Sunday, January 27, 2013

Post-Refutation Exchange with Morrell Shows his Dishonesty and Ignorance

The following is an unedited comment section exchange between myself and the Pelagian Open Theist Jesse Morrell in regards to my refutation of his film "Beyond Augustine." Normally I wouldn't post stuff like this but it is highly instructive insofar as the inability of the Pelagian to be honest with history is concerned. Morrell is "biblicaltheology" and at the end I guess he switched to his other account "OpenAirOutreach." Before reading take note of Abraham Kuyper's model of noetic effects of sin (how sin affects the mind); especially concerning history:

bibletheology 4 hours ago  
 Why did you completely ignore the quotes from Ireneaus, Eusebius, and Methodist on free will. Even John Calvin himself admitted that the Early Church Fathers taught free will. Augustine himself taught free will at first and wrote a book on it. Your presentation of Church history is deceptive and misleading. 

keith thompson 3 hours ago  
 I interacted with Irenaeus in the 3rd section concerning and made it clear some fathers affirmed a sense of free will but that doesn't mean they denied original sin. I never argued Augustine didn't at first write a book on free will. But his later view of grace, and his denial of free will, were not based on Manicheasm as I argued. Please watch whole presentation and see article for sources. The fact is your main premise is wrong - this doctrine is pre-Augustine. 
· in reply to bibletheology (Show the comment)

And as for Calvin, I will address his comments on the fathers in part 2 of the reply. I will also show the doctrine of predestination in the pre-Augustine fathers to show that that didn't come from Gnosticism either. You should not be so careless since this stuff is available for you to find.

Lastly, why did you delete my comments off your video where I talk about how you quoted forgeries attributed to church fathers and that those fathers' actual writings affirm man's fallenness and need for enabling grace? Are you afraid people will know truth? Are you for error?

bibletheology 3 hours ago
Since the early church fathers did teach "a sense of free will" they automatically denied the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. Original sin, in Augustine's doctrine, completely lost man's free will. To affirm free will in any sense therefore denies Augustine's doctrine. And some of the Fathers, like Origen, taught that men were born sinners because he held to the preexistence of the soul. He said we sinned in a previous world. That is far from Augustinian original sin of Adam.

Not concerned with Origen or Origenists. Was Tertullian an Origenist? He affirmed human freedom, as you quoted him, but elsewhere affirmed we contract sin and sin because of Adam, the very teachings you allege Augustine introduced from Gnosticism. So you're wrong. Many in the east who were not Origenists affirmed men's nature's are wounded/inflicted due to Adam while maintaining freedom. I quote Kelly on that. Others as I showed denied man's natural ability explicitly affirming original sin.

Tertullian view was not the same as Augustine, as Tertullian taught that the soul was physical or material. Tertullian taught that death was the result of Adam's sin, which is no doubt true, but said absolutely nothing about imputation as Dr. Wiggers and others pointed out. He agreed with Augustine in the idea that we existed and sinned in Adam (which logically would make us guilty of all the sins of all our ancestors) but denied Augustinian original sin by affirming free will

Also, my documentary was about free will and only touched on original sin as it relates to free will. Tertullian clearly and explicitly taught free will, as your own quote from Schaff admitted.

Your film clearly claimed original sin was Gnosticism introduced by Augustine and that before Augustine everyone affirmed natural ability and denied Gnostic original sin. That's wrong as I proved so don't try to now change what your film stated. As for Tertullian, yes Schaff says he maintained freedom, but also emphasized the hereditary sin and hereditary guilt of man which you argued Augustine brought in from Gnosticism, that's the point you're not getting. I even quote Tertullian on that.

Also, there are some in modern times who question the authenticity of Recognitions by Clement, but there is not universal agreement. This seems to be a modern debate. There are those who hold to their authenticity today. They were believed to be authentic throughout history.. Even Origen quoted from them in commentary in Genesis. So the Early Church, atleast Origen, thought them authentic.
Consensus is Recognitions and Homilies are forth century and rest on common source from the 3rd century called "Grundschrift." No scholars, I repeat NO SCHOLARS say the Recognitions in the form we possess from Rufinus goes back to Clement himself. Name one and quote him. The earlychurch did not accept it and Origen didn't have access to the form we have today. He quoted from something which later found its way into the Recognitions which form we possess today comes from 360-380 long after Origen
The reason why what you quoted in the Recognitions can't be from Clement is the pseudo-Clementine literature which was in use by the earlychurch was revised, abridged and translated to Latin by Rufinus, which is what we have. So you're not quoting from the original Greek psuedo-clementine literate early church writers did, you're quoting from a Latin translation of the Greek which was changed/revised i.e., corrupted. That's why no scholar would say what you quote in the film goes back to Clement
This has been flagged as spam hideNot Spam
There is debate over the longer version of Ignatius' writings. There is not universal agreement amongst modern scholars.. One source says, "the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr's death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters".
Man you are a deceiver, you claim there is not universal agreement about the longer versions being forgeries? Yes there is! The quote you gave to try to prove some believe they're authentic isn't even talking about the long versions! The quote about Polycarp accepting the authenticity of Ignatius material is not about the longer versions you quoted. That Catholic Encyclopedia is saying Polycarp attests to the 7 authentic letters, not the longer versions of them. Learn to read!

In fact, I quote from his letter to Magnesians, which is one of the seven considered to be authentic. It is not part of the nine letters which is considered by some as pseudo-Ignatius. ... But, even if your false assumption is true, that they are forgeries, what do you expect of me? Calvinism says no man can stop sinning or be perfect. You can't expect honest. I have to sin every day. And I have no free will. God made me post the video and He, by His sovereign decree, is keeping it online.
You quoted from the "long" version of the letter of the Magnesians. The longer parts are forged. The short version is the original. So don't try to deceive and smoke screen by saying the short version of the Magnesians is not part of the inauthentic letters, I already know that. That's a red herring. Doesn't matter.
Augustine's doctrine of original sin, which he brought in from Gnosticism, was that man had a ruined nature without free will. This Augustinian doctrine of original sin is contradicted by all of the Early Church and was not taught by any of them. It was Gnostic in origin.

I already proved Manichaesm didn't believe man had a ruined nature as you allege. They said man's nature/soul was divine and good (Schaff, Karfíková), but that only his flesh was wicked since matter is bad. And Manichaens didn't say grace was necessary to obey like Augustine did (Karfíková), so stop crediting them with his teachings you deceiver! I proved this from the serious scholars!

In Julian of Eclanum's statement of faith, which he submitted to Pope Zosimus, he explicitly denied the transmission of sin. Yet the Pope declared his statement of faith to be orthodox. This, as Dr. Wiggers pointed out, proves that Augustine's doctrine of original sin was not yet taught or believed in the church, as Keit here tries to claim.
Wiggers was unreliable for bringing up Zosimus, and I think you meant that at first Zosimus declared Pelagius' confession Orthodox. That doesn't prove original sin wasn't in the church before that, it proves Pelagius deceived him. Zosimus even reversed his initial position and ended up condemning Pelagius anyway. Plus in 411 a synod in Carthage condemned Caelestius, before Zosimus was Pope. So claiming original sin wasn't in the church before his papacy is error (see also Cyprian, Ignatius etal)

And I find it funny you deleted all my comments off your video, yet you continue with your error-ridden comments on my video. Don't you find that a bit disingenuous and hypocritical?
Since Caelestius was declared orthodox by Zosimus, Wiggers noted “This is very remarkable, as we may hence condlude, that the doctrine of original sin and of its remission by infant baptism, which Caelestius explicitly rejected in his confession of faith, did not yet belong to the Romanish system of doctrine.”

Wiggers is one of the best authorities on this topic. And I did not mean Julian. Nor did I mean Pelagius. I meant Caelestius. Pelagius was declared orthodox at the councel of Diospolis, not because he lied, but because Augustine lied about what Pelagius taught. Pelagius was always acquitted when he was present to defend himself.
· in reply to keith thompson (Show the comment)  
Zosimus also accepted Pelagius's confession too - but then condemed both him and Caelestius later. But Wiggers is wrong for claiming because Zosimus was deceived to grant Caelestius's confession which included a rejection of infant baptism washing original sin, therefore the Roman Church didn't believe original sin prior to Zosimus. How do we know? Because prior to Zosimus, Pope Innocent I condemned Pelagianism! Zosimus was just an ignorant fool who had to retract his stand supporting heresy
· in reply to bibletheology
Everyone knows Pelagius denied his own theology as a liar when on the stand at Palestine and that's why he was acquitted. As Augustine noted, "Pelagius acquitted by bishops in Palestine, in consequence of his deceptive answers." This can be easily proven since we have the questions and answers from that tribunal as well as Pelagius's prior views documented. Here is the proof synaxis (dot org/cf/volume14/ECF00007 (dot) htm
When Pelagius could clarify his views against the false accusations of Augustine, he was acquitted. As Wiggers said, "Thus was Pelagius formally acquitted and pronounced orthodox by fourteen oriental bishops." When Pelagianism was condemned, Wiggers was keen to note that "Pelagius never maintained the propositions maintained in these letters... The Pelagians had never taught what was here charged upon them... Thus, therefore, were the pretended doctriens of Pelagius... declared and condemned."
The only one who lied was Pelagius at the council of Diospolis in Palestine where he denied his own theology to be declared innocent. Augustine proved this in the work "A WORK ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF PELAGIUS, ADDRESSED TO BISHOP AURELIUS." Go read it.

keith thompson 56 minutes ago
Pelagius wrote in Latin and the bishops of the Council of Diaspora were Greek-speaking. They couldn't compare Pelagius's answers with his Latin works. But we can and when we do we see he lied his way out of that council. The seventh question to Pelagius was if he said Adam's sin injured only himself. He denied he taught that so was let off the hook. But he did teach Adam's sin only injured himself. So he agreed with the anti-Pelagianism of the council and condemned his own teaching you hold to!
· in reply to bibletheology

Ok. Let's grant that Zosimus was an ignorant fool. Then it is apparently that he falsely condemned Pelagius because he was fooled by Augustine's false accusations against him.
keith thompson 44 minutes ago
Morrell, Was Augustine false to accuse Pelagius of saying Adam's sin doesn't affect us, but only by example? That's what Pelagius denied he taught at the council of diaspora, and that's why the council let him off the hook, even though he did teach that, and even though you believe that as a Pelagian
In 411 a Synod in Carthage condemned Pelagius's errors. Augustine wasn't present or involved in the debate yet. So stop with the lie that he tricked the church to be against Pelagianism.


  1. All the fathers prior to Augustine the Manichean defend freewill. It isn't surprising that at a time when the church was melding with the state (380), after the first church council that was presided over by an Emperor (316), a theologian would decide to meld Manichean and Gnostic ideas into orthodox Christianity and would be not only given a pass but also endorsed by the ecclesiastical hierarchy whose only concern at that time was developing a nominal Christianity that Pagans could easily 'convert' to without having to change. A doctrine like Augustine's is simply necessary for any state church which is mostly composed of unbelievers in Christian garb and uses force to push people into the churches and keep them there. That's precisely why the magisterial reformers, all of which produced state churches that forced people to go to church, continued Augustine's doctrine. Its also why the anabaptists who opposed the merger of church and state dilluted Augustinianism until there was hardly anything left of it: Augustinianism is the incestuous union of church and state, or at least the mechanism needed to allow for it.

  2. Jose, your ignorance is about to be exposed since I am working on a part 2 reply where I show the early fathers who talked about free will meant different things by that phrase. Only a few meant absolute natural ability (those influenced by paganism). So just because you see the words 'free will' in their writings you can't automatically assume your pelagian concept.

    Second, I already destroyed the lie that Augustine's view of original sin and grace is derived by Manicheanism. I did this by showing Manicheanism believed men's nature's were divine, that they had both a good soul and bad soul, and that they denied grace was required to do good. So therefore, you can't attribute Augustine's teachings to them. Moreover, you Pelagians haven't been able to refute his reply to Julian where he refutes all your arguments concerning Manicheanism. Go back to my first reply and read the entire section on Gnosticism and Predestination.

    If you claim to be a Christian, which right now you're not due to your anti-grace man-glorifying blasphemy, you will hear the other side and concede when you're wrong. Jesus is truth and so as people of truth we have to be accurate. I pray for your conversion to Christianity.