Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Are you not even aware that all men are made with a mortal body?
Do you even know what the word "mortal" means?
ECT Are we born sinless? Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Are you not even aware that all men are made with a mortal body?
Do you even know what the word "mortal" means?
dodge
New member
I know the ORIGINAL intention was not a mortal body in the garden. As a result of disobedience the first man was driven from the garden to prevent him from having access to the tree of life.
You are ignoring that Adam was created in the likeness of God and from the time Adam disobeyed God that CHANGED are you aware of the change ?
Scripture says Adam was created in the "likeness of God" reading on when it speaks of Adam's lineage it says that Cain was created in the likeness and "IMAGE" of Adam. That image carries with it a sin nature that was NOT there when Adam was created.
And yet were created in the image of GOD.
Being created in the image of GOD did not prevent them from sinning.
Then what is your criteria for "sin nature"?
How was Adam able to sin without a sin nature?
And yet BOTH (made in image of GOD and the image of Adam) were capable of sinning.
Again, Adam sinned WHILE he was in the image of GOD.
Sinning started with a man created in the image of GOD, not a man in the image of Adam.
The law said not to eat it.
Did the Holy Spirit not approve of that law and was leading them to disobey the law that GOD gave?
Something ain't adding up.
dodge
New member
BECAUSE adam disobeyed God and did what God told Adam NOT to do !
Before Adam and Eve disobeyed God they were "naked" and not " ashamed" of their nakedness ( no sin nature ), and after they disobeyed God they knew they were naked and ashamed (sin nature)
Scripture says Adam was created in God's "likeness". Then when Adam's lineage is given scripture says Cain was created in the likeness and "IMAGE " of Adam sin nature and all !
Scripture does NOT say "how" it just says Adam disobeyed God and they were ashamed and knew they were naked after they disobeyed God.I believe they were both covered with the Shekeniah glory of God that God withdrew after they disobeyed Him. They went from being covered to UN-covered and their nakedness became visible to each other and themselves.
Eve was tempted by Satan and fell ( you might want to study what Eve thought she would gain by disobeying God ), and Adam listened to Eve and fell.
Yes he did he exercised his "free will" and disobeyed God.
And again Adam was created in the " likeness of God" and Adam's descendants were created in Adam's likeness and IMAGE of Adam. The Holy Spirit added IMAGE because it was different than Adam's creation in more ways then one.Cain had the "likeness" and the "IMAGE" of Adam not of God.
Adam did NOT have to sin it was his choice. Since then we are fallen with a sin nature.
Last edited:
dodge
New member
Jesus said HE is the Lord of the Sabbath. Men misrepresented the intent and spirit of the law as Jesus said Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.
Lon
Well-known member
Theoretically, then, a child can be born under the curse of sin, yet not be found guilty, simply because they have not developmentally been able to choose. Therefore, if I am reading you right, John 14:6 is still true, but they come to and through Jesus with a need of life still and rebirth, still. Am I understanding that correctly? I think it the greater need, of discussion, to address, because that isn't Pelagianism, perhaps semi
Perhaps.
I have not yet drawn a conclusion, and am just following the logic of our conversations.
We know that we are alive physically, and we die physically, and then .....?
Will not our bodies be raised incorruptible?
That means, physically ---- alive, dead, alive again (because our body has been changed to be incorruptible).
We see that same premise throughout scripture --- alive, dead, alive again.
We see that with:
Christ Jesus
the prodigal son
Israel's dry bones
Jonah
Lazarus
So what's to say our spirit does not follow the same pattern?
Alive, dead, alive again.
As Paul said he was alive once without law, and then the law slew him, and he needed to be revived.
I'm sure more thoughts will come together to help weed out any flaws.
I don't know how you think the intent of the law not for anyone but the priest to eat the temple shewbread was misconstrued.
Only priests could eat of the shewbread, and eat it only in the holy place, and only on the Sabbath.
But the priest brought the temple shewbread to David and his army of hungry men to eat.
The law was transgressed, no doubt about it.
But it was certainly an act of mercy, as David and his men were about to starve to death.
So the breaking of the law was a blessing to David and his men.
It reflects something Christ did.
Jesus said eat His flesh.
Eating the flesh of a man is against the law. So even if Jesus did not mean it physically (which He didn't), an analogy of that thought would still be repulsive to Jews.
And yet that is the analogy Jesus uses --- break the law, receive a blessing. (That's odd thinking for a Jew.)
Likewise, the vision of Peter eating the unclean animals in the sheet that came down was also repulsive to him because it was against the law to do so.
GOD prefers mercy over law.
Their nakedness was the same both before and after they ate of the fruit. Their bodies were uncovered before and after.
The only thing that changed was that they now KNEW they were naked, but their nakedness had not changed. They were still just as uncovered as they were before they ate of the fruit.
Their nakedness did not change, only their knowledge of it changed.
I'm sorry, but if being in the likeness of one makes you of the same nature they have, then Adam had the same nature as GOD because Adam was in the image of GOD.
And that nature of Adam sinned (GOD's nature does not, so their natures were not the same just because they had the same image).
I know you only mention Cain, but if your theory is correct, then the nature of Adam (now sinful) would have passed to all his children, and their natures would all be the same.
But their natures were not the same, as Cain was wicked and Abel and Seth were not.
So how do we explain the discrepancy of their natures since they all came from the same loins?
That a purdy thought, but is it scriptural?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
Similar, to why we disagree with reincarnation, based on this verse Hebrews 9:27, I think John 3:6, to me, seems to discount the alive, dead, alive theory, outright. It is saying physical life, but spiritually not alive yet, from what I discern from what Jesus is saying. The Lord Jesus Christ clarifies clearly: That which is flesh (born) is flesh, and that which is Spirit (born a second way) is Spirit. I think the text would be strained away from clarity other than to read born again as He makes it clear.
If we need the Lord Jesus Christ John 14:6, it looks to me, that He says it cannot be that way. I'd want to see why, other than commitment to an idea, the text should or would be read any other way. For me, especially with the Lord Jesus Christ's explanation, it doesn't seem likely that we are born spiritually alive. That btw, is still Pelagian.
I was rather thinking 'innocence" could be consistent with scriptures, but for me, born without infection of sin OR need for a Savior, is off the table. Rather, 'innocence' is a legality, a child, I don't believe, is developmentally able to stand trial for sin, so we are talking about sin counted against us, before we are able to stand accountable. In this sense, the LAW is the connection.
I yet think, children die physically, due to sin in our world and so children are born susceptible to the curse physically. Spiritually, there is no life without Christ. I see our connection, all of us, to life as connection to the Lord Jesus Christ Colossians 1:17. In that sense, we are 'sustained in grace.' If He removed His active support of our atoms and conscience, we'd cease to exist. At the same time, we have a condition that negates and minimalizes our connection to God. Grace rather, is shed to all men, that many will come to Him. It is the way He chose: Instead of obliterating the race and starting over, He is seeking to save from among all, as many as He may redeem and save.
As such, I 'think' children are under the grace of God. I do not know how Christ's work saves children and the unborn, but I'm convinced He came to seek and save all that are lost. As such, I think rather, perhaps, that it is 'none of our business' because all people are His, not ours. Or He has told us and we've missed it. For me, His saying to allow children to come to Him, means "He's got this!"
Lon
Well-known member
I don't know. Why? Because scripture says John the Baptist leapt for joy in his mother's womb at the presences of the Lord Jesus Christ. I think you have a 'reasoned' (reasonable) concern, especially in light of what we know about developmental psychology. One point: even in psychology, there exists these two camps of thought, so we aren't seeing rejection of either or the other among psychologists. I'm not sure if it has a lot of bearing here, but I think it worth the mention because it is a struggle, not just over scripture understandings. It is one reason, even if it is to remain heresy, I'd like to walk away with friendships intact, even if we vehemently disagree over the matter. I think the largest reconciliation from any with sinless birth, must necessarily address their acceptance and embrace of John 14:6. If it cannot be done, the other side will never be seen as viable for any Christian. I think you realize such, but this is the most important doctrine on the table: "What does it do to Christology and salvation?" You'll have to always do damage control over that.
There would still be need for a Savior because all die physically and would be left in the grave (no resurrection).
Which is something the sacrificial system did not portray ---- the people didn't die because the animal died for them so no need to resurrect them, and there was no indication of a resurrection of the dead animal rising from the grave.
Physical death comes to all men, but the spiritual death (the 2nd death) doesn't happen until everyone has died physically and then only some are raised to be thrown into the lake of fire (the 2nd death).
Without the sacrifice of Christ, there would have been no rising from the grave for anyone and no 2nd death for anyone.
To put another way, all (not many) are subject to the 1st death (physical), but many (not all) are subject to the 2nd death.
The 1st death is due to the sin of Adam and is for all. The 2nd death is due to individual rejection of Christ and is only for some.
Lon
Well-known member
I've been reading from a pro-Pelagian here. He first, confirms the points of Pelagian doctrine. Oddly, he lambasts a Calvinist for only posting the opposition's critique, but doesn't seem to understand the objections are valid, as far as a clash of doctrine's goes.
However, he does expound, with clear quotes, Pelagius' views, that talk about grace as an 'aid' to do good. It seems to me, from reading Pelagius' quotes, that he never understood the mark/need of being a new creation or of being born again. Pelagius, denied the need.
Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him. -Pelagianism
Such an idea leads directly back to Catholic understanding of Grace, as enablement. Literally, it is an embrace of Catholicism and a clear rejection of the Protestant Reformation and fundamental and evangelical teaching, because there is no 'born-again.' Jerry, moves beyond it, with an idea of being alive spiritually, then dying, then being born-again, but such an idea is not the evangelical fundamental nor Protestant stance. It is a neo-Catholic position.
The John Wesley quote he gave, means this: Man, with only the grace of forgiveness and some aid, may attain the divine perfection God desires. It places the power of free will, in a works/self-change ability. I am not certain if Jerry, GD, or you espouse the Pelagian doctrine to this degree, but such leads to such conflicts with scriptures. In this instance, 1 John 3:3 and Ephesians 2:10.
It is extraordinary, to me, that anyone of MAD persuasion could get caught up in such far reaching implications as Catholicism, works/self-change doctrine, and cooperative grace and holiness. New Birth and New Creation theology weren't strongly expounded until the Reformation and Evangelicalism, so
I think by necessity, born-sinless doctrine must accept whatever kinships exist, as well as the repercussion of tied-in theology, that comes along with such beliefs. IOW, I think if you partially embrace sinless-birth, you by necessity have to believe a good many tenants, logically, of Pelagian theology. At least, that's the way it is appearing as I'm reading further. -Lon
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Pelagian Captivity of the Church
Pelagian Captivity of the Church
Indeed.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html
AMR
Pelagian Captivity of the Church
Indeed.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html
AMR
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
He did. He said it was by divine aid, that was the caveat or perhaps difference you are looking for.
A confirmed Pelagian wrote this:
He then quoted John Wesley as an accurate quote 'against' Pelagianism (and the one you are asking about:
IOW, you can be perfectly Holy, in practical living, with God's help. So, if you are MAD, this makes no sense, because it is indeed works theology.
It would appear, that you are not afraid of the being labelled a Pelagian, though. That's good otherwise it obfuscates the discussion and makes a mess. I can more easily discuss the problem of Pelagianism than nebulous discussion that would go on for pages and pages.
Paul wrote this: 1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. 1 John 3:3 gives us a future hope. Thus, I fully embrace the expressions of Augustine, not as gnostic (that's just accusatory libel), but as rightly understanding our condition. Pelagianism denies the need for being born again because we keep the same nature we are born with, as far as Pelagius understood. He was doing works salvation, and it is directly tied to problematic Catholic doctrine today. Though Pelagianism was condemned, its bones were never laid to rest. Necessarily, sinless-birth doctrine is always tied closely with works, because Free Wlil 1) is a gift from God (I believe it a 'gift' from the Serpent). Scriptures constantly call us to 'deny self' (Free will). Only a new Creation, born again, is capable of following God, because that nature is specifically God's workmanship Ephesians 2:10 2 Corinthians 5:17
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
Regardless. Charles Finney produced a lot of liberal churches. They all think being born-again and being new creations is something 'they' do, rather than God. I came from a very liberal (spiritually dead) church that embraced sinless-birth doctrine. I am convinced it comes from unregenerate people who 'are not that bad.' While Total Depravity leaves a Reformed bad taste in the mouth of Pelagians, I prefer it to unregenerate meeting halls that have little love for the Savior. Luke 7:47 It is an important verse.
I apologize for the tenor, it is not directed at you in particular, but toward the thread as well as my extreme aversion to this doctrine. I've seen what it does on the other end. I had to come out from among 'nice' people, who didn't really understand the gospel, or their desperate need of a Savior. He was more of an 'example' to them, and the gospel was 'socially making a community difference.' It was 'nice' but dead. -Lon