WOAH this was a MAJOR typo mistake! I meant to write LEAD, not LEADER and must have just gotten ahead of myself with my fingers! What I meant was that I wish you would follow his LEAD in viewing sin and judgment strongly. But obviously what I typed conveyed something very different, for which you are right to be utterly frustrated! I would be, too.

As I have maintained throughout this series, I do believe that your theology mirrors Pelagius in significant ways. I also believe you differ from him, too. I am really not trying simply TIE you to Pelagius unwarrantedly to serve some sort of agenda, but I can understand how you would feel that way in light of the way this point 3 sounded.

You said in an email before this started that I represented your views fairly, which made me happy because I absolutely do not want to twist your views and pigeon-hole them into an agenda. Do you feel differently now? While you also said you are not a Pelagian, you have not said why. If your views do line-up in (from my perspective) clearly discernible ways, I do not understand why you are not Pelagian in your theology. Perhaps you could help me understand where I am wrong in my understanding of your views and also Pelagius'. I am certainly open to that.

Anyway, again I am really sorry for the mistake. I've corrected it in the post and updated it above. In my original research I did not set out to prove you were a Pelagian. Instead I wanted to see if you did in light of the charges. From what I have read it seems to be the case, though I am open to understanding why and where I am wrong…

shlm,
-jeremy

Jeremy, come on now, my "leader"? Let me say it again, I am not a Pelagian. I am starting to think that you are unwilling to believe me. I know you have disregarded the direct statements others have made as well, and now it falls on me. You disregard for the word of a friend is disturbing.
He is not my leader. I have spent no time with the teachings and thinking of Pelagius. You might find similarities (as you will in what I write with many who have gone before me), but to assume that I am learning from or following him is too much.

A Question for Jeremy: When will you listen and not accuse on this account? You have made conclusions that are inaccurate and misinformed. They come from your obsession and not mine. You are making "Glenn Beck" like connections that are meant to serve your purpose with no regard for what I am saying. When will my direct answers fit into your theories?

On Jesus an judgment, I am pretty sure that this kind of accusation is just what he was talking about. The seperation of the truth seekers from the rumor spreaders.

This series has been becoming snarkier with every post. This, despite being presented as a serious academic/theological examination. It sort of sounds like a theological version of Scooby Doo when they are revealing the killer. I mean every post pigeonholes a portion of Paggit's work into a nasty label ("Pelagian," "Universalist," "Liberal"), then there are a bunch of "gotcha" Bible verse at the end that show why all the labels are evil.

This doesn't seem like a helpful or serious dialogue.

For example, just because Paggit does not explicitly damn every non-Christian to Hell, does not make him a "Universalist." Using that rhetorical mode is excellent for castigation purposes, but not very informative for understanding the subject matter.