glorydaz
Well-known member
Well, I won't be in it long, either, if Lon doesn't stop telling me I'm standing against a great crowd of witnesses. :chuckle:
ECT Are we born sinless? Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Well, I won't be in it long, either, if Lon doesn't stop telling me I'm standing against a great crowd of witnesses. :chuckle:
Lon
Well-known member
:Z Wasn't aimed at Him.
Well, it is just that "winked at" expression. I don't think KJV translators meant that the same way I read it either, but today, it has that connotationNO DUH. That was exactly my point.
Deep, Lon, very deep.
glorydaz
Well-known member
:Z Wasn't aimed at Him.
Well, it is just that "winked at" expression. I don't think KJV translators meant that the same way I read it either, but today, it has that connotation
Yeah, that's probably true. I'm used to reading old time novels, so I know a lot of words have been "adulterated" in many ways.
ttruscott
Well-known member
ImCo,
Death is the wages for sin, NOT the consequence of life...except for our Christ.
To be liable for the consequences for sin, one must be a sinner...except for our Christ.
People of every age from the zygote on, die.
Ergo, only sinners are born into this world.
Sin can only accrue to a person who chooses to be sinful by a free will decision to repudiate GOD HIMself as a liar and a false god or by rebelling against (one of) HIS commandments.
Light cannot create dark, love cannot create hate and GOD is both Light with no dark in HIM and GOD is love and can do no harm. GOD cannot create evil by creating sinners by any means especially by using a surrogate like Adam. The greatest flimflam of doublethink in all history is to teach that GOD who is love creates people as sinners by having them born into Adam's sin.
GOD created everyone in HIS image as able to be HIS perfect Bride with a free will and the equal ability and opportunity to chose by their free will either to put their faith without proof in HIM as their GOD and their only saviour from sin OR to rebuke HIM as a false god and a liar and became eternally unable to fulfill the purpose of their creation, ie, eternally unable to ever be HIS Bride.
Those who chose a sinful response to hearing HIS gospel and commandments became sinners and were sent (Matt 13:36-39) to live in prison earth, Rev 12:4-9, for the redemption of the sinful elect, Matt 13:27-30.
Last edited:
ttruscott
Well-known member
Lighthouse;4025580 said:
You cannot separate love from patience: 1 Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient, that is, HIS patience is as perfect as HIS love.
Pelagianism is basically universal salvation.
IF GOD can save someone, HE will save them since HIS Love is perfect. We became sinners against HIS will; HE saves us against our sinful wills, not our free will, by HIS grace. If HE saves those who come to HIM then HE will never eternally close that salvation if they can ever change their minds...ie, people will be saved from hell as they change their minds about HIM and HIS gospel due to experiencing hell because HIS patience in waiting for them to repent is as perfect as HIS being love.
I contend that those eternally in hell are unable to ever repent or to accept the gospel on earth or in hell because they sinned the unforgivable sin, ie, not the worst sin but the only sin that can't be forgiven...that is, the free will rejection of HIM to ever interfere with their lives and choices against their free will rejection of HIM as their god and saviour.
They cannot be saved as a free will choice must be sacrosanct and irrevocable by any other Person of power....the sinful elect must have accepted HIM as saviour by faith, not proof, before they chose to rebel against HIS command and so become sinful. HIS redemption of them brings them back to this first faith, their saving faith, made by their free will, not the so called fake free will, enslaved to sin, of mankind.
Derf
Well-known member
Why do you say that?
More precisely, those who don't believe. Your version would be more Calvinistic, imo. But it seems to imply a willfulness in belief, which would eliminate infants in the womb, I think, from those that can believe, and thus from those that are not condemned already. Or it might eliminate their condemnation, because they aren't capable of belief yet (age of accountability kind of stuff).
I don't see "most" around here saying not all men need a savior.
Lon
Well-known member
Because full-blown pelagianism says children are born sinless.
Augustine vs. Pelagius was where the controversy began, so you are correct on that assessment. It went to councils specifically because it has everything to do with Jesus' sacrifice and whether it was needed for 'all' men. In the end, semi-pelagianism was also condemned because it virtued man with the ability to in some way 'help' save himself. Because they saw the scriptural implications of all men's need for the Cross, they relegated both Pelagianism and Semi to heresy (not just heterodox) because it did severe damage to Jesus and His work on the Cross.
John 3:18 The thought was that developmentally, children do not know right from wrong until they are a certain age. Isaiah 7:16
See also: Deuteronomy 1:39 1 Corinthians 7:14 and bar mitzvah
One discussion point of implications of Pelagian and semipelagian doctrine. At the heart of the controversy was this question: Can man save himself, or is he completely dependent upon salvation from God?
One of the 'curses' caused by sin, implemented by God was that the ground should produce thorns and thistles, and that all creation was subjugated to the Fall. Romans 3:23 Romans 8:7 Romans 8:19-24 Isaiah 53:6 and Ephesians 2:12
The Pelagian/born with a sin nature discussion concerned mostly, if we sin by choice alone, or if we cannot help but sin because of the Fall.
The 'accountability' for sin, was another discussion regarding what children 'can' be responsible for. In an earlier post "When did you get the class on lying? On disobeying your parents? If we were a blank slate, we'd not lie by any necessity but children do it at a young age: With chocolate all over their face: "Did you eat that cake?" "I didn't eat that cake," shaking their brown face emphatically.
Lon
Well-known member
There is agreement on point. We 'die' because we act upon sin. That isn't the point of the contention but worth some time to talk about here. It is rather that you aren't responsible for your nature until you 'act' upon it. Romans 7:17-25
As ▲ with just above▲ to Derf. What if we missed the "How to Lie" class? If not part of us, where did we learn it? Granted now, we are not held accountable just for 'having a nature.' We are accountable for knowing that nature is wrong (see Romans 7:17 and other verses above in the response to Derf), and choosing to act upon it. IOW, there is, in us, a prompt to sin. In the Garden, that prompt was external, Adam and Eve had to take (in my scriptural estimation for the sense of it): the sin class. We do not. "In that day you eat of it, you will surely die (internalization). Further evidence: "Now man is like us, knowing good and evil."
He did not. In effect, man recreated himself. Romans 5:12 Remember how O.T. people lived many hundreds of years? God further subjected man to the curse of the Fall to 120 years. Genesis 5:6-8 also
Many theological perspective thoughts of yours here to unpack:
Truscott: "GOD created everyone (Adam and Eve, originally) in HIS image as able to be HIS perfect Bride (the Bride is only the body of believers in Christ) with a free will (scripture?) and the equal ability and opportunity to chose by their free will either to put their faith without proof in HIM as their GOD and their only saviour from sin OR to rebuke HIM as a false god and a liar and became eternally unable to fulfill the purpose of their creation, ie, eternally unable to ever be HIS Bride."
Monergism vs Synergism All Calvinists are monergists, but most theologians are as well (summary of the link as well as what each term means).
Paul says something similar in Romans 6,7, that it was the Law that made him 'aware' of sin, yet he does say: Romans 7:13-14 that Paul was already under sin, but that the Law 'showed' him his condition (summary). One question often asked: What of tribal communities that have never heard the gospel? 1 John 3:20 "our own hearts condemn us." And Romans 2:14 --> They are still under sin, because they know internally what sin is and have transgressed. When Elizabeth Elliot confronted the Huaorani men who killed her husband, she asked why they would do such and evil thing and they started crying, internally, they knew it was wrong.
Derf
Well-known member
Only as they remain children would they remain sinless.
Leighton Flowers has some interesting things to say about Pelagius. You should look at his talks on it sometime.
Yet semi-pelagianism is accepted by most as within the pale of orthodoxy today. Maybe the damage wasn't as severe as those folks thought.
And because of that, if they die in that state, they are most often granted entrance into the kingdom (hypothetically, since we don't really decide).
If man is sinless, what salvation is needed? If one doesn't need salvation, then one doesn't save one's self, does he? On the other hand, if everyone who sins needs salvation from someone else, and they hold that everyone sins, why the fuss?
Again, if the result is that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and thus all need a savior, why is it a big deal? Did Pelagius or any called by his name ever put forward the rare sinless specimen? I don't think so.
Yeah, I've watched the phenomenon in both children and grandchildren. It to me that the accountability emphasis is more on whether they know enough to be held accountable than whether they actually sinned or not.
Lon
Well-known member
Not that they are sinless. The Pelagian-like/concerned on TOL on the first page said the same thing: They are innocent. The scriptures rather intimate they just aren't developmentally able to be responsible for that nature "before the child knew right from wrong."
He eschews Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, rightly calling it heresy but believes in something he calls 'Provisionism' rather. I'm not sure it is too many steps from semi-Pelagianism. He's very defensive that he is not (knows both are heretical, antibiblical).
It is usually the laity, like many on TOL, that are formulating ideas concerning children. It is even argued in psychology circles how children are born. One is like Pelagianism: Tabula Rosa (blank slates) vs genetics and proclivity. My 3 children are all different, raised exactly the same way. Think of it this way: Do parents 'correct' or do parents teach 'good?' Yes. Why? If the child were truly innocent, they'd need no instruction whatsoever. We'd not have to correct them because they were born 'good.' What we really are doing is trying to cope with mortality of those children based on a fear and trying to answer for God. "My" children are actually God's. We are on loan to one another, don't own anybody. God does. We don't have to be responsible for them after death, but 'ownership' wants to do that. Isaiah 53:6,Romans 3:10-18
Correct, we don't 'get' to decide. We aren't owners. Scripture does indicate "Let the little children come to me, because the Kingdom is theirs." If you are mid acts, this is only talking to Jews, but we can sense that 'something' keeps them. I don't believe it is 'innocence' (inaccurate term), rather they are not 'responsible' for sin yet, knowing developmentally, neither evil or good. The child who eats the cake wasn't sinning. He was caught with chocolate on his face. He is denying, not to lie (he cannot developmentally understand it is a lie). He is trying to navigate an uncomfortableness 'naturally' but has no idea he is sinning. He cannot know, at that age, what sinning means. We both, as adults know he is telling a mistruth. Even the child knows, to some degree, he ate that cake. He just doesn't know it is a sin because his little mind cannot conceive of right and wrong. That is where parents come in helping them to know to eschew the one and embrace the latter. Even as adults, like Job, they aren't innocent, just choosing to do the good. In all the earth, there was none like Job at the time. Job is a study in Pelagianism.
Exactly. You call it rightly. This was the question asked of Pelagian.
Enter 'semi'-Pelagianism. We are 'kind of good.' Paul was the 'chief of sinners,' by contrast. Jeremiah 17:9
Because you aren't Pelagian nor semi-pelagian at that point. The reason it became 'all this fuss' was a discussion of who needs a Savior (all of us). "For God so loved the (whole) world..."
Yes, but go back to Glorydaz's concern: that all children go to heaven. It is a big deal, because 'we' (me included) don't want children in hell. It means we work on our doctrine to understand what God is doing. I do know God loves children more than I ever will this side of glory, so of course I trust Him, yet the answer to the question "what happens to babies when they die" is ever a good ponderance. It is trying to understand the good heart of God in scriptural context. The dilemma is over 'how' He does that and some speculations do damage to salvation doctrine, hence a very 'big deal' because it affects our own salvation how we perceive an answer. This is fairly close to how some people become Universalists.
I agree. I believe that the better place to have this conversation but many Open Theists (and Arminians) are semi-pelagian, at least, and some full-blown to be almost Universalist Salvation proponents. I think their heart perhaps in 'a' right place, but if we aren't letting scripture inform our thoughts, ultimately of no value and by all potential calling God out against His scriptures: At that point, liberal theologians. We are allowing 'us' as humans to inform scripture rather than deity. The 'logicians' on TOL don't understand that such is ultimately the problem: we can very much cast God in 'our light' rather than looking to Him to adopt His.
Last edited:
ttruscott
Well-known member
Do angels come here to die?
GOD's angels are both holy (sinless) and elect (chosen by their faith in HIM to save them if they should ever fall into sin): 1 Timothy 5:21, Mark 8:38 - they do not die. Death as the wages of sin proves that it is only sinners who are liable to the natural and legal consequences of choosing to be sinful...death proves sinfulness.
Did Jesus call the children to HImself because they were sinless and innocent, Matt 19:14? I doubt it because this verse cannot change the meaning of Luke 5:32
Berean Standard Bible I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.
and He called the children to HIMself...
Indeed, why would the disciples rebuke the children to stay away from Him? They probably did not think they were sinful but innocent so had no need for a saviour !!! but ahe corrected them...
GOD's angels are both holy (sinless) and elect (chosen by their faith in HIM to save them if they should ever fall into sin): 1 Timothy 5:21, Mark 8:38 - they do not die. Death as the wages of sin proves that it is only sinners who are liable to the natural and legal consequences of choosing to be sinful...death proves sinfulness.
Did Jesus call the children to HImself because they were sinless and innocent, Matt 19:14? I doubt it because this verse cannot change the meaning of Luke 5:32
Berean Standard Bible I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.
and He called the children to HIMself...
Indeed, why would the disciples rebuke the children to stay away from Him? They probably did not think they were sinful but innocent so had no need for a saviour !!! but ahe corrected them...