"Pelaganists" who believe in depravity

Again, I've not heard what you're espousing. You seem to be saying it's widespread. Yet it's rejected by catholics and all mainline protestants and evangelicals influenced by the reformation. That's a wide net and seems to leave us with few alternatives, but who are they? Can you name a teacher who holds to what you hold to? A non-mainline denomination?

BTW, if it is unique to you, I couldn't judge you for that. I have plenty of views I like to call my "no-friends-views."

And do the Orthodox really deny the fall and original sin? I'll plead ignorance on this also. Can't say I've studied Eastern Orthodoxy to any real extent.

Perhaps you're merely saying that your view is consistent with the early church since the doctrine is not mentioned early on.

 

BTW, here's a good baseline article on Pelagianism.

What is Pelagianism?

 

There have been millions of humanity who were born, lived their lives, and never heard the gospel and perished unsaved.

 

All Arminianism/ Free willism is Extra-Biblical.

God Does Not Worship human beings any more than He Gave Calvin Doctrines to write.

The Doctrines are there, for Eternity, and must be thrown out, wholesale, with the rest of the Bible and new Extra-Biblical heresy written that is non-Biblical and Anti-Christ.

The entire Body of Divine and Practical Doctrine that GIVES GLORY to The Son of God, for Rescuing the perishing, since the fall of Adam MUST BE ABANDONED and replaced with, "God Worships individuals".

That is NOT in the Bible.

 

Also see at the bottom of the above link, a link to What is Semi-Pelagiaism.

Basically Calvinists define these terms so that if you do not accept "Total Spiritual Inability" you believe as historical heretics believed. The ploy is sophistry.

What does scripture teach?

First, as a consequence of Adam's sin, all mankind is made "sinners." Second, just as Adam was "corrupted" when his eyes were opened (to the knowledge of good and evil) all mankind was also "corrupted." Now just what are the results of being "corrupted" and "made sinners" is not specifically described in scripture, and so Calvinists have supplied those results, i.e. Total Spiritual Inability and needing to be "enabled" by Irresistible Grace which compels the individual to seek God and believe in the gospel - the so-called "gift of faith."

If "Total Spiritual Inability" were true, then God would not have needed to harden the hearts of unbelieving Jews, Romans 11:7. The fact that God did proves conclusively that the "T" of the TULIP is false doctrine.

Then we have Jesus teaching in parables to preclude people from understanding, believing and being saved. Matthew 13:10-15.

And we have examples of the lost seeking God, such as Matthew 23:13, but being blocked by false teaching.

Ask yourself if Abraham was enabled by irresistible grace and given his faith in God, why did God need to credit that faith as righteousness? Answer God would not need to credit it for Abraham's sake, nor (Romans 4:23-24) for our sake.

But what about "no one seeks after God?" Romans 310-12 Here contextually Paul is making the argument that all have fallen short of the glory of God, we all have sinned. When we are sinning, we are not seeking God, so since scripture says no seeks God (all the time or when sinning) this passage supports the idea we all are under sin. Calvinists use the same text to claim no one seeks God (at any time) to support their false doctrine of total spiritual inability.

But what about Romans 8:6-7:
For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,

Here Calvinist make the unsupported claim, unless they have been regenerated, the Fallen are unable to set their minds on any Spiritual things. But again this is reading a self serving limitation into the text. Again I point to Matthew 23:13 which has unsaved people seeking God (trying to enter the kingdom) thus able to set their minds at least a little of the time on spiritual things.

Well what did the Fall accomplish? The separation from God (because we are made sinners) results with us being spiritually dead, and yes Calvinists redefine that concept to mean unable to seek God and trust in Christ, but again that is an unsupported claim. Thus we need to be born anew, made alive together with Christ which occurs when God places us into Christ. But why cause our corruption, our predisposition to sin? I think the idea is the same as when God reduced the size of Gideon's army in order to increase the glory given to God because of the victory. When a fallen sinner turns to God and trusts in Christ, from a fallen state, that brings more glory to God.

 

I believe semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism are Pelagianism in Drag. (so to speak).

 

I can agree with this. When discussing the doctrine of sin, leaving Satan out is a good way to let him lead.

 

Except these all acknowledge a change in Adam after the Fall. Certain Calvinists and Pelagians are the only groups that don't.

 

This doesn't sound to be like a denial of the sin nature, but an affirmation of it. Can you show me where they deny this?

 

What Calvinists do not acknowledge a change in Adam after the fall?

 

Supralapsarians who believe Adam's fall was inevitable. And it's a fairly large group.

 

They believe Adam died spiritually. They differ from the infralapsarians in that they believe God decreed the fall after electing some to salvation or damnation.

 

Yes, inconsistently, they believe Adam changed, but it's a distinction without a difference. They believe he started out with an bent toward sin and ended up with a bent toward sin. In essence they believe Adam was created with a sin nature, they just don't call it that.

 

Where do they say this?

 

Where do they say that Adam's sin was inevitable? You just said it. "....they believe God decreed the fall"

 

God decreed Adam's sin either way. Paul teaches Supralapsarianism in Romans 9. But he does not align with your claims.

 

Okay there you have it. Before and after the fall, from your own lips, Adam had the same propensity. That's my point. Only you and Pelagians believe this. They believe Adam was free before and after the fall, you believe he was bound to sin before and after the fall. Both of these views are wrong.