Semi-pelagian

[37818]

Then I disagree. The unborn have not committed a sinful action, therefore saying they have not committed sin actions is unnecessary.

Not according to Psalms 58:3, ". . . The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. . . .". The implication sounds to me, that one is wicked before being born to speak lies at birth.

And to me, Romans 9:11, ". . . For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, . . ." is Pelagianish. And checking it, it turned out the Greek being translated as "have done" singular for the plural. And "practice" is a plural and "practiced" is a past tense. The Greek plural of that word is only used twice in the New Testament. Romans 9:11 wasn't Pelagian in it's teach after all.

 

[JonC]

Not according to Psalms 58:3, ". . . The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. . . .". The implication sounds to me, that one is wicked before being born to speak lies at birth.

And to me, Romans 9:11, ". . . For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, . . ." is Pelagianish. And checking it, it turned out the Greek being translated as "have done" singular for the plural. And "practice" is a plural and "practiced" is a past tense. The Greek plural of that word is only used twice in the New Testament. Romans 9:11 wasn't Pelagian in it's teach after all.

You are changing "as soon as they are born" to "before they are born" (and "as soon as they are born" is most likely a figure if speech rather than a scientific declaration).

Romans 9:11 was never actually Pelagian in either translation. You viewed it as such, but most do not.

 

[37818]

You are changing "as soon as they are born" to "before they are born" (and "as soon as they are born" is most likely a figure if speech rather than a scientific declaration).

Romans 9:11 was never actually Pelagian in either translation. You viewed it as such, but most do not.

I explained my understanding.

Also if the unborn are sinless then Romans 3:23 is not totally true.

Then there is the issue of being conceived dead in sin do to the inherited knowledge of good and evil.

 

[JonC]

I explained my understanding.

Also if the unborn are sinless then Romans 3:23 is not totally true.

Then there is the issue of being conceived dead in sin do to the inherited knowledge of good and evil.

I understand your explanation.

That said, the unborn having not committed any sinful actions does not make Romans 3:23 untrue.

Often people approach Scripture in a way as to support their theology, as a history book of chronological events, or as a science book (or all three). IMHO this is a fatal error.

The unborn are sinners by nature. But this does not necessitate that they committed sinful acts while in their mother's womb, or even upon being born.

The earth is spherical. This does not make Isaiah 11:12 any less true.

 

[37818]

That said, the unborn having not committed any sinful actions does not make Romans 3:23 untrue.

Explain.

The unborn are sinners by nature. But this does not necessitate that they committed sinful acts while in their mother's womb, or even upon being born.

This truth is not the problem. Except as noted, the supposed sinlessness.
Revelation 20:12, ". . . dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. . . ."

 

[JonC]

Explain.


This truth is not the problem. Except as noted, the supposed sinlessness.

In Romans 3 what is Paul's topic? Is it the moment man sins? No. Rather it is righteousness revealed through faith and not through the Law.

Man is conceived on sin. We are by nature sinners, unrighteous. The unborn is no less unrighteous (remember, the Law did not make man unrighteous, rather it showed (or "taught") us our sin. Those not under the Law were no less sinners.

The unborn are sinners from conception. They will not be justified via the Law.

 

[37818]

In Romans 3 what is Paul's topic? Is it the moment man sins? No. Rather it is righteousness revealed through faith and not through the Law.

". . . For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. . . ."

Man is conceived on sin. We are by nature sinners, unrighteous. The unborn is no less unrighteous (remember, the Law did not make man unrighteous, rather it showed (or "taught") us our sin. Those not under the Law were no less sinners.

The unborn are sinners from conception.

The conception in a sinful nature has to do with the inherited knowledge of evil. From Genesis 2:9.

 

[JesusFan]

You are changing "as soon as they are born" to "before they are born" (and "as soon as they are born" is most likely a figure if speech rather than a scientific declaration).

Romans 9:11 was never actually Pelagian in either translation. You viewed it as such, but most do not.

Babies are born sinners, correct?

 

[JesusFan]

". . . For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. . . ."


The conception in a sinful nature has to do with the inherited knowledge of evil. From Genesis 2:9.

We are born with a sin nature

 

[JesusFan]

I mean, which churches?

I know most are not Calvinistic, but which churches are really semi-Pelagianistic?

Any and all who follow the teachings and theology of someone like Charles Finney!

 

[37818]

We are born with a sin nature

I hold we are conceived with the sin nature.

 

[JonC]

". . . For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. . . ."


The conception in a sinful nature has to do with the inherited knowledge of evil. From Genesis 2:9.

Again, you are missing the context. What is Paul speaking about? The spectrum of age, from conception to elderly?

No. He is speaking about Jews and Gentiles, those under the Law and those not under the Law.


What sinful act do you believe a 2 day old fetus has committed?

 

[JonC]

Any and all who follow the teachings and theology of someone like Charles Finney!

No, Finney was a Presbyterian. You ate using a figure you think others will take as an insult to insult.

Most are, perhaps, along the line of D.L. Moody in that they affirm a free-will theology while making very little (if anything) of the Calvinism vs non-Calvinism debate (they just find it juvenile).

 

[AustinC]

Babies are born sinners, correct?

Jon seems to vacillate on this. In a different thread he claimed that there was an "age of accountability" and while babies had a sin nature, they had not yet sinned and thus they were received into heaven as sinless.

Yet, in a statement in this thread, Jon says "The unborn are sinners from conception. They will not be justified via the Law."

So, which of Jon's statements is really what he holds to? I think John is trying to get out of what he recognizes was a Pelagian/semi-pelagian view that he claimed. He is now backtracking, which is fine by me.

 

[AustinC]

No, Finney was a Presbyterian. You ate using a figure you think others will take as an insult to insult.

Most are, perhaps, along the line of D.L. Moody in that they affirm a free-will theology while making very little (if anything) of the Calvinism vs non-Calvinism debate (they just find it juvenile).

Finney was Pelagian.

 

[JonC]

Babies are born sinners, correct?

Of course. Otherwise Jesus would not have used little children as an example.

The point is not sinful by nature but whether or not a day old fetus in it's mother's womb has actually committed an action that is sinful.

 

[JonC]

Finney was Pelagian.

Perhaps.

 

[37818]

What sinful act do you believe a 2 day old fetus has committed?

Is Psalms 58:3 nonsense?

 

[JonC]

Is Psalms 58:3 nonsense?

No. It speaks of sinfulness.

The issue is you are caught up with sinful actions rather than the true problem - our sinfulness (our "sin nature").

I ask AGAIN, what sinful ACTION do you believe a two day old fetus in it's mother's womb has done?

 

[37818]

I ask AGAIN, what sinful ACTION do you believe a two day old fetus in it's mother's womb has done.

Truthfully the written word does not give any specifics prior to birth. Romans 9:11 does not actually say "having done" in the singular. It is to be plural.
You understand my view, insofar you do not agree with it. We also do not agree with the scope of "all" in Romans 3:23.
We disagree on understanding these details. To me they are important.