Featured Born In Sin

I am not avoiding the question. You ate taking my comment out of my view and placing it into yours in order to challenge it. Arguments do not work that way.

What was happening on the Cross? God was reconciling man to Himself. Man is reconciled to God. Men need to be reconciled.

Aborted children experience the wages of sin. The question goes to the Judgment.

What sins do you believe damn aborted children?

 

We all experience the wages of sin, I agree. But then there is the Judgment.

It is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment. You seem unable to differentiate between the wages of sin and the judgment.

 

I agree. Natural man is in the likeness of Adam. Jesus came in the likeness of Adam but also in the likeness of the Father. In Him humanity and divinity are reconciled (He is God-Man).

 

No. God judges us. We do not judge ourselves nor are we judged by our corruption.

Scripture tells us that the wages

No, God judges man. We (or our corruption) are not our judge.

Scripture tells us the wages of sin is death. You ignore that it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment because it destroys your philosophy (you combine physical death with "the second death" or judgment).

Infants do face the wages of sin (physical death) but the issue is judgment (the "second death"). To address this you have to answer the question about how babies commit sinful acts in the womb so as to be cast into the Lake of fire.

 

Yes, that is where we disagree. I believe that God condemns men for their sins (He is the only true Judge).

My reasoning is I believe that God Himself is actually the standard. Sins are immoral actions, but morality, true morality, is measured by God's own nature. We fall short.

As a righteous Judge, I believe God actively judges.

So I do see God as taking an active role in judgment rather than men ultimately damning themselves.

I am not sure that our disagreement here explains our disagreement elsewhere, but I appreciate the time you took to point out our difference on whether God judges is or we judge ourselves.

 

No. I already stated that we are by nature sinners. How do you read that to be the exact opposite of what I posted?

The issue has nothing to do with Pelagianism, which you obviously do not understand.

Let me help you (I have at least an education in theology, so I have studied the heresy).

One of the things Pelagius taught us that men are not born sinners. He believed that men have the ability, in themselves, to choose to follow God or to do evil.

What have I posted?

1. I posted that men are sinners by nature (even the unborn child is a sinner).

2. I posted that had the aborted child lived he or she would have committed sins because the child is a sinner.

3. I have posted (unlike the first two, not in response to you) that man comes to God only by God's drawing. The good (the true good) that we choose is not us but Christ in us.

Now, let's see what you call Pelagianism in my posts:

I say even the unborn child is a sinner by nature.
You say this is Pelagianism.

I say no man comes to God without God drawing them.
You call this Pelagianism.

I say men won't will that which is good.
You call this Pelagianism.

You do not understand what Pelagianism is but instead try to use it as some type of an insult.

I do believe Pelagianism to be a serious error, however I cannot say it is more so than your belief.

 

I understand that you do not understand. That is why I posted, to explain.

I will try again, in such a way that any future accusation by you of the heresy can be nothing but dishonesty.


My view - men are sinners by nature (even the unborn child is a sinner).

Pelagianism- men, by nature, are not sinners.

My view - had the aborted child lived he or she would have committed sins because the child is a sinner.

My view - man comes to God only by God's drawing.

Pelagianism- man chooses God

My view - The good (the true good) that we choose is not us but Christ in us.

Pelagianism- man can do good by his own volition.

Before making accusations you should learn the meaning of the words you use.

In terms of unborn children committing sinful acts, I do not believe they do. You can, justly, say this is similar to the 1st Century Jewish and Christian view. But you cannot say it is Pelagianism as it is unrelated (Pelagius held we could refrain from sinning in out own nature, something I reject).

 

No. I am saying unborn children are sinners by nature who have not yet committed a sin, but as sinners they face the wages of sin.

It is obvious that you have no idea what Pelagianism is. I will start a thread so you can explore.

 

No, I am not.

My position is claiming that men are by nature sinners, but also that unborn children have not committed sinful actions. Pretty cut and dry.

You are claiming that the Hebrews came up with Pelagianism, but have offered no evidence that their ideas about accountability equate to Pelagianism.