ECT Are we born sinless? Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Are you telling me his mother had no sin? Even at her age? Sin entered the world, and all men sin, so how did she avoid being sinful? You sure put a lot of faith in that one verse that doesn't even make sense the way you're reading it. You won't even address the fact that he was over-wrought with guilt and was undoubtedly using hyperbole....as we all do when we're upset. "I never do anything right" or "I'm the chiefest of sinners". I think you are reading too much into that verse. Compare...

Psalm 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Psalm 58:3The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Psalm 71:6 By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee.​

It's sad that you seem reluctant to discuss something so relevant to this topic as Christ in the flesh. Don't be afraid. That's the problem with all these old proclamations from the past. It's as if the church proclamations are truth instead of the scripture itself, and which church would that be? Jesus is either fully man with a human nature or He isn't.

Yup... I read every word here and yup... I had to really think this through... but I hadn't really thought this through until I read the way you connected all of it.

So... I see it and I understand it. He tended that lineage so meticulously! It makes sense scripturally when you drive this home... He did what we cannot and when you put it this way... it really brings (Heb. 2:14) home even more strongly!

:thumb:
 

Shasta

Well-known member
The doctrine of "original sin" was formulated by Augustine in the Fifth Century. He came to that conclusion on the basis of Jerome's faulty Latin translation of Romans 5:12 which instead of saying

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because[Greek epi] all sinned (Romans 5:12)

said:

12 propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit IN quo omnes peccaverunt

12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, IN whom (in Adam) all have sinned.
http://vulgate.org/nt/epistle/romans_5.htm
Augustine was unable to check this translation "in whom (Adam) all sinned" against the original Greek text because he could not read Greek. He complained that he had not learned it because he disliked his Greek tutor.

Here is a discussion about the mistranslation and the most deadly preposition in history.

Not only is it absurd that Jerome made ἐφ’ into “in,” but he connected the ᾧ pronoun in the ἐφ’ ᾧ clause back to Adam instead of “death,” which is what makes the most sense syntactically. If the ἐφ’ ᾧ is connected to death instead, then “death spread to all by which all have sinned,” which would make death the spiritual reality that is the source of sin instead of the punishment for sin (which is how the Eastern Orthodox interpret this passage).
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2012/12/12/original-sin-part-one-romans-512-21/

As in many issues, Augustine was, first and foremost, a philosopher. As an exegete he was atrocious. Here he found a verse that, though mistranslated, fit neatly into his Gnostic idea of a totally ruined and helpless humanity and he used it without taking into consideration counter-balancing verses.

The result was that, in Augustine's system of theology, every human being is guilty of Adam's personal sin against God as soon as they are conceived. This is the basis for the Reformed doctrine of "legal imputation" Since Adam was supposedly our "legal representative" or "federal head" he acted for all of us. It was also why Augustine believed in infant damnation and why he and the Reformers who followed his teachings practiced infant baptism. This rite supposedly eliminated "original sin."

Calvin was not happy about the idea that babies had to be baptized to cover "original sin." Such ritualistic sacramentalism was far too Catholic for him so he made some rather vague exceptions for the unborn (who had never exercised faith in the gospel) saying that if they were "elect" they would be saved nevertheless. Of course if the unborn were NOT among the elect they would burn in hell.

The classic view of "original sin" is that Adam's personal sin is imputed (legally transferred) to the "account" of every human being that would ever live (except Jesus). It is a legal concept which is fitting since Calvin was a lawyer. The Greek idea was and is that our inherent lack of spiritual life (i.e., spiritual death) is the reason why human beings inevitably sin. Of course, if we were ontologically in union with the Spirit from conception there would be no need to be born again.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
All your views "prove" is that you disagree with orthodox Christian teachings, and that you do not possess spiritual discernment into the Word of God.

All you prove is that you put more faith in the "orthodox Christian teachings" than you do in what the Scriptures themselves teach!

Let me remind you that it those who "believe God" who are justified in the sight of God and not those who believe what some men say about the Scriptures.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Can an infant Love the Lord their God with all their Heart Soul Mind and Strength as scripture/Jesus commands? How about love neighbor as self? You are correct, but it was 'my' question. Are they born able? :nono: That's why the 'omit' the commands. Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. Are children's minds on the Spirit? :nono:

infants do not omit.

do you omit walking on water ? :nono:
 

Lon

Well-known member
I've been reading up on this discussion elsewhere, simply to gather information and be effective in discussion.

The predominant problem with sinless birth is that it tramples scriptures. The discussion in thread has asked for those scriptures.

While some of them have been eschewed as having anything to do with the discussion, I yet believe Psalm 51:1-5 to stand very well on its own premise and counter to the belief that all children are born innocent.

In addition, I've found in reading the following scriptures. For me, at least, they definitively settle the matter for me though I am certain the discussion will continue. Logically, I believe these verses as well as the former, end this debate, at least for me.

1 Corinthians 15:22
Romans 3:10,11
Psalm 58:3
Proverbs 22:15
Genesis 8:21
Psalm 14:2–3


If one insists, after this, that their doctrine is to be held over the orthodox position, I'd encourage a 'thorough' investigation. We all need to stand before our Maker, and give account, thus need to take captive every thought that vies against the throne of God. 2 Corinthians 10:5 In Him -Lon
 

Danoh

New member
can you walk on water ? no

did you omit walking on water today ? no

infants do not commit sins of omission .



so do I have your view correct

toddlers don't go to hell
but they are not sinless

Nope; toddlers do not...go to hell.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Obviously, neither do the aborted.

In fact, the heinous Roe v Wade, has actually only ended up building up the Body of Christ.

The irony of God's determined will - that to even oppose His will ends up to His desire.

Matthew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Are you telling me his mother had no sin? Even at her age? Sin entered the world, and all men sin, so how did she avoid being sinful? You sure put a lot of faith in that one verse that doesn't even make sense the way you're reading it. You won't even address the fact that he was over-wrought with guilt and was undoubtedly using hyperbole....as we all do when we're upset. "I never do anything right" or "I'm the chiefest of sinners". I think you are reading too much into that verse.
I disagree. He says he is guilty of sin, then says he was born into it. Whether his mother sinned or not was beside the point, he is talking about his own sin and his own sin condition. My point was there is no conjecture (like his mother sinning) that can account for his words. Some of your verses, to me, look exactly like we are born with a sin condtion:


Compare...
Psalm 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly. -to me? Looks like a 'need' because of a sin condition

Psalm 58:3The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. :think: Right from the womb?

Psalm 71:6 By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee. -not much propping of a belief in a sinless condition I don't think.

It's sad that you seem reluctant to discuss something so relevant to this topic as Christ in the flesh. Don't be afraid. That's the problem with all these old proclamations from the past. It's as if the church proclamations are truth instead of the scripture itself, and which church would that be? Jesus is either fully man with a human nature or He isn't.
It isn't that I'm unwilling to discuss it, but rather, that for me Christology is a major doctrine, all of its own and even after discussing it, we'd not know for sure how much of Him was unique, and how much could possibly apply to this discussion.
 

Lon

Well-known member
can you walk on water ? no

did you omit walking on water today ? no
Sure I can. If Peter could, all it takes is the One in Whom he had faith.

infants do not commit sins of omission .
So my children could love the Lord their God with all of their being, and could love their neighbor as self?


so do I have your view correct

toddlers don't go to hell
but they are not sinless
I said Jesus said not to hinder them from coming to Him. I simply trust Him. Even my own infants weren't really mine. They are His. That's my doctrine.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Nope; toddlers do not...go to hell.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Obviously, neither do the aborted.

In fact, the heinous Rove v Wade, has actually only ended up building up the Body of Christ.

The irony of God's determined will - that to even oppose His will ends up to His desire.

Matthew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Romans 9:11
so no sin of omission
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Sure I can. If Peter could, all it takes is the One in Whom he had faith.
did you omit walking on water today ? no

So my children could love the Lord their God with all of their being, and could love their neighbor as self?
not capable so not an omission

Rom 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad

I said Jesus said not to hinder them from coming to Him. I simply trust Him. Even my own infants weren't really mine. They are His. That's my doctrine.

:confused:
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I disagree. He says he is guilty of sin, then says he was born into it. Whether his mother sinned or not was beside the point, he is talking about his own sin and his own sin condition. My point was there is no conjecture (like his mother sinning) that can account for his words. Some of your verses, to me, look exactly like we are born with a sin condtion:

That's too bad because you missed the fact that they were figurative expressions just like your proof text.

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.​

Can you imagine if someone decided we could be clean by being purged with hyssop?

Psalm 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.​

Will anyone's broken bones rejoice?

Psalm 51:8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

Rather, David is pleading with the Lord to forgive his sins and blot out all his iniquities. Nothing that would possibly be attributed to his being born a sinner.


Psalm 51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.​

And here, with this verse, you see the "wicked are estranged from the womb". But you ignore the rest which says they go astray as soon as they are born....speaking lies. Do you honestly think new born babies speak lies?

Psalm 58:3KJV The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.​


The fact that you take that one text so literally, when it's surrounded by verses that are impossible to take literally, must tell you something. It tells me you are desperate to support your idea that babies are born sinners.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Can an infant Love the Lord their God with all their Heart Soul Mind and Strength as scripture/Jesus commands? How about love neighbor as self?

I wouldn't want to even begin to guess what an infant might know. He just got done being fearfully and wonderfully made by our Great God, didn't he?

But why are you requiring more from children than is required of us? If loving our neighbor as ourselves was required for salvation, none would be saved. Looks to me like they have a foot up on us.

Matthew 18:3KJV And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.​
 
Top