Why Universal Atonement is Pelagianism

[1689Dave]

Pelagianism. This theological position emerged in the early fifth century in connection with the writings of the British monk *Pelagius. It was enhanced and developed by disciples after the death of Pelagius and came to affirm the ideas that original sin is not a sound biblical doctrine and that the human will is completely free to choose either good or evil. Individual salvation or damnation depends upon that choice. This view was rejected by the church largely because of the influence of *Augustine of Hippo.

Feldmeth, N. P. (2008). In Pocket Dictionary of Church History: Over 300 Terms Clearly and Concisely Defined (p. 112). IVP Academic.

Why is Universal Atonement Pelagianism? Because Pelagius’s denial of original sin made the atonement unnecessary. This is tantamount to saying Christ’s death on the cross didn’t save anyone. Just as Universal Atonement doesn’t save anyone. The Universalists say that the atonement only makes salvation possible for those who choose to save themselves. Both Pelagianism and Universal Atonement are bound to the idea of Free Will choice to bring about salvation.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[1689Dave]

Universal Atonement is Pelagian pure and simple. Condemned as heresy by the Church in 431.

 

[Albion]

Universal Atonement is Pelagian pure and simple. Condemned as heresy by the Church in 431.

I'm going to stipulate that what you wrote here ^ is indeed what you believe.

There is no chance that you'll budge from it, no matter how it is debunked and how many times and in how many ways. You'll just restate the same erroneous claim again and again as though that will accomplish anything.

Therefore, let's PLEASE not waste another fifty or a hundred messages reposting what has already consumed too much time and been decided.

How about a couple of NEW religious topics? Got any ideas?? Anybody?

 

[Stravinsk]

Why is Universal Atonement Pelagianism? Because Pelagius’s denial of original sin made the atonement unnecessary. This is tantamount to saying Christ’s death on the cross didn’t save anyone.

"Forgive our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us"

Matthew 18:21-35 marks a whole passage about conditional forgiveness, and that condition has nothing to do with blood atonement.

"If you want to enter life, obey the commandments" - Matthew 19:17 ...nothing about blood atonement here either...

The Last Supper:

When Jesus declared the Bread his body and broke it, and the fruit juice his blood, and that these were for the forgiveness of sins, he did not say "later", or "when what is symbolic becomes a reality". Taken at face value He is, in my belief, rejecting blood atonement outright and connecting forgiveness (at least in part) to a lifestyle that is free from harm to other beings - namely - the animals that humans like to murder and eat. Historical evidence points to Christ being an Essene, and the vast majority of early Christians following a path that included vegetarianism (or what we know today as veganism).

This also was rejected by the early *Catholic* church, but is supported in the historical writings.

 

[Albion]

The Last Supper:

When Jesus declared the Bread his body and broke it, and the fruit juice his blood, and that these were for the forgiveness of sins, he did not say "later", or "when what is symbolic becomes a reality". Taken at face value He is, in my belief, rejecting blood atonement outright and connecting forgiveness (at least in part) to a lifestyle that is free from harm to other beings - namely - the animals that humans like to murder and eat. Historical evidence points to Christ being an Essene, and the vast majority of early Christians following a path that included vegetarianism (or what we know today as veganism).

He may have studied with the Essenes. We do not know, but it's speculated.

However, he's certainly not a vegan or much of an advocate for a lifestyle free from harming other beings in order to "murder" and eat them.

Jesus ate fish with his disciples and on many occasions assisted his Apostles to catch fish.

See Luke 24:36-43 --

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

 

[1689Dave]

"Forgive our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us"

Matthew 18:21-35 marks a whole passage about conditional forgiveness, and that condition has nothing to do with blood atonement.

"If you want to enter life, obey the commandments" - Matthew 19:17 ...nothing about blood atonement here either...

The Last Supper:

When Jesus declared the Bread his body and broke it, and the fruit juice his blood, and that these were for the forgiveness of sins, he did not say "later", or "when what is symbolic becomes a reality". Taken at face value He is, in my belief, rejecting blood atonement outright and connecting forgiveness (at least in part) to a lifestyle that is free from harm to other beings - namely - the animals that humans like to murder and eat. Historical evidence points to Christ being an Essene, and the vast majority of early Christians following a path that included vegetarianism (or what we know today as veganism).

This also was rejected by the early *Catholic* church, but is supported in the historical writings.

Grace is unconditionally spent on those who can do nothing to save themselves. If it is conditional, the self-righteous steal God's glory and apply it to themselves. After salvation, God grants repentance in Grace to his elect.

“Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Romans 11:5 (KJV 1900)

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” Romans 11:6 (KJV 1900)

“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;” 2 Timothy 2:25 (KJV 1900)

 

[Stravinsk]

He may have studied with the Essenes. We do not know, but it's speculated.

However, he's certainly not a vegan or much of an advocate for a lifestyle free from harming other beings in order to "murder" and eat them.

Jesus ate fish with his disciples and on many occasions assisted his Apostles to catch fish.

See Luke 24:36-43 --

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

One of the interesting things about comparing gospels is that one gets to see some rather glaring inconsistencies and one of these involves the feeding of the multitudes (some only bread, some with fish!). Some time back I watched a very interesting analysis of the "fish stories" in the gospels and became convinced they were later additions. I'm a vegan, so one might argue I could easily be persuaded by such analysis, but I consider myself a fairly logical person and was convinced on the evidence presented, it was compelling in my view.

 

[Stravinsk]

Grace is unconditionally spent on those who can do nothing to save themselves. If it is conditional, the self-righteous steal God's glory and apply it to themselves. After salvation, God grants repentance in Grace to his elect.

“Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Romans 11:5 (KJV 1900)

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” Romans 11:6 (KJV 1900)

“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;” 2 Timothy 2:25 (KJV 1900)

Don't forget "Original Sin" must also apply to Jesus, because while His father may have been God (what a majority of Christians believe - immaculate conception), his mother was one of those dirty sinners supposedly effected by Original Sin.

By I digress, your quotes obviously put your religious thoughts on this matter firmly in the Pauline Theology camp.

 

[1689Dave]

Don't forget "Original Sin" must also apply to Jesus, because while His father may have been God (what a majority of Christians believe - immaculate conception), his mother was one of those dirty sinners supposedly effected by Original Sin.

By I digress, your quotes obviously put your religious thoughts on this matter firmly in the Pauline Theology camp.

Jesus did not have a human spirit according to the creeds. He is God (the trinity) without sin in a human body.

 

[Albion]

One of the interesting things about comparing gospels is that one gets to see some rather glaring inconsistencies and one of these involves the feeding of the multitudes (some only bread, some with fish!). Some time back I watched a very interesting analysis of the "fish stories" in the gospels and became convinced they were later additions. I'm a vegan, so one might argue I could easily be persuaded by such analysis, but I consider myself a fairly logical person and was convinced on the evidence presented, it was compelling in my view.

Hmmm. But I didn't deny that Christ ate meals (and also served up some to other people) that did not include meat.

However, it cannot be that he was everything that you said he was in your post (vegan, example for a lifestyle that didn't include murdering animals). Not if we are to believe the Gospel accounts..

 

[Albion]

Don't forget "Original Sin" must also apply to Jesus, because while His father may have been God (what a majority of Christians believe - immaculate conception), his mother was one of those dirty sinners supposedly effected by Original Sin.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's condition, not Jesus's.

And, offhand, I don't know of any Christian church that believes Jesus as God incarnate could be inflicted with Original Sin. That would deny the nature of God.

 

[Stravinsk]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's condition, not Jesus's.

And, offhand, I don't know of any Christian church that believes Jesus as God incarnate could be inflicted with Original Sin. That would deny the nature of God.

If I understand Original Sin (the Scriptures for which are almost wholly in Paul's writings, with OT examples a bit reaching imo), it's supposedly an inherited condition that comes from Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden. Also, this condition is also supposedly passed down to all humans. Mary is/was human, so this includes her. If Jesus is Human at all, then obviously Original Sin (as described) must be part of it. If Jesus is not human, then according to John this is the spirit of Anti-Christ (denying He came in the Flesh).

 

[Stravinsk]

Hmmm. But I didn't deny that Christ ate meals (and also served up some to other people) that did not include meat.

However, it cannot be that he was everything that you said he was in your post (vegan, example for a lifestyle that didn't include murdering animals). Not if we are to believe the Gospel accounts..

Imagine living in Christ's time and being one of those multitudes fed by just a few loaves of bread and a a couple of fish that the Messiah miraculously multiplied to feed thousands. Then when what wasn't eaten was collected, the bread and fish filled several baskets.

Imagine some time later the same Christ reflecting on the feeding of the multitudes (that same one), and only mentioning bread being collected in the baskets, without a word about fish.

One could draw one of 2 conclusions: A) It was an innocent oversight about a miraculous event or B) The fish part was "fishy" - a later addition by scribes.

Put that in the background of early church testimony about the majority of early Christians, who followed James's example as an abstainer from both meat and alcohol. Why would they? What about the miraculous catch of fish, and Christ asking for a fish post resurrection? I mean...seems like a green light to me.

 

[Josiah]

Sorry Stravinsk,

I'm not following how your comments support or reject Universal Atonement (Jesus died for all people), or how they support or reject Limited Atonement (Jesus died NOT for all but ONLY for some unknown few). Could you explain?

On a very different note, traditional theology holds that Jesus is BOTH fully man and God - and that the attributes of God (at times) "communicate"with His human nature ("the communication of attributes"). Classic theology teaches that Jesus was without sin since the Bible itself specifically and verbatim states that. WHY that is true is a point left without comment. Some in the early church argued this was because this nature comes from God and not Mary. But most have theorized that here is an example of where His divine nature (being holy, sinless) "communicates" with His human nature. So, a few say because his sinless nature comes from His Father (God) rather than human mother. The more popular theory is that His being sinless comes from His divine nature. Similar views. But neither is doctrine anywhere. Scripture and the Councils simply echo what the Bible verbatim states: Jesus was/is without sin. No dogma as to why.

As for the issue of this thread, see Why Universal Atonement is Pelagianism. Especially posts 21, 81 and 86. I realize you may not be able to post there but there is the identical thread and discussion, already well underway.


Blessings!



.

 

[Albion]

If I understand Original Sin (the Scriptures for which are almost wholly in Paul's writings, with OT examples a bit reaching imo), it's supposedly an inherited condition that comes from Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden. Also, this condition is also supposedly passed down to all humans. Mary is/was human, so this includes her.

Not according to this doctrine. Bear in mind that I wasn't arguing for or against the belief there, but was only 'correcting the record.' Information for its own sake, etc.

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's conception, not to Jesus's conception. The basis on which the doctrine rests (with those churches that accept it as true) is that the Angel Gabriel, when he appeared to Mary, referred to her as being "full of grace" (according to wording of the KJV), which has been interpreted as meaning that she was miraculously kept by God from every stain of sin because of her intended role as the mother of Jesus.

If Jesus is Human at all, then obviously Original Sin (as described) must be part of it. If Jesus is not human, then according to John this is the spirit of Anti-Christ (denying He came in the Flesh).

But he is not only fully human, he is also fully divine. And his two natures are inseparable.

If so, it cannot be that he was in sin at any time, since that would defy this belief. Many variations on that theme were voiced by someone or other during the first centuries of the Christian era, but one Ecumenical Council after another branded them as heresies.

 

[Stravinsk]

Sorry Stravinsk,

I'm not following how your comments support or reject Universal Atonement (Jesus died for all people), or how they support or reject Limited Atonement (Jesus died NOT for all but ONLY for some unknown few). Could you explain?



.

My comments don't support either Universal Atonement or limited atonement. By that I mean blood atonement. The murder of an individual in the belief that it grants forgiveness of sins. Be that individual Christ, or the animal sacrifices that took place before Christ. I know Christians believe that Christ replaced the sacrificial system (of animals) and I agree with them - except at the point where it's believed Christ needed to be sacrificed in their place - for forgiveness. The God I believe in doesn't create a commandment "do not murder" then set things up to require murder for forgiveness or salvation.

 

[Albion]

Imagine living in Christ's time and being one of those multitudes fed by just a few loaves of bread and a a couple of fish that the Messiah miraculously multiplied to feed thousands. Then when what wasn't eaten was collected, the bread and fish filled several baskets.

Imagine some time later the same Christ reflecting on the feeding of the multitudes (that same one), and only mentioning bread being collected in the baskets, without a word about fish.

One could draw one of 2 conclusions: A) It was an innocent oversight about a miraculous event or B) The fish part was "fishy" - a later addition by scribes.

Put that in the background of early church testimony about the majority of early Christians, who followed James's example as an abstainer from both meat and alcohol. Why would they? What about the miraculous catch of fish, and Christ asking for a fish post resurrection? I mean...seems like a green light to me.

There's too much imagining in that lineup, I'd have to say. Sure, we could say that the Bible is all or mostly fiction, or that it's probably been tinkered with, both of which have been argued over the centuries. We "could" do that.

However, the reliability of the Bible has stood up to so many such theories over the years and been proven correct or at least not incorrect, that even a doubter ought to hesitate to get on that bandwagon IMO.

 

[Stravinsk]

There's too much imagining in that lineup, I'd have to say. Sure, we could say that the Bible is all or mostly fiction, or that it's probably been tinkered with, both of which have been argued over the centuries. We "could" do that.

However, the reliability of the Bible has stood up to so many such theories over the years and been proven correct or at least not incorrect, that even a doubter ought to hesitate to get on that bandwagon IMO.

I don't. Surely you are aware of the Genesis diet? I mean, really, God only gave Adam and Eve one command - don't eat of that tree. And in scores of Christian churches and writing we see...an apple and a snake. There is no mention of an apple in Genesis. And you know what else, if one reads it closely - one will not find God mention "fruit"...only not to "eat of the tree". It's Eve that refers to it as fruit, not God. The last interesting aspect of the story is very important: It's a *snake* that suggests eating of the tree. Did you know that in all the snake kingdom there is not a single type that isn't a carnivore? Do you think that is a coincidence?

Then, there is Noah and his family post flood. Christians point to the passages that apparently say God gives them "everything" now. However, I've looked beyond the English translation and into the Hebrew and I know that is not what it says. In fact, God still prohibits the killing of animals here, as they are included among those who have the "breath of life" in them, and lifeblood.

In Isaiah the first Chapter the killing of animals for religious purposes/atonement is looked at by God in horror. Yet we are to believe the same God commanded those sacrifices back in the earlier books? Jeremiah makes mention that there were no commands for sacrifice relating to the Exodus, so this is another curiosity.

Lots of curiosities add up, imo.

 

[Josiah]

My comments don't support either Universal Atonement or limited atonement. By that I mean blood atonement.

@Stravinsk


Okay. Respected.

Perhaps it would be good to start a thread on "why did Jesus have to die?" or something to that effect. This thread is about whether holding that Jesus died for all is Pelagianism. A discussion we've had in several threads, including one IDENTICAL to this one, here Why Universal Atonement is Pelagianism.

Stav, traditional Christianity has always affirmed that the Cross is necessary for our personal justification. If we uphold the authority of Scripture, it's kind of hard to deny this. But as a very conservative/traditional Christian, I'd be the first to admit that the exact REASON for this isn't very clear. We have the statement "there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood" but I affirm that doesn't explain the why. The issue you raise is addressed (kinda !) in various THEORIES (none are doctrines anywhere) - they are called the "Atonement Theories." Theories developed (mostly in the Early Church) as to WHY Christ's life, death and resurrection were necessary and WHY they establish the justification that faith apprehends (although MOST known to me agree that none of them really explains much... we know the WHAT but not totally the WHY). We could discuss such in a thread on that (I assure you, it would be chaos), but this one is about Pelagianism (no original sin, justification is synergistic) and Universal Atonement (Jesus died for all). I might add too (if I may) that knowing the WHAT but not the WHY is not unique to Christian theology. In physics we accept (sort of) the Big Bang with no clue as to why it happened. We accept that gravity is related to mass but no clue as to why (or even if it must be). In biology, we accept that reproduction may be by sex but no clue WHY that is. You get my point. That certainly doens't make it wrong to ask the why, just an awareness that not being able to answer it doesn't necessarily negate the what. But these issues are hard in this thread where no common basis for discussion exists; heck, it's hard enough in the Christian Theology forum where it does exist.


Blessings to you! Glad to see you around again!


- Josiah



.