Thursday, February 08, 2007

I am going to begin a series of posts that deal with Reformed and Arminian Theology. I want to present the different arguments, and also stress the differences. I will be contacting a few bloggers that I have come to trust on both sides to contribute. I hope to keep the series fairly light, and not too deep. It will be designed more for the layperson (I am one), and not for those who have been to seminary. Sometimes in Sunday School I am tempted to throw out terms such as Arminianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism but I know I will just blank stares in return. If you've never heard of any of these terms before, these next few posts are meant for you. For those in the SS class, I hope these next few posts will be of interest.
My posts will not be as frequent as they have in the past. I want to take my time with these next few posts and make sure I have good relevant information that is easy to digest. I want to be fair and accurate, and present pros and cons to each side.

1 Comment:

  1. John Wesley said...
    I should like to offer my most humble salutations and felicitations on this festal day of St. Valentine. I have the highest regard for our community, the “Methoblog” and wish we could make acquaintance under more auspicious circumstances as I am sure that these acquaintances may yet become a valuable and enriching friendship as we exhort and instruct each other to be conformed in the image of Christ.

    I would like to bring to your attention that I removed and edited the article of religion concerning predestination, but left in, with great deliberation, the article on Pelagianism. To quote one of my own sermons:

    [This text comes from the sermon “The Wisdom of God’s Counsels” (1784), §9, in which I
    am reviewing the early history of the church]:
    Nevertheless it is certain, that the gates of hell did never totally prevail against it. God
    always reserved a seed for himself; a few that worshipped him in spirit and in truth. I have often
    doubted, whether these were not the very persons whom the rich and honourable Christians, who
    will always have number as well as power on their side, did not stigmatize, from time to time, with
    the title of heretics. Perhaps it was chiefly by this artifice of the devil and his children, that, the
    good which was in them being evil spoken of, they were prevented from being so extensively
    useful as otherwise they might have been. Nay, I have doubted whether that arch-heretic,
    Montanus, was not one of the holiest men in the second century. Yea, I would not affirm, that the
    arch-heretic of the fifth century, (as plentifully as he has been bespattered for many ages,) was not
    one of the holiest men of that age, not excepting St. Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full
    of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all who contradicted him, as
    George Fox himself.) I verily believe, the real heresy of Pelagius was neither more nor less than
    this: the holding that Christians may, by the grace of God (not without it; that I take to be a mere
    slander,) “go on to perfection”; or, in other words, “fulfill the law of Christ.”

    “But St. Augustine says”:—When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a
    rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: hence he slandered and abused
    him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the
    Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: there needed no other proof of any assertion, than
    ipse dixit: “St. Augustine said it.”


    I remain God’s most humble servant,

    John Wesley

Post a Comment



 

blogger templates | Make Money Online