ECT Are we born sinless? Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism

[Lon]

Sin is not passed down from Adam. Babies die before they can commit sin. If man was totally depraved, none would seek God, but we see from the Word that men do.

What all men do inherit is a body of flesh that is prone to sin via lusts of the flesh and the pride of life. Christ, alone, was able to not sin while living in this body of flesh.

I'll have to start a thread. Pelagianism: man is born innocent and in no need of a Savior from birth. Under their theology, if we eliminated all children, there is no need for the cross by their doctrinal belief. They believe only those who eventually sin, need Christ. They may agree that all indeed do eventually sin, but until that day, there is no need for a Savior. In a nutshell, why it is a heresy is because The only completely pelagian group, are Mormons. If such were true, we'd expect at least some children to never choose sin, because they would be trained from the beginning by godly parents, not to lie, cheat, or hurt others. We'd also see children born, already thinking of others. Not only that, but we sin by neglect as much as by commission. We are thus, already born not thinking of other's first, already not giving the Father praise and glory. Grace has God connected to us, at birth, but we know Romans 8 says all of creation is subject to futility now. If a child never 'committed' a sin, they still grew up with sins of omission, unable to do the will of God such as John 15:5 discusses. They would yet need a Savior, through no fault of their own, due to being born without Christ in the world. Ephesians 2:3,12 Psalm 51:5 Romans 7:14

Because the Bible is so clear on this matter, every group: Catholics, Martin Luther, and the Reformed have completely rejected it as heresy, not just heterodoxy. Every one of them.

Semi-pelagianism is a bit different: It suggests that man is born with good left intact. Catholics, who believe this to some degree, eschew semi-pelagianism lest again, there is no need for a Savior, that we can seek God, thus Judaism should have worked and there is no need for a further intervention from God and man could overcome sin even if he/she didn't start that way. It is actually a form of 'works' salvation but worse, where the Lord Jesus Christ is unnecessary except as the completely last measure of our Salvation. Logically, it is against the Son crucified from the foundation of the world. Because of this and many other scriptures it tramples, it too is rejected by Catholics, who do believe in works.

Tenants of Pelagianism (they all logically tie together):

1) Man was created with a shelf-life. He would have died in the garden, regardless of sin, that is the way God made him/her.

2) Adam's sin (and Eve's) did not affect anyone other than himself. His children could have re-entered the Garden.

3) Infants do not need a Savior. They are in a state of disconnect from God 'naturally.'

4) Man therefore inherited nothing from Adam. The knowledge of Good and Evil only applied to Adam. Children do not intuitively know when they are good or bad but must be taught and told both.

5) Judaism works and there is no need of a Savior. Men can be taught to achieve holiness. There is no need, whatsoever to be a new creation in Christ. It literally has man earning his/her own eternal life.


Semi-pelagianism is as follows:

1) Man can turn to God without God's intervention - man can be holy with God's 'help' rather than Only through Christ.
2) Man can seek God and thus can be saved, with God's help, by on his/her own merit as long as he/she has aid from the Lord Jesus Christ (works salvation).
3) Man, after salvation (God's help) no longer will functionally sin and he/she never needs ongoing Grace. In a sense, this 'can' be espoused by OSAS doctrine. It too, takes God out of the picture as necessary other than for his/her initially being forgiven.

In this sense, it would be an OSAS doctrine with no need for further anything. The person we are now, is who we will be forever and there is no need for tear wiping or further work. We are simply forgiven and have no need to change or be changed.

There isn't a need for encouragement from 1 John 3:3 Revelation 21:4 etc.


In a nutshell, every Christian denomination believes we need a Savior, thus there is no room for Pelagianism because the Lord Jesus Christ is eschewed/rejected/unneeded. Semi-pelgianism, also has limited need of God and Savior, only to 'get started in the right direction' as it were. If one doesn't buy into either of these, then they do not logically believe we are born without sin, but born needing a Savior. Some are worried about the fate of the infant, and so turn to 'sinless' doctrine, but it simply does not leave this question in God's hands. Jesus must be their savior and He insists that they should all come to Him.

 

[Lon]

You diametrically oppose the word of God. Romans 5:12-21
Where?

Rather, the Word of God says the opposite. Romans 3:11

Jesus Christ alone was sinless in body and soul.

The whole of mankind is born corrupted in both body and soul, due to the original sin of Adam. Romans 5:12

If it were not so, there would have been no need for the Christ of God to incarnate and suffer death, at all.

If you reject these divine and biblical truths, you have no basis upon which to proclaim the saving truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Nang is correct. Sinless birth (Pelagianism, semi-pelagianism) is basically Judaism doctrine with no need of a Savior.

According to your ideas none of Adam's offspring are born innocent because all people emerge from the womb guilty of Adam's sin. So if you right then both Cain and Abel both shared the guilt of Adam's sin. However, the Scriptures tell a different story:

"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son" (Ezek.18:20).​

The only thing you prove is that you are void of any spiritual discernment and are unable to carry on an intelligent discussion on this subject.

According to you a person dies spiritually as a result of his own sin at a time when he is already dead spiritually! You cannot even understand that in order to die spiritually a person must first be alive spiritually.

There is a difference between the noun 'sin' as a condition and the verb 'sin' as our own acts.

No, sin entered the world. It didn't enter man. Man is perfectly capable of sinning on his own.

That verse is referring back to Psalms 14 and 53 which is talking about the fool who claims there is no God. Those who have done abominable works and have become unprofitable. We know from Romans 1 that the things of God are manifest in us (conscience), and are clearly seen and understood by us. The very goodness of kindness of God lead us to seek Him. Romans 2:4KJV

Not all men have done so, else why would there be so many in search of God as Acts 17 points out. That not all find Him doesn't mean they don't seek Him. It begins early on in Genesis.

Gen. 4:26KJV And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

He was fully a man, as we are.


You can continue to say that, but the verse does NOT.


Nonsense. God was not walking the earth as He was with Adam. We were cut off from His presence, which is why He had to come in the flesh. We had sin in the world, the god of this world, and God was not with us. Of course we all end up sinning.

You mean since I don't swallow your doctrine I can't proclaim the Gospel. :chuckle:​

Such carries a lot of baggage that must/necessarily be espoused by the one who believes one or the other. Simply calling a thing 'heresy' does mean 'against Christ and His doctrines' but people tend to want the 'show me' discussion and I pray the discussion here will provide that. Thanks for letting me move this discussion here. In Him -Lon

 

[glorydaz]

I'll have to start a thread. Pelagianism: man is born innocent and in no need of a Savior from birth.

Save the labels, Lon. I'm not buying your definitions. We do need a Saviour because we live in a world of sin, and we all eventually sin....as soon as we know to choose good and refuse evil, we become guilty of our sins. But, babies have not sinned.

Isaiah 7:16KJV For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.​

It can't be any clearer than it is here.

Ezek. 18:20KJV 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.​

 

[Lon]

Save the labels, Lon. I'm not buying your definitions.

...centuries before I was born, this discussion took place. For me? I'm not afraid of being considered a heretic, but I am concerned about not being biblical and I'm correctable, lest I am caught arrogant against the whole church. The studied man-hours against me are so high as to put my short years of study on earth as next to nil. Granted, I'm as arrogant as anybody, but I try not to overstep it this far. The 'label' is the logical conclusion of a sinless birth. Catholics would love to embrace semi-pelagianism but they know it causes horrible scripture problems and ultimately denies the Savior as at all necessary. Such is yet to be proven, but it was proven to the Catholic church and they rejected both Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism because of it. Even MAD and Open Theism rejects both of these, if that has any weight.

We do need a Saviour because we live in a world of sin, and we all eventually sin....as soon as we know to choose good and refuse evil, we become guilty of our sins. But, babies have not sinned.

Isaiah 7:16KJV For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.​

It can't be any clearer than it is here.

Yet the whole church disagrees, even, oddly, those who believe in works salvation. My children were born without Christ. They weren't born 'saved.' I realize you have a lot at stake in this, but it is heresy, label or not: It isn't biblical.

Ezek. 18:20KJV 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.

It isn't a proof text verse, doesn't address what you are thinking it does. I wasn't trying to get into here, other than just move it from the thread it was in.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

...centuries before I was born, this discussion took place.

The Westminister Confession of Faith represents a theological consensus of international Calvinism. There we read that the "death in sin" of Adam and Eve is conveyed to all of their posterity by original generation:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/3).​

When we examine the Scriptures we can see that men die spiritually because of their own sin and not because Adam's death in sin is conveyed to all men:

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (Jas.1:14-15).​

"What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death...For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ro.6:21,23).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It can't be any clearer than it is here.

Ezek. 18:20KJV 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.​

You are exactly right, glorydaz.

 

[Lon]

When we examine the Scriptures we can see that men die spiritually because of their own sin and not because Adam's death in sin is conveyed to all men:

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (Jas.1:14-15).​

"What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death...For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ro.6:21,23).​

I disagree and see this as proof-texting that doesn't at all mean man didn't inherit his/her sin nature.

I would have to toss Romans 5:12-21 out of my bible. Give it a read. It is right in there.

Spend some time reading about the history of Pelagianism and why 'they' gave it up. They KNEW it couldn't hold up under scriptural scrutiny. I'm convinced if you do so, neither you nor GD will hold to it any longer. It cannot hold up biblically and all Pelagian and semi-pelagian gave it up, when confronted with clear scriptures that Pelagianism denies. Here is the history and the choke-hold of scriptures against it presented well, and to its death. In Him -Lon

 

[glorydaz]

Nang is correct. Sinless birth (Pelagianism, semi-pelagianism) is basically Judaism doctrine with no need of a Savior.

You don't need a lifeguard until you are old enough to go swimming. There is an age of accountability that you want to ignore. God would no more hold a child accountable for sin than He would elect some to be saved and not others.

There is a difference between the noun 'sin' as a condition and the verb 'sin' as our own acts.

Such carries a lot of baggage that must/necessarily be espoused by the one who believes one or the other. Simply calling a thing 'heresy' does mean 'against Christ and His doctrines' but people tend to want the 'show me' discussion and I pray the discussion here will provide that. Thanks for letting me move this discussion here. In Him -Lon

This is like trying to talk to someone who claims OSAS means thus and so, instead of what it actually means. This idea that sin is a condition apart from the sins that one commits is based on a theory that scripture does not support. Just look at the giant leap Nang takes with this one verse.

The whole of mankind is born corrupted in both body and soul, due to the original sin of Adam. Romans 5:12

Original sin has been swallowed hook line and sinker for so long that it's read into verses like this one. That verse does NOT say what Nang claims.

 

[glorydaz]

I disagree and see this as proof-texting that doesn't at all mean man didn't inherit his/her sin nature.

I would have to toss Romans 5:12-21 out of my bible. Give it a read. It is right in there.

Spend some time reading about the history of Pelagianism and why 'they' gave it up. They KNEW it couldn't hold up under scriptural scrutiny. I'm convinced if you do so, neither you nor GD will hold to it any longer. It cannot hold up biblically and all Pelagian and semi-pelagian gave it up, when confronted with clear scriptures that Pelagianism denies. Here is the history and the choke-hold of scriptures against it presented well, and to its death. In Him -Lon

Why should I study up on something that does not fit what I believe? Of course men need a saviour as soon as they're old enough to choose between good and evil.... they will be held accountable for their sin. I read that same text and do not read it the way you do, Lon. I've read it many times.

 

[glorydaz]

The Westminister Confession of Faith represents a theological consensus of international Calvinism. There we read that the "death in sin" of Adam and Eve is conveyed to all of their posterity by original generation:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/3).​

When we examine the Scriptures we can see that men die spiritually because of their own sin and not because Adam's death in sin is conveyed to all men:

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (Jas.1:14-15).​

"What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death...For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ro.6:21,23).​

:thumb:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I disagree and see this as proof-texting that doesn't at all mean man didn't inherit his/her sin nature.

I would have to toss Romans 5:12-21 out of my bible. Give it a read. It is right in there.

You need to read it because it says that all men die as a result of their own sin and not because of the sin of Adam:

"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).​

Spend some time reading about the history of Pelagianism and why 'they' gave it up.

Spend some time reading the Bible. And if you do you will see that all men die spiritually as a result of their own sin--not Adam's sin:

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (Jas.1:14-15).​

"What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death...For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ro.6:21,23).​

 

[Nang]

Why should I study up on something that does not fit what I believe?

Because reading church history can prevent our falling into the same errors that have hurt and misled others.

It is pure stubbornness on your part to refuse learn from such a great wealth of Godly witness, and thereby spiritually protect yourself.

 

[Shasta]

Thanks for the clarification, Lon

 

[Nang]

Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
The Westminister Confession of Faith represents a theological consensus of international Calvinism. There we read that the "death in sin" of Adam and Eve is conveyed to all of their posterity by original generation:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/3).

When we examine the Scriptures we can see that men die spiritually because of their own sin and not because Adam's death in sin is conveyed to all men:

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (Jas.1:14-15).

"What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death...For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ro.6:21,23).

:thumb:

Death comes as the result of both causes.

The human nature was corrupted by Adam, guaranteeing each soul's own sinfulness and enslavement to serving the devil.

Please consider reading Martin Luther's "The Bondage Of The Will."

 

[glorydaz]

Yet the whole church disagrees, even, oddly, those who believe in works salvation. My children were born without Christ. They weren't born 'saved.' I realize you have a lot at stake in this, but it is heresy, label or not: It isn't biblical.

That's a silly thing to say. I don't have a "lot at stake"....whether you agree with me or not certainly doesn't affect me one way or another. It won't be the first thing we disagree on, Lon. Nor does "the whole church" agree with you. I do know there are many believers who are convinced babies are not damned to hell if they die before they are old enough to choose good over evil. You give that belief a name that doesn't fit the actual facts of what I've said. The difference is in the word "choose". I'm not claiming someone can choose to live their life without the need for a saviour ....by their own merits or effort. Children don't have that ability...period.

 

[glorydaz]

Death comes as the result of both causes.

The human nature was corrupted by Adam,"...

Adam had the same human nature we have....he sinned the same way we do via the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life. Human nature is what it always was, and was meant to be. It isn't human nature that is not good, it's our being out of contact with our Creator that makes the flesh susceptible to sin.

 

[Lon]

You don't need a lifeguard until you are old enough to go swimming. There is an age of accountability that you want to ignore. God would no more hold a child accountable for sin than He would elect some to be saved and not others.

But this isn't why children aren't accountable. It is because they aren't developmentally able to be responsible for their sin nature. You don't need such a doctrine, but I was thinking this was your reason for embracing it. Scripture rather talks about an age of 'knowing, I think it a better place

This is like trying to talk to someone who claims OSAS means thus and so, instead of what it actually means. This idea that sin is a condition apart from the sins that one commits is based on a theory that scripture does not support. Just look at the giant leap Nang takes with this one verse.

Going back to Romans 5:18 It says all are judged according to the inheritance of this nature. John 3 says 'condemned already.' How could a sinless child be condemned already? Such a position is against so many scriptures. I remember reading several stories of women who drowned their children to 'save' them and ensure they would be saved, espousing Pelagianism. A few others gave this doctrine as the reason and excuse for their abortions. One, as I remember, thought she'd go to hell for it, but wanted her kids to be saved. They were 'right' if the doctrine were correct. If Pelagianism ever made a stronger come-back, we'd see more of this kind of thing.

Original sin has been swallowed hook line and sinker for so long that it's read into verses like this one. That verse does NOT say what Nang claims.

I think it does Romans 5:18 says it in even stronger terms.
Read John 3:16 again: "Should not perish." Pelagianism (born sinless) denies this verse. John 3:18 "...condemned already..." Matthew 19:14 rather tells me that the Lord Jesus Christ will not cast them out. They still need the Lord Jesus Christ, but He calls them unto Himself. There is no need to embrace a heresy that does damage to scriptures, in order to try and save children Jesus is already committed to saving. -Lon

 

[Lon]

That's a silly thing to say. I don't have a "lot at stake"....whether you agree with me or not certainly doesn't affect me one way or another. It won't be the first thing we disagree on, Lon. Nor does "the whole church" agree with you. I do know there are many believers who are convinced babies are not damned to hell if they die before they are old enough to choose good over evil. You give that belief a name that doesn't fit the actual facts of what I've said. The difference is in the word "choose". I'm not claiming someone can choose to live their life without the need for a saviour ....by their own merits or effort. Children don't have that ability...period.

Ability is different than no-sin nature, however. It is about account-ability. I am convinced they go right into His presence as well. There is no need to embrace Pelagianism to believe that, however. It just isn't necessary and so yeah, it 'seems' to be a lot at stake else I don't think you'd believe it. In Him -Lon

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Death comes as the result of both causes.

We've heard your nonsense before. According to your ideas a person emerges from the womb dead spiritually as a result of Adam's sin. And then when a man sins he dies spiritually even though he is already dead spiritually.

You cannot even grasp the simple fact that before someone can die spiritually they must first be alive spiritually.

 

[glorydaz]

Because reading church history can prevent our falling into the same errors that have hurt and misled others.

It is pure stubbornness on your part to refuse learn from such a great wealth of Godly witness, and thereby spiritually protect yourself.

I've read plenty of history, Nang. I know you think you know more than others, but you have swallowed a lot of "church history" that is negated by the Scripture itself. It's pure stubbornness on your part to refuse to listen to what we're showing you from the written word of God instead of what comes off the library shelf. I have no worries about being spiritually protected through outside sources when I can go straight to the source. Bring forth scripture and defend your view from there. Address the verses Jerry has provided.