"Pelaganists" who believe in depravity

[Calminian]

God created Adam without the ability to sin. Because sin is the violation of God's law which came later. Adam's nature was such, I believe it was because he was in God's sovereign image, that sin became inevitable when God gave him a law to break. It is the nature of sovereignty to give the law, not obey it to it.

If all it took was a command to effectively make Adam's sin, then Adam was created with a sin nature, and there is no practical difference between pre and postlapsarian Adam.

That's my point. It is not the same exact error Pelagius made, but it's similar. Both views espouse no changes in Adam's nature.

The truth is, Adam did not have a sin nature when he was created. He acquired it by disobeying a command he was able to obey. This confounds those who can't accept any type of freewill, but it's biblical.

 

[Van]

Yes, the false doctrine of Total Spiritual Inability is believed by those who buy into Calvinism and Arminianism.

What is Pelagianism? 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.

As far as John 9:39, if we look down to John 9:41 we see that the Pharisees had enough spiritual ability to be guilty of knowingly sinning. So the very passage cited actually teaches limited spiritual ability.

 

[37818]

I would say the view you describe above, is actually a works based security, which is problematic. We all sin and John says. If we can sin our way out of salvation, we're in trouble.

You do not understand my view. 1 John 5:4, Revelation 3:5.

 

[Yeshua1]

If all it took was a command to effectively make Adam's sin, then Adam was created with a sin nature, and there is no practical difference between pre and postlapsarian Adam.

That's my point. It is not the same exact error Pelagius made, but it's similar. Both views espouse no changes in Adam's nature.

th is, Adam did not have a sin nature when he was created. He acquired it by disobeying a command he was able to obey. This confounds those who can't accept any type of freewill, but it's biblical.

Adam tasted spiritual right after he sinned, and experienced the starting of physical death!

 

[37818]

. . . and experienced the starting of physical death!

So am I to understand prior to the fall you believe Adam and Eve had no need for the tree of life.

 

[Calminian]

So am I to understand prior to the fall you believe Adam and Eve had no need for the tree of life.

I believe it did have a purpose prior to the Fall. We see it mentioned in various places in Scripture. We see it in Heaven in Revelation, where it is said to sustain the nations.

Rev. 22:2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Rev. 22:14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

Rev. 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.​

It appears to be a sustaining force that God meant to be in place from the very beginning, since the beginning of creation.

Adam partaking prior to the fall may have been more of a sacramental act than a nourishing act. He may not have needed to partake of it to live, per se, but only in the sense of acknowledging it. It appears to be a source of life, similar to how the Sun is a source of light.

Adam is never told, specifically, to eat of the tree to sustain his life, or that failing to partake would result in the loss of his life. Only partaking of the Tree of Knowledge carried those consequences. But the tree of life seemed to serve a symbol at the least, to an actual source of life.

After the Fall, it was necessary Adam didn't eat, so that death could come to him. This also included the death of his descendants, specifically Christ, whose death would potentially save the world.

That's my take, acknowledging there is still some mystery surrounding this tree.

 

[Yeshua1]

So am I to understand prior to the fall you believe Adam and Eve had no need for the tree of life.

There was no death until Adam sinned!

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe it did have a purpose prior to the Fall. We see it mentioned in various places in Scripture. We see it in Heaven in Revelation, where it is said to sustain the nations.

Rev. 22:2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Rev. 22:14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

Rev. 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.​

It appears to be a sustaining force that God meant to be in place from the very beginning, since the beginning of creation.

Adam partaking prior to the fall may have been more of a sacramental act than a nourishing act. He may not have needed to partake of it to live, per se, but only in the sense of acknowledging it. It appears to be a source of life, similar to how the Sun is a source of light.

Adam is never told, specifically, to eat of the tree to sustain his life, or that failing to partake would result in the loss of his life. Only partaking of the Tree of Knowledge carried those consequences. But the tree of life seemed to serve a symbol at the least, to an actual source of life.

After the Fall, it was necessary Adam didn't eat, so that death could come to him. This also included the death of his descendants, specifically Christ, whose death would potentially save the world.

That's my take, acknowledging there is still some mystery surrounding this tree.

Adam before the fall would have not experience any of the ravages of sin, as in sickness, aging, death etc!

 

[1689Dave]

If all it took was a command to effectively make Adam's sin, then Adam was created with a sin nature, and there is no practical difference between pre and postlapsarian Adam.

That's my point. It is not the same exact error Pelagius made, but it's similar. Both views espouse no changes in Adam's nature.

The truth is, Adam did not have a sin nature when he was created. He acquired it by disobeying a command he was able to obey. This confounds those who can't accept any type of freewill, but it's biblical.

God created Adam as sinless. Is this true? Adam chose to sin when God gave him a Law. Is this true? God created sin when he created Adam knowing he would sin if given a law. Is this true? Therefore God created sin for his glory. Since he created all to reveal his glory through the Church.

 

[Calminian]

God created Adam as sinless.

....Therefore God created sin for his glory. .

These statements contradict. If God created sin, and created Adam to sin, then, no, He did not create Adam sinless. Adam, by your thinking, was created with a sin nature—a nature that sinned as soon as it was exposed to the law.

I don't believe this is true, however. I don't believe Adam had a sin nature. He could have and should have obeyed God. What you teach above is a compromised creation story.

 

[1689Dave]

These statements contradict. If God created sin, and created Adam to sin, then, no, He did not create Adam sinless. Adam, by your thinking, was created with a sin nature—a nature that sinned as soon as it was exposed to the law.

I don't believe this is true, however. I don't believe Adam had a sin nature. He could have and should have obeyed God. What you teach above is a compromised creation story.

You need to consider that you might not know how God created all including sin, for his good pleasure. And need more study. "Calminian" displays a lack of understanding when you call yourself that.

 

[37818]

We see it in Heaven in Revelation, . . .

Not true. It was on the new Earth.

 

[Calminian]

You need to consider that you might not know how God created all including sin, for his good pleasure. And need more study. "Calminian" displays a lack of understanding when you call yourself that.

I wouldn't read too much into it. It's an old handle I picked long ago. Probably wouldn't pick it again, but too late. I'm stuck with it.

What I'd recommend for you is a thorough study of Genesis. Immerse yourself in it. It is the most attacked book of our time, with compromised interpretations galore in the wake of evolutionary deep time thinking. Currently, there are only about 20 seminaries nationwide that hold to a literal six day recent creation interpretation. Compromise on this book has lead the Church into error.

This error you espouse of Adam being created to sin (for God's glory) is no different, IMHO. It's leading to error, and totally unnecessary. It's not essential to Calvinism. I can say with certainty, Calvin didn't believe it.

 

[37818]

There was no death until Adam sinned!

false. God said there was death, Genesis 2:17.

 

[Calminian]

Not true. It was on the new Earth.

That's what I mean by Heaven. The New Jerusalem. And if I'm not mistaken, the Tree will not be in the Millennial Kingdom, which is only a partial restoration, but not yet a full restoration of Eden (haven't fully researched that, however).

 

[Calminian]

false. God said there was death, Genesis 2:17.

Huh? You just quoted a verse that affirms no death until Adam sinned.

 

[Yeshua1]

false. God said there was death, Genesis 2:17.

Potential death, but no sin meant no curse and no death yet!

 

[Yeshua1]

That's what I mean by Heaven. The New Jerusalem. And if I'm not mistaken, the Tree will not be in the Millennial Kingdom, which is only a partial restoration, but not yet a full restoration of Eden (haven't fully researched that, however).

Think the reigning of Jesus will be Eden and paradise restored!

 

[Calminian]

Think the reigning of Jesus will be Eden and paradise restored!

Except there will be death in the Millennial Kingdom from old age, and there will be sacrifices. Some things will be restored for sure, like animal vegetarianism and the ceasing of predation.

Is. 11:6 “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole,
And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD
As the waters cover the sea.​

I think the New Jerusalem will be the full restoration of Eden.

 

[Yeshua1]

Except there will be death in the Millennial Kingdom from old age, and there will be sacrifices. Some things will be restored for sure, like animal vegetarianism and the ceasing of predation.

Is. 11:6 “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole,
And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD
As the waters cover the sea.​

I think the New Jerusalem will be the full restoration of Eden.

good points, why would we need the tree of Life though if in eternal state?