"all have sinned"

[webdog]

Winman's position is about where I am. I do believe that babies are born with a sinful nature, which will eventually manifest itself in sinfulness. Actually, it will manifest itself in a way that would be sin if they did it when they were much older.

Ever watch toddlers in the nursery. They don't want to share and want their way. I think the first word toddlers learn in the nursery is "MINE!"
The next three are "I WANT IT!" In my view, they are expressing their sinful nature, but are not sinning, because they haven't been made aware that it's sin.

I'm sure somebody can pick holes in this view. I welcome critique.

I may be wrong, but I'm not in doubt.

Actually, your position is biblical and spot on. Let's see if Luke brands you now with the pelagian tag knowing full well you are not. Let's see some more of his "consistency"

 

[webdog]

Luke, this too is uncalled for. While I do not see your posts as particularly demeaning (and I'll admit I haven't read all the posts all that closely), this particular response is inappropriate.

You don't have to read all of them. Just go back the last day or so. Seriously, while your advice is great your reading and view is quite selective. When the basis of your debate is to tell how smart and educated you are while stating the non cal is uneducated as Luke constantly does, that is quite demeaning.

 

[webdog]

How about a question to test your theory?

Would you say that it is sinful for someone to lask out and kick another human being in the spleen?

What is the context? Out of hate? Self defense? Defending your wife? MMA? Are all of these sinful, or is it the intent of the heart that makes it sinful?

 

[webdog]

You are Pelagian on original sin. You are semi-pelagian on the rest.

This from someone who is Roman Catholic on original sin and agnostic on infant salvation.

 

[glfredrick]

His body was not sinful, it did not inherit a sin nature. That is not catholic- that is orthodox.

Indeed... If Christ were born a "slave to sin" like the rest of humanity, He would not have been able to set sinners free. Slaves have no rights. It is only the free men (of which only one existed since the fall, and that one was Jesus Christ) who can work to free slaves.

Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Rom 6:1-18 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness unto God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said that we were slaves to sin -- that the sin nature was in us from the beginning. It was through our "death", indeed the death of Jesus Christ imputed to us, that we are made alive in Christ and no longer slaves to sin.

 

[glfredrick]

Actually, your position is biblical and spot on. Let's see if Luke brands you now with the pelagian tag knowing full well you are not. Let's see some more of his "consistency"

There are several Pelagians on the issue of sin, and you are one of them. You are very sure of your position, unlike Tom, who you accuse, who is still working out his beliefs on this issue.

I fully expect that Tom, when confronted with the Scriptures, will modify his position to come into line with what the text says. You, on the other hand, have been repeatedly confronted with the Scriptures and remain confident in your Pelagian position, a position I noted about you very early on in my time on this board. You had a fit then, just as now, but you still cannot disavow your own incorrect stance, so there you stay.

 

[glfredrick]

What is the context? Out of hate? Self defense? Defending your wife? MMA? Are all of these sinful, or is it the intent of the heart that makes it sinful?

The context is simple lashing out and kicking another person in the spleen. The individual who was kicked did not sin against the kicker. No other particular motivation.

Sin or not?

 

[webdog]

I can hardly believe that you wrote that Tom. "Expressing their sinful nature,but are not sinning." The expression of sin is certainly sinning. Mere sinful thoughts are expressions of sinning.

There was a supposedly Reformed poster who told me a year or more ago that there was such a thing as "innocent guilt" and I had the same reaction.What in the world is going on with such thinking? It's not according to the Word of God.

It's completely in line with the word of God. The fact is, it goes against the TULIP which has become a cardinal sin in itself. Abimilech was "expressing his sinful nature" when he took Abraham's wife, yet was not guilty of taking another man's wife due to ignorance.

 

[webdog]

There are several Pelagians on the issue of sin, and you are one of them. You are very sure of your position, unlike Tom, who you accuse, who is still working out his beliefs on this issue.

I fully expect that Tom, when confronted with the Scriptures, will modify his position to come into line with what the text says. You, on the other hand, have been repeatedly confronted with the Scriptures and remain confident in your Pelagian position, a position I noted about you very early on in my time on this board. You had a fit then, just as now, but you still cannot disavow your own incorrect stance, so there you stay.

So when Tom stated "I may be wrong, but I'm not in doubt." I supposed he really didn't mean it

You are Roman Catholic on the issue and have put your faith and confidence in Roman Catholic hamartiology. Congrats! You should be consistent, though, and baptize babies.

 

[webdog]

The context is simple lashing out and kicking another person in the spleen. The individual who was kicked did not sin against the kicker. No other particular motivation.

Sin or not?

No, you don't get off that easy. That is not the context or explaining the motive for the action. Define the situation, the "lashing out". Sin is a heart issue, not a physical one.

Will you tell me it's a sin to kick someone in the spleen during an MMA match? Is it a sin while falling down to kick someone who hasn't sinned against you in the spleen?

This shows the error in your "black / white" understanding.

 

[glfredrick]

So when Tom stated "I may be wrong, but I'm not in doubt." I supposed he really didn't mean it

You are Roman Catholic on the issue and have put your faith and confidence in Roman Catholic hamartiology. Congrats! You should be consistent, though, and baptize babies.

It's weird, if someone who actually had a clue said this to me, I might have need to take it seriously. But, when you say it, it just confirms that I'm on the right track. Your own track record, insults, attacks, false premises, Pelagian take on the human condition, et al, all work to negate anything that you have to say concerning the spiritual condition of others on this board.

That you cannot understand that in some places orthodox Christian belief and Roman Catholic belief are one and the same is your problem, not mine or anyone else's. You simply use the RC moniker as another weapon in your arsenal. Fire away... You simply indict yourself at every turn.

 

[webdog]

Indeed... If Christ were born a "slave to sin" like the rest of humanity, He would not have been able to set sinners free. Slaves have no rights. It is only the free men (of which only one existed since the fall, and that one was Jesus Christ) who can work to free slaves.

...so Christ wasn't fully human?

 

[David Lamb]

[snip] So those chosen before the foundation of the world was not individuals, but the children of Abraham, who believe God and is credited righteousness. [snip]

But the children of Abraham are individuals. And not all of them are physically descended from Abraham. Galatians 3.7-9:

Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
​

And in John 8.39 Jesus said to some Jews who claimed that Abraham was their father:

"If you were Abraham‘s children, you would do the works of Abraham."
​

So I do not see how it can only have been Jews who were chosen before the foundation of the world.

 

[webdog]

It's weird, if someone who actually had a clue said this to me, I might have need to take it seriously. But, when you say it, it just confirms that I'm on the right track. Your own track record, insults, attacks, false premises, Pelagian take on the human condition, et al, all work to negate anything that you have to say concerning the spiritual condition of others on this board.

...and I'm sure you meant that in all love, correct? Pot or kettle?

That you cannot understand that in some places orthodox Christian belief and Roman Catholic belief are one and the same is your problem, not mine or anyone else's. You simply use the RC moniker as another weapon in your arsenal. Fire away... You simply indict yourself at every turn.

This is great. You do not see it an insult to brand people "pelagian" based on their hamartiology, but you see it as an insult to be labeled "Roman Catholic" in describing yours. Are you then admitting by you calling me a pelagian it is YOUR "weapon in your arsenal" admitting it is an attack (since you consider it one on you)?

What a joke...

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There are several Pelagians on the issue of sin, and you are one of them. You are very sure of your position, unlike Tom, who you accuse, who is still working out his beliefs on this issue.

I fully expect that Tom, when confronted with the Scriptures, will modify his position to come into line with what the text says. You, on the other hand, have been repeatedly confronted with the Scriptures and remain confident in your Pelagian position, a position I noted about you very early on in my time on this board. You had a fit then, just as now, but you still cannot disavow your own incorrect stance, so there you stay.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: ".... And the truth shall set you free"

 

[glfredrick]

...so Christ wasn't fully human?

I did not say that. Of course He was fully human. Why do you blaspheme God at every turn just to win your argument?

Also, did you answer yes or no to my question above?

 

[webdog]

I did not say that. Of course He was fully human. Why do you blaspheme God at every turn just to win your argument?

Also, did you answer yes or no to my question above?

...do you mean in the same way you did by denying His full humanity? You are essentially dismissing He was ever truly tempted, which is blasphemy in itself.

I'll answer your question when you qualify the action like I asked.

 

[webdog]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: ".... And the truth shall set you free"

Not all of us

 

[glfredrick]

...and I'm sure you meant that in all love, correct? Pot or kettle?

Of course I meant it in love. You too are redeemable.

This is great. You do not see it an insult to brand people "pelagian" based on their hamartiology, but you see it as an insult to be labeled "Roman Catholic" in describing yours. Are you then admitting by you calling me a pelagian it is YOUR "weapon in your arsenal" admitting it is an attack (since you consider it one on you)?

What a joke...

You completely missed the point (again). I said that there are times when Roman Catholic doctrine matches orthodox Christian doctrine. They are not completely apart from truth or orthodoxy as many here would claim.

You, however, have very conclusively demonstrated Pelagian doctrine in your take on sin. I am not "badging" you with Pelagian beliefs. You are demonstrating by your posts that you hold Pelagian beliefs. No personal attack directed toward me will erase your own doctrines, so you can attack if you like, but it won't help your position.

Here is another definition of Pelagian belief. You match this definition perfectly as concerns original sin.

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

 

[glfredrick]

...do you mean in the same way you did by denying His full humanity? You are essentially dismissing He was ever truly tempted, which is blasphemy in itself.

I'll answer your question when you qualify the action like I asked.

Again, where did I say anything at all like that? You are grasping at straws here and it is not helping you at all.