What really doesn't make sense about "irresistible grace" is that it works for salvation but then stops working immediately in the believer, so that the believer is now quite able to resist it by asserting their will to sin or even fall back into legalism ("fall from grace" as in Galatians 5:4 usage--seeking to now be justified by law).
This presentation was very helpful in understanding the Genesis of the apostasy that begins with Augustine and later the murderer of the saints of God, John Calvin.
I'll never understand why some Christians are actually attracted to the idea that nothing they do spiritually or morally matters because life is just God playing with His dollies.
It does appear that Augustine gaslighted Pelagius. Why, I'm not sure. Did he feel that he was defending the Church? Was he looking for a excuse to revert to his pre-Christian belief in a deterministic God? I wonder.
Augustine was more liberal than Peglagius in conduct and Peglagius let him know it, plus that Augustine had a mistress on the side. Augustine was the church's premier apologist and I imagine he didn't like being corrected. So in arguing against Peglagius, Augustine reverted to his Manichaeism, leaving the Catholic church doctrine behind.
Two reasons: Augustine needed to secure his reputation as a church leader by attacking heretics, and so he invented a heretic. He ascribed to Pelagius a bunch of things that Pelagius never said, got him excommunicated, and all his writings burned while Augustine danced on the ashes. Second, church leaders recognized how useful Augustine's new theories were to the church hierarchy, because it greatly increased their power over Christian life. The church at that time was transitioning from a doctrine based on individual moral responsibility to a doctrine of total depravity. In short, you can never be sure of your moral conscience, because every part of you is touched by depravity. The believer's only hope is to instead trust in church doctrines and creeds, in church rites and sacraments. The laity doesn't need to develop a deeper relationship with God through the work of the Holy Spirit. They just need to follow the dictates of the clergy. What this did was to elevate the authority of the Church and its role in Christians lives to where the church was preeminent, which was exactly what church leaders wanted.
I always got the impression it was out of personal animosity on Augustine's part. The fact that he tried and failed to get Pelagius convicted of heresy strongly implies he loathed his opponent and would stop and nothing to defame and harm him.
@@christopherwalker5351That had been brewing from very early on. If you read Polycarp and Clement, you see a ton of scripture being quoted and a view where church elders are to be respected as per scripture. On the other hand Ignatius said things like, “when you look upon an elder you look upon the face of God. Irenaeus seemed to pick up on that, and talks about “correcting Polycarp’s” idea that Clement was the first bishop of Rome, and starts pushing the idea of a pope. He also flat out stated that church traditions should be founded in scripture, and then goes on to defend traditions with zero biblical foundation. By Augustine, we see the complete destruction of any real biblical orthodoxy. Many other leaders of that time had sudden shifts in their theology after watching Augustine ruin others.
I get the sneaking suspicion that most Calvinists don’t even know a thing about Pelagius, and just throw around his name as an insult without actually understanding what they say.
no their not calvinist preach a false demonic Gospel from Hell that is very clear for the sake of their beareded philisophical fan club of a heretic repent of this wicked theology and falde gospel @@cal30m1
@@cal30m1I challenge this. When I see people argue against Calvinism I see them most often totally understanding it, they just can also reason Calvinism’s claims out to their logical extent, showing how bad they are. Then Calvinists, who don’t also seem to be able to extrapolate out their own tenets, argue back that the non-Calvinist just doesn’t understand Calvinism, when in reality they just lack the wherewithal to be able to analyze the theological system.
There's a long history of that. Martin Luther (whom Calvinists claim as one of their so-called "giants of the faith", despite the fact that Luther would have called any Calvinist in history a lot of nasty names for teaching the doctrines they do) accused Zwingli (who was basically another John Calvin one generation earlier) of being a "Pelagian" for teaching the memorialist view on the Lord's Supper rather than Luther's own "real presence" view. While Zwingli was many bad things, calling him a "Pelagian" was patently ridiculous, especially as the point of dispute had nothing to do with soteriology...
11:14 - "ALL these arguments are granted in Scripture" - referring to BOTH the absolute deterministic sovereignty of God AND absolute freedom of man to act and even change the mind of God... BOTH are taught, and I refuse to worship Philosophy. Leighton does so good emphasizing the Gospel and the command to US to be believing in Jesus' Blood, NOT "believing God is sovereign" ❤
Pelagius himself may not have actually taught what we now know as "Pelagianism", but the _tenets_ of this "Pelagianism" most certainly are unbiblical and heretical. In that sense, it's perfectly acceptable to criticize Pelagian ideas. If we shouldn't criticize Pelagianism, should we also not criticize Nestorianism? What the ecumenical councils said was "Nestorianism" was not actually taught by its namesake, Nestorius. Yet we still rightly criticize Nestorianism because it's a christological heresy, much like how Pelagianism is a soteriological heresy.
But no one labeled a pelagian is actually a pelagian. So it's a gaslighting tool used to deceive people from thinking critically and bringing calvinism to its logical conclusions.
The difference between Pelagianism and Nestorianism (or other heresies like Arianism, Modalism, and Gnosticism) is that Nestorianism actually existed and had real, documented adherents, while no one in recorded history has ever affirmed all, most or even half of the 14 points that Augustine described as being "Pelagianism". Let's say, for the sake of illustration, that I was accusing James White of teaching that no one could be saved unless they swallowed a live rhinoceros whole, and called that belief "James White-ism". Would anyone who actually affirmed "James White-ism" be a heretic? Obviously they would! Does James White actually affirm or teach "James White-ism"? Obviously not! Has there ever been a case of anyone actually believing "James White-ism?" I find it extremely unlikely! In that example, one would be technically correct in claiming that "James White-ism" was a "real heresy" in the sense that what it supposedly teaches is, in fact, heretical. On the other hand, if a "heresy" has only ever existed as a ridiculously over-the-top made up concept without a single known believer in what it supposedly teaches, it's not an actual threat to orthodoxy and is unlikely to be used by any actual false teacher to attract converts. The same is true of "Pelagianism". It has never been more than an imaginary "threat" used to scare people into embracing certain teachings that the Bible doesn't support, and an insult used to intimidate opponents in an effort to scare them into agreeing with the one using the term.
@@CBALLEN I deny it as a blasphemy without affirming that "everyone is born a blank slate", because original sin exist. I deny that "everyone has the capability to do evil or good equally" but I affirm that grace is offered to all and that WITH GRACE everyone has the capability to do good. Of this, saint Augustine affirmed original sin but denied that God has a universal and sincere salvific will. The Church recognizes that saint Augustine held a restrictive view of salvation.
It’s quite shocking to realise that what countless students are being taught in Bible and theological colleges about Pelagius is entirely wrong, fanciful and a smear campaign. Leighton looks shocked, as we should all be. Thank you, this is an enlightening interview. It shows that real scholarship involves looking at original documents, rather than regurgitating other so-called ‘experts’ who often have never looked in detail at what they are espousing to hapless students.
I would definitely look into it. Leighton is a bit questionable of a source, and I’m not so sure most church denominations would agree with this lady. I’m Protestant, but I’d look at what Catholics say on this (since they have authority keeping them in tune, not one guy (I’m sure he has some authority in his life, but just saying, other churches have thousands of peoples study worth working together)).
@@ZachFish- Thanks, I intend to look into it. I was going by what Dr Ali Bonner said, not Leighton. I’d like to get her book, but it’s expensive! I do think many Calvinists just repeat cliches or their favourite celebrity teacher, but I’m going to ask a pastor friend what he actually knows about Pelagius, or if he’s ever read anything by him. I’m British, and must admit I never knew Pelagius was British and the earliest writer whose writings we still have (in part). People throw around phrases such as, “You’re a semi-Pelagian,” without having a clue what they’re talking about. I agree, there’s much we can learn from the beliefs of Catholics and E. Orthodox on such issues, to inform historical context.
The more I hear about Augustine the more I am troubled. He smuggled so many false doctrines into the Church and I am beginning to think he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
No, he is a Saint and Father of the Church. That said, I cannot stand up with his rethoric that Sounds SO EMPTY for me. I have Read him in spanish and Latin (Sermons Are Not very difficult) and I have only perceived a superficial rethoric that covers an ocean of vanality. It is very difficult to understand what he is really saying. Lets take for example his famous assertion: "You (GOD) created us FOR you, and our Soul is restless until it Rests in You". It Sounds fine, but it says nothing. WHO Are "US"? "Us" may be all men or only the predestined ones. In consequence, this beautifull Statement means NOTHING, because it can mean anything.
1¶ But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. -2nd Peter 2:1-2
Be sure of one thing, you are wrong and all those who spit out comments without Knowledge are found foolish and unwise, to lazy, completely unaware of what God has degreed from the beginning until the end.
Augustine was trained in rhetoric and used his talents and eloquence to smuggle alien ideas into the church. He knew how to promote himself and his highly “original” ideas (mostly borrowed from Stoicism and the Manichean cult), and singlehandedly did enough damage to Christian theology through syncretism that we still can’t recover from his errors even today.
James White only accepts debates on terms that he thinks will guarantee him an easy victory. Leighton gave him a nasty surprise by doing an end-around at their recent debate, leaving James running scared and hiding behind the moderator. After that, I don't think White is too eager to engage in any more debates in the near future, especially with an Oxford scholar like Dr. Bonner or Dr. Ken Wilson!
@@PostmillhighlightsBecause it's a strawman, what he calls "Pelagius" isn't at all what Pelagius actually believed. There's a reason why pelagius was accepted in alexandria after his "excommunication".
Even the Greeks condemn Pelagius. His error was, first: that man was 100% the author of the first step towards God. Second: That children born just like Adam, and they commit their own fall when they started to sin by observing external examples. This is not the teaching of the greek Fathers. Augustine indeed exagerated his response, but he was right on the basic. The concept of "grace" in Pelagius is not the same as what we use for grace today. Pelagius even spoke about salvation by "faith alone", but he means something completely different by that.
@@marteld2108 --- It means you are not very well informed on the subject, you don’t have a grasp on the history of the issue, you don’t understand the arguments and points of contention and you apparently didn’t watch the video.
@@JohnQPublic11 I respectfully disagree. No reputable historian would take the position that Pelagianism is a myth. To do so is ridiculous. Pelagianism was a major heresy that was contended with.
The term is used online today to shut down conversation and dismiss an "opponent"... perhaps this PhD that did her dissertation on this knows a bit more than most wielding the term as a weapon...
It seems to me that what you would basically be seeing is the documentation/evidence for her assertion(s) made here, with regard to previous writings that were falsely attributed to Pelagius, by Augustine. Academic type stuff. The price reflects the work she put into documenting that claim (which can be used by other academics, so they don't have to spend the time to do all that research themselves). That's how she makes a living.
Dr. Bonner mentions Rowan Greer's "The Fear of Freedom" That might be worth checking out also. There are other books about Pelagian also, even on Kindle if you use that.
Fascinating. Augustine, the foundation of Catholicism. Augustine, quoted more than 400 times by Calvin in the 1st edition of his Institutes. Calvinism, basically a continuation of Catholicism. Calvin, in his will, said to God shortly before he died in 1564: "I testify also and profess that I humbly seek from God, that He may so will me to be washed and purified by the great Redeemer's blood, shed for the sins of the human race, that it may be permitted me to stand before His tribunal under the covert of the Redeemer Himself." Source: Norman F. Douty, The Death of Christ (Irving, TX: Williams & Watrous Pub. Co., Revised and Enlarged Edition, 1978), p.176, citing John Calvin from F. F. Bruce's "Answers and Questions," Question 1331, in The Harvester (Exeter) January 1966. NO ASSURANCE Calvin here asks God to will what is already revealed in His will, Calvin's salvation. Calvin also acknowledges that Jesus' blood was shed for the sins of the world! This in contradiction to his own public doctrine.
From day one there were individual leaders in the church trying to raise elders/bishops to a god like level. Ignatius was a contemporary of Clement, and while Clement clearly taught respect for elders as his mentor Paul wrote, Ignatius stated in almost every letter he wrote, “when you look upon and elder, do so as you look on the face of God.” While Polycarp (the son of elders that served in Antioch with Paul) continued on the same path as Clement, Irenaeus ran with Ignatius’s baton. He writes about “convincing” Polycarp (who was an old man as Irenaeus rose to prominence, about the real succession of “Roman bishops”/popes. He also wrote against many “heresies” stating the tradition should be rooted in scripture, but then went on to defend many false teachings that were foundational to Catholicism with barely a reference to anything sounding like scripture. This was the same way Ignatius wrote, meanwhile the writings of the other two dripped with what was already seen as inspired scripture. It took 300 years, but eventually Augustine managed to elevate Gnosticism over biblically based doctrine.
Brilliant! This is a major part of why many people, when they discover, for example, Orthodoxy, breathe a huge sigh of relief... because you are joining an (authoritative) interpretive consensus which has been there from the beginning. I would highly recommend "The Curious Case of St John Cassian" (another Reformed falsely accused boogeyman) as a brilliant article!
Truth matters. If Augustine was willing to falsely accuse and condemn a man falsely and say it was ok because of a ‘greater good’ then that is a picture of his character. This is not a man who qualifies as an elder according to Scripture. He was clearly governed by man centres pride and it caused strife and conflict. Augustine also ignored how the Word of God tells Christians to correct people if you think they’re wrong. He totally disregarded this and didn’t attend to or follow the Word. Nobody should attend to or follow Augustine.
I am sure that when you comment to people on UA-cam you also follow how the word tells you to correct people. Pelagius wasn’t within arms reach of Augustine and neither are the people you converse with on the internet
Pelagianism is a historical fact and was a prominent heresy at one time. And Augustine while not perfect like anyone else was a brilliant theologian. Your comments are ignorant.
@@tariqskanaal8187 Hello there friend, May God bless you and your loved ones abundantly. How can you be "sure" about what I do, when you don't know me? Or were you being snarky and sarcastic? Which is the opposite of how the Word tells to talk to people or correct them, let alone fellow believers. You also write "Pelagius wasn't within arms reach of Augustine" - which reveals your ignorance and also your willingness to state as fact things which aren't. If you watched the full interview (which this video is just an excerpt of) Dr. Ali Bonner (an expert on Pelagius) details how Pelagius wanted to interact directly with Augustine but Augustine refused, and avoided him in public and pretended not to see him in public when they were in the same city and Pelagius wanted to talk because Augustine was bearing false witness about him and accusing him of things which weren't true. It's been a few months I think since I saw the original full length video, but my recollection is that Pelagius even wrote gentle, respectful, cordial letters wanting to discourse letters but Augustine ignored them.
@@SpielbergMichael I wanted to write a response too but just couldn’t get any of my drafts to be as polite as yours! And you’re right, Pelagius was entirely cordial, Augustine, like Luther, was an ass.
Mr. Flowers, I am finally just beginning to get out of Calvinism (seems like a tar pit that wants to suck me back in). Would you please recommend some good books that might be helpful to both adults and children who are trying to learn solid doctrine and grow in the Christian life? We are so used to learning from catechisms and the like. Thank you so much. I really want to help steer my children in the right direction and explain salvation and the Gospel correctly.
I would recommend reading and believing every word of the King James Bible. Understanding that Israel and the church are not one and the same is a big help. The King James will help you sort through the confusion that these theologians teach. It's a kids book too. My granddaughter was reading it when she was ten. A King James Bible and a 1828 English dictionary will make a big difference. Most people read books about the Bible way more than they read the Bible itself.
So James white is a modern Augustine. He creates smear campaigns and quotes what you say and then turns around and claims you don’t mean it. I dare say he took from Augustine a very bad habit
Here's an interesting little test, one of these quotes is Pelagius and one is Augustine, try to guess which is which without Google: "If, however, being already regenerate and justified, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, “I have not received,” because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God, that he had received." "Who will dare to charge for previous sins or for disregard of the commandments of the law the believers whom God chose and shows to be righteous by signs and wonders (cf. Acts 2:22)?"
Yes, the Soteriology shorts are typically taken from previous full episodes, and re-purposed so viewers can see content they may have missed and also get more bite-sized videos from long streams. We always link back the original videos in the description.
The TWO important take aways from this. That which is CALLED Pelagianism is not from Pelagius, however it is still Heretical (it was designed to be heretical in order to move people away from what Pelagius actually taught).
Let's say, for the sake of illustration, that I was accusing James White of teaching that no one could be saved unless they swallowed a live rhinoceros whole, and called that belief "James White-ism". Would anyone who actually affirmed "James White-ism" be a heretic? Obviously they would! Does James White actually affirm or teach "James White-ism"? Obviously not! Has there ever been a case of anyone actually believing "James White-ism?" I find it extremely unlikely! In that example, one would be technically correct in claiming that "James White-ism" was a "real heresy" in the sense that what it supposedly teaches is, in fact, heretical. On the other hand, if a "heresy" has only ever existed as a ridiculously over-the-top made up concept without a single known believer in what it supposedly teaches, it's not an actual threat to orthodoxy and is unlikely to be used by any actual false teacher to attract converts. The same is true of "Pelagianism". It has never been more than an imaginary "threat" used to scare people into embracing certain teachings that the Bible doesn't support, and an insult used to intimidate opponents in an effort to scare them into agreeing with the one using the term.
Questioning the historical basis for attributing the Hersey of Pelagianism to the person Pelagius, does not discredit the fact that pelagianism is heretical. So, not really sure what the point of this interview was 🤷
Big deal, I don't know what the point of God planning out every single sin that twenty plus billion people would ever commit, and then playing all that sin out with some matter added, would be . . Let alone telling us He hates sin, to boot. I think you'll get over this puzzler ; )
@@johnknight3529vs God knowing every single sin that would be committed before He created the world, having the ability to create any world that pleased Him, and choosing to go ahead and create the one in which every little sin that He foresaw would play out?
@@johnknight3529 that assumes that in order for God to do anything worthwhile, it must first make sense to you. Talk about applying humanistic limitations to God.
@@jordandthornburg This happens all throughout church history though... Nestorianism is often attributed to Nestorius despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he did not actually hold to the specifics of what was defined as Nestorianism. These examples exist everywhere, they are not new. As such, I can only see two reasons why Leighton would choose this particular instance: 1. To set up a basis for the Denial of Pelagianism as a formal Heresy 2. To discredit Augustine as a means to then attack Augustinian thought which contributes to Calvinistic thought. Of course it matters if someone is slandered. Let's not pretend that this is the real reason that Leighton posted this interview though, otherwise his channel would look a lot more like a Church History channel than an anti-calvinist channel...
There are some topics I hear and go “so what”? Is everything an outrage or a conspiracy? I may dig into this later but it is not a topic of which I find worth a lot of time. Maybe another day.
This comment is so funny. “This is not worth my time! How dare you take my time! I’m going to write three whole sentences about your time-wasting video and point out maybe one day I’ll be convinced that it matters!” Okayyyy then. 🤣🤣
If all this is true, why was Pelagianism condemned at the Council of Carthage in 418, which doesn't assign its origin or nature to Augustine? The Council of Carthage used Pelagiuses own words to condemn him. Also, Augustine was not the only one writing against Pelagius. Jerome also publicly condemned Pelagius, and Pelagius had other detractors also. Somethings not adding up to history here.
I would’ve appreciated a better assessment and presentation of the concepts in play here. Halfway through the video and have only heard things around the topic, not about it!
She did lay out the issue fairly well. Maybe after you commented. She said that 1) Pelagius was accused of denying the need of grace for salvation 2) that the writings that are certainly from the author do in fact acknowledge a need for God I.e., grace regarding salvation 3) that instead of taking a new position, Pelagius was actually defending the recognized positions of church fathers of the previous periods, 4) that Augustine, searched Pelagius’ work and really did not find anything of a scandalous nature, but misrepresented Pelagius. She cited quite a few other researchers who corroborate her findings. I thought it was pretty clear.
@@carld2796 Great support to this interview is Ken Wilson's work. He traced Augustine's 10 year trip in 3 pagan heresies and ideas he brought from there to christianity. Must have book from Ken is "The foundation of augustinian-calvinism." Hi from Finland !
This analysis is a spectacularly illogical. But, that is not new to this channel. We continue to progress: 1) First, for many years we had a persistent defense of American evangelical semi-Pelagianism 2) As time went on, this advanced to a more specific defense of the heterodox theology of Provisionism 3) There was the shocking jump to meritorious Justification with the "choice meat" teaching 4) Along the way we've already seen defenses of Open Theism 5) Now we are going to smooth all of it over by pretending self-justification doesn't exist......."You can't call me a Pelagian because Pelagianism isn't even real" Next up: 6) The "all we need is the 'divine light'" teaching, a la the late Billy Graham, where it doesn't matter what God you worship, since we all just respond to the "light we have." This will no doubt be followed up by a defense of Universalism 7) I wouldn't be surprised if that were followed by an episode "Universalism is a myth" explained by someone with a British accent It will be curious to see if any additional heresies creep in, such as unitarianism or revisions on inerrancy. Dr. Flowers has, over the years, advanced from a person I viewed as a "pretty nice guy" that I disagreed with, because it appeared he really didn't understand what he was opposing, to someone who now tirelessly works to oppose the Gospel of Christ.
Reading the Bible repeatedly and believing the Apostle Paul would really help you. I've been reading the Bible for fifty years and barely know who John Calvin is. What have I missed?
its the verses’ context if you read a few verses before the “slave to sin” statement was addressed to “Jews who Believed”. Context wise it cannot be about the reprobate being inability to do anything good cause these people who are a slave to sin Believed what Jesus said i would argue believing what Jesus said is a good thing ”So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.“ John 8:31-34 ESV ”So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.” As he was saying these things, many believed in him.“ John 8:28-30 ESV
A person who is a slave to sin is alive to sin and is dominated by the darkness, but a slave who has been adopted is a child of God and is a son that abides forever. A person who has been rescued from the darkness is of the light. A person who has conveyed in the kingdom of the son of his love has been redeemed. A person is made alive and born again by the Spirit of God not by the will and volition of a man’s will of his mind and heart. Now the efficient cause of salvation is of the triune God.
@@royharp3665 True Go's does ALL the saving. He sovereignly chose to offer the gift of eternal life to them that believe. You're not arguing with men, but God
The efficient cause and the primary condition for Salvation is one, the Holy Spirit and two, the drawing of the Father. Apart from these nobody will believe.
Please qoute the book, chapter and verse of the Father drawing after the resurrection. It is only referenced drawing the faithful old covenant believers before the resurrection. Jesus plainly tells us after He is lifted up, HE will draw ALL men John 12:32 Read it all in context and you'll see past your ideology
Unless is a conditional statement. If and only if the Father draws will one come to Jesus. When nobody goes to Jesse, then the Father never drew them. If people go to Jesus, then the Father drew then. If you don’t believe it you don’t believe the scriptures.
If the Holy Spirit does open there eyes, then the scripture only serves to condemn and to judge. God must cause a rebirth and a renewal of the will, without God’s divine intervention, the Word of God serves as condemnation and judgement.,
He draws all types of men, both Gentiles and Jews. Unless the Father draws a sinner, nobody can come to Jesus. Plain and simple, love it or hate it, what is written is written.
It shows there was not just one correct christianity and there never will be. Athanasius did the same thing to Arius. Origen gets bashed constantly. Luther/Melanchthon ... on and on. Did God Have a Wife? Arminius was and is bashed (also new book on him) and so was Amyraut. Finney/Spurgeon. Today, apologists still smear each other. There is no one 'true' doctrine of christianity. One cannot arrive there because the 66 books of the [Protestant] bible are not harmonious at all! Heck, even YHWH changes! EL is not YHWH. The so-called "monotheism" of Israel is nonexistent and they had a polytheistic background. (Mark S Smith; John Day; Michael D Coogan; Francesca Stavrakopoulou; John Barton; William G Dever and many other scholars). Stick to critical scholars and quit getting theology from theologians who use their apologetics to form their views. Heck, they normally have to sign a statement of faith anyway so you're not going to get critical scholarship. This was a very good interview with Dr Aiice Bonner.
There is definetly a correct Christianity. All of these people believe all of the same core doctrines which makes us a family. And these discussions are in house family matters. So please show yourself out
@@Dawsonk300 again, you didn’t respond to any of the points and the core doctrines/matters that I mentioned. So please show yourself a fool more. You gotta be the dumbest I’ve ever met on any list.
Why would you say that about Dr. Flowers in this specific video or are you just generalizing? I'd be interested in knowing what part of his theology is clowney.
Hey Leighton, been spreading the Gospel to JW’s or Mormons any lately and trying to call them out of their heresy? Oh that’s right, you just concentrate on other brothers and sisters and pretty much call them heretics.
The Calvinist doctrine is a doctrine of demons and very deceptive. I'd say it's His Ministry to bring the light of Jesus to hopefully soften the heart of the callused heart.. I forgot, Why evangelize if there is predeterminism..........🙄... The fact that you ask a question just to say something hideous and hateful towards Mr Flowers says that you a liar and need to repent and Believe in the true Gospel my friend.
Leighton doesn't even treat them like heretics and has said (in a separate video) that he and Dr. White agree on more things than they disagree. JWs and Mormons are outsiders, not historically affecting doctrine within the Christian church.
and…what do you know of Leighton Flowers’ life and work? Obviously nothing, if you think his videos on this channel, whose purpose is setting Soteriological topics right, are the only things he does.
I doubt anyone can live up to your standards. How many times have you read through the entire Bible? How many souls have you lead to Christ? When was the last time you witnessed to a JW or Morman?
In this short video, the woman specifically points out that you should READ what Pelagius wrote. And then there's her scholarly and well-documented book where she lays out the written facts with extensive source notes. Any Pastor that I've asked about Pelagius only say they were taught it was heretical but didn't read his works to be certain. The blind following the blind.
Flowers and Jehovahs Witness agree on the doctrine on free will. Ask them they will reinterpret John 6 the same way as flowers, therefore flowers has that on common with them. Happy Friday.
Typical Bonehead Academic... Ms. Bonner, when Dr. Leighton asks what's Pelagianism for the layman, he didn't say launch into a confused contorted detailed explanation of where Pelagius drew his ideas or what influenced him, just answer the question. What was Pelagius purported to teach? Do you people in Academia even listen when asked a simple question?
If you have access to a good library and really want your mind blown, check out these. Our "reformed" friends think they broke with the Latin church but are actually the torch bearers of corrupting influence. Weaver, David. “From Paul to Augustine: Romans 5:12 in Early Christian Exegesis.” SVTQ 27 (1983): 187-206. ibid. “The Exegesis of Romans 5:12 Among the Greek Fathers and Its Implication for the Doctrine of Original Sin: The 5th-12th Centuries.” SVTQ 29 (1985): 133-59. ibid. “The Exegesis of Romans 5:12 Among the Greek Fathers and Its Implication for the Doctrine of Original Sin: The 5th-12th Centuries.” SVTQ 29 (1985): 231-57.
What really doesn't make sense about "irresistible grace" is that it works for salvation but then stops working immediately in the believer, so that the believer is now quite able to resist it by asserting their will to sin or even fall back into legalism ("fall from grace" as in Galatians 5:4 usage--seeking to now be justified by law).
That was definitely eye opening! Thank you Dr. Bonner for your insight into Pelagianism.
Its seems like Pelagianism only existed in the mind of Augustine, for he having the audacity to critique Augustine's "Confessions."
💯
I'm borrowing that phrase 😅
"Only existed In the mind of Augustine"
This presentation was very helpful in understanding the Genesis of the apostasy that begins with Augustine and later the murderer of the saints of God, John Calvin.
I'll never understand why some Christians are actually attracted to the idea that nothing they do spiritually or morally matters because life is just God playing with His dollies.
Haha... partly because they're lazy and just want some fire insurance
Augustine is just like modern day politicians in this regard. Take an out of context quote to smear the other guy just so you get an upper hand.
It does appear that Augustine gaslighted Pelagius. Why, I'm not sure.
Did he feel that he was defending the Church?
Was he looking for a excuse to revert to his pre-Christian belief in a deterministic God?
I wonder.
Augustine was more liberal than Peglagius in conduct and Peglagius let him know it, plus that Augustine had a mistress on the side. Augustine was the church's premier apologist and I imagine he didn't like being corrected. So in arguing against Peglagius, Augustine reverted to his Manichaeism, leaving the Catholic church doctrine behind.
For the same reason Luther totally gaslighted Erasmus. They were bad dudes with poor intellectual capability.
Two reasons: Augustine needed to secure his reputation as a church leader by attacking heretics, and so he invented a heretic. He ascribed to Pelagius a bunch of things that Pelagius never said, got him excommunicated, and all his writings burned while Augustine danced on the ashes.
Second, church leaders recognized how useful Augustine's new theories were to the church hierarchy, because it greatly increased their power over Christian life.
The church at that time was transitioning from a doctrine based on individual moral responsibility to a doctrine of total depravity. In short, you can never be sure of your moral conscience, because every part of you is touched by depravity. The believer's only hope is to instead trust in church doctrines and creeds, in church rites and sacraments. The laity doesn't need to develop a deeper relationship with God through the work of the Holy Spirit. They just need to follow the dictates of the clergy.
What this did was to elevate the authority of the Church and its role in Christians lives to where the church was preeminent, which was exactly what church leaders wanted.
I always got the impression it was out of personal animosity on Augustine's part. The fact that he tried and failed to get Pelagius convicted of heresy strongly implies he loathed his opponent and would stop and nothing to defame and harm him.
@@christopherwalker5351That had been brewing from very early on. If you read Polycarp and Clement, you see a ton of scripture being quoted and a view where church elders are to be respected as per scripture.
On the other hand Ignatius said things like, “when you look upon an elder you look upon the face of God. Irenaeus seemed to pick up on that, and talks about “correcting Polycarp’s” idea that Clement was the first bishop of Rome, and starts pushing the idea of a pope. He also flat out stated that church traditions should be founded in scripture, and then goes on to defend traditions with zero biblical foundation.
By Augustine, we see the complete destruction of any real biblical orthodoxy. Many other leaders of that time had sudden shifts in their theology after watching Augustine ruin others.
I get the sneaking suspicion that most Calvinists don’t even know a thing about Pelagius, and just throw around his name as an insult without actually understanding what they say.
Absolutely. Ask them what is specifically wrong and they can't be specific, or, they say something that he didn't believe or even write about.
no their not calvinist preach a false demonic Gospel from Hell that is very clear for the sake of their beareded philisophical fan club of a heretic repent of this wicked theology and falde gospel @@cal30m1
@@cal30m1I challenge this. When I see people argue against Calvinism I see them most often totally understanding it, they just can also reason Calvinism’s claims out to their logical extent, showing how bad they are. Then Calvinists, who don’t also seem to be able to extrapolate out their own tenets, argue back that the non-Calvinist just doesn’t understand Calvinism, when in reality they just lack the wherewithal to be able to analyze the theological system.
Well they just shouldn’t throw out his they should say semi pelagian instead
There's a long history of that. Martin Luther (whom Calvinists claim as one of their so-called "giants of the faith", despite the fact that Luther would have called any Calvinist in history a lot of nasty names for teaching the doctrines they do) accused Zwingli (who was basically another John Calvin one generation earlier) of being a "Pelagian" for teaching the memorialist view on the Lord's Supper rather than Luther's own "real presence" view. While Zwingli was many bad things, calling him a "Pelagian" was patently ridiculous, especially as the point of dispute had nothing to do with soteriology...
Thank you for making this clear. Another problem with Augustine , his motives, and his influence.
11:14 - "ALL these arguments are granted in Scripture" - referring to BOTH the absolute deterministic sovereignty of God AND absolute freedom of man to act and even change the mind of God... BOTH are taught, and I refuse to worship Philosophy. Leighton does so good emphasizing the Gospel and the command to US to be believing in Jesus' Blood, NOT "believing God is sovereign" ❤
He does. You probably just have a misguided view of what it must mean for God to be sovereign (IE: it doesn't require determinism).
Pelagius himself may not have actually taught what we now know as "Pelagianism", but the _tenets_ of this "Pelagianism" most certainly are unbiblical and heretical. In that sense, it's perfectly acceptable to criticize Pelagian ideas. If we shouldn't criticize Pelagianism, should we also not criticize Nestorianism?
What the ecumenical councils said was "Nestorianism" was not actually taught by its namesake, Nestorius. Yet we still rightly criticize Nestorianism because it's a christological heresy, much like how Pelagianism is a soteriological heresy.
But no one labeled a pelagian is actually a pelagian.
So it's a gaslighting tool used to deceive people from thinking critically and bringing calvinism to its logical conclusions.
The difference between Pelagianism and Nestorianism (or other heresies like Arianism, Modalism, and Gnosticism) is that Nestorianism actually existed and had real, documented adherents, while no one in recorded history has ever affirmed all, most or even half of the 14 points that Augustine described as being "Pelagianism".
Let's say, for the sake of illustration, that I was accusing James White of teaching that no one could be saved unless they swallowed a live rhinoceros whole, and called that belief "James White-ism". Would anyone who actually affirmed "James White-ism" be a heretic? Obviously they would! Does James White actually affirm or teach "James White-ism"? Obviously not! Has there ever been a case of anyone actually believing "James White-ism?" I find it extremely unlikely!
In that example, one would be technically correct in claiming that "James White-ism" was a "real heresy" in the sense that what it supposedly teaches is, in fact, heretical. On the other hand, if a "heresy" has only ever existed as a ridiculously over-the-top made up concept without a single known believer in what it supposedly teaches, it's not an actual threat to orthodoxy and is unlikely to be used by any actual false teacher to attract converts. The same is true of "Pelagianism". It has never been more than an imaginary "threat" used to scare people into embracing certain teachings that the Bible doesn't support, and an insult used to intimidate opponents in an effort to scare them into agreeing with the one using the term.
@@CBALLEN I deny it as a blasphemy without affirming that "everyone is born a blank slate", because original sin exist. I deny that "everyone has the capability to do evil or good equally" but I affirm that grace is offered to all and that WITH GRACE everyone has the capability to do good. Of this, saint Augustine affirmed original sin but denied that God has a universal and sincere salvific will. The Church recognizes that saint Augustine held a restrictive view of salvation.
@CBALLEN Total Depravity should be considered heresy and a deviation from the Christian faith thanks to Augustine.
It’s quite shocking to realise that what countless students are being taught in Bible and theological colleges about Pelagius is entirely wrong, fanciful and a smear campaign. Leighton looks shocked, as we should all be. Thank you, this is an enlightening interview. It shows that real scholarship involves looking at original documents, rather than regurgitating other so-called ‘experts’ who often have never looked in detail at what they are espousing to hapless students.
I would definitely look into it.
Leighton is a bit questionable of a source, and I’m not so sure most church denominations would agree with this lady.
I’m Protestant, but I’d look at what Catholics say on this (since they have authority keeping them in tune, not one guy (I’m sure he has some authority in his life, but just saying, other churches have thousands of peoples study worth working together)).
@@ZachFish- Thanks, I intend to look into it. I was going by what Dr Ali Bonner said, not Leighton. I’d like to get her book, but it’s expensive! I do think many Calvinists just repeat cliches or their favourite celebrity teacher, but I’m going to ask a pastor friend what he actually knows about Pelagius, or if he’s ever read anything by him. I’m British, and must admit I never knew Pelagius was British and the earliest writer whose writings we still have (in part). People throw around phrases such as, “You’re a semi-Pelagian,” without having a clue what they’re talking about. I agree, there’s much we can learn from the beliefs of Catholics and E. Orthodox on such issues, to inform historical context.
The more I hear about Augustine the more I am troubled. He smuggled so many false doctrines into the Church and I am beginning to think he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I have come to the conclusion that Augustine was the worst flesh-and-blood enemy of Christianity in history.
No, he is a Saint and Father of the Church.
That said, I cannot stand up with his rethoric that Sounds SO EMPTY for me. I have Read him in spanish and Latin (Sermons Are Not very difficult) and I have only perceived a superficial rethoric that covers an ocean of vanality. It is very difficult to understand what he is really saying.
Lets take for example his famous assertion: "You (GOD) created us FOR you, and our Soul is restless until it Rests in You".
It Sounds fine, but it says nothing. WHO Are "US"? "Us" may be all men or only the predestined ones. In consequence, this beautifull Statement means NOTHING, because it can mean anything.
1¶ But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
-2nd Peter 2:1-2
Be sure of one thing, you are wrong and all those who spit out comments without Knowledge are found foolish and unwise, to lazy, completely unaware of what God has degreed from the beginning until the end.
Augustine was trained in rhetoric and used his talents and eloquence to smuggle alien ideas into the church. He knew how to promote himself and his highly “original” ideas (mostly borrowed from Stoicism and the Manichean cult), and singlehandedly did enough damage to Christian theology through syncretism that we still can’t recover from his errors even today.
Calvinists interpretation of Romans 9 completely misrepresents the idea of a holy God. Holy includes being just.
Wow! Very insightful and informative. Thank you for sharing.
Dr. Flowers, could you make all of your books available on Google Play Books as Audiobooks, I will purchase them all.
Boy, would I love to see an Ali Bonner vs. James White debate.
A woman?! 🤣 He ain't gonna do that!
James White only accepts debates on terms that he thinks will guarantee him an easy victory. Leighton gave him a nasty surprise by doing an end-around at their recent debate, leaving James running scared and hiding behind the moderator. After that, I don't think White is too eager to engage in any more debates in the near future, especially with an Oxford scholar like Dr. Bonner or Dr. Ken Wilson!
@@DamonNomad82 exactly!
Why would James White debate the views of Pelagius?
@@PostmillhighlightsBecause it's a strawman, what he calls "Pelagius" isn't at all what Pelagius actually believed. There's a reason why pelagius was accepted in alexandria after his "excommunication".
Even the Greeks condemn Pelagius. His error was, first: that man was 100% the author of the first step towards God.
Second: That children born just like Adam, and they commit their own fall when they started to sin by observing external examples.
This is not the teaching of the greek Fathers. Augustine indeed exagerated his response, but he was right on the basic.
The concept of "grace" in Pelagius is not the same as what we use for grace today. Pelagius even spoke about salvation by "faith alone", but he means something completely different by that.
This is a brilliant smack down of the intellectual dishonesty of Augustine and Calvin.
Augustine had one of the greatest minds in theology and Pelagius/Plagianism was real. Your comment is ignorant.
@@marteld2108 --- Do try to keep up.
@@JohnQPublic11 please clarify what you mean. Excuse me for usung the word ignorant. It was not charitable of me.
@@marteld2108 --- It means you are not very well informed on the subject, you don’t have a grasp on the history of the issue, you don’t understand the arguments and points of contention and you apparently didn’t watch the video.
@@JohnQPublic11 I respectfully disagree. No reputable historian would take the position that Pelagianism is a myth. To do so is ridiculous. Pelagianism was a major heresy that was contended with.
The term is used online today to shut down conversation and dismiss an "opponent"... perhaps this PhD that did her dissertation on this knows a bit more than most wielding the term as a weapon...
I would love to purchase and read Bonner's book, but not for $105.00.
It seems to me that what you would basically be seeing is the documentation/evidence for her assertion(s) made here, with regard to previous writings that were falsely attributed to Pelagius, by Augustine. Academic type stuff. The price reflects the work she put into documenting that claim (which can be used by other academics, so they don't have to spend the time to do all that research themselves). That's how she makes a living.
I hope that Dr Bonner can release a “Myth of Pelagiamism” book for dummies, like Ken Wilson did!
I bought it and paging through it it's very scholarly indeed. It's next up on my read list.
Dr. Bonner mentions Rowan Greer's "The Fear of Freedom" That might be worth checking out also. There are other books about Pelagian also, even on Kindle if you use that.
Yeah I'd love to get a copy but it's very expensive
Fascinating.
Augustine, the foundation of Catholicism.
Augustine, quoted more than 400 times by Calvin in the 1st edition of his Institutes.
Calvinism, basically a continuation of Catholicism.
Calvin, in his will, said to God shortly before he died in 1564:
"I testify also and profess that I humbly seek from God, that He may so will me to be washed and purified by the great Redeemer's blood, shed for the sins of the human race, that it may be permitted me to stand before His tribunal under the covert of the Redeemer Himself."
Source: Norman F. Douty, The Death of Christ (Irving, TX: Williams & Watrous Pub. Co., Revised and Enlarged Edition, 1978), p.176, citing John Calvin from F. F. Bruce's "Answers and Questions," Question 1331, in The Harvester (Exeter) January 1966.
NO ASSURANCE
Calvin here asks God to will what is already revealed in His will, Calvin's salvation.
Calvin also acknowledges that Jesus' blood was shed for the sins of the world! This in contradiction to his own public doctrine.
From day one there were individual leaders in the church trying to raise elders/bishops to a god like level. Ignatius was a contemporary of Clement, and while Clement clearly taught respect for elders as his mentor Paul wrote, Ignatius stated in almost every letter he wrote, “when you look upon and elder, do so as you look on the face of God.”
While Polycarp (the son of elders that served in Antioch with Paul) continued on the same path as Clement, Irenaeus ran with Ignatius’s baton. He writes about “convincing” Polycarp (who was an old man as Irenaeus rose to prominence, about the real succession of “Roman bishops”/popes.
He also wrote against many “heresies” stating the tradition should be rooted in scripture, but then went on to defend many false teachings that were foundational to Catholicism with barely a reference to anything sounding like scripture.
This was the same way Ignatius wrote, meanwhile the writings of the other two dripped with what was already seen as inspired scripture.
It took 300 years, but eventually Augustine managed to elevate Gnosticism over biblically based doctrine.
Thank you for this information, I'm a former RC and am learning a lot from you site.
God Bless
Super helpful, thank you, Leighton and Ali. You are influencing the UK for the better🇬🇧
Idol Killer made also interview with her.
Brilliant! This is a major part of why many people, when they discover, for example, Orthodoxy, breathe a huge sigh of relief... because you are joining an (authoritative) interpretive consensus which has been there from the beginning.
I would highly recommend "The Curious Case of St John Cassian" (another Reformed falsely accused boogeyman) as a brilliant article!
Truth matters.
If Augustine was willing to falsely accuse and condemn a man falsely and say it was ok because of a ‘greater good’ then that is a picture of his character.
This is not a man who qualifies as an elder according to Scripture. He was clearly governed by man centres pride and it caused strife and conflict.
Augustine also ignored how the Word of God tells Christians to correct people if you think they’re wrong.
He totally disregarded this and didn’t attend to or follow the Word.
Nobody should attend to or follow Augustine.
Correct. And if you study Luther it’s the same. Calvin is similar.
I am sure that when you comment to people on UA-cam you also follow how the word tells you to correct people.
Pelagius wasn’t within arms reach of Augustine and neither are the people you converse with on the internet
Pelagianism is a historical fact and was a prominent heresy at one time. And Augustine while not perfect like anyone else was a brilliant theologian. Your comments are ignorant.
@@tariqskanaal8187 Hello there friend,
May God bless you and your loved ones abundantly.
How can you be "sure" about what I do, when you don't know me?
Or were you being snarky and sarcastic? Which is the opposite of how the Word tells to talk to people or correct them, let alone fellow believers.
You also write "Pelagius wasn't within arms reach of Augustine" - which reveals your ignorance and also your willingness to state as fact things which aren't.
If you watched the full interview (which this video is just an excerpt of) Dr. Ali Bonner (an expert on Pelagius) details how Pelagius wanted to interact directly with Augustine but Augustine refused, and avoided him in public and pretended not to see him in public when they were in the same city and Pelagius wanted to talk because Augustine was bearing false witness about him and accusing him of things which weren't true.
It's been a few months I think since I saw the original full length video, but my recollection is that Pelagius even wrote gentle, respectful, cordial letters wanting to discourse letters but Augustine ignored them.
@@SpielbergMichael I wanted to write a response too but just couldn’t get any of my drafts to be as polite as yours! And you’re right, Pelagius was entirely cordial, Augustine, like Luther, was an ass.
Mr. Flowers, I am finally just beginning to get out of Calvinism (seems like a tar pit that wants to suck me back in). Would you please recommend some good books that might be helpful to both adults and children who are trying to learn solid doctrine and grow in the Christian life? We are so used to learning from catechisms and the like. Thank you so much. I really want to help steer my children in the right direction and explain salvation and the Gospel correctly.
Read some of Mr Flowers books! You can find them in the video description
@@seanwilson5704 We have The Potters Promise. :) Mainly thinking about books for kids and early youth.
Get Adam Harwood's Christian Theology as general guide to your family's theology.
I would recommend reading and believing every word of the King James Bible. Understanding that Israel and the church are not one and the same is a big help.
The King James will help you sort through the confusion that these theologians teach. It's a kids book too. My granddaughter was reading it when she was ten.
A King James Bible and a 1828 English dictionary will make a big difference. Most people read books about the Bible way more than they read the Bible itself.
Yes, the Bible is the number one source of course. :)
This is great !
Its almost as if a belief in determinism produces some really bad fruit.
Wrong theology about it does.
So James white is a modern Augustine. He creates smear campaigns and quotes what you say and then turns around and claims you don’t mean it. I dare say he took from Augustine a very bad habit
Bravo from Finland !
Leighton: Augustine is a villain
Church history: Augustine is a Saint
Bingo!
Also Church history: Popes are the voice of God.
Here's an interesting little test, one of these quotes is Pelagius and one is Augustine, try to guess which is which without Google:
"If, however, being already regenerate and justified, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, “I have not received,” because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God, that he had received."
"Who will dare to charge for previous sins or for disregard of the commandments of the law the believers whom God chose and shows to be righteous by signs and wonders (cf. Acts 2:22)?"
This is fascinating..
So basically..... Pelagianism is still a heresy but it wasn't started by Pelagius himself but rather Augustine??
Pelagius was not a 'Pelagian' in the theological sense. But Leighton Flowers is, correct?
Thank you for bringing up this subject.
Is this a clip of an older argument that has been re-posted? I thought Dr. Flowers already interviewed Dr. ALi Bonner...?
An older "interview" not "argument" sorry.
He did but not sure about this being new
Yes, the Soteriology shorts are typically taken from previous full episodes, and re-purposed so viewers can see content they may have missed and also get more bite-sized videos from long streams. We always link back the original videos in the description.
Well done! Keep up the good work!
The TWO important take aways from this. That which is CALLED Pelagianism is not from Pelagius, however it is still Heretical (it was designed to be heretical in order to move people away from what Pelagius actually taught).
Let's say, for the sake of illustration, that I was accusing James White of teaching that no one could be saved unless they swallowed a live rhinoceros whole, and called that belief "James White-ism". Would anyone who actually affirmed "James White-ism" be a heretic? Obviously they would! Does James White actually affirm or teach "James White-ism"? Obviously not! Has there ever been a case of anyone actually believing "James White-ism?" I find it extremely unlikely!
In that example, one would be technically correct in claiming that "James White-ism" was a "real heresy" in the sense that what it supposedly teaches is, in fact, heretical. On the other hand, if a "heresy" has only ever existed as a ridiculously over-the-top made up concept without a single known believer in what it supposedly teaches, it's not an actual threat to orthodoxy and is unlikely to be used by any actual false teacher to attract converts. The same is true of "Pelagianism". It has never been more than an imaginary "threat" used to scare people into embracing certain teachings that the Bible doesn't support, and an insult used to intimidate opponents in an effort to scare them into agreeing with the one using the term.
Really love the 15 min or less videos!
Agustin has to be the most insidious and sinister man to ever infiltrate christianity.
Great video
Questioning the historical basis for attributing the Hersey of Pelagianism to the person Pelagius, does not discredit the fact that pelagianism is heretical.
So, not really sure what the point of this interview was 🤷
Big deal, I don't know what the point of God planning out every single sin that twenty plus billion people would ever commit, and then playing all that sin out with some matter added, would be . . Let alone telling us He hates sin, to boot. I think you'll get over this puzzler ; )
@@johnknight3529vs God knowing every single sin that would be committed before He created the world, having the ability to create any world that pleased Him, and choosing to go ahead and create the one in which every little sin that He foresaw would play out?
@@johnknight3529 that assumes that in order for God to do anything worthwhile, it must first make sense to you.
Talk about applying humanistic limitations to God.
Because if someone was slandered that matters… What an odd comment.
@@jordandthornburg
This happens all throughout church history though... Nestorianism is often attributed to Nestorius despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he did not actually hold to the specifics of what was defined as Nestorianism. These examples exist everywhere, they are not new.
As such, I can only see two reasons why Leighton would choose this particular instance:
1. To set up a basis for the Denial of Pelagianism as a formal Heresy
2. To discredit Augustine as a means to then attack Augustinian thought which contributes to Calvinistic thought.
Of course it matters if someone is slandered. Let's not pretend that this is the real reason that Leighton posted this interview though, otherwise his channel would look a lot more like a Church History channel than an anti-calvinist channel...
Calvinists - The first gaslighters in Christian history.
The comment is ironically text book gas lighting.
So no original sin?
Wow! Very interesting 😊
Idol Killer made also interview with Ali Bonner !
Comment for the channel
There are some topics I hear and go “so what”?
Is everything an outrage or a conspiracy?
I may dig into this later but it is not a topic of which I find worth a lot of time. Maybe another day.
This comment is so funny. “This is not worth my time! How dare you take my time! I’m going to write three whole sentences about your time-wasting video and point out maybe one day I’ll be convinced that it matters!” Okayyyy then. 🤣🤣
Interesting.
If all this is true, why was Pelagianism condemned at the Council of Carthage in 418, which doesn't assign its origin or nature to Augustine? The Council of Carthage used Pelagiuses own words to condemn him. Also, Augustine was not the only one writing against Pelagius. Jerome also publicly condemned Pelagius, and Pelagius had other detractors also. Somethings not adding up to history here.
Insightful
I would’ve appreciated a better assessment and presentation of the concepts in play here. Halfway through the video and have only heard things around the topic, not about it!
The full video on this channel
Check the description for the full video.
Idol Killer also made video with Ali Bonner of this crucial subject. I did wrote those both interviews down.
She did lay out the issue fairly well. Maybe after you commented. She said that 1) Pelagius was accused of denying the need of grace for salvation 2) that the writings that are certainly from the author do in fact acknowledge a need for God I.e., grace regarding salvation 3) that instead of taking a new position, Pelagius was actually defending the recognized positions of church fathers of the previous periods, 4) that Augustine, searched Pelagius’ work and really did not find anything of a scandalous nature, but misrepresented Pelagius. She cited quite a few other researchers who corroborate her findings. I thought it was pretty clear.
@@carld2796 Great support to this interview is Ken Wilson's work. He traced Augustine's 10 year trip in 3 pagan heresies and ideas he brought from there to christianity. Must have book from Ken is "The foundation of augustinian-calvinism." Hi from Finland !
This analysis is a spectacularly illogical. But, that is not new to this channel. We continue to progress:
1) First, for many years we had a persistent defense of American evangelical semi-Pelagianism
2) As time went on, this advanced to a more specific defense of the heterodox theology of Provisionism
3) There was the shocking jump to meritorious Justification with the "choice meat" teaching
4) Along the way we've already seen defenses of Open Theism
5) Now we are going to smooth all of it over by pretending self-justification doesn't exist......."You can't call me a Pelagian because Pelagianism isn't even real"
Next up:
6) The "all we need is the 'divine light'" teaching, a la the late Billy Graham, where it doesn't matter what God you worship, since we all just respond to the "light we have." This will no doubt be followed up by a defense of Universalism
7) I wouldn't be surprised if that were followed by an episode "Universalism is a myth" explained by someone with a British accent
It will be curious to see if any additional heresies creep in, such as unitarianism or revisions on inerrancy.
Dr. Flowers has, over the years, advanced from a person I viewed as a "pretty nice guy" that I disagreed with, because it appeared he really didn't understand what he was opposing, to someone who now tirelessly works to oppose the Gospel of Christ.
You just can't take facts.
Reading the Bible repeatedly and believing the Apostle Paul would really help you.
I've been reading the Bible for fifty years and barely know who John Calvin is. What have I missed?
@@au7-721 Calvin said he could write his whole theology based on Augustine. Just know reading Calvin, that he is biased.
@@au7-721 You are very familiar with Leighton Flowers though, right? Your 50 years of Bible reading led you here to listen to this unbiblical garbage?
@@Yaas_ok123 If he had read Leighton Flowers, he wouldn't be biased though, right?
This is a bad trail, Mr. Flowers.
Hard facts.
Dude’s been off his rocker since his first debate with James White.
Flowers believes that man believes through by his own will, but how can one believe when there will is a slave to sin? That doesn’t make sense.
Exactly
its the verses’ context if you read a few verses before the “slave to sin” statement was addressed to “Jews who Believed”. Context wise it cannot be about the reprobate being inability to do anything good cause these people who are a slave to sin Believed what Jesus said i would argue believing what Jesus said is a good thing
”So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.“
John 8:31-34 ESV
”So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.” As he was saying these things, many believed in him.“
John 8:28-30 ESV
A person who is a slave to sin is alive to sin and is dominated by the darkness, but a slave who has been adopted is a child of God and is a son that abides forever. A person who has been rescued from the darkness is of the light. A person who has conveyed in the kingdom of the son of his love has been redeemed. A person is made alive and born again by the Spirit of God not by the will and volition of a man’s will of his mind and heart. Now the efficient cause of salvation is of the triune God.
@@royharp3665
True
Go's does ALL the saving.
He sovereignly chose to offer the gift of eternal life to them that believe.
You're not arguing with men, but God
The same way “slaves of righteousness” can still sin.
I suggest we move on from all these isms and follow GODS WORDS instead
Chapter and Verse friend Chapter and Verse! There is no spiritual power in man’s word or opinion!
You never go full pelagian
Not worse than going full Manechean
The efficient cause and the primary condition for Salvation is one, the Holy Spirit and two, the drawing of the Father. Apart from these nobody will believe.
You skipped one - Jesus drawing us by the gospel. John 12
Please qoute the book, chapter and verse of the Father drawing after the resurrection. It is only referenced drawing the faithful old covenant believers before the resurrection. Jesus plainly tells us after He is lifted up, HE will draw ALL men John 12:32
Read it all in context and you'll see past your ideology
Unless is a conditional statement. If and only if the Father draws will one come to Jesus. When nobody goes to Jesse, then the Father never drew them. If people go to Jesus, then the Father drew then. If you don’t believe it you don’t believe the scriptures.
If the Holy Spirit does open there eyes, then the scripture only serves to condemn and to judge. God must cause a rebirth and a renewal of the will, without God’s divine intervention, the Word of God serves as condemnation and judgement.,
He draws all types of men, both Gentiles and Jews. Unless the Father draws a sinner, nobody can come to Jesus. Plain and simple, love it or hate it, what is written is written.
Y’all are just believing these talking heads. Remember the noble Bereans.
It shows there was not just one correct christianity and there never will be. Athanasius did the same thing to Arius. Origen gets bashed constantly. Luther/Melanchthon ... on and on. Did God Have a Wife?
Arminius was and is bashed (also new book on him) and so was Amyraut. Finney/Spurgeon.
Today, apologists still smear each other. There is no one 'true' doctrine of christianity. One cannot arrive there because the 66 books of the [Protestant] bible are not harmonious at all! Heck, even YHWH changes! EL is not YHWH. The so-called "monotheism" of Israel is nonexistent and they had a polytheistic background. (Mark S Smith; John Day; Michael D Coogan; Francesca Stavrakopoulou; John Barton; William G Dever and many other scholars).
Stick to critical scholars and quit getting theology from theologians who use their apologetics to form their views. Heck, they normally have to sign a statement of faith anyway so you're not going to get critical scholarship.
This was a very good interview with Dr Aiice Bonner.
There is definetly a correct Christianity. All of these people believe all of the same core doctrines which makes us a family. And these discussions are in house family matters. So please show yourself out
@@Dawsonk300 again, you didn’t respond to any of the points and the core doctrines/matters that I mentioned. So please show yourself a fool more. You gotta be the dumbest I’ve ever met on any list.
I guess Flowers is on a mission to be a theological clown.
typical hardened Calvinist. Always insulting others. I can Assure you that Jesus wouldn't call Flowers a clown.
What about this video made you say this?
Why would you say that about Dr. Flowers in this specific video or are you just generalizing? I'd be interested in knowing what part of his theology is clowney.
If you don’t understand the deeper things in life you really shouldn’t insult those that do. It only serves to expose you.
Cope
Hey Leighton, been spreading the Gospel to JW’s or Mormons any lately and trying to call them out of their heresy? Oh that’s right, you just concentrate on other brothers and sisters and pretty much call them heretics.
The Calvinist doctrine is a doctrine of demons and very deceptive. I'd say it's His Ministry to bring the light of Jesus to hopefully soften the heart of the callused heart.. I forgot, Why evangelize if there is predeterminism..........🙄... The fact that you ask a question just to say something hideous and hateful towards Mr Flowers says that you a liar and need to repent and Believe in the true Gospel my friend.
Where has Leighton ever called calvinists heretics?
You can find James white and calvinists actually doing that though
Leighton doesn't even treat them like heretics and has said (in a separate video) that he and Dr. White agree on more things than they disagree.
JWs and Mormons are outsiders, not historically affecting doctrine within the Christian church.
and…what do you know of Leighton Flowers’ life and work? Obviously nothing, if you think his videos on this channel, whose purpose is setting Soteriological topics right, are the only things he does.
I doubt anyone can live up to your standards. How many times have you read through the entire Bible?
How many souls have you lead to Christ?
When was the last time you witnessed to a JW or Morman?
Oh I see it’s a myth now. The 1700 years of history since then means nothing now because this woman says so. Of course this guy would have her on.
😂
Nothing in your comment disproves anything said in the interview. Do you have something specific you disagree with?
Straw man
Red Herring
Appeal to Authority (history)
Ad Hominem
Appeal to Emotion
So many fallacies
In so few words😅
Feelings hurt 😅
In this short video, the woman specifically points out that you should READ what Pelagius wrote. And then there's her scholarly and well-documented book where she lays out the written facts with extensive source notes. Any Pastor that I've asked about Pelagius only say they were taught it was heretical but didn't read his works to be certain. The blind following the blind.
Flowers and Jehovahs Witness agree on the doctrine on free will. Ask them they will reinterpret John 6 the same way as flowers, therefore flowers has that on common with them. Happy Friday.
Hmm. So I guess this makes him a heretic? Come on, man. You can do better than this! Let's see you formulate a well reasoned argument.
They can't agree on John 6 if JWs don't see Christ as God.
Flowers and JW also eat food. does that make them the same in all ways?
Calvinism and Islam agree on Exhaustive Divine Determinism that makes God the author of evil. What's your point?
When you have no argument to support your false doctrine....
Just make one up.
(Calvinism 101)
Typical Bonehead Academic... Ms. Bonner, when Dr. Leighton asks what's Pelagianism for the layman, he didn't say launch into a confused contorted detailed explanation of where Pelagius drew his ideas or what influenced him, just answer the question. What was Pelagius purported to teach? Do you people in Academia even listen when asked a simple question?
If you have access to a good library and really want your mind blown, check out these. Our "reformed" friends think they broke with the Latin church but are actually the torch bearers of corrupting influence.
Weaver, David. “From Paul to Augustine: Romans 5:12 in Early Christian Exegesis.” SVTQ 27 (1983): 187-206.
ibid. “The Exegesis of Romans 5:12 Among the Greek Fathers and Its Implication for the Doctrine of Original Sin: The 5th-12th Centuries.” SVTQ 29 (1985): 133-59.
ibid. “The Exegesis of Romans 5:12 Among the Greek Fathers and Its Implication for the Doctrine of Original Sin: The 5th-12th Centuries.” SVTQ 29 (1985): 231-57.