The Implications of Original Sin

[glfredrick]

Perhaps we should declare a Christmas truce and with that a cease fire.

 

[The Biblicist]

Perhaps we should declare a Christmas truce and with that a cease fire.

The problem is that this topic will be impossible to drop because their view is the basis for their whole soteriology and we would have to call a true in talking about the whole doctrine of soteriology because it will always come back to this root issue.

God Himself says that the best relgious people on the face of the earth were "transgressors FROM THE WOMB" - Isa. 48:8

Either God is promoting a slander or the denial of original sin from birth is a false doctrine that calls God a liar in Isaiah 48:8.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Again, your whole argument is based upon the presumption that "a father" could be used interchangably in Romans 5:12-19 with "Adam."

Your argument conveniently fails to even address rthe fact that cain and Adam were indeed the sons of Adam. You and the Calvinists say that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to all of mankind:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI./3).

If you are right then we must believe that both Cain and Abel bore the iniquity of their Father Adam. However, the Scriptures tells us that that will never happen:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ez.18:20).

Of course you have no intelligent answer so you say the following nonsense:

Your whole argument is based upon the presumption that every "father" stands in relationship to his own children as Adam did to the whole human race!

Don't you think that is a pretty stupid presumption?

My argument rests on the truth that Cain and Abel were both the sons of Adam and if your ideas are right then the sons did indeed bear the iniquity of the father.

As usual you just ignore the evidence that proves that you are wrong and change the subject in the hope that no one will notice that you never addressed the facts!

 

[Winman]

The problem is that this topic will be impossible to drop because their view is the basis for their whole soteriology and we would have to call a true in talking about the whole doctrine of soteriology because it will always come back to this root issue.

God Himself says that the best relgious people on the face of the earth were "transgressors FROM THE WOMB" - Isa. 48:8

Either God is promoting a slander or the denial of original sin from birth is a false doctrine that calls God a liar in Isaiah 48:8.

You misapplied Isa 48:8 in another thread, this verse is speaking about the nation of Israel. Isaiah is not addressing original sin in this passage whatsoever. It is figurative language, Israel being "called" a transgressor from the womb (you left out "called") is referring to when Israel sinned in the wilderness. Nations do not literally come out of a woman's womb.

So, first you pull this verse out of context to argue it supports OS, when that is not what Isaiah was discussing at all, and then you misinterpret metaphorical language as literal.

 

[glfredrick]

Your argument conveniently fails to even address rthe fact that cain and Adam were indeed the sons of Adam. You and the Calvinists say that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to all of mankind:

If you are right then we must believe that both Cain and Abel bore the iniquity of their Father Adam. However, the Scriptures tells us that that will never happen:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ez.18:20).

Of course you have no intelligent answer so you say the following nonsense:

As usual you just ignore the evidence that proves that you are wrong and change the subject in the hope that no one will notice that you never addressed the facts!

Jerry, any chance that God will simply hold each of us accountable for our own sin, but that we are still born with a sin nature and born in sin?

I will now build a case using the Scriptures and if you argue, you will be arguing against God, not man, for these are the texts that God gave us...


Romans 5:6-19 (ESV)
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. [7] For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— [8] but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. [9] Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. [10] For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. [11] More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
[12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
[15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [16] And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. [17] If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. [18] Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [19] For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Rather difficult to argue against this passage of Scripture that clearly points out that through Adam we are all condemned as sinners. But there is more!

Romans 7:13-14 (ESV)
Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. [14] For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.


Romans 7:17-20 (ESV)
So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. [18] For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. [19] For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. [20] Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Romans 7:24-25 (ESV)
Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? [25] Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.



Further, you have insisted that Augustine was the author of the doctrine of original sin. In that, you have slandered both Augustine and God, for the doctrine of original sin is found both in the Scriptures, of which God is the Holy inspiration, and Augustine who codified a doctrine already in existence in the early church, because it is found in the Scriptures, and who wrote to contradict the lies of the Pelagians who said that THERE WAS NRIGINAL SIN. In speaking out against Augustine, you speak against the man who warred in God's name against a blatant heresy -- that man is born pure and "choses" his sin.

But just in case, here are a few examples of earlier church fathers who spoke of the biblical source of original sin:

ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)

....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race... But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3)


TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)

Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole world, through whom MAN was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On account of his transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmiter of condemnation. (The Testimony of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)

"Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection" [1 Cor 15:21]. Here, by the word man, who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as we were made to die in Adam, then, as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ. Otherwise, if the coming to life in Christ were not to take place in that same substance in which we die in Adam, the parallel were imperfect. (Against Marcion 5:9:5, c. 210 AD)

ORIGEN (c. 244 AD)

Everyone in the world falls prostrate under sin. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling [Psalm 145:14]. In Adam all die, and thus the world falls prostrate and requires to be set up again, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)

Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin.... And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin]... (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)

Clearly the doctrine preceded Augustine, who wrote circa 400 AD.


And, a few more Bible verses...

1 Cor. 15:21-22 (ESV)
For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.


Ephes. 2:1-3 (ESV)
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
[2] in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— [3] among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Psalm 51:2-5 (ESV)
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin!
[3] For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
[4] Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.
[5] Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Job 14:1-4 (ESV)
"Man who is born of a woman
is few of days and full of trouble.
[2] He comes out like a flower and withers;
he flees like a shadow and continues not.
[3] And do you open your eyes on such a one
and bring me into judgment with you?
[4] Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
There is not one.
Job 14:15-17 (ESV)
You would call, and I would answer you;
you would long for the work of your hands.
[16] For then you would number my steps;
you would not keep watch over my sin;
[17] my transgression would be sealed up in a bag,
and you would cover over my iniquity.


Genesis 3:15 (ESV)
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

 

[billwald]

The implication of the original sin doctrine is that Dutch Calvinist theology is correct: That sin contaminates ALL human activity including the Church on earth. This is seldom taken into consideration in any theological or political debate. Every discussion should begin, "How can this body minimize the effect of our sin nature on the question (problem) of . . . ?"

 

[The Biblicist]

Your argument conveniently fails to even address rthe fact that cain and Adam were indeed the sons of Adam. You and the Calvinists say that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to all of mankind:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI./3).

If you are right then we must believe that both Cain and Abel bore the iniquity of their Father Adam. However, the Scriptures tells us that that will never happen:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ez.18:20).

Why do you intentional ignore that Adam stood in relationship to ALL HUMANITY differently than a "father" stands in relationship to his children? Can you replace "by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE many be dead" with "by a fahther's offence all his children be dead"???

No, that would be stupid and you know it but that is the whole basis of your argument!

Only by intentional deception can you weild the scriptures to defend your errors.

 

[The Biblicist]

You misapplied Isa 48:8 in another thread, this verse is speaking about the nation of Israel. Isaiah is not addressing original sin in this passage whatsoever. It is figurative language, Israel being "called" a transgressor from the womb (you left out "called") is referring to when Israel sinned in the wilderness. Nations do not literally come out of a woman's womb.

You do not understand the grammatical rules for the proper use of a metaphor do you?????

A metaphor requires a LITERAL ACTUAL background for any term or expression to be used metahorically.

Even parables are drawn from literal and actual customs.

If babies came from the womb sinless then such a statement would be meaningless and contrary to all facts! However, that is not the case and there are mulitple other texts that teach the same thing (Job 14:1,4-5; 15:12; 25:4; Psa. 51:3; 58:3-4; etc.).

Hence, God is using factual literal truth as the basis of this metaphor.

 

[glfredrick]

Seeing as how nations are "people" they can and do proceed from their mothers' womb. Boundaries on a map have no life, nor any need to confess their sin. People do...

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If babies came from the womb sinless then such a statement would be meaningless and contrary to all facts! However, that is not the case and there are mulitple other texts that teach the same thing (Job 14:1,4-5; 15:12; 25:4; Psa. 51:3; 58:3-4; etc.).

Let us look at one of the verses which you cite:

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one" (Job 14:4).

By the context we can understand that these words are in regard to man as being frail and dying:

"Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not. And doth thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass; Turn from him, that he may rest, till he shall accomplish, as an hireling, his day" (Job.14:1-6).

The word "clean" is translated from the Hebrew word tahowr, and one of the meanings of that word is in regard to a nature of things which "endure for ever":

"The fear of the LORD is clean (tahowr), enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD [are] true [and] righteous altogether" (Ps.19:9).

At Job 14:4 the refernce is to a body which is not "clean" in the sense that the human body does not endure forever but instead is "cut down" and "continueth not."

If the word "clean" at Job 14:4 is referring to being free of sin then we must believe that the Lord Jesus could not have been born without sin because He came from the womb of Mary, a person who was a sinner and in need of a Savior.

 

[Winman]

Seeing as how nations are "people" they can and do proceed from their mothers' womb. Boundaries on a map have no life, nor any need to confess their sin. People do...

Well, God told Rebekah there were two nations in her womb, but that does not mean there were literally millions of people in her womb. I think it is pretty obvious this is a figure of speech.

The scriptures refute that sin is passed from parent to child.

Eze 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Israel at this time believed in a form of original sin. They expressed this in a proverb, saying if a father eats a sour grape, his son's teeth shall be set on edge. God refuted and reproved this false doctrine, and said all men shall die for their own sin.

It is true that all men die physically as a consequence of Adam's sin, but men die spiritually for their own sin.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why do you intentional ignore that Adam stood in relationship to ALL HUMANITY differently than a "father" stands in relationship to his children? Can you replace "by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE many be dead" with "by a fahther's offence all his children be dead"???

I have already explained axactly how by Adam's offense many are dead. And I did not have to add words to what Paul said (as you do) in order for my interpretation be proven to be accurate.

No, that would be stupid and you know it but that is the whole basis of your argument!

You should know that it is stupid to add words to the Scriptures but evidently you think that you have been given the authority to edit the Scriptures.

Only by intentional deception can you weild the scriptures to defend your errors.

So now I am intentionally deceiving others? It is you who is being deceptive because you refuse to address the fact that Adam was the father to both Cain and Abel and the son shall not bear the iniquity of their father.

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ez.18:20).

The Calvinists teach that the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to ALL of Adam's descendants so that would include his sons:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI./3).

you have no answer to this so you accuse me of being intentionally deceptive in the hope that no one will notice that you have no answer to these facts.

 

[glfredrick]

The Calvinists teach that the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to ALL of Adam's descendants so that would include his sons:

...you have no answer to this so you accuse me of being intentionally deceptive in the hope that no one will notice that you have no answer to these facts.

I offered above scriptural evidence that says that you are wrong. I also offered the teachings of several church fathers, all of whom existed and wrote WELL before Augustine or of course, Calvin, but you chose to ignore all that evidence and stand on your insistence.

You don't even realize that you are espousing Pelagian doctrine.

Let me know which parts of the following definition of Pelagianism you disavow (from Theopedia). I'll even help you with one item... You disavow Augustine, so you obviously disagree with the findings f the Council of Carthage in 468 which declared Pelagianism heretical, so in essence, you are saying that you implicitly agree with Pelagianism and have adopted that doctrine as your own. I am not seeking to be evil minded to you or just call out pejorative names, but rather to identify and help you identify which doctrines you actually hold and support and call out to you to repent and adopt the biblical doctrines instead.

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]

Let us look at one of the verses which you cite:

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one" (Job 14:4).

By the context we can understand that these words are in regard to man as being frail and dying:

"Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not. And doth thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass; Turn from him, that he may rest, till he shall accomplish, as an hireling, his day" (Job.14:1-6).

The word "clean" is translated from the Hebrew word tahowr, and one of the meanings of that word is in regard to a nature of things which "endure for ever":

"The fear of the LORD is clean (tahowr), enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD [are] true [and] righteous altogether" (Ps.19:9).

At Job 14:4 the refernce is to a body which is not "clean" in the sense that the human body does not endure forever but instead is "cut down" and "continueth not."

If the word "clean" at Job 14:4 is referring to being free of sin then we must believe that the Lord Jesus could not have been born without sin because He came from the womb of Mary, a person who was a sinner and in need of a Savior.

First, I cited those verses, not the Biblicist.

Second, thanks for making my point, exactly.

WHY do we die, Jerry? Why are we cut down and continueth not? BECAUSE WE ARE BORN IN SIN!

Then, you impute that Christ would have been born in sin because of His mother, yet you ignore the SPECIAL CASE for Christ, conceived of the holiness of God via the Holy Spirit.

I'm not sure that I have to say another word, for you have implicated yourself. Are you blind to the Scriptures? Yes. I believe you are. I cannot come right out on this board and tell you that you are a lost sinner, so I won't, but at some point in time you should consider that possibility...

 

[Jerry Shugart]

First, I cited those verses, not the Biblicist.

WRONG!

Check out his post # 188 and you will see there that he cited the verses in question.

Second, thanks for making my point, exactly.
WHY do we die, Jerry? Why are we cut down and continueth not? BECAUSE WE ARE BORN IN SIN!

We die physically the same way that Adam did--because we have no access to the very thing which allowed him to extend the life of his mortal body:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life" (Gen.3:22-24).

Are you blind to the Scriptures? Yes. I believe you are.

I believe that you are ignorant of the Scriptures because you evidently do not understand the reason that a man dies physically. Have you never read the book of Genesis?

Jerry, any chance that God will simply hold each of us accountable for our own sin, but that we are still born with a sin nature and born in sin?

You are trying to change the subject. the Calvinists teach that man is guilty of Adam's sin:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI./3).

Adam was the father to both Cain and Abel and the son shall not bear the iniquity of their father:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ez.18:20).

The Calvinists teach that the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to ALL of Adam's descendants so that would include his sons. That idea is throughly refuted at Ezekiel 18:20!

 

[glfredrick]

Well, God told Rebekah there were two nations in her womb, but that does not mean there were literally millions of people in her womb. I think it is pretty obvious this is a figure of speech.

The scriptures refute that sin is passed from parent to child.

Eze 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Israel at this time believed in a form of original sin. They expressed this in a proverb, saying if a father eats a sour grape, his son's teeth shall be set on edge. God refuted and reproved this false doctrine, and said all men shall die for their own sin.

It is true that all men die physically as a consequence of Adam's sin, but men die spiritually for their own sin.

So "nations" (panta ta ethnae in the NT Greek) all just pop into existence without being born of a woman (or women)? Right... :wavey:

 

[glfredrick]

WRONG!

Check out his post # 188 and you will see there that he cited the verses in question.

We die physically the same way that Adam did--because we have no access to the very thing which allowed him to extend the life of his mortal body:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life" (Gen.3:22-24).

I believe that you are ignorant of the Scriptures because you evidently do not understand the reason that a man dies physically. Have you never read the book of Genesis?

You are trying to change the subject. the Calvinists teach that man is guilty of Adam's sin:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI./3).

Adam was the father to both Cain and Abel and the son shall not bear the iniquity of their father:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ez.18:20).

The Calvinists teach that the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to ALL of Adam's descendants so that would include his sons. That idea is throughly refuted at Ezekiel 18:20!

You and I are now at this point:

Matthew 7:6 (ESV)
"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

I pray you read the Scriptues and repent...

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You and I are now at this point:

Matthew 7:6 (ESV)
"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

I pray you read the Scriptues and repent...

I pray that you will actually address what I said instead of running from it. For some reason I doubt if that prayer will ever be answered.

ll you have done is shown that you are ignorant of the most basic facts revealed in the Bible. If you would get your nose out of the Calvinst commentaries and actually study the Bible you might actually learn the truths revealed in the Bible.

Those who are saved are those who "believe God." Basing your faith on what some men say about the Scriptures saves no one. Those who are blessed are those who receive the truth because God reveals it to them and not man:

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Mt.16:15-17).

I notice that every single time that the revealation from the Bible contradicts the revelation that you have received from men you choose the one from man. That makes me think that ALL of your beliefs are based on what man has revealed to you and not what God has revealed to you.

I hope that I am wrong but if I were you I would consider what I say.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

glfredrick: (supposed by Theopedia): 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).

HP: Where is the evidence or proof of anything said here? Where is the proof that Pelagius taught any of the things you blindly believe because some web sight says so? Who said any of these things were truth concerning Pelagius? He was completely exonerated by at least two councils. It was not until Augustine stacked the deck against him that any charges stuck. If you believe what Augustine claimed about his opponent Pelagius, without checking the evidence for yourself, you are past gullibility.

 

[glfredrick]

HP: Where is the evidence or proof of anything said here? Where is the proof that Pelagius taught any of the things you blindly believe because some web sight says so? Who said any of these things were truth concerning Pelagius? He was completely exonerated by at least two councils. It was not until Augustine stacked the deck against him that any charges stuck. If you believe what Augustine claimed about his opponent Pelagius, without checking the evidence for yourself, you are past gullibility.

Wow, I rarely say this to another person on this board, but you are really dense...

That is Pelagianism, and you fit the bill.

Theopedia is no random web site. It is an on-line encylopedia of theology. I can cite 50 more definitions that agree if you like, either from the web or from theology texts...

www.theopedia.com

http://www.theopedia.com/Pelagianism (source of the quote I cited above)

Pelagianism teaches that man's nature is basically good. Thus it denies original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him.

Pelagianism fails to understand man's nature and weakness. We are by nature sinners (Eph. 2:3; Psalm 51:5). We all have sinned because sin entered the world through Adam: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12, NIV). Furthermore, Romans 3:10-12 says, “There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” Therefore, we are unable to do God's will (Rom. 6:16; 7:14). We were affected by the fall of Adam, contrary to what Pelagius taught.

So Pelagius countered by rejecting original sin. According to Pelagius, Adam was merely a bad example, not the father of our sinful condition-we are sinners because we sin-rather than vice versa. Consequently, of course, the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, was a good example. Salvation is a matter chiefly of following Christ instead of Adam, rather than being transferred from the condemnation and corruption of Adam's race and placed "in Christ," clothed in his righteousness and made alive by his gracious gift. What men and women need is moral direction, not a new birth; therefore, Pelagius saw salvation in purely naturalistic terms-the progress of human nature from sinful behavior to holy behavior, by following the example of Christ.
...
In 411, Paulinus of Milan came up with a list of six heretical points in the Pelagian message. (1) Adam was created mortal and would have died whether he had sinned or not; (2) the sin of Adam injured himself alone, not the whole human race; (3) newborn children are in the same state in which Adam was before his fall; (4) neither by the death and sin of Adam does the whole human race die, nor will it rise because of the resurrection of Christ; (5) the law as well as the gospel offers entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven; and (6) even before the coming of Christ, there were men wholly without sin. 2 Further, Pelagius and his followers denied unconditional predestination.

It is worth noting that Pelagianism was condemned by more church councils than any other heresy in history.
...
Anything that falls short of acknowledging original sin, the bondage of the will, and the need for grace to even accept the gift of eternal life, much less to pursue righteousness, is considered by the whole church to be heresy. The heresy described here is called "Pelagianism."

So in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing. But once transgression entered and mankind became fallen, God’s law was not repealed nor did God adjust his holy requirements downward to accommodate the weakened, fallen condition of his creation. God did punish his creation by visiting upon them the judgment of original sin, so that everyone after Adam and Eve who was born into this world was born already dead in sin. Original sin is not the first sin. It’s the result of the first sin; it refers to our inherent corruption, by which we are born in sin, and in sin did our mothers conceive us. We are not born in a neutral state of innocence, but we are born in a sinful, fallen condition. Virtually every church in the historic World Council of Churches at some point in their history and in their creedal development articulates some doctrine of original sin. So clear is that to the biblical revelation that it would take a repudiation of the biblical view of mankind to deny original sin altogether.

This is precisely what was at issue in the battle between Augustine and Pelagius in the fifth century. Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace — and here’s the key distinction — facilitates righteousness. What does “facilitate” mean?

It helps, it makes it more facile, it makes it easier, but you don’t have to have it. You can be perfect without it. Pelagius further stated that it is not only theoretically possible for some folks to live a perfect life without any assistance from divine grace, but there are in fact people who do it. Augustine said, “No, no, no, no . . . we are infected by sin by nature, to the very depths and core of our being — so much so that no human being has the moral power to incline himself to cooperate with the grace of God. The human will, as a result of original sin, still has the power to choose, but it is in bondage to its evil desires and inclinations. The condition of fallen humanity is one that Augustine would describe as the inability to not sin. In simple English, what Augustine was saying is that in the Fall, man loses his moral ability to do the things of God and he is held captive by his own evil inclinations.

In the fifth century the Church condemned Pelagius as a heretic. Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange, and it was condemned again at the Council of Florence, the Council of Carthage, and also, ironically, at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century in the first three anathemas of the Canons of the Sixth Session. So, consistently throughout Church history, the Church has roundly and soundly condemned Pelagianism — because Pelagianism denies the fallenness of our nature; it denies the doctrine of original sin.

Pelagianism, also called Pelagian Heresy, a 5th-century Christian heresy taught by Pelagius and his followers that stressed the essential goodness of human nature and the freedom of the human will. Pelagius was concerned about the slack moral standards among Christians, and he hoped to improve their conduct by his teachings. Rejecting the arguments of those who claimed that they sinned because of human weakness, he insisted that God made human beings free to choose between good and evil and that sin is a voluntary act committed by a person against God’s law. Celestius, a disciple of Pelagius, denied the church’s doctrine of original sin and the necessity of infant Baptism.

Pelagianism was opposed by Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who asserted that human beings could not attain righteousness by their own efforts and were totally dependent upon the grace of God. Condemned by two councils of African bishops in 416, and again at Carthage in 418, Pelagius and Celestius were finally excommunicated in 418; Pelagius’ later fate is unknown.

I can go on if you please, but these references that substantially agree on the core definition of Pelagianism (and with your doctrine) should suffice.