ECT Are we born sinless? Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism

[glorydaz]

Two were in mental institutions 'because' they believed they were saving their children 'because' they believed the children couldn't have sinned. I was told there were more, but I did not meet them. The other, ttruscott gave from the news. Another, was a woman that drowned each of her kids and they all held this in common. Does it lead to that? Yeah, it does, but thankfully sinless birth isn't a largely known among most. One of the women in the institution, was told that by her pastor, however. We do need to be careful of our doctrines, but I couldn't 'logically' argue against a women who was adamant that all her children would be saved 'despite herself.' What would I say?

What in the world are you doing here? This has nothing to do with the facts. Children aren't guilty until they sin. I don't care what any wacky woman thinks. These are nothing more than rabbit holes, and I can't take the time to run down them. :nono:

No problem on this last point. They do get long

I agree with what you have written, but it doesn't by that token erase being born in sin, under the curse. It has been awhile since I worked on this part of my theology. At the time, it was Psalm 51:5 that convinced me.

As far as I understand this Romans passage: 'sin' had no name, rather. It was the law that made Paul realize he was dead. Before? He was still 'breaking' those laws. I once trespassed without knowing it, got caught. Other times? Realized when I was young, I was trespassing, just didn't know it was against the law, still a trespasser, just didn't know. Paul even says that gentiles without 'the Law' still know they don't measure up because they have a law unto themselves. We have atheists all over TOL who suggest they aren't sinners, just 'human, naturally.'

Gentiles without the law have a conscience. A small child has to be older before they even have a clue what their conscience is telling them. They have to know to choose the good over the evil. It's the same with mentally impaired people. Are you telling me that the Lord will send them to hell?

Here we see Jesus comparing a child to the converted.

Matthew 18:2-3KJV
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 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.​

John 9:41KJV
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.​

Unlike these TOL atheists, children don't know they've done anything wrong. Their conscience is not yet developed.

 

[glorydaz]

He was born of the Father, fully God/fully man. It is a good question. He was tempted in every way we were, yet did not sin, yet our sins were upon Him. It would be hard to draw 'similarity' conclusions based on that, but worthy of a thread (probably more than this one).

The fully man part means he had the same nature we do...and the same nature Adam did. He had the same nature Abraham and David did. Romans 1:3KJV

 

[Lon]

infants can't omit in regards to sin,
so none

I disagree. They are not able to 'do' the will of the Father.

no proof David sinned as an infant from that verse , parents sinned ,sure

I'll simply post it for posterity because I believe it speaks 'clearly' for itself. Psalm 51:1-5

sorry you are saying Paul is lying and he said "sin came alive and I died"

:nono: Yours is the private interpretation, not mine. I don't care if you want to espouse whatever suits your fancy, but you aren't disagreeing with me. The whole church has rejected this doctrine. All of it.

also you acknowledge that he was killed so that means he had to be alive before that right.

No. Remember the Princess Bride? "I died that day!" (she didn't literally die that day).

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

From my reading, I believe Romans 8 disagrees with you. That is why I posted it, simply going backwards in the thread and regressing doesn't hold a 'win' I don't believe. You'd have to read more, not less. Worse? This is COMPLETE heresy. You are saying it is better to not tell anyone about Jesus Christ, so they "wouldn't" die. Do you follow your thoughts to their logical or absurd conclusion? It is all why this was relegated as heresy a long time ago. All we are doing is rehashing the centuries old discussion here.

you just said "the LAW killed him"
now you say sin

He said the Law was good, it explained to him his lostness. He didn't 'die' the day he read the Law, but rather discovered that the law couldn't be followed. That is why, at the end of chapter 7 he asks "who will save me?"

 

[glorydaz]

Psalm 51:1-5 in context is definitely about David's sins, not his mother's.

And he was over-wrought with his sin. He looked at his life and said, I've been a sinner 'as long as I can remember'. In the same way, Job, talked about "I have guided her since my mother's womb. Job 31:18KJV That's called making a point- poetic license. We know Job didn't guide anyone since his mother's womb.

"Trouble been dogging my soul since the day I was born." Isn't that a song or something?

 

[Danoh]

That's a good point.
It was not until Paul knew what sin was that sin slew him spiritually.

This could possibly tie into the story of the prodical son. He was alive physically the whole time, but the story says he was alive, then dead, then alive again.

No, and no.

He delights in the law after the inward man.

In his mind.

In theory...

Til push comes to shove, and it's time to walk in obedience, and he finds that as wonderful as said law sounded in theory (spiritual/in his mind), when it comes time to get himself down to the gym, well, that's another matter - "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak..."

At which point he finds - I was alive once - oh I imagined I would never do this, oh, I would do this instead - boy am I alive in theory - look at me fly, watch me....crash an burn, lol.

He is addressing that to those who would put themselves and or others, back under the law's endless "but I already made the donuts!"

(Remember that TV commercial of that old Dunkin Donuts guy burning the midnight oil on both ends so bad that he ends up running into a part of himself coming to work, as he is leaving from work, lol)

O wretched man...

Road runner, he'll get you; fore your through...

He never does; does he - all his great ideas about what he'll do just right this next time... end up in - BOOM! :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

No, because Jesus did not have a human father.

The substance of Mary provided His body, but He of His own power, assumed flesh, being conceived by His Holy Spirit, alone.

Really? How very Catholic you sound. Are you seriously suggesting that sin is only passed down through the father? It seems Paul disagrees with you.

Romans 1:3KJV

 

[Nang]

And he was over-wrought with his sin. He looked at his life and said, I've been a sinner 'as long as I can remember'. In the same way, Job, talked about "I have guided her since my mother's womb. Job 31:18KJV That's called making a point- poetic license. We know Job didn't guide anyone since his mother's womb.

"Trouble been dogging my soul since the day I was born." Isn't that a song or something?

"Poetic-License?"

Oops . . What came of the MAD insistence on literalistic interpretation only?

Funny how it fades in and out according to occasional debate needs . . .

 

[Nang]

Really? How very Catholic you sound. Are you seriously suggesting that sin is only passed down through the father? It seems Paul disagrees with you.

Romans 1:3KJV

David was in Mary's lineage but David was not Jesus' father.

And do you deny the virginity of Mary, too?

 

[Danoh]

David was in Mary's lineage but David was not Jesus' father.

...

Yep, nang - as the Apostle Paul might say of your above post - "this witness is true..."

Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

 

[Lon]

The fully man part means he had the same nature we do...and the same nature Adam did. He had the same nature Abraham and David did. Romans 1:3KJV

Christ in the flesh doctrine is often sticky, and needs careful precision. Christadelphians believe the Son had a sin nature, but did not sin. Scripture says that He was tempted in every way that we are. In between there somewhere is a different discussion than this particular but 'may' have carry overs. I'm not sure what they would be, but the discussion of Christ's nature always deserves its own thread.

And he was over-wrought with his sin. He looked at his life and said, I've been a sinner 'as long as I can remember'. In the same way, Job, talked about "I have guided her since my mother's womb. Job 31:18KJV That's called making a point- poetic license. We know Job didn't guide anyone since his mother's womb.

"Trouble been dogging my soul since the day I was born." Isn't that a song or something?

David used a couplet for emphasis: Conceived in sin, born in iniquity. He wasn't talking of his mother's sin. She was faithful. He wasn't talking about 'sinning' but rather his 'condition.' Ephesians 2:3 says 'by nature' we are children of wrath at birth.

 

[glorydaz]

I am convinced they go right into His presence as well. There is no need to embrace Pelagianism to believe that, however.

That too, is one of the tenants of Pelagianism. Literally, the cure is abortion I'm not kidding, the one woman believed Pelagian doctrine from her pastor and drown her kids.

So, please tell me. What is the difference between what you say in the first post, "I am convinced they (children) go right into His presence..." and how you say Pelagianism leads to abortion?

 

[Tambora]

No, and no.

He delights in the law after the inward man.

In his mind.

In theory...

Til push comes to shove, and it's time to walk in obedience, and he finds that as wonderful as said law sounded in theory (spiritual/in his mind), when it comes time to get himself down to the gym, well, that's another matter - "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak..."

At which point he finds - I was alive once - oh I imagined I would never do this, oh, I would do this instead - boy am I alive in theory - look at me fly, watch me....crash an burn, lol.

He is addressing that to those who would put themselves and or others, back under the law's endless "but I already made the donuts!"

(Remember that TV commercial of that old Dunkin Donuts guy burning the midnight oil on both ends so bad that he ends up running into a part of himself coming to work, as he is leaving from work, lol)

O wretched man...

Road runner, he'll get you; fore your through...

He never does; does he - all his great ideas about what he'll do just right this next time... end up in - BOOM! :chuckle:

I realize us stupid MAD folks are not nearly as advanced as you are, but I read this post twice and I still don't know what you are trying to say.
Could you ABC it for us dummies please?

 

[glorydaz]

Right. Discussing the heretical views of Pelagius does not require any particular cheer-leading for Augustine, other than Augustine was a faithful believer in Jesus Christ. A real Christian, was he, and he opposed Pelagius with all his might.

All of this boils down to advocacy of the sovereignty of man versus human dependence upon the sovereignty of God in all things.

Pelagianism advocates the free will, and virtues of mankind, which hypothetically means some men should be capable of achieving righteousness, apart from the grace of God.

Thus it is anti-Christ.

And MADists apparently embrace it fully. :jawdrop:

:nono:

Not good.

:doh: What a bunch nonsense....all rolled into one post.

 

[Lon]

So, please tell me. What is the difference between what you say in the first post, "I am convinced they (children) go right into His presence..." and how you say Pelagianism leads to abortion?

I haven't met any of those, but I'd imagine there may be a few along that line as well. I'm not sure if "I'm convinced" is as strong a case though. I do find comfort in this verse: John 17:12; 18:9

 

[glorydaz]

Okay, drop the 'Pelagian" from your repertoire, it still means 'born-sinless' and is heresy against scriptures. I can't change that. I have no power to change that. It is called 'Pelagianism' after the first guy that argued for sinless birth, the same discussion (Pelagian) we are having here.

My use of the term is simply to show this discussion took place centuries ago and the church found the idea of being born sinless as heresy against the need of a Savior and against what the scriptures say.

You mean it goes against the scripture "in sin did my mother conceive me" which does NOT say 'I was conceived with sin in me'. So tell me, was Jesus born sin-less? How is that possible if he was a descendant of Adam as we all are?

 

[glorydaz]

I haven't met any of those, but I'd imagine there may be a few along that line as well. I'm not sure if "I'm convinced" is as strong a case though. I do find comfort in this verse: John 17:12; 18:9

No, you said children who die go to be with the Lord, didn't you? Yet you say people will use that as an excuse to kill their kids.

 

[glorydaz]

There is no virtue in any man. No freedom of will to choose rightly.

No virtue in the MAN Jesus Christ.....and no freedom to choose rightly? :think:

That is why God the Son assumed like flesh and nature as His brethren (although without sin) as a Man, to die under that curse, to remove that curse. Galatians 3:13

Notice the falsehood that has to be added before her doctrine can be swallowed. This little aside as if it wasn't Jesus' own obedience that caused Him to be without sin, but rather some special "magic" that kept him from dealing with any sin inherited from Adam. :nono:

 

[Lon]

No, you said children who die go to be with the Lord, didn't you? Yet you say people will use that as an excuse to kill their kids.

I agree. 2 Points, you are correct, it is a rabbit trail and that it isn't fair to use against you. Simply realize the contact, prior to you, with those who believe like this were 'mental patients.' I recant however, because I see what you mean: It is guilty by association, not guilt by necessity.

You mean it goes against the scripture "in sin did my mother conceive me" which does NOT say 'I was conceived with sin in me'. So tell me, was Jesus born sin-less? How is that possible if he was a descendant of Adam as we all are?

As I said, I don't believe it applies directly, because the incarnation is like nothing we had ever seen, or will see again, so its considerations 'possibly' could shed light on our own condition, but such would be extrapolation or inference. David said he was conceived in sin.

There are all kinds of questions and problems that arise from Sinless-birth doctrine. Why are babies, if unaffected by sin, born with disability? Especially if a poor action by the parent? Why does God not rip them from our hands, at birth? Wouldn't doing so with Adam and Eve have been the cure, instead of a need for Christ? If so, why wasn't that the solution? I was just talking to my oldest. She said, as much as we set a good example for her, she still struggled with things we never portrayed for her. Wouldn't a 'less' sinful surrounding have produced 'less' sin in her, instead of more?

 

[glorydaz]

You go over a line, here, EE. I have reported you for calling a believer in Jesus Christ, "total crap."

He doesn't need your protection. He's dead, just like Calvin is. :nono:

 

[way 2 go]

I disagree. They are not able to 'do' the will of the Father.

:chuckle:
what would the will of the father be for an infant?

I'll simply post it for posterity because I believe it speaks 'clearly' for itself. Psalm 51:1-5

you are reading into it

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

any other verse?

:nono: Yours is the private interpretation, not mine. I don't care if you want to espouse whatever suits your fancy, but you aren't disagreeing with me. The whole church has rejected this doctrine. All of it.

spiritually alive then spiritually dead

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

really an appeal to authority argument

No. Remember the Princess Bride? "I died that day!" (she didn't literally die that day).

no I don't remember the Princess Bride

but it sounds like spiritually dead

From my reading, I believe Romans 8 disagrees with you. That is why I posted it, simply going backwards in the thread and regressing doesn't hold a 'win' I don't believe.

1.you don't start out spiritually dead 2. you have not shown what sins infants commit.
Romans 8:6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.

You'd have to read more, not less. Worse? This is COMPLETE heresy. You are saying it is better to not tell anyone about Jesus Christ, so they "wouldn't" die.

assume much ?
not at all , where did you get that idea ?

born spiritually alive then spiritually dead is my point.
I have not said how or when you become spiritually dead ,

Do you follow your thoughts to their logical or absurd conclusion? It is all why this was relegated as heresy a long time ago. All we are doing is rehashing the centuries old discussion here.

Are you suggesting that God will be unfair and send someone who has never sinned to eternal conscious torment

He said the Law was good, it explained to him his lostness. He didn't 'die' the day he read the Law, but rather discovered that the law couldn't be followed. That is why, at the end of chapter 7 he asks "who will save me?"

you don't get that from this verse Paul said he was alive and then he died.
you say no , not true.

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.