• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Autonomy from God

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
When I speak of autonomy from God, Christians seem to freak out.
This is a fundamental concept of Pelagianism, my personal creed.
But I want to discuss this concept with other Christians, and also Jews and Muslims, just to know the reason why autonomy from God sounds so horrible in their ears.

It is very contradictory to believe in freewill and yet not to believe in personal autonomy.
Because logic says that freewill implies necessarily choice. and choices are the evidence of autonomy. We choose every second of our life and God has nothing to do with that.
so we Pelagians say that we don't need any God to save ourselves. Because we get our salvation by believing in our capability of choosing Good (without God's help). And by putting this capability into action.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
When I speak of autonomy from God, Christians seem to freak out.
This is a fundamental concept of Pelagianism, my personal creed.
But I want to discuss this concept with other Christians, and also Jews and Muslims, just to know the reason why autonomy from God sounds so horrible in their ears.

It is very contradictory to believe in freewill and yet not to believe in personal autonomy.
Because logic says that freewill implies necessarily choice. and choices are the evidence of autonomy. We choose every second of our life and God has nothing to do with that.
so we Pelagians say that we don't need any God to save ourselves. Because we get our salvation by believing in our capability of choosing Good (without God's help). And by putting this capability into action.

Um good topic but are you going to put it in other forums? Cant debate in this one. doesn't matter if you don't.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Hay85 said:
It is very contradictory to believe in freewill and yet not to believe in personal autonomy.

Humans have free will, and thus the ability to chose between virtue and sin at any given time. However, because of the consequences of Original Sin, the human will has been inescapably tainted with a propensity towards sin. This propensity cannot be fully overcome, thus the inevitability of committing sin and the necessity of God's help.

You must understand the difference between Original Sin as mainstream Western Christians hold it, and the doctrine of Total Depravity as held by Reformed Theology. Which holds that humans are utterly incapable of coming to God, except for those whom God has pre-determined to be elected. But like your "Pelagianism", Calvinism is just the opposite side of the same heretical coin.

Hay85 said:
logic says that freewill implies necessarily choice

Indeed. But where you go wrong is to assume that choice implies total control. It doesn't. You do not for instance, have any direct control over your intimidate external circumstances. Nonetheless, you do have control over your decisions within the context of those external circumstances.

Likewise, you have no control over your genetic composition. But of course, you can alter your appearance to a certain extent, but there's only so many ways you can cut your hair.

Finally, you can't change the reality of your own human nature. But you can chose to do your utmost to strive for to the highest moral standard that you can achieve. You're not going to live a sinless life, but you can chose to strive for it nonetheless. This is where God's help and mercy comes into play. You do not have to live a perfect life to achieve salvation, because it is though Christ that you are ultimately saved.

Hay85 said:
Because we get our salvation by believing in our capability of choosing Good

And you do indeed always have the ability to choose good. But it's not your goodness in of itself that can save you. There's merit before God in your good deeds, but it is only God and your acceptance of Christ's offer that will win you salvation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
When I speak of autonomy from God, Christians seem to freak out.
This is a fundamental concept of Pelagianism, my personal creed.
But I want to discuss this concept with other Christians, and also Jews and Muslims, just to know the reason why autonomy from God sounds so horrible in their ears.

It is very contradictory to believe in freewill and yet not to believe in personal autonomy.
I have no problem saying that we humans have autonomy--God does not control our actions or force our hand in one way or another. He always gives us the choice.

Because logic says that freewill implies necessarily choice. and choices are the evidence of autonomy. We choose every second of our life and God has nothing to do with that.
Yet we are supposed to allow ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit and act in accordance with God's Commandments.

so we Pelagians say that we don't need any God to save ourselves. Because we get our salvation by believing in our capability of choosing Good (without God's help). And by putting this capability into action.
Then Jesus' death and Resurrection had no point. Then the Gospel is empty. Then the Apostles were wrong.

The problem with Pelagianism is that it undoes the entirety of the New Testament. Everything about Jesus being our savior and God saving us and God reconciling us is a lie if your beliefs are true. We would basically have to throw out most of the NT.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Autonomy...at a personal level?

I do have a sense of freewill.

But I also recognize hierarchy....this world.
and do suspect a more potent hierarchy in the next.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Then Jesus' death and Resurrection had no point. Then the Gospel is empty. Then the Apostles were wrong.

You forget that the Gospels are full of parables, which are Jesus' teachings. If you want to get salvation, you must behave as the parables suggest. Easy as pie.

The problem with Pelagianism is that it undoes the entirety of the New Testament.
as I said, the parables and Jesus' lifestyle are fundamental parts of the Gospel

Everything about Jesus being our savior and God saving us and God reconciling us is a lie if your beliefs are true. We would basically have to throw out most of the NT.

yes...I am sorry. But Jesus is not our savior. or at least, not in the sense that he saves from our sin. He saved us because he taught us Love. so we can save ourselves by loving.
and above all, people could save themselves even before Jesus' coming. and lots of people surely did.
Jesus' death was a murder. and each murder is a crime. How can we be saved by a crime, which is something evil? It's like saying that Evil saves us, and this is devilish. Only Good saves us.
as for resurrection, well...Jesus was God. so he was more powerful than Death
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
You forget that the Gospels are full of parables, which are Jesus' teachings. If you want to get salvation, you must behave as the parables suggest. Easy as pie.
"The Gospel" is not the same thing as the Four Gospels. The Gospel is the Good News of Jesus Christ, Who became man to unite our humanity to His Divinity, Who died on the cross to reconcile us to God and grant us forgiveness of our sins, and Who rose from the dead to free us from the bondage of sin and death, and to re-open the Gates of Paradise. The Gospel is Jesus Christ, Who is our way to salvation.

as I said, the parables and Jesus' lifestyle are fundamental parts of the Gospel
But so is the fact that Christ saves us from sin and death, and that with God, we can be saved--no one can save themselves, but God will admit us into His Kingdom according to His good graces if we abide in Him.

yes...I am sorry. But Jesus is not our savior. or at least, not in the sense that he saves from our sin.
Then have fun discarding massive chunks of the New Testament. Remind me, do you reject Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John outright?

and above all, people could save themselves even before Jesus' coming. and lots of people surely did.
Where do you have evidence of this?

Jesus' death was a murder. and each murder is a crime. How can we be saved by a crime, which is something evil? It's like saying that Evil saves us, and this is devilish. Only Good saves us.
Jesus wasn't murdered. He gave Himself up willingly as a sacrifice and a ransom. He offered Himself up as live bait, and then sprung His trap, leaving death and sin caught in their own snares.

as for resurrection, well...Jesus was God. so he was more powerful than Death
And as Jesus is also man, He freed us from the power of death. Now, death was no longer humanity's fate, but instead, life forever with God.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
"The Gospel" is not the same thing as the Four Gospels. The Gospel is the Good News of Jesus Christ, Who became man to unite our humanity to His Divinity, Who died on the cross to reconcile us to God and grant us forgiveness of our sins, and Who rose from the dead to free us from the bondage of sin and death, and to re-open the Gates of Paradise. The Gospel is Jesus Christ, Who is our way to salvation.
But so is the fact that Christ saves us from sin and death, and that with God, we can be saved--no one can save themselves, but God will admit us into His Kingdom according to His good graces if we abide in Him.

with all due respect, dear friend. You said once that you don't agree with Augustine, but actually you are not rejecting his theology. I have to underline that this is very similar to Augustine's theology
one question: do you believe, at least, that we are supposed to behave as the parables suggest?

Then have fun discarding massive chunks of the New Testament. Remind me, do you reject Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John outright?
I certainly reject Paul's theology about salvation in Romans 1. Yes, lots of Paul's affirmations sound devilish in my ears. I have to assume that Paul's soul was not that pure.
but I believe in salvation, as the epistle of James describes it.

Where do you have evidence of this?
Mary is the evidence. She was saved even before Jesus was born. But not because she was chosen, But because she chose to erase sin from her nature.


Jesus wasn't murdered. He gave Himself up willingly as a sacrifice and a ransom. He offered Himself up as live bait, and then sprung His trap, leaving death and sin caught in their own snares.

well...as I've always repeated in this forum: nobody forced Caiaphas to sentence Jesus to death. and nobody forced Pilate to obey.
There is freewill. what if Pilate had saved him?
Jesus didn't give himself. He didn't suicide himself. I understand that the 99% of people want to discharge their responsibility onto others.
but Caiaphas and Pilate were responsible for Jesus' death
 
Last edited:

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
with all due respect, dear friend. You said once that you don't agree with Augustine, but actually you are not rejecting his theology.
He is certainly closer to the truth than Pelagius. If Pelagius was correct, then Jesus was no better and no different than the Prophets, Buddha or Krishna.

I have to underline that this is very similar to Augustine's theology
one question: do you believe, at least, that we are supposed to behave as the parables suggest?
Of course, else Jesus wouldn't have preached them.

I certainly reject Paul's theology about salvation in Romans 1. Yes, lots of Paul's affirmations sound devilish in my ears. I have to assume that Paul's soul was not that pure.
Would you say that the souls of Sts. Peter and John were impure as well?

1 John 1:7-2:2
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Peter 2:24
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Was the soul of John the Baptist impure?
John 1:29
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Was the soul of the author of Hebrews impure?
Hebrews 9:26
for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The idea of Jesus being offered up for our sins is nothing unique to Paul. It's all over the New Testament.

Mary is the evidence. She was saved even before Jesus was born. But not because she was chosen, But because she chose to erase sin from her nature.
Where is your evidence for this?

well...as I've always repeated in this forum: nobody forced Caiaphas to sentence Jesus to death. and nobody forced Pilate to obey.
There is freewill. what if Pilate had saved him?
Jesus didn't give himself. He didn't suicide himself. I understand that the 99% of people want to discharge their responsibility onto others.
but Caiaphas and Pilate were responsible for Jesus' death
That's like asking what would happen if the Germanic tribes beat Caesar and conquered Rome. Or if the sky was red. Or if reptiles remained the dominant animals after the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Pilate did try to save Jesus, but it didn't work. Jesus gave the Pharisees and Saducees every opportunity to repent, but they didn't. If Jesus didn't die on the Cross, then it wasn't His will to do so. He had the power to come down off of that cross any time He liked. He could have summoned the entire heavenly host to smash the high priests for their faithlessness and hard-heartedness, but He didn't.

Remember what Jesus said to Peter when he was arrested, in Matthew 26: "But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish[a] by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

If it had happened any other way, then God's plan for our salvation would have accomodated that. But it didn't. You think God is only as smart as we are. I can assure you He is not.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Autonomy from God is impossible. Your creed is idolatrous; you worship the works of your own hands and lips. Give God what is God's; there is nothing that God did not create, and that He does not reign over.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
He is certainly closer to the truth than Pelagius. If Pelagius was correct, then Jesus was no better and no different than the Prophets, Buddha or Krishna.

Buddhism is full of Christian-like concepts...so I guess that the truth (or God, or the Logos, you can call it however you like) is not a prerogative of our Western civilization.
as for your question, I always say that man is equal to God. And God is not superior to man. Jesus was God but Buddha was a man. so, yes, I can't see any difference between Jesus and Buddha, given that wisdom is present both in God and in man.


Would you say that the souls of Sts. Peter and John were impure as well?
well...I said that Paul's soul was impure because he said that he would like to do good, and yet he does evil. This makes me think that his soul was full of negative impulses.
As for Peter and John, I say that they are wrong, of course. But that doesn't imply they were not holy people. Peter died as a martyr...so...

Where is your evidence for this?

It would take so long to explain it to you. I've already said that it deals with a message that a woman, to whom Mary appeared, revealed.
Remember what Jesus said to Peter when he was arrested, in Matthew 26: "But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish[a] by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

If it had happened any other way, then God's plan for our salvation would have accomodated that. But it didn't. You think God is only as smart as we are. I can assure you He is not.

I am sure that by that sentence, Jesus meant that he couldn't interfere with men's freewill. If Caiaphas freewill decided his death, there was nothing he could do about it.
Jesus could have never avoided the Cross. Because he would have deprived men of their freewill, and of their freedom.

I don't get, really, why you think that Caiaphas and Pilate are not guilty.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Autonomy from God is impossible. Your creed is idolatrous; you worship the works of your own hands and lips. Give God what is God's; there is nothing that God did not create, and that He does not reign over.

Of course I worship them. It deals with my merits, not God's.
 
Last edited:

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Of course I worship them. It deals with my merits, not God's.

Then what are we talking about? You shouldn't wonder why Jews, Christians, and Muslims disagree fundamentally with your beliefs. You equate God with His creations-- which doesn't qualify at all for monotheism, but polytheism.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
When I speak of autonomy from God, Christians seem to freak out.
This is a fundamental concept of Pelagianism, my personal creed.
But I want to discuss this concept with other Christians, and also Jews and Muslims, just to know the reason why autonomy from God sounds so horrible in their ears.

It is very contradictory to believe in freewill and yet not to believe in personal autonomy.
Because logic says that freewill implies necessarily choice. and choices are the evidence of autonomy. We choose every second of our life and God has nothing to do with that.
so we Pelagians say that we don't need any God to save ourselves. Because we get our salvation by believing in our capability of choosing Good (without God's help). And by putting this capability into action.
There is no autonomy from God -- nor from each other -- nor from our environment. Everything is interdependent. Creation is one, huge organism, of which every one of us is an integral part. We live and breathe God, so I don't see how we have autonomy.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Buddhism is full of Christian-like concepts...so I guess that the truth (or God, or the Logos, you can call it however you like) is not a prerogative of our Western civilization.
as for your question, I always say that man is equal to God.
This goes against fundamental concepts of Abrahamic tradition.

Job 33:12 “Look, in this you are not righteous. I will answer you, For God is greater than man.

1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

Isaiah 55:8-9

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Those are just three right off the bat. I could pull up many others.

And God is not superior to man. Jesus was God but Buddha was a man. so, yes, I can't see any difference between Jesus and Buddha, given that wisdom is present both in God and in man.
So what's the point of even being a Christian, then? If we assume that you're correct, then Christianity has absolutely nothing to offer that isn't found in almost every other religion on the planet.

well...I said that Paul's soul was impure because he said that he would like to do good, and yet he does evil. This makes me think that his soul was full of negative impulses.
As for Peter and John, I say that they are wrong, of course. But that doesn't imply they were not holy people. Peter died as a martyr...so...
If Jesus' apostles got it wrong, then everything we know about Christianity is false. If the Apostles are wrong, then all their Epistles are wrong. If Jesus' Apostles got it wrong, then the Gospels got it wrong.

Don't you see that your position invalidates the entire Gospel? Don't you see that what you believe rejects what the Apostles preached as being the good news?

It would take so long to explain it to you. I've already said that it deals with a message that a woman, to whom Mary appeared, revealed.
If this is true, then this woman's message stands in opposition to the Gospel. This woman that you rave about has rejected the preaching of the Apostles for an apparition that has taught her falsehood and heresy. This woman makes God irrelevant and unnecessary in our lives--precisely what Satan would want.

If you think that the Apostles got it wrong, the ones who lived and walked with Jesus for three whole years, listening to His teachings, being instructed by Him, and having their minds opened by Him to understand the Scriptures, then who else could possibly get it right? Some woman 2000 years later who claims to have seen Mary when she was a little girl? Not a chance. Jesus would never have left such incompetent, stupid men in charge of His Church. The Apostles are right. And this so-called nun of yours is in grave error.

I am sure that by that sentence, Jesus meant that he couldn't interfere with men's freewill. If Caiaphas freewill decided his death, there was nothing he could do about it.
No. Jesus stated flat-out that He could have easily thwarted the machinations of the high priests. The fact that He didn't was a message to His Apostles that it was His will to be crucified.

Jesus could have never avoided the Cross. Because he would have deprived men of their freewill, and of their freedom.
So, let me get this straight, you ask me the question of what would happen if Caiaphas and Pilate didn't have Jesus killed, only to turn around and say that Jesus could never have avoided the Cross? Pick a story and stick to it.

I don't get, really, why you think that Caiaphas and Pilate are not guilty.
Oh, believe me, Caiaphas is guilty, and Pilate didn't do enough. But the fact that Jesus willingly let these people kill Him doesn't leave their hands clean.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Blessed is the servant that is found doing the will of His Lord....
so I've heard.

But this speaks more to the character of the servant.
I would do good for the sake of good.

That this much, is said to be the will of my Lord.....cannot be removed....
but neither is it the motivation.

That my Lord would have me do good for the sake of good......
doesn't imply that His will is looking over my shoulder or twisting my arm...
or threatening damnation should I fail.

I believe in cause and effect.
If I am inclined to do harm....I will end up along side many others that do likewise.
Would this be hell?
Probably.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
If you are autonomous from God and make the correct choices -they would by what God would have you do, anyway.

However, the finer points not readily apparent will elude man.

Obedience to God (not men) saves a lot of trouble by avoiding wrong choices and consequences.

If by salvation you mean becoming more correct, then this can definitely be done to a certain degree -by those who have never even heard of God.

If it includes eternal life and having your spirit placed within a body which is not subject to death and has extreme powers to manipulate the environment, you're going to encounter a few stumbling blocks.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
If Jesus' apostles got it wrong, then everything we know about Christianity is false. If the Apostles are wrong, then all their Epistles are wrong. If Jesus' Apostles got it wrong, then the Gospels got it wrong.
Don't you see that your position invalidates the entire Gospel? Don't you see that what you believe rejects what the Apostles preached as being the good news?
well...precisely. I understand perfectly what you mean. But mine is not faith; I just read the Bible and pick what my heart acknowledges as rightful and divinely inspired. Because it matches with my vision of God.
all right. That makes me a heretic.

If this is true, then this woman's message stands in opposition to the Gospel. This woman that you rave about has rejected the preaching of the Apostles for an apparition that has taught her falsehood and heresy. This woman makes God irrelevant and unnecessary in our lives--precisely what Satan would want.
well...I deeply respect your view. But we, she and I, think the exactly opposite thing. That is: Satan wants us to think we are nothing without God. He wants us to think that we are doomed to sin, and so we are inferior to God. But man won't try to stop sinning, if he thinks he's nothing.
We think that by becoming autonomous, man will stop sinning.

If you think that the Apostles got it wrong, the ones who lived and walked with Jesus for three whole years, listening to His teachings, being instructed by Him, and having their minds opened by Him to understand the Scriptures, then who else could possibly get it right? Some woman 2000 years later who claims to have seen Mary when she was a little girl? Not a chance. Jesus would never have left such incompetent, stupid men in charge of His Church. The Apostles are right. And this so-called nun of yours is in grave error.
well...but this woman is still alive, whereas those men are dead.

So, let me get this straight, you ask me the question of what would happen if Caiaphas and Pilate didn't have Jesus killed, only to turn around and say that Jesus could never have avoided the Cross? Pick a story and stick to it.
Sorry...I didn't make myself clear. I meant that given that Caiaphas was irremovable in his decision, Jesus had to respect his decision (and so respect his freewill). That's what I meant when I said that he could have never interfered with his freewill. God cannot interfere with our freewill. God cannot kill us.
 
Top