What are his "true" words? You didn't post them so how can we examine them?
No, I didn't but the article itself said that:
Recent analysis of his thinking suggests that it was, in fact, highly orthodox, following in the tradition established by the early fathers and in keeping with the teaching of the church in both the East and the West. ... From what we are able to piece together from the few sources available... it seems that the Celtic monk held to an orthodox view of the prevenience of God's grace, and did not assert that individuals could achieve salvation purely by their own efforts...
Now, I admit, I am taking this author's word for it that Pelagius was "highly orthodox". I do not know what works this author and others read. I am merely showing that when his writings (and not the opinions of others) were examined, he was found to be orthodox.
I have read very little of Pelagius (or any other theologian for that matter). I believe what I believe from what the scriptures say. I almost always post the scripture that I believe supports my view, almost never does anyone refute it.
I was simply pointing out that to accuse non-Cals of being Pelagians is a smear tactic. It does not prove that Calvinism is correct whatsoever. Most of the folks who accuse non-Cals of Pelagianism do not know what Pelagius believed.
You have said yourself that the elder brother of the prodigal kept the law perfectly and was sinless, also the 99 sheep. So you do believe that others besides Jesus were perfect, yet now you're contradicting yourself.
What I believe is that the ONLY persons these could be are babies or very young children who did not know between good and evil and therefore are not held accountable for sin. I have showed much scripture to support this such as Deu 1:39 where God did not hold the children of Israel accountable for their parents sin because they had no knowledge between good and evil.
Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children,
which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
God caused all the parents who knowingly sinned in the wilderness to perish, not one was allowed into the promised land. But the children who had no knowledge between good and evil were allowed in and possessed it. I believe the promised land is an OT figure of heaven.
The scriptures constantly show that a man must have knowledge of right and wrong to be guilty of sin. Paul said he would not have known sin except for the law.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid.
Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life,
I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me,
and by it slew me.
Here Paul shows it was the law that condemned him. He did not know what sin is until the law taught him. He said he was alive without the law once. When could this be? the law was written around 1500 years before he was born. The only practical answer is that he is speaking of being a child and not knowing or understanding the law. But once he matured and understood the law, he was condemned by the law and spiritually died.
I have shown many other scriptures besides these, such as Jesus saying the prodigal son was alive AGAIN when he repented. If we are born dead in sin, it could never be said we are alive AGAIN.
If all men are born upright then why do all sin? Why hasn't even one person remained sinless?
False argument. It may be possible in theory that a man could go without sinning, but in reality no man except Jesus ever has.
A baseball player in theory could hit 1.000 for a season, but in reality no player ever has. That does not mean he cannot hit the ball at all. So, this is a false form of argument.
Adam and Eve lived in a perfect environment without need. The very first time they were tempted they sinned. What makes you think that a person born into an utterly corrupt world with thousands of temptations could go their entire lifetime without sinning?
To me it is not incredible that all men sin, to me it is incredible that Jesus could live 33 years with the nature of man and a body of flesh that tempted him in all points as we are, yet he never sinned. That is incredible.
The reason Jesus could be our High Priest and have compassion on us is because he knew the weakness of our flesh and the mighty pull and tug of temptation upon us. He experienced this temptation himself.
