of the flesh warring with the Spirit. We are told to renew our minds daily. We are told God makes a way out of every temptation. Pursuit of holiness is looked down upon in the Reformed camp. It's like it's an afterthought, and that it really holds no value in today's Western churches. It's like the Reformation threw the baby out with the bathwater when pushing back against the legalistic tendencies of the RC church. Thoughts?
29:22 see right there is what is wrong with western Christianity. We aren’t saved by anyone’s merit. The law gave provisions and could be kept but that has nothing to do with restoring us back to a pre fall condition. Only the work of Jesus could do that. Rather the law was a sin management system that allowed God to be in the midst of a sinful people.
Maybe if the one guy dropped the title "Father" and you referred to the early christian writers without the name "Father(s)". Sorry it is a conviction of mine, I do not even allow my children to refer to me as "Father" now that they are adult, I point that honor and authority to YHWH(God) alone.
Father is Av /Abba parent is Ho-reh so what would a kid have called his dad during 1st and second century after hearing Jesus say call no man father/Abba just wondering
So what you're saying is that also the Apostles were wrong when they called people teachers? What I'm saying is, you're interpreting Jesus' saying incorrectly. He isn't saying you can't take that word into your mouth unless you're talking about God or Christ. He's saying you don't give the honour of the essence of these titles to anyone but God.
I love everything about Remnant Radio, but the silly chuckle jokes are such an unnecessary distraction from careful thought provoking discussion. Please trim a lot of that out. Thx!
Great discussion. But avoid saying non-words like "impactful". The English language already has words like: compelling, powerful, effectual, significant, cogent. Give "impactful" a pass.
45:15: "The human nature was so corrupted by sin that the will post Fall cannot choose the Good without the enablement of the grace of God."
Thank you for teaching me where this comes from! This was St. Augustine's view.
Although this view diverges from that of the Eastern Church, I find Augustine's view to match my experience, not to mention Biblical.
When you think the will is more efficacious than it is, it invariably leads to pride of self. Which leads to a more works-oriented soteriology. I think that's all a consequence of Pelagius' influence.
And he got it from Pagans, not the bible. Hebrews 4:12 says, “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” And His word will not return to Him void.
I hope that this will discuss the deterministic Manichaeism Augustine brought into Christianity. No early father had his soteriological system
AND? How does that nullify his views? Let scripture speak.
Relax.
@@SugoiEnglish1 It is pagan philosophy that he imported and now Calvinist's read scripture through the lens of deterministic paganism. Read Dr Ken Wilson's, 'The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism. You want to exegesis of Romans 9, let them speak? Watch Dr Jonathan Williams series on Romans 9 vs Piper's explanation of it. Interested in Pelagius was smeared by Augustine? Look up Dr Bonner's work, the Myth of Pelagianism.
If possible, you should consider interviewing Dr. Bonner on this subject.
Who is Dr. Bonner?
@@chaddonal4331 she’s a PhD lecturer at Cambridge who’s PhD work was on Pelagius and Augustine’s fight.
The soap maker
Augustine is not early church! So far removed philosophically, theologically, and chronologically from the early church.
Agreed
So telling though that the first episode of 'back to the Fathers' is about him. Its like saying 'back to the native Americans!' and then start talking about the founding fathers 🤦♂️🤷♂️
@@timothy6828 exactly:)
Would love some earlier church fathers you recommend looking into, I’m a curious researcher, thanks!
Would love some earlier church fathers you recommend looking into, I’m a curious researcher, thanks!
I think having a conversation about this interaction without even mentioning infant baptism really makes this come up short. Understanding Augustine’s arguments without discussion of infant baptism and it’s effects for him really means to toss out most of the context of the interaction.
Augustine is not early church at all. Over 300 years from Jesus and the apostles is not even REMOTELY the early church or defining when it comes to theology.
Augustine leaned on Manichaeism, neo-Platonism and a poor understanding of the Latin - as he couldn't read Greek or Hebrew. From here he formulated Original Sin.
Pelagius rebuked Augustine for his slide towards heresy and in response Augustine invented 14 charges to accuse Pelagius of heresy. Of these Pelagius affirmed half of 1, thus being 1/28th "guilty".
However, as Augustine had Pelagius brought in before 2 separate assemblies, each one declared him orthodox. In frustration Augustine condemned Pelagius in absentia and appealed to Pope Innocent who responded by excommunicating him.
However, a year later Innocent died and Pope Zosimus replaced him. He began investigating the matter and declared his findings... that Pelagius was Innocent of heresy and quite orthodox. However, Zosimus saw Augustine and his men as wicked liars.
Battling the Germanic tribes and seeing Rome in danger from Christian in fighting, Emporer Honorius stepped in and squashed Pope Zosimus' plans to pardon Pelagius.
Now with the weight of the Roman state behind his version of "Christianity" Augustinian philosophy quickly spread. This led to even his mentor, Jerome, walking back his orthodox views to appease Augustine.
Building upon Augustine's errors, men like Luther (an Augustinian monk) and Calvin (who quoted him over 4k times) Reformed Roman Catholicism into what we see today.
However, the Eastern Orthodox who had the writings of the early Church and could read and speak Greek, never adopted Augustinian philosophy. They were quite insulated from Rome in Constantinople. Additionally we see many Anabaptist and non-denominational Christians likewise reject Augustinian Philosophy.
Yet, Augustinians often assert this simply is orthodoxy and far too often others believe the claim.
Pelagianism never existed apart from the mind of Augustine. Yet the label has been weaponized to smear and attack Orthodox Christians who reject Augustinian Philosophy.
The public needs to be aware of these truths.
Sources please
@@betrion7 check out my interview with Dr Ali Bonner, here on my channel. Or pick up her book the Myth of Pelagianism. Source rich
Augustine must have come back from the grave and hired Matt as his publicist for this "fight night." Same old "Pelagius bad man" arguments. Yes. Your Ali Bonner interview was outstanding. I know it's expecting a lot for someone to "defend" Pelagius, but how about deal with the sources honestly (as it appears that Ali Bonner does-on an academic level) without feeling the need to carry some Reformed agenda (even on a subconscious level).
Beautifully said!!
@@IdolKiller Was hoping someone who knew what's what would show up and fill in the blanks on this topic!
This is SO good! Great podcast guys!
01:00:35: "The deficiency of Pelagius is not considering the ramifications of the Fall. And the deficiency of Augustine was in over-emphasizing the strength of predestination."
Boom! Nailed it! Perfect summary.
This is the conclusion I've been coming to of late and it's why I'm now exploring Lutheranism.
Eastern Orthodoxy, as far as I can tell, is Pelagian-influenced (without even really knowing it).
Lutheranism has a perspective of predestination that is worth diving into. Matt was talking about the struggle of predestination and the Lord wanting to gather the leaders like a hen and I think a lot of clarity can come from the Lutheran perspective. I recommend watching a video of Jordan Cooper on his critique of Leighton Flowers to learn more about it.
Side note: he has also been on The Remnant Radio for those who don’t know.
Dude, yes, Jordan Cooper is a great teacher and knows his stuff. If you wanna learn Luthernanism, he's your social-media guy! (and, hey, don't tell Jordan...I'm a provisionist, hehe... lol )
@@VeryBasicBible I’m sure he would like to know so he can better understand what that position is haha
As a Calvinist I support this message. 👍🏽
@@paulc1391 It'd be sweet if he interacted with The Provisionist Perspective (the best known Provisionst social media presence I know, besides Sot101). I'm just a random face on the facetubes.
Haha not Jordan Cooper. Bad call.
Roger Olsen and Ken Wilson should most definitely be given an ear on the matter of Augustine and his theology.
Unfortunately I noticed alot of bias in favour of Augustine in this episode and his high deterministic views of mans responsibility and mans decision making wasn't spoken about enough.
How could you encourage men to "pray for grace" if they aren't "elect" or regenerated?
I'm not familiar with Remnant Radio, but WAS excited to listen to all 14 episodes on this topic but after hearing your take on Augustine & Pelagius i've decided otherwise. Yes, i've been exposed to the teachings, writings & interviews of Ali Bonner & Ken Wilson, & i believe are due a lot of respect.
This discussion is why I tend to fall squarely into the Eastern Orthodox views about these issues.
What would be a quick synopsis of the EO view on this topic?
Have you read any Brad Jersak? He’s EO and has written some great books, a more Christlike God, and I’m currently reading a more Christlike Word
@@christopherbaldwin7875 I haven't, but thanks to you he's now in my Amazon cart.
@@dw5523 I hope you enjoy! Please let me know what you think.
26:18 Gen 4 says that Cain was still able to choose and could master sin.
The solution to all these questions is quite simple and biblical, Open Theism.
You guys failed to mention how Augustine introduced Plato's imagined god and replaced the God of the Bible with Plato's imagination.
Matthew Esquivel claimed a lack of original documents from Pelagius & then gleaned Pelagius’ theological stances from the writings of his opponent, Augustine. According to the scholarly work of Dr Ali Bonner in “The Myth of Pelagianism” we have ample originals of Pelagius contradicting Augustine’s claims of what Pelagius supposedly believes. It seems not even Pelagius was a “Pelagian”, but in fact he was acquitted multiple times as orthodox before the final debacle in AD 418. Pelagius’ views were the dominant orthodox views of the time and seem to fall pretty much in line with Orthodox theology today. It was Augustine who contradicted 1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th century Christianity when he argued for a more deterministic reading of Scripture. Even John Calvin admits that Augustine’s teachings against free will were an anomaly when he wrote, “Further, even though the Greeks above the rest-and Chrysostom especially among them-extol the ability of the human will, yet all the ancients, save Augustine, so differ, or speak confusedly on this subject, that almost nothing certain can be derived from their writings.” Calvin pointedly rejects the first several centuries of Christian teachings, including direct disciples of the Apostles.
My dad was intrenched with the Ante-Nicene Church Father's, so I grew up hearing what they taught. I was blessed to inherit his 15 volume set. The first few look like coloring books just like the 20 Bibles he had highlighted with multiple colors. He was a true theologian. Former United Methodist clergy turned Wesleyan Methodist. I called him a walking Concordance.
This was an interesting discussion, but it seemed to be mostly about Augustine's views of grace. It seems to me that Augustine didn't condemn everyone who disagreed with him about grace, but did condemn the teaching of Palagius. It would be good to have heard more specifically what about Pelagius' view Augustine found dangerous.
Have a few problems with this video. The other two hosts didn’t provide much challenge or even hard questions regarding Augustine’s views and claims regarding Pelagius. None of the hosts mentioned Dr. Ken Wilson’s work, either his doctoral dissertation or his more accessible “The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism,” one of the most notable scholarly works on Augustine in the last decade. That book casts some serious doubt on Augustine’s veracity regarding his own doctrine and his accurate presentation of the views of his opponents. But most of all, they chose to lead off a series on the church fathers (if Augustine can indeed be considered one) in reverse order, not building upon the earliest fathers like Clement of Rome, Ignatius, or Polycarp, then working chronologically toward us. Overall, not up to Remnant Radio’s normal standards. Hopefully the series will improve.
Ken Wilson's work is not as good as you make it out to be. Below is the review from a Lutheran who has gone through and actually fact checked Ken Wilson's work..
Here is an example of Wilson omitting a lot of evidence that would have refuted his claims of Augustine bringing in novelties out of his supposed Gnosticism:
Quotes, all of them prior to Augustine, affirming infant baptismal salvation to forgive sins of infants as a result of original sin:
Ambrose of Milan’s On Abraham, Chapter 2: “Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments, but I do not know whether they have the honor of the Kingdom.”
Origen’s Homily 8 on Leviticus: But if it pleases you to hear what other saints also might think about this birthday, hear David speaking, ‘In iniquity I was conceived and in sins my mother brought me forth,’ showing that every soul which is born in flesh is polluted by the filth ‘of iniquity and sin,’ and for this reason we can say what we already have recalled above, ‘No one is pure from uncleanness even in his life is only one day long. To these reasons can be added the reason why it is required, since that baptism of the Church is given for the forgiveness of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, that Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.”
Origen’s Homily 5 on Romans 5:9: The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must by washed away through water and the Spirit.
Irenaeus of Lyons’ Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 22: For He came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born again to God - infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infant
Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 21: And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.
Irenaeus’ Fragment 34: And dipped himself, says [the Scripture], seven times in Jordan. 2 Kings 5:14 It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:5
Hippolytus’ Chapter 21: At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. Then they shall take off all their clothes. The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water... The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, saying, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the Holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen.
Tertullian’s Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 40: Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration; Romans 6:4 and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame.
Tertullian’s Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 41: Therefore, when the soul embraces the faith, being renewed in its second birth by water and the power from above, then the veil of its former corruption being taken away, it beholds the light in all its brightness. It is also taken up (in its second birth) by the Holy Spirit, just as in its first birth it is embraced by the unholy spirit.
Cyprian’s epistle 58: But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them, Luke 4:56 as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost..But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted - and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace- how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins- that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.
@@chrisj123165 His dissertation wasn’t focused on paedobaptism but rather the conclusions Augustine reached regarding theistic determinism because of the practice. Even granting the point, ignoring the work was a significant oversight.
@@chrisj123165 No question that (many of) the ECFs taught baptismal regeneration. You've illustrated it well. For those who follow "Tradition" as their Authority, following their lead makes sense. For those, however, (including Lutherans and other Reformed groups) who claim Scripture to be their final authority -- even to judge or evaluate the EFC's teachings and positions -- it seems to provide a thin and questionable biblical basis. The logic is seemingly:
A) David claimed HE was "conceived in iniquity/born in sin". Origen interprets this to mean that the entire human race was similarly born in sin, which is then interpreted to mean "born sinful" i.e. inheriting a "sin nature", passed down from Adam. And then Augustinian Calvinists interpret the nature of this sin nature (see what I did there?) to be completely depraved to the degree of being unable to cry out to God for help (against many biblical injunctions to do precisely that), and then to insist that of multiple metaphors for our impoverished, needy state, that only Paul's quotation from Ps. 14 (about the atheist who insists there is no God) to assert that all of us are spiritually "dead" (which is then interpreted to mean completely unresponsive), that this ("dead") is the only metaphor or imagery we need take literally (i.e. ignore references to being sick, needing a doctor, falling short, stumbling, being in rebellion, etc.).
So, having moved from David being personally born in sin to the whole world being spiritually dead from Adam's sin...
B) When Jesus tells Nicodemus in a single verse (John 3:5) that to "enter the kingdom of God" one must be "born of water and the spirit", the assumed inference is that water baptism as THE requirement for -- and the moment of -- spiritual regeneration, to undo the effects of Adam's sin and bring one into the Kingdom of God.
Never mind that:
- The same logic would have required water baptism for all Israelites up to the time of Jesus as well.
- Jesus Himself never mentions "water baptism" as his intended interpretation of his usage of "born of water" in John 3 or elsewhere.
- In the very next verse (John 3:6), Jesus clarifies that the nature of the new birth is NOT PHYSICAL, but rather is Spiritual. (So, Jesus' emphasis on "water and Spirit" is clearly on the "SPIRIT" part of the formula.
- As the conversation continues, verses 15-16 clearly affirms the stated and actual cause for obtaining eternal life, and it is "belief" in Jesus. No word about attendant or preceding water baptism.
- Conversely, v. 18 emphasizes the cause for the rejection of eternal life (i.e. standing still condemned) is not the lack of being baptized, but quite specifically the failure to believe in the name of God's one and only Son.
- When Jesus gives His climax, what He calls "the Verdict", He speaks nothing of connecting water baptism as the solution to the problem spoken of by David, or presumed by the ECFs. Rather, according to Jesus, the problem to remedy for every individual is not Adam's sin via baptism of babies, but our own sins -- via belief in Christ. "The verdict is this: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL."
So, we have a very real dilemma on our hands:
Do we follow the Early Church Fathers who presumed certain connections to arrive at a theology of Baptismal Regeneration?
Or, do we follow the clear teaching of Jesus who never connected the dots in the way these certain ECFs did, and actually went in a different direction?
@@chaddonal4331 what about the Apostles' verdict on baptismal regeneration? Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-4, Gal 3:27, Col 2:11-12, Tit 3:4-5
Thank you for this, I was so ignorant of the fathers for so long but when I discovered them it was like a breath of fresh air. They are probably one of the main reasons why I'm in the process of joining the Lutheran church.
How's it been?
@@Strongtower it's been good :)
Glad I read through the comments before watching this -- looks like many viewers agree this was too stacked in Augustine's favor. It's cool to support Augustine, but I'm looking for conversations that are a little more even-handed -- perhaps that's impossible as we just don't know enough of what Pelagius actually thought.
Thank you for this! It is fascinating, and I feel like I am getting a seminary class. ❤️
I am very excited for the continuation of this series. I have missed out on the teaching of these foundations as well, having grown up in pentecostal/charismatic churches. I appreciate this conversation.
Good to see you guys on the show. This is great content.
Umm, the thumbnail is Dr. Michael Heiser. I was super excited when I saw the thumbnail 😄. Video on church history is awesome, though👌.
Super excited for a podcast making the Church Fathers accesible!
Looking forward to moving through each of this video series
27:49 Pelagius' views sound similar to the "New Perspective on Paul" theological movement, especially in his interpretation of "works of law" (31:51).
Sharing and listening to while cooking supper.
I LOVE Remnant Radio.. so I dont wanna thumbs down this video. So I wont. :) But this really does need to be either redone, replaced, or at least have some type of followup video (if not already done) with leading works at least mentioned on the debate. Bonner comes from an academic perspective so I think her work is very helpful and far less biased.
Hey Josh, just letting you know I see thumbnail with Heiser and aliens on this video. Not sure is this isolated case.
Fantastic show guys!
Loved this! Thank you!
Great episode! Thanks guys!
So glad I've discovered this series.
I admit, I like the more back-and-forth discussions over these topics. But yes, this one was good. This'll be a great series :)
FYI, “Confessions” is available on some starter/basic Logos packages.
Do I have to go to an Anglican seminary to get one of those 🔥 shirts?
The jokes and framing, the kid gloves with Augustine and the deception with definitions of Pelagianism all point to the bias of the panel. Sad. Personal Opinion: either Dr. Ken Wilson or Dr. Ali Bonner would have added more well rounded scholarship on the matter at hand.
I love Remnant Radio!! !but I agree with you here on this, Kyle! Remnant Radio, would yall do a follow up to this? With Bonner or Wilson instead that have better and more accurate knowledge of Pelagius. I'd be interested in that.
If you haven't read " The Myth of Pelagianism" by Ali Bonner you don't know what you are talking about. You are spouting the party line and and the party line is wrong. Augustine was a slanderer. He used Pelagius as a bogey man to Redefine Orthodoxy!!! Which he had no right to do! Augustine was lousy at Greek and had no Hebrew. He worked from a bad latin translation. Dr. Peter Brown, the creator of the study of late antiquity, said Pelagius was a holiness preacher who emphasized Post Conversion! Righteous living! Sounds like Jesus and the apostles to me
This 💯
24:30 they are just now bringing in John Cassian and slandering him now. I find Augustine the reason the church in the west went wrong
Amazing episode I love church history and this was so insightful and convicting
Been reading Eusebius The Church History by Paul Maier. Amazing how many groups sprang up that Early Church had to go to battle with. There was a lot of sects out there. Against Heresies covers many of them. I found the early Church Fathers and the apologist were well-versed in scripture and were not strangers to Plato and other Greek philosophers. What’s sadly lacking was any writings from the Hebrew sector of the church. It looks like there were 15 Bishops from the Jewish portion of the church that was located in Jerusalem. Have not found much on these believers. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem lists mostly Gentile believers. I’ve come to the conclusion that the mixed Jewish/Gentile congregations were small in number. By second century it appears to be all Gentile. I’ve noticed when one rises up with a doctrine another one is not far off with a counter doctrine. I understand why churches ended up with creeds and confessions. Viewing Ready to Harvest with all the Denominations and splits of mainline denominations has been confusing until I found this going on in the early church as men would go out and start a group that followed his teaching. It seems today the world culture and thinking has infiltrated the churches.
This was very helpful.
The basics from the Church Fathers, what a novel concept. 😉
All soundly condemning a known heretic and his Pelagian teachings. If only we could learn from history. 🙏🏽
I have watched so much about Augustinian and Pelagian controversies. I have yet to think that either of them had the correct understanding in its fullness. I don't understand why Pelagius gets labeled a heretic
Pelagius soteriology requires spiritual superheroes. Because Pelagius rejects Original Sin the believer has to be perfect to be saved. If I put my life under a magnifying glass it's full of falls and compromises. I confess to God and take communion and pray for mercy. But Pelagius had no time for Grace. He believed human effort could win salvation. Pelagianism is not Christian.
It would be great if Fr. Ron donned the cassock in one of the episodes...
Pelagius was not a pelagian
I like Ali Bonner's considerations regarding Pelagius.
With respect he wrongly describes "hyper grace" I don't know anyone who teaches that you can live however you want and be saved. Never heard that honestly. In fact many preach changing your life through grace and being free from sin.
No, unfortunately there are a lot of people caught up in this heresy of 'easy-believism' or 'cheap grace' as Bonnhoeffer had put it.
Very one sided, pro Augustine.
Brad jersak would be great to interview on the church fathers
@Dustin Neely In the early church all three views on hell were acceptable and we’re not divisive. I disagree with Brad with his ultimate restoration viewpoints and find myself seeing scripture pointing to a conditionallist perspective. I don’t agree with anybody wholeheartedly but I appreciate his viewpoints.
Are there any other examples you can give me where you think he’s in the wrong?
@Dustin Neely I appreciate the heads up. I'm honestly asking for examples because I'm curious...Your telling me he's borderline heretic and he's friends with a controversial Bishop...but what are the specifics?
Do you agree with his notion that any OT revelation of God has to submit to the revelation of the Abba revealed in Christ?
Y’all need to find Ali Boomer’s book. Because I don’t trust Augustine
Read the Bible 1st.
Read everything before Augustine 2cd.
haha. Nice
Is this a unbiased debate?. I want pelagians to answer this;))
The influence of Augustine has so sullied the reputation of Pelagius that one wonders if we can ever know straight up what Pelagius believed and taught, unfiltered. Does anyone actually self-identify with the term "Pelagian" these days when to be labeled merely "semi-Pelagian" has become so demeaning?
Two books to read: "The Myth of Pelagianism" and "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism"
@@chaddonal4331 i do identify myself as pelagian.. or i do hold to pelagianism, but the difference is that i based what i hold base from his surviving writings and not from misrepresentations of augustine:)
Augustine was repeatedly repudiated by early church councils, his denunciations of Pelagius dismissed, and once was called a heretic and a liar. You failed to mention that.
The panels is obviously supplicants of Augustinian philosophy. Augustine used a bad translation in eisogeting Romans 5:12 claiming we all inherit sinful nature and guilt from Adam. Blaming God for personal bad behavior is such nonsense. Augustine had a Gnostic Axe to grind who was taught regeneration by Mani. Augustine was rejected as a Gnostic Elect, now he can claim to define a Christianized version of it using the concept of Grace. Pelagius wasn't claiming man saves himself, but Augustine's false charges prevailed after Pelagius' death. Alli Bonner wrote a great book on this topic called The Myth of Pelagianism.
It is nice to know where heresies originated, but those aren’t church fathers, those are the Roman church leaders and Augustine.
Yes your theology be biblically based and your teaching to compliment even be structured through that biblical foundation... that's it! That's His truth... Maranatha Yeshua
Zacharias and Elizabeth were blameless according to the law.
It's quite possible to believe that grace enables us to obey the moral law through the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit and still embrace our need for the cross to be forgiven both initially and when we fail. God provided a means for us to be saved from sin and its power over us by grace through faith and He is able to keep us from falling back into sin by that same grace through faith. If we do sin, mercy is there to forgive and cleanse us from all righteousness if we confess our sins.
People forget pelagius was a cymro. Like me & king arthur. Tywysog cymru dw i. I have been completely born again since returning home to my beloved cymru. The land of revival 🏴
God is moving in mighty ways
Elijah is not coming back, John the Baptist was fulfillment of that passage. The Lord himself said so.
Every Christian need to learn about the Fathers of the Church
4:57 WHY WASN'T I TAUGHT THESE THINGS? SO FREAKING TRUE
32:45 again as many have said. Augustine is not an early Church father. By that logic I’m a revolutionary
And Augustine really screwed the pouch related to Rom 5:12.
I have a problem calling Augustine a"Church Father" that's like calling JFK a founding father in the United States.
Your timeline ratio may need some work. (Augustine would still be late 1st quarter by now of Church History. Kennedy would be early 4th quarter at this juncture, of US History).
@@chaddonal4331 I'm not going to ratio the timeline because the point I'm making is you would not call JFK a founding father of the United States because he is so far removed from the founding it would be silly and the same could be said of Augustine and Christianity. A reformer, yes. A father, no.
@@m.m6770 Augustine is not but Polycarp is
49:44 I don't think that Proverbs 8:35 is the right reference here.
[35] For whoever finds me finds life,
And obtains favor from the LORD; (Proverbs 8:35 NKJV)
24:38 John Cassian is a much better theologian than Augustine. Augustine got so much wrong. His work’s should be relegated to the fire
It seems to me that there is a glaring omission from all of this talk regarding Original Sin. Original sin was in fact first committed by Lucifer in Heaven. This was in the presence of God and the abode of Heaven. Pride was the original sin... the idea that we can become like God and share in His power and glory.
Also, how does one account for the sin in the Garden when God made Adam and Eve upright? Where did they inherit sin from? Was there something in their blood or a DNA defect that caused them to eat of the Tree of Knowledge?
There seems to be common elements here in both cases that allows for sin to occur. Free will being the unique quality that both angels and humans share. Also, you add the presence of temptation and pride... and you have THE recipe for sin to take root. We can bear the consequences of others sin no doubt, but the only sins in which we are guilty of are of our own doing. Ezekiel 18:20-21. To say that sin came through one man, Adam... speaks to this idea, moreso than any conjecture that sin transmits via the blood or DNA. Sin is not a material substance but a moral disposition.
I agree more with Pelagian to be honest when looking at this objectively compared to Augustine of Hippo.
I would definitely put an emphasis on the belief though, that we cannot live the Holy life that Pelagian says is possible (AND that the Bible clearly CALLS US to do more importantly), without the inner work of the Holy Spirit (God living within us).
The Bible speaks of the flesh warring with the Spirit. We are told to renew our minds daily. We are told God makes a way out of every temptation. Pursuit of holiness is looked down upon in the Reformed camp. It's like it's an afterthought, and that it really holds no value in today's Western churches. It's like the Reformation threw the baby out with the bathwater when pushing back against the legalistic tendencies of the RC church.
Thoughts?
29:22 see right there is what is wrong with western Christianity. We aren’t saved by anyone’s merit. The law gave provisions and could be kept but that has nothing to do with restoring us back to a pre fall condition. Only the work of Jesus could do that. Rather the law was a sin management system that allowed God to be in the midst of a sinful people.
Maybe if the one guy dropped the title "Father" and you referred to the early christian writers without the name "Father(s)". Sorry it is a conviction of mine, I do not even allow my children to refer to me as "Father" now that they are adult, I point that honor and authority to YHWH(God) alone.
Father is Av /Abba parent is Ho-reh so what would a kid have called his dad during 1st and second century after hearing Jesus say call no man father/Abba just wondering
So what you're saying is that also the Apostles were wrong when they called people teachers?
What I'm saying is, you're interpreting Jesus' saying incorrectly. He isn't saying you can't take that word into your mouth unless you're talking about God or Christ. He's saying you don't give the honour of the essence of these titles to anyone but God.
WHAT IN GODS WORD R U TALKING ABOUT????
I love everything about Remnant Radio, but the silly chuckle jokes are such an unnecessary distraction from careful thought provoking discussion. Please trim a lot of that out. Thx!
1
Great discussion. But avoid saying non-words like "impactful". The English language already has words like: compelling, powerful, effectual, significant, cogent.
Give "impactful" a pass.
Church fathers haha 😂, I’m 50 years old, my father is 30 🤔
After you just ptayed to the spirit for help...SHAME ON U!!!
Please stop with the jokes. You all are not funny at all.