ECT Are we born sinless? Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Great post, Lon - exactly how one thing or another is studied out as to the things that differ in Scripture - not via asserting over and over what one or two passages supposedly say, but via comparison of a multiplicity of passages on the same subject and theme.

In short - "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." - Isaiah 8:20.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

Go back through the thread Danoh... there are as many in favor of the view opposed to Lon in scripture. To throw the entire biblical narrative out in favor of a handful of verses taken out of context is utterly without light.

Try again. You misfired.

 

[Danoh]

Go back through the thread Danoh... there are as many in favor of the view opposed to Lon in scripture. To throw the entire biblical narrative out in favor of a handful of verses taken out of context is utterly without light.

Try again. You misfired.

Am more than familiar with all that.

None of it swayed me.

Most of it was the insistent reasoning of men.

Fact of the matter - any word, phrase, passage, subject, theme, narrative, etc., is to be studied out in light of the whole counsel of God: Genesis thru Revelation - not via two or three passages repeatedly asserted mean what one asserts they mean.

(As is often proven on here); not that laying all such out will sway anyone long since married to their particular position.

Hence, the different understandings even within the more generally agreed on understandings between people.

It is what it is.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Am more than familiar with all that.

None of it swayed me.

Most of it was the insistent reasoning of men.

Fact of the matter - any word, phrase, passage, subject, theme, narrative, etc., is to be studied out in light of the whole counsel of God: Genesis thru Revelation - not via two or three passages repeatedly asserted mean what one asserts they mean.

(As is often proven on here); not that laying all such out will sway anyone long since married to their particular position.

Hence, the different understandings even within the more generally agreed on understandings between people.

It is what it is.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12.

Now... I can fully respect your response here. To say that anyone is "without light" is fairly difficult as Jesus is the "Light of the World".

But to acknowledge that it makes sense that these differentiations exist... is correct and respectable.

I can agree to disagree with you and maintain full peace... in that "light" of "peace".

:e4e:

- EE

Also, you are more than welcome to respond to this "linked here" post... in light of your posturing.

I will simply read your response and forego my trust debate style... in full knowledge that we agree to disagree. In actuality... Lon and I are discussing this... but we both know that we are sharing and not "swaying".

 

[Lon]

I remain aggressive and blunt... and thus... I will be up front. I never liked the name of this thread... because it was a tactical response to @Jerry Shugart 's initial address of "classical Original Sin"... and connected the supposed heresy of your chosen post biblical subject... with Jerry's points.

We don't know much about ole Peligus apart from his critics attacks and misrepresentations. We do know that his teachings offered Grace apart from the institution of the "mother church"... or "brick and mortar" but that is all.

The rest of the little known information about him is unreliable... as he was labeled an enemy against Catholicism.

Henceforth... I reject the title of this thread as accurate to the heart of our discussion and offer my reply "linked here"

Ooops, read this 'after' my response. I believe it continues to be important and that both sides SHOULD read the history over the problem as well as that it produced heresy/heterodoxy. Those who fail to know history are doomed to repeat it, no?

In actuality... Lon and I are discussing this... but we both know that we are sharing and not "swaying".

True, but Isaiah 55:11 between us with confidence in Him.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Ooops, read this 'after' my response. I believe it continues to be important and that both sides SHOULD read the history over the problem as well as that it produced heresy/heterodoxy. Those who fail to know history are doomed to repeat it, no?

:nono: This ain't an easy dunk for you by throwing around the seminary diatribe. Not biting. You are pretending to hear my points while addressing an argument that isn't mine.

We've been here and you agreed. Either get off the rehearsed track of typical seminary argument, or note that it will be overtly apparent that you are ducking and dodging... instead of approaching what is actually being said.

True, but Isaiah 55:11 between us with confidence in Him.

Indeed.

 

[Lon]

:nono: This ain't an easy dunk for you by throwing around the seminary diatribe...the rehearsed track of typical seminary argument, or note that it will be overtly apparent that you are ducking and dodging... instead of approaching what is actually being said.

Scripture is important. History, imho, is important regardless of the disagreement over it.

I have a probing question for you. Really think about it from both 'yes' and 'no' viewpoints and entertain them both for several moments because for me, it is the end of this discussion. I believe it quickly and decisively cuts to the core:

Is there, will there ever be, or has there ever been, anyone that hasn't needed the Savior Jesus Christ? Again, think about 'everyone' and what you mean by that, including the unborn. Is there anyone, without a need of a Savior?

What about an unborn? Need a Savior? :think:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Scripture is important. History, imho, is important regardless of the disagreement over it.


What about an unborn? Need a Savior? :think:

Finally! I've been waiting for this one! I shall answer the morrow.

:thumb:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Scripture is important. History, imho, is important regardless of the disagreement over it.


What about an unborn? Need a Savior? :think:

Answered in ornery EE style... here... http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...en-addressed&p=5079319&viewfull=1#post5079319

 

[Lon]

Answered in ornery EE stylehttp://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?126336-Pela-Who-Don-t-know-him!-and-how-Augustine-Original-Sin-has-been-addressed&p=5079319&viewfull=1#post5079319] ... here... [/url]

Not really going to spend too much time on it. You were talking about obfuscations. I asked one question. Angry that I asked a question?

You can't be. Can't possibly be. You said prior: "Finally! I've been waiting for this one! I shall answer the morrow.

:thumb: " What changed between yesterday and today? Not me! I believe it the crux of the matter. Obfuscation? Nope. You answered saying
"yes" even the unborn need a Savior. Why the rant??? I have NO problem asking you questions that make you think.... Question: "WHY do the unborn need a Savior?" Answer: "Because they have no access to the tree of life?" Okay, then , in what way did Adam and Eve "surely" die if they needed the tree of life? (don't flame out, nothing here to flame about, not a thing, we are discussing Christ and His doctrines, they are life, if joy isn't part of it, let's stop right here?) -Lon

 

[patrick jane]

All babies are automatically saved

 

[glorydaz]

For me, these scriptures already posted in this thread:

Psalm 51:5 Look! I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. NET
Our goal: 2 Corinthians 10:5
Genesis 8:21 The intent of all men's hearts is evil, from his youth.
Ephesians 2:3b Like the rest, we were by nature children of wrath.
Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.
Luke 7:47 John 15:5 Ephesians 2:12 Romans 3:11;5:18
John 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Job 14:4;15:14-16
1 Corinthians 15:22 - We clearly inherited death from Adam
Romans 3:10,11 - No one righteous. No exception
Psalm 58:3 - It is saying at least the wicked are 'born this way'
Proverbs 22:15 discipline is advocated at an early age because of their condition
Genesis 8:21 Man's heart is evil from childhood
Psalm 14:2–3 No child seeks God
Psalm 51:1-5

No, those verses cannot be changed to fit your own understanding. Shame on you.

"I was guilty of sin from birth." Not true.

Inheriting death because we are flesh and blood is not inheriting sin.

From his youth is not from the time of birth....stop claiming it is.

Babies don't speak lies from birth. Nor do the trees of the wood sing.



This is why I hate these verse dumps. You can change what is written, and claim they say what they don't, but quantity does not overcome quality. :down:

 

[Lon]

No, those verses cannot be changed to fit your own understanding. Shame on you.

"I was guilty of sin from birth." Not true.

I quoted it, didn't come up with my own translation. There is no shame. NET was done by scholars working hard to give direct translations. I posted it, had nothing to do with translating it.

Inheriting death because we are flesh and blood is not inheriting sin.

From his youth is not from the time of birth....stop claiming it is.

Babies don't speak lies from birth. Nor do the trees of the wood sing.



This is why I hate these verse dumps. You can change what is written, and claim they say what they don't, but quantity does not overcome quality. :down:

I disagree. Every one of them has to be reckoned with. Some of them, as you say? Perhaps, but "by nature" children of wrath???

Sorry, to me, it looks like emoting rather than scriptural reasoning. There is no need for a :down: Simply present your thoughts and scriptures. "If" they are persuasive, God will use them. You nor I can do anything in our flesh or emoting. Scripture says either one or the other. I want God's viewpoint on the matter. You, I, E.E. are small players. We can't do any better than reading and rereading the scriptures. -Lon

 

[glorydaz]

I quoted it, didn't come up with my own translation. There is no shame. NET was done by scholars working hard to give direct translations. I posted it, had nothing to do with translating it.



I disagree. Every one of them has to be reckoned with. Some of them, as you say? Perhaps, but "by nature" children of wrath???

Sorry, to me, it looks like emoting rather than scriptural reasoning. There is no need for a :down: Simply present your thoughts and scriptures. "If" they are persuasive, God will use them. You nor I can do anything in our flesh or emoting. Scripture says either one or the other. I want God's viewpoint on the matter. You, I, E.E. are small players. We can't do any better than reading and rereading the scriptures. -Lon

Not true. I see this all the time. Tossing out a bunch of verses as if they proved your point. Ignoring the poetic nature of so many of those verses. Speaking lies from birth....use your brains, Lon. You know as well as I do that most of those "proof texts" prove nothing.

By "nature" children of wrath. Man has a human nature...not a sin nature. Here we see those who "do by nature" the things contained in the law. Showing clearly that human "nature" is dependant on what those humans practice.

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,​

And please don't start this "emoting" nonsense. Just address the verses and avoid critiquing my curt manner. I'm truly tired of watching these verses thrown around like they are proof of a doctrine that I find offensive. They were never meant to be used in that manner.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Not really going to spend too much time on it. You were talking about obfuscations. I asked one question. Angry that I asked a question?

You can't be. Can't possibly be. You said prior: "Finally! I've been waiting for this one! I shall answer the morrow.

:thumb: " What changed between yesterday and today? Not me! I believe it the crux of the matter. Obfuscation? Nope. You answered saying
"yes" even the unborn need a Savior. Why the rant??? I have NO problem asking you questions that make you think.... Question: "WHY do the unborn need a Savior?" Answer: "Because they have no access to the tree of life?" Okay, then , in what way did Adam and Eve "surely" die if they needed the tree of life? (don't flame out, nothing here to flame about, not a thing, we are discussing Christ and His doctrines, they are life, if joy isn't part of it, let's stop right here?) -Lon

You know my debate style. I even prefaced with ornery. I'll dial it down a bit and respond on a tamer note... as long as dialogue is nimble and responsive and not drudged down with inapplicable arguments that are as alien as a Muslim at a barbecued Pork ribs convention.

As for my well known demeanor...

You know I'm "theatrical".

I extend a sincere apology to you if I offended.

You remain my brother of thunder. I'm just the loud mouthed brother. My points remain made... but my showmanship was indeed for effect and amplification of my recognition of a tactic you've previously used that I responded to in a similar... but dialed down manner.

Tit for tat... but no injected dialogue that sidesteps actual dialogue.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

No, those verses cannot be changed to fit your own understanding. Shame on you.

"I was guilty of sin from birth." Not true.

Inheriting death because we are flesh and blood is not inheriting sin.

From his youth is not from the time of birth....stop claiming it is.

Babies don't speak lies from birth. Nor do the trees of the wood sing.



This is why I hate these verse dumps. You can change what is written, and claim they say what they don't, but quantity does not overcome quality. :down:

I'm currently reviewing the Torah for Laws against "being born"... just to make sure what we are saying is "legit".

So far... babies aren't born with cause to stoning... But hey... :idunno: ... maybe I'll find something...

Wait! UhOh... I think I found... oh... never mind... that was Molech.

 

[Danoh]

I'm currently reviewing the Torah for Laws against "being born"... just to make sure what we are saying is "legit".

So far... babies aren't born with cause to stoning... But hey... :idunno: ... maybe I'll find something...

Wait! UhOh... I think I found... oh... never mind... that was Molech.

Why is it that in the OT, the LORD has Israel wipe out men, women, and children, etc.

And there are other issues any Dispy should at least also consider.

Like the fact that not even children within Israel's Covenant are always given a pass, as in when God let's loose His wrath and or allows Israel's enemies to.

Matthew 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

Why?

See the prayer of an "innocent and (that is to say) righteous" man (in God's eyes) named Daniel, in Daniel 9, who was nevertheless under Israel's severe punishment with them.

The following actually included hundreds of thousands of men, women and children...

Luke 19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. 19:43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Why is it that in the OT, the LORD has Israel wipe out men, women, and children, etc.

And there are other issues any Dispy should at least also consider.

Like the fact that not even children within Israel's Covenant are always given a pass, as in when God let's loose His wrath and or allows Israel's enemies to.

Matthew 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

Why?

See the prayer of an "innocent and (that is to say) righteous" man (in God's eyes) named Daniel, in Daniel 9, who was nevertheless under Israel's severe punishment with them.

The following actually included hundreds of thousands of men, women and children...

Luke 19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. 19:43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

I'll quote and respond on the Pel. Who thread.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...en-addressed&p=5079866&viewfull=1#post5079866

 

[glorydaz]

I'm currently reviewing the Torah for Laws against "being born"... just to make sure what we are saying is "legit".

So far... babies aren't born with cause to stoning... But hey... :idunno: ... maybe I'll find something...

Wait! UhOh... I think I found... oh... never mind... that was Molech.

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.

 

[Lon]

Not true. I see this all the time. Tossing out a bunch of verses as if they proved your point. Ignoring the poetic nature of so many of those verses. Speaking lies from birth....use your brains, Lon. You know as well as I do that most of those "proof texts" prove nothing.

Agree they cannot speak.

By "nature" children of wrath. Man has a human nature...not a sin nature. Here we see those who "do by nature" the things contained in the law. Showing clearly that human "nature" is dependant on what those humans practice.

This isn't poetic license "by nature." Not by deed. It is plain.

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,

Such isn't innocence, it is rather knowing good from evil, doing both "by nature."

And please don't start this "emoting" nonsense. Just address the verses and avoid critiquing my curt manner. I'm truly tired of watching these verses thrown around like they are proof of a doctrine that I find offensive. They were never meant to be used in that manner.

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.

 

[oatmeal]

Lon,

A topic well worth sorting out.

We are all conceived and born in need of not only a savior but a lord and Lord.

Children are born foolish. They need to learn obedience to their parents if they are to have a head start in learning to believe and obey God and His written logos.

We were born dead in trespasses and sin, Ephesians 2:1-3 and were by nature, the children of wrath.

My heart rejoiced that you have learned the distinction between our natural propensity to ignore and disobey God and the actual act of sinning as done by individuals from ignorance or choice.

It is clear from Ephesians 2:3 that had a sin nature as well as acts of sin we need to be saved from.

A price we could not pay by our own works, thus God, who is rich in mercy, made available to all mankind the gift of salvation. But sadly, not that many choose to believe and receive by Romans 10:9-10

God's gift of salvation took us from being by nature, the children of wrath, to being His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.... Ephesians 2:10

We must learn to put away that old man nature and learn to walk by our spiritual nature, which is holy and spirit, thus we learn the written logos so as to live by the power of the holy spirit which is given to us. I John 4:13

We must learn to look closely at scripture.

Romans 3:9 Judeans and Gentiles were all born under the power of sin.

Those that recognize and seek God, after all, did not Jesus tell us to seek first the kingdom of God? We are capable of seeking the things of God even though we were born under the power of sin.

Romans 3:10-18 is not talking about every single individual. The writers of those verses did seek God and were obedient to God, thus God could give them that insight about the state of those who choose to reject God and His written logos.

God renders to all according to the man's deeds. Romans 2:6-11

There is no contradiction if we simply realize that some do seek good and God and those who do not. Those who do not seek are perfectly described in Romans 3:10-18.

Those who do seek the kingdom of God are described throughout the written logos of God. They are faithful kind, good, just, merciful, spiritually minded etc....