"Pelaganists" who believe in depravity

I don't say this lightly, and I know my views are less than unwelcome in this debate but....what if....
We disabused ourselves of the slavery imposed by systematizing Theology and simply stopped worrying about "natures" and the consequences of "the fall" and other unbiblical representations of the simplicity of the text?

Wouldn't it be so much simpler?

"Pelagianism" isn't a "thing".....
That is to say, it only matters to people who are attempting to supply systematic and Philosophical definitions to ideas which Pelagius himself was unconcerned with because the Scriptures themselves were un-concerned with.
"The Fall"..."Spiritual death"...."Natures"....
Those are ideas present in Systematic Theologies....
They are not the obvious witness of the text which did not concern itself with such terms.

I'm not afraid of Systematic Theology. I do understand it, but, it's hindering us because we are concerning ourselves with precisely and exactly, what happened to Adam and his real or potential offspring after the event of the first sin.... And, furthermore....in what way was Adam's "nature" or that of his offspring potentially altered or damaged as a result of that event????

Try as anyone might, none of those questions are spoken of in Scripture, because the text deals with no such thing.
We can go round and round in circles (and we do) unless we realize that the Scriptures aren't concerned with teaching how Adam was materially or physically or emotionally altered by the fact that he sinned.
The text says that he would die.

It meant by that, that he would...die....not "spiritually" die, but just die.
That's why he was removed from access to the tree of LIFE...(remember he put sword-weilding Cherubs at the gates and what-not???)

Ask yourself this question:
When speaking of Adam's "fall" how often do you debate the importance of the sword-weilding Cherubs, and the removal of access to the tree of life, and banishment from the garden and the statement that God now refuses to let man live forever "...lest he partake of the tree of life and live forever"...<----What the Bible concerns itself with...and instead start asking questions about "progeny", "Seth's Image", "Adam's image", "Natures", "Sin Natures" and "non-posse-non-peccarre"?
Systematic Theology is destroying us. It's seeking to answer non-sense questions God's holy word doesn't address, because they are non-questions.

That's why Christ's ressurrection matters (as conquering death).
That's what Paul spoke of:
1Co 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

That's why the "tree of Life" is in the New Jerusalem (heaven whatever) as John saw in the Revelation......
The Bible literally is Book-ended by the tree of life in Genesis and the tree of life in Revelation ch. 22

Death means death, life means life....and systematic Theology is bordering on epic stupidity.
"Nature" isn't a Biblical concern...."Spiritual death" is not biblical terminology (although it's not inappropriate entirely to speak of it).
It's all in the text, and the text doesn't give us room to debate issues like "Pelagianism"....

We invented both the doctrine, and the heresy.

The Bible doesn't speak in such terms.....
Gnostic Western Pagans, newly converted to Christianity do.
And they superimposed a system of Theology on the Biblical text which it does not concern itself with and did not previously exist. And we never seem to come to agreement about it, because the Bible is essentially silent on the entirety of the topic, because it isn't a Biblical topic.

 

True, and the Scriptures do not speak of a "fall" or "natures".

Agreed.

I don't think they are contradictory statements, (there are models which can help us explain how those are both true) but, yes, they are both true.

Yes....
And "Pelagianism" isn't a thing....at least biblically. And poor Morgan himself was quite unaware of it.
It never was, it never will be.
It's non-sense. The Bible doesn't address the conversation in any sense like we debate it, or Augustine debated it. Western Pagans invented the question to begin with and then debated how the Bible answered a question it never addressed.
As I said, we invented both the doctrine itself and the heresy.
That's why the whole thing exists.
It's stupid.

 

If God did not create Adam to sin, who did?

 

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Your question implies a premise I don't not affirm.

 

Are you attempting my character assassination since you cannot overcome my position?

 

No, just giving you an example of an unfair question with a premise built in. I have no reason to believe you ever beat your wife.

 

People see what you say about me on a personal level.

 

The beating your wife question is a common example of questions with premises. It's used often to demonstrate this fallacy.

Good grief.

 

Thai is an excellent question. The answer to that question is the answer why do the resurrected need healing? ". . . the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. . . ." -- Revelation 22:2. Jesus was resurrected with the nail prints, the beheaded are resurrected beheaded.

 

What we know for certain is that Adam was never commanded to eat so he could stay alive. The only criterion for that was abstaining from the Tree of Knowledge.

 

No. What it affirms is sin became a cause of death. And sin made death the enemy. The tree of life was proved before the fall to prevent death! And was not forbidden until after the fall, Genesis 3:22-24.

 

Dave, I assure you, that wasn't the point of the comment. There is a fallacy of embedding a premise into a question. You asked, "If God did not create Adam to sin, who did?" The question includes the premise that Adam was created to sin.

When these kinds of questions are asked, the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question is often is offered as an example of why it's a fallacy. It's extremely common. I assure you, I was not speaking personally.

 

Again, death existed, Genesis 2:17.

 

Twilight zone.

 

How can death exist before death existed?

 

Death existed prior to Genesis 2:17.

 

Good and evil is originally God's knowledge, Genesis 3:22.

 

Some time years from now someone might say "I heard from a reliable source he was a wife-beater". Because of your character assassination attempt launched in this thread. If you can't prove your point with scripture, leave it at that.

 

Keep hedging. God knows your heart.