[Here we have Allyson Robinson following “her” Gnomic will.]
- The Theology of the Sixth Ecumenical Council assumes upon the truth of the Hypostatic Union which has been utterly refuted already. See my videos The Hypostatic Union Refuted, Parts 1-4. The basic doctrines of the Sixth Ecumenical Council can be found in its Definition of Faith; namely: That there are two natures to Christ and thus two wills. That the human will of Christ is not passive but actively submissive to the divine. Thus, a synergy in Christ. And finally that in man there is a will at the level of nature as a faculty but also a will at the level of person labeled the Gnomic will which is sovereign, and absolutely liberated from all compulsion. This was a debate between Pelagians not a debate between Pelagians and Augustinians. The Augustinian/Calvinist soteriology admits that man is passive in regeneration but active in conversion.The Westminster Confession 10.2 says,
“This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.”
Robert Shaw Commenting on this passage says,
“7. That in this calling the sinner is altogether passive, until he is quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit. Here it is proper to distinguish between regeneration and conversion; in the former the sinner is passive – in the latter he is active, or co-operates with the grace of God. In regeneration a principle of grace is implanted in the soul, and previous to this the sinner is incapable of moral activity; for, in the language of inspiration, he is “dead in trespasses and sins.” In conversion the soul turns to God, which imports activity; but still the sinner only acts as he is acted upon by God, who “worketh in him both to will and to do.”
- The Calvinist doctrine of Original Righteousness is compatible with man’s fall because of mutability. (Turretin, Institutes, Vol. 1, 5th Topic, Q.10, 9th Topic, Q. 7) The Pelagian/Eastern Orthodox view is that man was born as a blank slate and neutral and innocent and thus he was deceived by the serpent. This is refuted by 1 Tim. 2:14 which makes very plain that Adam was not deceived. Moreover, sins of ignorance were still sins and required atonement in the Law of Moses. Lev. 5:17-18.
- The sovereignty of the Gnomic will is contradictory to nature. Nature compels the will of man necessarily. Nature compels my will to transport myself by walking. The nature of a bird compels its will to transport itself by flying, etc. The reason of man compels the will. The will cannot be convinced until the mind first deliberates. This compulsion is marginal not absolute. Nature is not compelled in the Neoplatonic sense that the universe emanates from the nature of the ultimate principle. But, having assumed a decree to create, God’s nature absolutely necessitates putting his creatures under a law. The modern Social Justice platform is built on the Pelagian/Eastern Orthodox position. This is why they say gender is not determined by nature but is arbitrarily chosen at the level of hypostasis/the Gnomic will. Also, the Pelagian/Eastern Orthodox platform maintains that sin is not man’s fault but a product of his environment which is ipso facto Marxism. It is the exact same position.
- When Calvinists refer to a sinful nature, we are not talking about man’s body or physical faculties being sinful. We mean his inherit sinful moral inclinations inherited from Adam. The Pelagian/Eastern Orthodox rejection of Original Sin as merely inheriting death from Adam, is a separation between an effect and a cause that cannot be made. The only way we can be subject to death is if we are guilty of sin and this comes by imputation. Exo. 20:5. I believe that the guilt of Adam’s sin was imputed but also a genetic degradation was introduced into Adam in his sin and we inherit that genetic degradation from him effecting a state of ill-will towards the Creator.
- The Pelagians/Eastern Orthodox admit man was good in a natural sense at creation but not good in a moral sense. This is a conflation between an inanimate object and a rational creature. We are held responsible for sin for this reason while a rock or other irrational animal is not. Thus, the apostle Paul tells us in Rom. 2:14-16, that Gentiles are judged based on their knowledge of Natural Law within their own conscience. Turretin, Institutes, Vol. 1, 5th Topic, Q.10.
- To defend their insane view of Libertarian free will, Pelagians/Eastern Orthodox will say that the nature of Elohim is beyond even the dialectic of being and non-being, thus arbitrary, so that the persons of the Trinity can be compelled in no way and absolutely free. Yet this is foreign to scripture which tells us God’s nature does compel his will.
Hab 1:13 Your eyes are too pure to approve evil
Moreover, in Romans 3 Paul explains to us why the master Yeshua had to die for our sins, in contrast to the Muslim and Ebionite heresy which states that Elohim can forgive freely and arbitrarily without any atonement. Imagine the court case where a man has harmed another family and the judge simply states that the man is forgiven and he is free to go. Immediately the victimized family would gasp in protest against the unrighteous judgment of the judge. Not so with Yahovah. In the scheme of Calvinist soteriology, the Judge being compelled by his holy nature must be just if is he is to justify the wicked.
Rom. 3: 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
In this case, the Judge is Yahovah, the defendant man, and the prosecution Moses. Man has sinned against the Law of Moses. But can make no recompense for his sin. And thus, instead merely forgiving the man and letting him go free, the justice of Elohim is satisfied by giving of his son to pay our debt to the Law of Moses. Thus all accounts have been satisfied.
- Pelagians/Eastern Orthodox maintain that the Calvinist doctrine of Original Righteousness confuses natural goodness with personal righteousness. This is a confusion between the nature of a being, and its moral actions. Original Righteousness refers to the Spiritual state of mind and moral inclinations of man’s nature at his creation. Actual righteousness deeds are then expected to follow suit from this constitution which is exactly why Yahovah is not responsible for or an author of man’s sin. He is conflating a stative verb with a dynamic verb. The same can be said of Original sin. See Robert Shaw on Chapter 6.4 of the Westminster Confession which says, “From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.”
- Pelagians/Eastern Orthodox object that salvation is participatory not juridical in the Calvinist sense pursuant to 2 Peter 1:4. It is admitted by most scholars that 2 Peter is not authentic by Daniel B. Wallace, in his Second Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline.
- Pelagians/Eastern Orthodox argue that if man lost his original righteousness then he lost his humanity. This is a conflation between essence and accident. Moral inclination is accidental to human nature not essential to it. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, pg. 99. Therefore, original righteousness is natural to man, not in the sense that it constitutes man’s nature essentially or for what immediately follows the constituted nature but is natural in the sense that original righteousness is that state of being by which man was born with and is agreeable to his nature.
- Pelagians/Eastern Orthodox argue that Calvinism is Pelagian in that it requires man to actualize his righteousness in the Covenant of Works. This is a misrepresentation. Our view is that man was born inclined to righteousness in Original Righteousness and thus the Edenic Covenant of Works commanded man to maintain that Original Righteousness in which he was born and gain thus a security in that Original Righteousness.