Lon
Well-known member
Thank you. It is where I pulled the indirect quote from. :idunno:
ECT Are we born sinless? Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Thank you. It is where I pulled the indirect quote from. :idunno:
glorydaz
Well-known member
"It seems..." Perhaps you're reading into something again, and it's not very nice to be saying Jerry might be "petty" and a time waster.
I don't see anyone preaching a "sinless doctrine". You've seen a "sinless doctrine" from the beginning. Then you slapped on the label. Then you donkeyed down, and that's all you see no matter what we say.
I've never seen Finney espouse any such thing. Just because he doesn't believe in sin being passed down like some disease, doesn't mean he is wrong. Paul, himself, understands that it was our own trespasses and sins that caused us to be first separated from God. Why not try broadening your search...excluding your outside studies, and adding in the context of all the verses you use for proof texts. That would be the perfect place to start.
I sure wouldn't want you to feel "threatened", Lon. Are you capable of just discussing scripture without having to label everything, and without assuming you know what other people think? So far, I haven't seen any evidence of your doing that.
glorydaz
Well-known member
See, we're being labelled falsely. Neither Jerry nor I subscribe to that. It's because we don't fall for the original sin line that we have become so labeled as Pelagianists and heretics. :chuckle:
glorydaz
Well-known member
They've taught it so long, lots of people have bought into it.
I'm finding if you read their proof texts in their context, you'll find something very interesting.
If what you say is true, then man would have an excuse and God says we don't have one.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Maybe it's against the law to be born.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Keep your opinions to yourself, dingbat.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Says the one who preaches man is not able to believe the Gospel until God saves them. :chuckle:
Per your own words, she has a right to chime in.
glorydaz
Well-known member
No she doesn't.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I don't need you to teach me anything, Danoh. Go about your business. :wave:
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: He's just asked 5 times for the same quote. I linked to where I found it. No good. I linked to others surmising the same. No good. I found a quote from a secondary source quoting Pelagius, no good. AMR posted a link with a lot of Pelagius quotes, no good. I told him I hadn't found but those sources regarding what Pelagius believed. No good. Am I mad? :nono: Frustrated nothing suffices? Yep, that.
It was one option, lest any of us become petty. I have, however, answered the same question, repeatedly 5 times now. To me? "Petty" and I'm sorry to say so lest I alienate. I'd 'like' to be able to discuss this without stepping on toes, but if that's not going to happen, I can leave off this thread too. How important is this to you? Enough that I'd be alienated from you? I will say that can't happen my side, but I'm fearful it may your side. How important is this discussion? "That" important?
I continued in this thread, while you continued in the other. Whatever else, further damage between us isn't my desire at all. I'd think, however, a restart or reboot of discussion where you talk, I listen. Perhaps a different thread, as this one is about Pelagianism, but it'd work here too. As I told you before, I'm listening. Jerry seems to be embracing sinless doctrine. EE is embracing it as sinless doctrine. It 'seems' this is a different conversation than your and mine started, but I wanted to know how close it was to Pelagian views.
I've been reading two pro-pelagian websites. One by Jesse Morrell (whoever he is) and one AMR linked here in thread to Jerry. Both talk a bit about Finney and Pelagianism connected. I've read and enjoy a bit of Finney, but I do remember that one of the problems about him, was said to be Pelagianism.
It could be this isn't the discussion for me then. As I said, I believe Jerry is interested in Pelagianism, though he hasn't posted for two days now, and for two pages he's asked "hath Pelagius really said...?" EE is embracing 'sinless birth' doctrine but doesn't want it called Pelagianism.
What I'm saying is, that I left off the other thread for stepping on toes. These two are respectively about Pelagianism (here) and sinless birth (EE's). I think if you start a thread about 'what I believe,' I will be a reader and hear what you are saying more than talking. I need to go back to square one and simply ask what you believe, as well as listen without as much commentary by me. I want to know what you believe so would simply ask as well as 'what does this verse mean to what you believe?' type of questions. So, yes, I can, but realize you'd carry that thread because I'd just be asking questions there. The 'threatened' is merely alienating someone I care about in you. Yes, I feel 'threatened' by the loss of a friend. Losing your friendship and respect is threatening. Nothing else, just that.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The link you provided did not supply a quote from Pelagius. Here is what John Wesley said about Pelagius and Augustine:
"'But St. Augustine says.’ When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than 'Ipse dixit': 'St. Augustine said it'" (Wesley, The Wisdom of God's Counsels" Sermon #68).
Wesley also said this:
"Who was Pelagius? By all I can pick up from ancient authors, I guess he was both a wise and a holy man. But we know nothing but his name; for his writings are all destroyed; not one line of them left" (Letter CCVI. To Mr. Alexander Coates. July 7, 1761).
Since Wesley's time there have been some of the writings of Pelagius descovered. But much of what you read about Pelagius is not based on what he actually taught but instead is a result of the slander poured on him by Augustine. It must also be remembered that this debate between the two men took place almost a hundred years before Martin Luther.
dodge
New member
The following shows Adam as the federal head of man(sinner) as it shows Jesus as the federal head of man(savior).
22. in Adam all--in union of nature with Adam, as representative head of mankind in their fall.
in Christ. . . all--in union of nature with Christ, the representative head of mankind in their recovery. The life brought in by Christ is co-extensive with the death brought in by Adam.
No one since Adam earned their sin nature it has been imputed to them just as no one can earn salvation it has been imputed to them.
Rom 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Rom 5:20
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more
abound:
Rom 5:21
so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
1Co 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
When we examine this verse we must first understanding the signifiance of the words "in Adam" and "in Christ."
First, the verse says that "in Christ" all shall be made alive. Not all men are "in Christ" but only those who believe. So in order to be "In Christ" a person must do something and that thing is to believe.
In order to understand what is meant with the words "in Adam" we must maintain a logical consistency and understand that one must likewise do something to be "in Adam." And that thing is to sin. So since "all men" sin and die spiritually as a result of their sin then all die.
And that interpretation is consistent with what Paul says in this verse:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5;12).
Here we can see that "all men" die spiritually when they sin. That means that "all men" were alive spiritually prior to the time when they sinned.
Therefore, we can understand that all people emerge from the womb spiritually alive.
dodge
New member
Jerry , if all men are born spiritually alive,which contradicts scripture, why then would they need to be born again as opposed to asking God to forgive them and moving on ? NO Jerry all are born physically alive and spiritual dead needing to be born again.
Jerry, what did you do to earn your salvation?
well you did the same thing to earn your fall in Adam.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why did you ignore the clear teaching revealed by Paul at Romans 5;12?
All men are born spiritually alive ad when they sin then they die spiritually. That is why they need to be born again spiritually if they are going to be saved. Let us look at this verse where Paul speaks of how he was saved:
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).
Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.
Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."
It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--"renewing of the Holy Spirit." If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.
All men are born of the Spirit when conceived so all men are spiritually alive when they emerge from the womb.
Lon
Well-known member
One of the links had a few quotes by him. New Advent has a few of them. I'd think, between New Advent and AMR's link, we might be fairly certain of what Pelagius did and didn't say. New Advent gave the quote I gave you with "with divine aid." If you are Pelagian, then I can see a desire to put forth what you believe such espouses. If you are not, it probably makes little difference, because you'd not be Pelagian anyway.
Because of this, to me, it looks like a lot of ado, again, unless you are espousing Pelagianism. As I said to Glory, I think, if I could, I'd backstep away from Pelagian and semi-Pelagian as an accusation, and simply ask what you mean by innocence. Glory also distances from 'sinless birth' as well. There needs to be some clarity, and so I think I'm ready to hear what you have to say, if you'll forgive the jump of the gun. There is a penalty, and runners can be disqualified on a second jump. I'd simply watch from the sidelines if such is two false starts. Your call. -Lon
dodge
New member
WRONG ! Amazingly that is directly opposite of what scripture teaches. This verse PROVES that men are born spiritually dead.
Rom 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Not that you can see or understand that verse it says all men are born spiritually dead.