The Implications of Original Sin

[glfredrick]

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.

I haven't noticed that I am "running" from anything. See my post below. You qualify as a Pelagian as well, and that is not a charge I make lightly. If you disagree with the doctrine of Pelagius, then please show me and others where. I would be happy to recant, but so far you have given me no cause to think otherwise of your forcefully argued dogma.

As far as "having my nose in Calvinist commentaries..." I'd ask you to share, please, which ones? I don't even recall opening a Calvinist commentary during this discussion, but perhaps you have the spiritual gift of discernment and you can see what I know from afar without even meeting me...

I doubt that I am ignorant of the most basic premises of the Bible... If you would like to carry this discussion into the original languages I'm good with that, but I expect you would be lost in a few sentences... So far you have not even demonstrated a good understanding of the use of a tool like Thayers, much less the ability to process Scripture in Hebrew or Greek.

In any case, I'd like to know how you differ in your doctrine from the statements defining Pelagianism posted in the post above this. Thanks!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I haven't noticed that I am "running" from anything.

Let me refresh your memory. Here are the things you ran from before you began your new tactic of name-calling. You said:

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).

You might try reading the book of Genesis. You might actually learn something.

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.

Of course you never addressed these things I have now repeated. Instead of actually discussing these things like a mature person you revert to name-calling!

 

[glfredrick]

So, let me see if this is what you are saying...

You are saying that we have spiritual life. That we really do not need Jesus Christ, except as a "good example" to follow as we pursue our own righteousness and strive to stay out of sin, which will condemn us, right?

You are saying that IF we lived a life of sinless perfection that we would not really need Jesus, right?

You are saying that children are born without a sin nature, and that if they died they would certainly inherit eternity with God WITHOUT needing Christ's atonement, for they had not yet sinned, right?

Finally, you are saying that I'm the one that needs to study the Word more, right?

I'll await your clarification...

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So, let me see if this is what you are saying...

Why are you once again changing the subject? Do you finally see the truth about what I said in my previous post?

Or is this just one more tactic to attempt to divert attention away from the fact that you have no answer to what I said?

You are saying that IF we lived a life of sinless perfection that we would not really need Jesus, right?

I do not expect you to believe what the ord Jesus Himself taught about this.

"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (Lk.10:25-28).

There is no doubt that the Lord Jesus made it abundantly clear that it is theoretically possible for a person to gain eternal life by keeping the law.

If a person is born spiritually dead then no amount of law-keeping could possibly bring eternal life and no amount of law-keeping could serve to justify a person before God. That is because once a person falls under the sentence of spiritual death then if he is ever going to be justified then it must be by the pentalty being paid. He must be "justified by death," he must be "justified by blood" (Ro.5:9).

Since you are so big on name-calling then why don't you call the Lord Jesus a Pelagian since he taught that people have the ability to obtain eternal life by their deeds?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

glfredrick: Pelagianism views humanity as basically good

and morally unaffected by the Fall.

HP: Show me one place Pelagius or any other stated that 'man is basically good.'

GLF: and morally unaffected by the Fall.

HP: Went you, and others as well, refuse to separate issues of morality from the sensibilities, what good would it do for anyone to address this comment?

GLF: It denies the imputation of Adam’s sin, original sin,
HP: Correct.

GLF: total depravity, and substitutionary atonement.

HP: I would completely disagree. Show us were Pelagius denied total depravity and substitutionary atonement? On depravity he simply would not have placed it is the moral realm lest morality be destroyed. Depravity lies in the sensibilities, not the moral realm. Define for us what the author views as "substitutionary atonement." If you cannot, it is clear evidence that you have no one thing to judge the author as being correct or in error. If you know, show us evidence he is right in his comments about Pelagian doctrine denying it.

GLF, you need to develop a mind of your own just as several others do on this board. So many act as if they have not read or studied Calvinistic writings, but they always manage to find and quote someone who has. The author you are quoting is viewing everything they think Pelagius said from a jaundiced Calvinistic mindset.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GLF: It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will.

HP: The will is either free or it is not free. Again, the author is using terminology developed by Calvinist writers that did not have the foggiest as to what freedom is all about.

GLF: 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.

HP: I say that is an outright misrepresentation of the truth. Prove it.

GLF: 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: No, the truth is that Pelagius disagreed with Augustine's heathen views concerning depravity, and as such spoke out against him on several issues including the baptism of infants. Pelagius was completely exonerated by two previous Councils, and was not condemned until Augustine stacked the deck against him third time around as I recall. Read the history for yourself.

 

[glfredrick]

Why are you once again changing the subject? Do you finally see the truth about what I said in my previous post?

Or is this just one more tactic to attempt to divert attention away from the fact that you have no answer to what I said?

Why would you see my attempt to clarify what you wrote so that I have it clear in my mind as an attempt do divert you from your point? You seem to repeat this mantra anytime someone asks you a question.

And, no, I DO NOT see the "truth" in what you wrote. You are SO FAR off the wall with what you wrote that you stand outside of orthodox Christianty, as I have been trying to tell you for some time now.

But, I have not changed the subject whatsoever. To do that, I might start asking you about your favorite hymn or something... THAT would be a change of subject. My asking you to clarify your beliefs is not a change of subject.

I do not expect you to believe what the ord Jesus Himself taught about this.

So far, you have failed to mention WHAT YOU THINK that Jesus taught about this (whatever "this" is). But I am sure that you will soon tell me what Jesus taught about "this." :laugh:

"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (Lk.10:25-28).

There is no doubt that the Lord Jesus made it abundantly clear that it is theoretically possible for a person to gain eternal life by keeping the law.

Ah, here we go... You ARE telling me what YOU THINK that Jesus taught about "this."

Did that certain lawyer recieve eternal life after he asked his question? If not, why not?

And, thanks for actually answering one of the questions I asked above, even if in a round about way. You DO think that it is possible for someone to gain eternal life in God's presence without the atonement of Christ.

That makes you a bonified heretic. Moderators take note. I am not calling this man a heretic because he disagrees with me. I am calling him a heretic because of what he wrote himself, which disagres with a fundamental of the faith, i.e., that without Jesus Christ we have no hope at all.

If a person is born spiritually dead then no amount of law-keeping could possibly bring eternal life and no amount of law-keeping could serve to justify a person before God. That is because once a person falls under the sentence of spiritual death then if he is ever going to be justified then it must be by the pentalty being paid. He must be "justified by death," he must be "justified by blood" (Ro.5:9).

Since you are so big on name-calling then why don't you call the Lord Jesus a Pelagian since he taught that people have the ability to obtain eternal life by their deeds?

See above...

 

[glfredrick]

HP: Show me one place Pelagius or any other stated that 'man is basically good.'

HP: Went you, and others as well, refuse to separate issues of morality from the sensibilities, what good would it do for anyone to address this comment?

HP: I would completely disagree. Show us were Pelagius denied total depravity and substitutionary atonement? On depravity he simply would not have placed it is the moral realm lest morality be destroyed. Depravity lies in the sensibilities, not the moral realm. Define for us what the author views as "substitutionary atonement." If you cannot, it is clear evidence that you have no one thing to judge the author as being correct or in error. If you know, show us evidence he is right in his comments about Pelagian doctrine denying it.

GLF, you need to develop a mind of your own just as several others do on this board. So many act as if they have not read or studied Calvinistic writings, but they always manage to find and quote someone who has. The author you are quoting is viewing everything they think Pelagius said from a jaundiced Calvinistic mindset.

Let me make sure that I understand you as well. You are defending Pelagianism, right?

I cited a number of authors on Pelagianism from all avenues of Christian doctrine. All have said the same thing. Pelagianism is a heretical position.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GLF: That makes you a bonified heretic.

HP: According to who? A Calvinist? One that holds blindly to Calvinistic orthodoxy at all costs? Your personal attack is not warranted nor should such be allowed on this discussion list. There is not a person on this board, including Jerry, as I have read him, that will not tell you that everyone ( apart from infants or those not moral agents) needs the atoning work of Jesus, without which none shall see God.

If your mind cannot wrap itself around the notion that when you exclude all theoretical possibilities you destroy morality completely, so be it, but that does not necessitate or justify you calling another a heretic because of your lack of understanding. Your comments deserve to be censured to say the least. An apology is clearly in order.

 

[glfredrick]

HP: The will is either free or it is not free. Again, the author is using terminology developed by Calvinist writers that did not have the foggiest as to what freedom is all about.

HP: I say that is an outright misrepresentation of the truth. Prove it.


HP: No, the truth is that Pelagius disagreed with Augustine's heathen views concerning depravity, and as such spoke out against him on several issues including the baptism of infants. Pelagius was completely exonerated by two previous Councils, and was not condemned until Augustine stacked the deck against him third time around as I recall. Read the history for yourself.

So, again, YOU SUPPORT PELAGIANISM?

 

[glfredrick]

HP: According to who? A Calvinist? One that holds blindly to Calvinistic orthodoxy at all costs? Your personal attack is not warranted nor should such be allowed on this discussion list. There is not a person on this board, including Jerry, as I have read him, that will not tell you that everyone ( apart from infants or those not moral agents) needs the atoning work of Jesus, without which none shall see God.

If your mind cannot wrap itself around the notion that when you exclude all theoretical possibilities you destroy morality completely, so be it, but that does not necessitate or justify you calling another a heretic because of your lack of understanding. Your comments deserve to be censured to say the least. An apology is clearly in order.

Perhaps... But YOU are digging your own hole here in your support of a UNIVERSALLY agreed heretical position.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GLF: Let me make sure that I understand you as well. You are defending Pelagianism, right?

HP: Let me tell you exactly what I am stating. You know not whereof you speak. You simply took what some other Calvinist has to say about someone he thinks disagrees with him or another Calvinist, and present it as the truth about Pelagius and his views. If you think Pelagius was wrong, show us clearly from his own writings where he missed the boat and we can discuss it. If you cannot find anything other than hearsay concerning another, what good is it to post it other than to spread another's false notions?

GLF: I cited a number of authors on Pelagianism from all avenues of Christian doctrine. All have said the same thing. Pelagianism is a heretical position.

HP: Who cares? I have read many writers about Calvinism supporting false doctrines, but what does that prove? Support your positions with facts and save the hearsay.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GLF: UNIVERSALLY agreed heretical position.

HP: Sorry but your ignorance is showing.
__________________

 

[DHK]

HP: Sorry but your ignorance is showing.
__________________

This site is not Calvinistic. If anything it is pro-Pelagius. It gives much information about his life and works. Here is one paragraph.

Pelagius and the doctrine of free will

After his acquittal in Diospolis, Pelagius wrote two major treatises which are no longer extant, "On Nature" and "Defense Of The Freedom Of The Will." In these, he defends his position on sin and sinlessness, and accuses Augustine of being under the influence of Manicheanism by elevating evil to the same status as God and teaching pagan fatalism as if it were a Christian doctrine. Augustine had been converted to Christianity from the religion of Manicheanism, which stressed that the spirit was God-created, while the flesh was corrupt and evil, since it had not been created directly by God. Pelagius argued that Augustine's doctrine that humans went to hell for doing what they could not avoid (sin) was tantamount to the Manichean belief in fatalism and predestination, and took away all of mankind's free will. Pelagius and his followers saw remnants of this fatalistic belief in Augustine's teachings on the Fall of Adam, which was not a settled doctrine at the time the Augustinian/Pelagian dispute began. Their view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that we can freely choose to obey God's commandments, stand at the core of Pelagian teaching, and comes through even in the writings of Pelagius' opponents. An illustration of Pelagius' views on man's "moral ability" not to sin can be found in his Letter to Demetrias. He was in Palestine when, in 413, he received a letter from the renowned Anician family in Rome. One of the aristocratic ladies who had been among his followers was writing to a number of eminent Western theologians, including Jerome and possibly Augustine, for moral advice for her 14-year-old daughter, Demetrias. Pelagius used the letter to argue his case for morality, stressing his views of natural sanctity and man's moral capacity to choose to live a holy life. It is perhaps the only extant writing in Pelagius' own hand, and it was, ironically, thought to be a letter by Jerome for centuries, though Augustine himself references it in his work, "On the Grace of Christ."

http://nethelper.com/article/Pelagius

The bolded statement is what is heretical, and has been deemed heretical by most of orthodox Christianity throughout all ages since the Apostles. You can do your own research. Find out who has agreed with this position from the Apostles onward; who agrees with it now?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I suppose I should offer at least some evidence that GLF is indeed ignorant in regard to his 'universal' remark.

One such denomination that shows GLF ignorant on this issue, is the Church of Christ. I have had several discussions with men from the Church of Christ that have attested to the fact they do no believe in original sin. Arminian churches as well do not hold to a Calvinistic view of original sin, although in fairness still use the words 'original sin' in many of their doctrinal manuals. Some are moving away from that language entirely. The free Will Baptists have either never used the term original sin or have clearly moved away from that language in their manuals, at least in all that I have read. As I recall I really liked the manner in which they stated their belief. It went something like this in part: "all that come to the age of accountability sin and become guilty before God." That is as close as my memory remembers their manual.

I am certain many more differ with original sin from a Calvinistic perspective as well, and I know with certainty many individuals do not believe in original sin period. So much for it being 'universally' condemned as heresy not to believe in original sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK:

"Pelagius used the letter to argue his case for morality, stressing his views of natural sanctity and man's moral capacity to choose to live a holy life.

DHK: The bolded statement is what is heretical, and has been deemed heretical by most of orthodox Christianity throughout all ages since the Apostles.

HP: I would take exception to that remark for the following reasons. Original sin had absolutely no place in the Church until Augustine. For that reason scholars have denoted him justly as the father of the doctrine of original sin.

Orthodoxy! Sure, who could not claim their views were orthodox as long as they were the ones holding the power strings? Who could not claim to be 'orthodox' ones if one could stack the deck against all opponents, and castigate them even to the burning of all their books and causing them to flee for their lives, as Pelagius did, or risk the fate of Servetus, being slow roasted at the stake as he was. Orthodoxy!

Yes, I have done my research in Scripture and found that the notion of original sin is simply not based on Scriptural truth.

 

[DHK]

I suppose I should offer at least some evidence that GLF is indeed ignorant in regard to his 'universal' remark.

One such denomination that shows GLF ignorant on this issue, is the Church of Christ. I have had several discussions with men from the Church of Christ that have attested to the fact they do no believe in original sin.

The Church of Christ is a cult.
They believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation--baptismal regeneration, along with some other false doctrine. If salvation is not by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then it is not salvation.

 

[DHK]

DHK:



HP: I would take exception to that remark for the following reasons. Original sin had absolutely no place in the Church until Augustine. For that reason scholars have denoted him justly as the father of the doctrine of original sin.

Orthodoxy! Sure, who could not claim their views were orthodox as long as they were the ones holding the power strings? Who could not claim to be 'orthodox' ones if one could stack the deck against all opponents, and castigate them even to the burning of all their books and causing them to flee for their lives, as Pelagius did, or risk the fate of Servetus, being slow roasted at the stake as he was. Orthodoxy!

Yes, I have done my research in Scripture and found that the notion of original sin is simply not based on Scriptural truth.

You can make all the posts and assertions you want. But unless you document and validate them they have no validity whatsoever. They remain opinion and that is all. "Original Sin" is taught in the Bible, long before Augustine ever existed. Tell me HP, who committed the "first sin," the "original" one?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The Church of Christ is a cult.

HP: I would like to apologize to the list for any that might be apart of the Church of Christ. Certainly I disagree with many of your positions but that does not in any way suggest in fairness that you belong to a cult.


It is certainly sad when even the moderator of this list can violate the rules of the forum with impunity and personally attack others by such subjective derogatory personal attacks on their personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Tell me HP, who committed the "first sin," the "original" one?

HP: From Scripture I would conclude Satan did.