ECT Are we born sinless? Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

It all fits in with this idea that God leaves man in a horrible state....saddled with sin he didn't commit, unable to seek God....doomed from the moment he takes his first breath. There is nothing that comes right out and says any of that when context is taken into consideration. It's simply picking out evil, and claiming it comes from God.

:thumb:

 

[glorydaz]

Agree they cannot speak.

This isn't poetic license "by nature." Not by deed. It is plain.
Such isn't innocence, it is rather knowing good from evil, doing both "by nature."

Some of them, I would capitulate and realize what you are saying. On others they look more clear such as 'by nature' to me. Doing the law (good things) should be in us, even with a broken imago deo. Isaiah 7:16 A car with a blown engine may drive down the highway, but the same token. It shows what the car was created for, but, as far as my theology, something is wrong.

The point is that we not evil from birth....so claiming we are born with a sin nature is proven false here.

Man is capable of doing good as well as evil...that's human nature. Therefore, man is NOT depraved and unable to seek God or do good. Until a child is able to choose evil over good, he cannot possibly be called a "child of wrath by nature". It's a matter of practice not inheritance.


Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,

 

[Lon]

The point is that we not evil from birth....so claiming we are born with a sin nature is proven false here.

Man is capable of doing good as well as evil...that's human nature. Therefore, man is NOT depraved and unable to seek God or do good. Until a child is able to choose evil over good, he cannot possibly be called a "child of wrath by nature". It's a matter of practice not inheritance.


Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,

The point is, 'Christians who read their bible, Open Theist, MAD, Lutheran, Catholic, or Calvinist, all disagree with your 'proof.'
All the rest of us, not just me. There is no way simply to argue with me alone and think there is a victory either. If you prove it to me, there'd still be most believing opposite. Those who call themselves Christians but don't read their bibles? Sure, they may agree with you. There are many who don't read the Bible. I'm not sure how many on TOL.

Scriptures. All of them. Ephesians 2:3 still is troubling and no proof against being born in a sin condition will suffice against it. You nor I can delete any scripture by simply posting a different one, and built on assumption (imho).
-Lon

 

[SabathMoon]

Isn't it obvious that the actions of a baby are neither just nor unjust?

 

[glorydaz]

The point is, 'Christians who read their bible, Open Theist, MAD, Lutheran, Catholic, or Calvinist, all disagree with your 'proof.'
All the rest of us, not just me.

Well, that's simply ignorance on your part, Lon. I have been fellowshipping with countless believers, for the better part of forty years, most of whom saw original sin as being a Catholic Doctrine. AND Total Depravity goes hand in hand with Original Sin, which the Gospel itself refutes. I'm no babe in the woods, so don't even try to push your foolish ideas of what "most Christians" believe.

There is no way simply to argue with me alone and think there is a victory either.

Unlike you, Lon, I don't see this as a contest in need of a "VICTORY". :sigh:

If you prove it to me, there'd still be most believing opposite.

Made up.

Those who call themselves Christians but don't read their bibles? Sure, they may agree with you. There are many who don't read the Bible. I'm not sure how many on TOL.

There ya go....showing us your pompous side again. Let me put it this way. You read with the Bible in one hand, commentaries on the table in front of you, and your Tulip in the other hand. I don't. I just read my Bible, and those I've had fellowship with over the years are non-denominational.... many of them spending their lives on the mission field, and steeped in the word of God. So put off your holier than thou cap. It looks silly on you.

Scriptures. All of them. Ephesians 2:3 still is troubling and no proof against being born in a sin condition will suffice against it. You nor I can delete any scripture by simply posting a different one, and built on assumption (imho).
-Lon

Yet we're supposed to compare scripture with scripture...not just toss out the one which doesn't fit.

It's only troubling to you, Lon, because you're forcing it to say something it doesn't. You want to ignore the verse that speaks of the Gentiles who by nature followed the law of God, and put all your eggs in the basket of those who were "fulfilling the desires of the flesh". Our Lord had "desires of the flesh", but He didn't fulfill them", even though he was tempted as we are....yet was fully human.

Here we see those who lived according to the customs of the world...ignoring the conscience God created them with. "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath

Ephesians 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.​

And here we see those who followed their conscience and did BY NATURE the things contained in the law.

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness​

NOW LOOK.....here we see the two groups again. Those who followed their conscience and those who fulfilled the lusts of the flesh.

Romans 2:6-8 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,​

Search the scripture, Lon.....all of it.

 

[SabathMoon]

Well, that's simply ignorance on your part, Lon. I have been fellowshipping with countless believers, for the better part of forty years, most of whom saw original sin as being a Catholic Doctrine. AND Total Depravity goes hand in hand with Original Sin, which the Gospel itself refutes. I'm no babe in the woods, so don't even try to push your foolish ideas of what "most Christians" believe.

I didn't think I would agree with thuk (you sing.) about anything.

 

[glorydaz]

Isn't it obvious that the actions of a baby are neither just nor unjust?

Well, they're acting exactly as God created them to act. Shall we blame God when they don't sleep at night and keep us awake. Disobedient little brats. :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

You are exactly right, glorydaz.

Except that it isn't :noway: We don't get to 'assert' our favorite interpretation and call it good. Ezekiel, I don't believe, is talking about sinless birth. The angels were made in perfection. Adam certainly was. Any of the rest of us? Taken for granted, not easily taken from that scripture. It is deductive reasoning.

Whether mine is or not, assertion simply meets assertion. Unless a text is implicitly clear, we move on. This text will never say what you want it to say, directly because it doesn't. Such is deduced reasoning. We are born with a sin nature, I believe, but developmentally not responsible for it. Ephesians 2:3 is very specific: "a nature of wrath."

 

[Lon]

Isn't it obvious that the actions of a baby are neither just nor unjust?

Well, they're acting exactly as God created them to act. Shall we blame God when they don't sleep at night and keep us awake. Disobedient little brats. :chuckle:

I believe you both assume that a baby born with aids must necessarily produce 'symptoms' of that condition. :nono:
If you must 'make fun' of what you either don't understand or wrongly portray on purpose, the conversation/debate is done because neither of you would be on point of discussion any more - chasing instead, after windmills.

 

[glorydaz]

I believe you both assume that a baby born with aids must necessarily produce 'symptoms' of that condition. :nono:

You believe wrong, and it's a poor analogy to boot.

AIDS is not the same as sin. You can catch aids, but you can't catch sin.

If you must 'make fun' of what you either don't understand or wrongly portray on purpose, the conversation/debate is done because neither of you would be on point of discussion any more - chasing instead, after windmills.

Now now...don't let your pride get the better of you. I DO UNDERSTAND, and I'm not "wrongly portraying" anything. Thus you have falsely accused me, and impinged my motives. :nono:

 

[Lon]

Well, that's simply ignorance on your part, Lon. I have been fellowshipping with countless believers, for the better part of forty years, most of whom saw original sin as being a Catholic Doctrine. AND Total Depravity goes hand in hand with Original Sin, which the Gospel itself refutes. I'm no babe in the woods, so don't even try to push your foolish ideas of what "most Christians" believe.

I believe, on this, you are naïve. The majority of church statements are against you, including the Catholic Catechism. The majority of Christians. Even Nick disagreed with you. I'm fairly sure Bob Enyart disagrees with you.

Unlike you, Lon, I don't see this as a contest in need of a "VICTORY". :sigh:

I don't see it as a contest, so false. I don't need to 'win.' I simply need scriptures explained. I DO admit that I would have a hard time with a layman convincing me, not because I'm stuck up, but because I tend to change view 'formally' and from a very well-studied approach. For instance, even if you were to convince me of a few scriptures, I'd have to read my bible through a few times, would have to ask a few pastors and professors I respect, etc. I don't spin theology on a dime.

Made up.

:nono: Look up any church doctrinal statements.
Dallas Theological Seminary (dispensational) for example, then look up all of them.
Next, see Wiki and note that it is attributed to Christianity, across board, Judaism, but with rejection, and Islam, across board.
The traditional church stance across board, is born with a sin nature.

There ya go....showing us your pompous side again. Let me put it this way. You read with the Bible in one hand, commentaries on the table in front of you, and your Tulip in the other hand. I don't. I just read my Bible, and those I've had fellowship with over the years are non-denominational.... many of them spending their lives on the mission field, and steeped in the word of God. So put off your holier than thou cap. It looks silly on you.

Reading the bible is pompous? Don't read between the lines, else silly is upon you Reread me. You made a mistake here. My point: While I know you read your bible (and I believe you do), this isn't a doctrine embraced by bible reading/believing churches. Liberal ones? Yes, but they don't read their bibles. Mormons? Yes, but even their own doctrines say we are born sinners, but ignorant Mormon laypeople don't believe it or know their own doctrines.

Yet we're supposed to compare scripture with scripture...not just toss out the one which doesn't fit.

Agree, but your verses aren't about sinless birth. Ezekiel is long thought to be Satan, and such would apply. Here is an article, not from me. It is well written and expresses why most church doctrinal statements follow the doctrine that we are born in sin.

It's only troubling to you, Lon, because you're forcing it to say something it doesn't. You want to ignore the verse that speaks of the Gentiles who by nature followed the law of God, and put all your eggs in the basket of those who were "fulfilling the desires of the flesh". Our Lord had "desires of the flesh", but He didn't fulfill them", even though he was tempted as we are....yet was fully human.

No, it is "troubling" to your position. Following the law is NOT sinlessness. Why do you think it is? It 'seems' like faulty thinking this side.

Here we see those who lived according to the customs of the world...ignoring the conscience God created them with. "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath

Ephesians 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.​

And here we see those who followed their conscience and did BY NATURE the things contained in the law.

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness​

NOW LOOK.....here we see the two groups again. Those who followed their conscience and those who fulfilled the lusts of the flesh.

Romans 2:6-8 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,​

Search the scripture, Lon.....all of it.

I do. "By nature" is clear to me. You?

 

[Lon]

You believe wrong, and it's a poor analogy to boot.

AIDS is not the same as sin. You can catch aids, but you can't catch sin.

You simply must understand what original sin doctrine means. You can't help but catch it. Romans 3:23 We are 'by nature' (how we are now made) children of wrath. It is a sin 'nature.' Thus, yes, we are born with it.

Now now...don't let your pride get the better of you. I DO UNDERSTAND, and I'm not "wrongly portraying" anything. Thus you have falsely accused me, and impinged my motives. :nono:

Granted, I'm prideful but always working not to be. I do know, at least for myself, how 'studied' I actually am as well as have a fairly educated understanding of what most churches teach on this issue. Thinking a fetus is going to go out and shoot somebody or 'want' to do so is ignorant. Sorry. It is.

I was sarcastic

Sabath admits it.

 

[glorydaz]

Except that it isn't :noway: We don't get to 'assert' our favorite interpretation and call it good.

"WE don't? Then neither do you, Lon.

Ezekiel, I don't believe, is talking about sinless birth.

Really? Yet the principle stands out like a beacon that no amount of human arrogance can tear down.

The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23

Ezek. 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.​

The angels were made in perfection.

Yet they sinned.

Adam certainly was.

Yet he sinned.

Any of the rest of us? Taken for granted, not easily taken from that scripture. It is deductive reasoning.

With plenty of precedent (angels and Adam).

Whether mine is or not, assertion simply meets assertion. Unless a text is implicitly clear, we move on. This text will never say what you want it to say, directly because it doesn't. Such is deduced reasoning. We are born with a sin nature, I believe, but developmentally not responsible for it. Ephesians 2:3 is very specific: "a nature of wrath."

Ah, so it doesn't matter how clear we make it....four verses from Romans 2 must be thrown to the side because you cannot be swayed from you insistence that God charges us with Adam's sin? Toss out all of Romans 1 and 2 then...even though they line up with what is written in Ezek. 18.

Ezek. 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.​

Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

Romans 2:7-8 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,​

 

[glorydaz]

You simply must understand what original sin doctrine means. You can't help but catch it. Romans 3:23 We are 'by nature' (how we are now made) children of wrath. It is a sin 'nature.' Thus, yes, we are born with it.

No, All have sinned.....except

Sin is not imputed when there is no law. What LAW will you charge a child with, Lon.....before he is able to choose the good over the evil?

Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​

Death reigns over all creation....even those who have NOT SINNED like Adam did. "Suffer the little children to come unto me...for such is the kingdom of heaven."

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.​

Granted, I'm prideful but always working not to be.

Then humble yourself, man.

I do know, at least for myself, how 'studied' I actually am as well as have a fairly educated understanding of what most churches teach on this issue.

Too smart for your own good, Lon, but WRONG.

Thinking a fetus is going to go out and shoot somebody or 'want' to do so is ignorant. Sorry. It is.
Sabath admits it.

What in the world does that statement mean?:dead:

 

[glorydaz]

I believe, on this, you are naïve. The majority of church statements are against you, including the Catholic Catechism. The majority of Christians. Even Nick disagreed with you. I'm fairly sure Bob Enyart disagrees with you.

OH LORD, say it isn't so. :chuckle:

Jerry agrees with me, and so do many other Godly men and women. :banana: I left the Catholic Church long ago for good reason. I respect Nick and Bob and their right to disagree with me. Must you stoop to this "my brother can beat up your brother" game? Really?

I don't see it as a contest, so false. I don't need to 'win.'

If that were true, Lon, you wouldn't be playing these childish games about how many are on your side while none are on mine.

I simply need scriptures explained. I DO admit that I would have a hard time with a layman convincing me, not because I'm stuck up, but because I tend to change view 'formally' and from a very well-studied approach. For instance, even if you were to convince me of a few scriptures, I'd have to read my bible through a few times, would have to ask a few pastors and professors I respect, etc. I don't spin theology on a dime.

Well, that's too bad. The Spirit will open the word to your understanding if you give him a chance. He won't outshout all those people you feel you need to run to, however.

:nono: Look up any church doctrinal statements.

Reading the bible is pompous?

No, but clearly you aren't capable of reading it by yourself....how many people need to explain something to you while you play eeny-meeny-miney-moe? My God, man, the POWER is in the Word...not in the private interpretations of men.

Don't read between the lines, else silly is upon you Reread me. You made a mistake here. My point: While I know you read your bible (and I believe you do), this isn't a doctrine embraced by bible reading/believing churches. Liberal ones? Yes, but they don't read their bibles. Mormons? Yes, but even their own doctrines say we are born sinners, but ignorant Mormon laypeople don't believe it or know their own doctrines.

You're entitled to your opinion, Lon, but it's a mighty poor one. I haven't gone to a liberal church in my life. "Lay people" make up the body of Christ. You won't find members of the body standing up in the front of a church building spewing out what they learned in Bible College. You'll find them on their knees in prayer and their nose in the Book....sharing with other believers what the Lord is showing them from the scripture.

Agree, but your verses aren't about sinless birth. Ezekiel is long thought to be Satan, and such would apply. Here is an article, not from me. It is well written and expresses why most church doctrinal statements follow the doctrine that we are born in sin.

:vomit:

No, it is "troubling" to your position. Following the law is NOT sinlessness. Why do you think it is? It 'seems' like faulty thinking this side.


I do. "By nature" is clear to me. You?

Everything I say is troubling to you, Lon, and everything you say is troubling to me. I have never said following the law was sinlessness, but God did overlook the period of ignorance before the cross. It's why we see this...Romans 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: Those Gentiles who followed their conscience as best they could. Those who did by NATURE those things contained in the law. They weren't perfect, but they weren't evil deserving of God's wrath. Read Romans 1 and 2....read the verses I'm given you. Don't ask someone's opinion....READ THEM YOURSELF.

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:​

 

[Lon]

OH LORD, say it isn't so. :chuckle:

Jerry agrees with me, and so do many other Godly men and women. :banana: I left the Catholic Church long ago for good reason. I respect Nick and Bob and their right to disagree with me. Must you stoop to this "my brother can beat up your brother" game? Really?

Yes, because you called it into question. Responses generally work that way.

If that were true, Lon, you wouldn't be playing these childish games about how many are on your side while none are on mine.

Give me the website of the last 5 churches you attended. I about guaranteed they are all supportive of original sin. To me? It seems you are that woman, not me. I am very familiar with church doctrines of most churches.

Well, that's too bad. The Spirit will open the word to your understanding if you give him a chance. He won't outshout all those people you feel you need to run to, however.

:chuckle: Touche~

No, but clearly you aren't capable of reading it by yourself....how many people need to explain something to you while you play eeny-meeny-miney-moe? My God, man, the POWER is in the Word...not in the private interpretations of men.

Sorry, not gonna work. You often do the debate turn-around thing. It is a good tactic but won't work. I've read my bible many times, all the way through. Whatever is 'clearly' to you, better be from the same else its hotair sandwiches. Is there an equal disdain of our prowess? Sure, we both debate from biblical confidence AND just happen to disagree on this matter. Of course we both wonder how and where the other could possibly be coming from. Knowing you are in childcare, some of it would seem obvious....

You're entitled to your opinion, Lon, but it's a mighty poor one. I haven't gone to a liberal church in my life. "Lay people" make up the body of Christ. You won't find members of the body standing up in the front of a church building spewing out what they learned in Bible College. You'll find them on their knees in prayer and their nose in the Book....sharing with other believers what the Lord is showing them from the scripture.

Naw,there are a good many of them that don't read their bibles or do their daily devotions.

Everything I say is troubling to you, Lon, and everything you say is troubling to me. I have never said following the law was sinlessness, but God did overlook the period of ignorance before the cross. It's why we see this...Romans 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: Those Gentiles who followed their conscience as best they could. Those who did by NATURE those things contained in the law. They weren't perfect, but they weren't evil deserving of God's wrath. Read Romans 1 and 2....read the verses I'm given you. Don't ask someone's opinion....READ THEM YOURSELF.

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:​

We read into those, from our perspectives. Imho, you'll post another vomit icon. "Winked" as far as I'm concerned, is horribly wrong. The word means literally "Looked over." A wink is like 'aw, it's okay, stealing isn't that bad!" :nono: He rather, allowed Abraham leeway because Christ had not yet come. That is why salvation has always been through faith in God who saves, however God would do it through a Savior. -Lon

 

[glorydaz]

I believe, on this, you are naïve. The majority of church statements are against you, including the Catholic Catechism. The majority of Christians. Even Nick disagreed with you. I'm fairly sure Bob Enyart disagrees with you.

Yes, because you called it into question. Responses generally work that way.

Surely you jest. I didn't bring it up...you did. Look up...that's where you started the game.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

My stance is well known and my actual expression of it is written all over the place. [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] ... I'm bowing out of this because I'm beginning to brawl with Lon... who wasn't really desiring to get into a knock down drag out in this... to begin with.

It is no secret that you, Jerry, myself and Tambora see this in an enormously similar way. I got genuinely frustrated in my other thread and in just moments of reflection and prayer... I've decided to silence myself in this as I have written volumes already and Lon is our brother in Christ.

I appreciate everything you, Jerry and Tambora have written here... because it is defensive of the character and justice of God.

I've really enjoyed being in on this one... but I recognize my personal foul line... and I do believe I need to simply spectate on this... as I'm still a little upset at myself for blasting Angel... All cards on the table.

All Grace... in Him...

- EE

 

[Truster]

Mankind is taken from the same lump of clay. It is the Potter that takes clay from the same lump and makes the vessel of His Sovereign choice that is relevant. From the same lump of clay are made vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour.

 

[glorydaz]

Give me the website of the last 5 churches you attended. I about guaranteed they are all supportive of original sin. To me? It seems you are that woman, not me. I am very familiar with church doctrines of most churches.

Give me a written affidavit you were aware of sin at 2 years old. lain:

Oh, I'm quite sure you're familiar with most of the visible churches. They abound across the land.
New Testament and home churches go under your radar, I'm sure. I don't happen to worship church doctrine, and their various ordinances as you seem to. Rather than actually address what the Bible says, you begin dispensing all the wisdom you think you have accrued over the years. Wisdom you have collected from other men. But you can't do it without trying to defeat your opponent first. Personally, I believe church doctrine is a hindrance to spiritual growth because all must follow along like little lemmings unable to hear the still small voice of God. The members of the body are stifled by church hierarchy. There are no rules for spiritual discernment. It comes when the Lord sends it.

Sorry, not gonna work. You often do the debate turn-around thing. It is a good tactic but won't work. I've read my bible many times, all the way through.

WOW....Just like the Jehovah Witnesses, huh? :thumb:

Whatever is 'clearly' to you, better be from the same else its hotair sandwiches.

No, your understanding is not the measure I must meet.

Is there an equal disdain of our prowess? Sure, we both debate from biblical confidence AND just happen to disagree on this matter. Of course we both wonder how and where the other could possibly be coming from. Knowing you are in childcare, some of it would seem obvious...

I know quite well where you're coming from. You're coming from the place of God being unjust, and damning and choosing people willy nilly. I have seen the scripture you use to make that charge against God.

Naw,there are a good many of them that don't read their bibles or do their daily devotions.

And there are a good many that read their Bible without understanding, and make a show of their "daily devotions". Your point?

We read into those, from our perspectives.

Your opinion.

Imho, you'll post another vomit icon.

The one I posted was well deserved. Hopefully I won't have to give another.

"Winked" as far as I'm concerned, is horribly wrong.

It's quite appropriate as far as I'm concerned. I love my KJV.

The word means literally "Looked over."

Overlooked.

A wink is like 'aw, it's okay, stealing isn't that bad!" :nono:

No, it clearly is in regard to His longsuffering and grace. Why would you even suggest God thought sin was not that bad? Please don't give our Lord that kind of disrespect.

He rather, allowed Abraham leeway because Christ had not yet come.

NO DUH. That was exactly my point.

That is why salvation has always been through faith in God who saves, however God would do it through a Savior. -Lon

Deep, Lon, very deep.