ECT Are we born sinless? Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism

[glorydaz]

Romans 3:9 "all alike, under the power of sin..."

There is legitimacy of going to the text in question, but we also must understand the context and proof of Paul's for quoting it. Romans 3:9,10 is the context and thus he is using the quote from Psalm to bolster his point, not about the 'fool' but about both Jews and gentiles, both together as he says "....[Jew and gentile] alike, under the power of sin..." Somehow, we didn't just sin, but were under its very power, all of us.​

In the full context, but Paul is talking specifically about Jews and Gentiles, both, under the power of sin specifically whether they know the Law or not. His argument is that there is to be no consideration of Jew/gentile distinctions: We all need a Savior, no exceptions. Getting caught up with the "fool" we'd still be left with the same conclusion: Savior, no exceptions.

Well, you did add under the POWER of sin, but I'll accept that because once we go against our conscience and sin, sin has a power over us that cannot be denied. Not that it makes us sin continually, but it does make it easier to sin again and again. What none of that "reasoning" of yours does do, however is prove, in any way, that we inherited Adam's sin.

I showed you the words, "there are none righteous" had righteous people right there in the quote, so you can dance around that fact if you want, but it's not helping your argument.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Matthew 19...

Let us look what else is said in that chapter:

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:16-17).​

This demonstrates that no one is born in a state of being spiritually dead. If a person is born spiritually dead then no amount of law-keeping could possibly bring eternal life and no amount of law-keeping could serve to justify a person before God. That is because once a person falls under the sentence of spiritual death then if he is ever going to be justified it must be by the pentalty being paid. He must be "justified by death," he must be "justified by blood" (Ro.5:9).

In the second chapter of the book of Romans Paul reveals that a man can theoretically obtain eternal life by his "deeds" or by his "works":

"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile" (Ro.2:5-9).​

Those who continue in well doing will be given eternal life. Sir Robert Anderson says that man has the ability to continue in well doing:

"Therefore also is it that while 'patient continuance in well doing' is within the human capacity, Rom. 2:6-11 applies to all whether with or without a divine revelation...The dogma of the moral depravity of man, and irremediable, cannot be reconciled with divine justice in punishing sin. If by the law of his fallen nature man were incapable of doing right, it would be clearly inequitable to punish him for doing wrong. If the Fall had made him crooked-backed, to punish him for not standing upright, would be worthy of an unscrupulous and cruel tyrant. But we must distinguish between theological dogma and divine truth. That man is without excuse is the clear testimony of Holy Writ" [emphasis added] (Anderson, "Sin and Judgment to Come," The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth; Volume VI [Chicago: Testimony Publishing Co., 1910], 42-43, 38-39).​

Notice:

"If the Fall had made him crooked-backed, to punish him for not standing upright, would be worthy of an unscrupulous and cruel tyrant."​

 

[way 2 go]

Let's end this:

Two questions:

1) John 14:6 Was the Lord Jesus Christ speaking truthfully?

yes.

Is Jesus addressing sinless unborn and infant children here . :nono:

2) Killing any infant, guarantees them eternal life because they are sinless: true/false?

they are sinless and God does not address the unborn child's fate

everyone will exist for eternity
Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

what makes the unborn child unrighteous ?

Eze 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Imho, this ends the discussion and reduces the latter to heresy lest I call my Lord, God and Savior, a liar. /thread

we are spirits with temporary bodies,
born spiritually alive in a body of sinful flesh

Rom_7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Question # 3: who did you decide has the truth?

not you.

:chuckle:

 

[Lon]

yes.

Is Jesus addressing sinless unborn and infant children here . :nono:

How come if 'none' come to the Father, but by Him?

they are sinless and God does not address the unborn child's fate

Hence the doctrine, I think is held, specifically for this purpose. I am always wondering if our doctrines should be made from fear, and I think fear is the heart of the child's fate. Remember the two friends with Job? Both were chastised, by God, for coming up with 'answers' for his dilemma. One said only sin would/could have caused his condition and they lambasted him for saying he hadn't sinned. The other came up other reasons related to the same. Though,what they said may be in contest as to being biblically sound, we at least know they were corrected for over-reaching what belonged to God alone. I could be wrong, but it seems to me, sin-less birth is perhaps doing the same and seeking an answer. I agree with you, others may not, that we aren't expressly given a lot of scriptures about children. There is some. I don't think we have to assume or should assume that such demands 'sinless-birth' however.

everyone will exist for eternity
Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

:idunno: Not sure what you mean here.
Is 'existence' some form of 'life' as you understand it? Somehow, God has called it the second death. Whatever that is, we'd have to explore a bit of what sense Adam and Eve died as well as what sense that we 'live' if that is the right term, forever.

what makes the unborn child unrighteous ?

As far as I understand, there is a separation from God, in all mankind. The infant immediately deals with a world of sin on many many levels. They immediately breath toxins from the air. They immediately are in contact with sinful adults. They immediately have stomach aches and diaper rash and are made to cry so they can breathe. They are not immediately met by the Lord God because they are separated from Him. For me, it is best understood as a disease, like Aids or Leprosy. Neither kills, but the complication that comes because of the disease kills. I suppose in some sense, there is an 'innocence' because a child is not developmentally able to 'own' that condition. I suppose, now that you ask, I have more agreement with you and others over the matter, but I wouldn't call it 'innocence.' I think that idea will always throw people. What you guys are talking about is "inability." Or something like. I think its a better word, but there may be one better. It is the idea, from what I'm gathering you guys saying, not so much of innocence, though I think you all would argue that it is, but rather instead, that one isn't culpable without the development to own the conditions (this needs a bit more discussion, I'm just having an 'ah ha' moment about what I think you guys are trying to say.

Eze 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

No, not the 'sins' (plural verb) of the father, but we do inherit a condition. I think on that, we have to discuss, like above, what the difference might be. I think another said there was agreement that we get a proclivity or 'bent' (can't remember the word used), to sin.
'

we are spirits with temporary bodies,
born spiritually alive in a body of sinful flesh

I think you agree with those who said similar. Can you be a bit and overtly pedantic with/for me on this particular sentence and really spell it out in like, a paragraph or two? Thanks.

Rom_7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

When I asked in the other thread, it was: wouldn't the answer simply be to burn all Old Testaments then? When Paul says 'alive' I think he is saying 'ignorant bliss' by context.

not you.

:chuckle:

Well, I meant between John 14:6 and Sinless doctrine. The video is funny.

 

[glorydaz]

Let us look what else is said in that chapter:

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:16-17).​

This demonstrates that no one is born in a state of being spiritually dead. If a person is born spiritually dead then no amount of law-keeping could possibly bring eternal life and no amount of law-keeping could serve to justify a person before God. That is because once a person falls under the sentence of spiritual death then if he is ever going to be justified it must be by the pentalty being paid. He must be "justified by death," he must be "justified by blood" (Ro.5:9).

In the second chapter of the book of Romans Paul reveals that a man can theoretically obtain eternal life by his "deeds" or by his "works":

"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile" (Ro.2:5-9).​

Those who continue in well doing will be given eternal life. Sir Robert Anderson says that man has the ability to continue in well doing:

"Therefore also is it that while 'patient continuance in well doing' is within the human capacity, Rom. 2:6-11 applies to all whether with or without a divine revelation...The dogma of the moral depravity of man, and irremediable, cannot be reconciled with divine justice in punishing sin. If by the law of his fallen nature man were incapable of doing right, it would be clearly inequitable to punish him for doing wrong. If the Fall had made him crooked-backed, to punish him for not standing upright, would be worthy of an unscrupulous and cruel tyrant. But we must distinguish between theological dogma and divine truth. That man is without excuse is the clear testimony of Holy Writ" [emphasis added] (Anderson, "Sin and Judgment to Come," The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth; Volume VI [Chicago: Testimony Publishing Co., 1910], 42-43, 38-39).​

Notice:

"If the Fall had made him crooked-backed, to punish him for not standing upright, would be worthy of an unscrupulous and cruel tyrant."​

Amen. Good points, Jerry. It really all comes down to law and grace, doesn't it?



The consequences of Adam breaking the LAW brought suffering and death.

The consequences of Christ's gift of GRACE brought blessing and life.

Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.​

 

[Tambora]

I suppose in some sense, there is an 'innocence'

not so much of innocence, though I think you all would argue that it is, but rather instead, that one isn't culpable

Sin is transgression of the law.

1 John 3:4 KJV​

(4) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.​

The dilemma we run into sometimes is that some could transgress the law, but be blameless/guiltless.

Matthew 12:3-7 KJV​

(3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;​

(4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?​

(5) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?​

(6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.​

(7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.​

They were born under the law and sinned (transgressed the law), and it wasn't a sin they were unaware they were doing (ie. it was intentional); but they are blameless.
So we see that one can break the law and still be guiltless.
So, how do we fit this into a black and white category of guilt or innocence?

It appears that we do have a precedence for one being born under the law into a world of sin, and yet still be guiltless of sin.
So we need to address just which law a newborn breaks, and then if that transgression deems the newborn guilty or guiltless.

One thing that keeps sticking in my mind is that the just shall live by faith, and the law is not of faith. Gal 3:11-12
That's got to stick in the craw of everyone that lives according to the law.
It's not of faith.

I don't think it is as cut-and-dry as some like to envision.
And I'm glad we are all talking about it, as it can only lead to further understanding.

 

[dodge]

Jerry Shugart;4975431]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).​

We both agree that ALL men die eventually, but as of now NO ONE has explained that when a 1 day old baby dies what sin they could have committed !

Everyone dies because death is the result of sin on that we agree.

To carry that out and apply it to a one day old baby makes no sense UNLESS you understand that every man is born with a sin nature which of course explains why a one day old baby can die, because they for sure have NOT sinned it is not possible. Babies die because they inherited death from Adam.

When Adam's genealogy is given it says Adam was created in the image of God.

Then when you see Cain's genealogy it is "different" than Adam's. Scripture says Cain was created in the likeness and IMAGE of ADAM ( not of God ) , which includes sin nature and all.

 

[Tambora]

Everyone dies because death is the result of sin on that we agree.

Not all sin.

1 John 5:17 KJV
(17) All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.


See post #156.

 

[glorydaz]

We both agree that ALL men die eventually, but as of now NO ONE has explained that when a 1 day old baby dies what sin they could have committed !

Everyone dies because death is the result of sin on that we agree.

Physical death is part of the curse on all of creation (because of Adam's sin). Basically, Adam's sin brought suffering and physical death to all of mankind...even the ground was cursed.

To carry that out and apply it to a one day old baby makes no sense UNLESS you understand that every man is born with a sin nature which of course explains why a one day old baby can die, because they for sure have NOT sinned it is not possible. Babies die because they inherited death from Adam.

We all inherit this corrupt world because of Adam's sin....even those who have not sinned like Adam. In that respect, we all suffer the consequences of Adam's sin.

When Adam's genealogy is given it says Adam was created in the image of God.

Then when you see Cain's genealogy it is "different" than Adam's. Scripture says Cain was created in the likeness and IMAGE of ADAM ( not of God ) , which includes sin nature and all.

Then let me ask you a question. Since Adam was created in the image of God, why did Adam sin?

 

[dodge]

Not all sin.

1 John 5:17 KJV
(17) All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.


See post #156.

Rom 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

[dodge]

Physical death is part of the curse on all of creation (because of Adam's sin). Basically, Adam's sin brought suffering and physical death to all of mankind...even the ground was cursed.



We all inherit this corrupt world because of Adam's sin....even those who have not sinned like Adam. In that respect, we all suffer the consequences of Adam's sin.




Then let me ask you a question. Since Adam was created in the image of God, why did Adam sin?

Adam disobeyed God. God told Adam to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and he did.

 

[Tambora]

Rom 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Doesn't change the fact that not all sin is unto death.

1 John 5:17 KJV
(17) All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

 

[dodge]

Doesn't change the fact that not all sin is unto death.

1 John 5:17 KJV
(17) All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

If a child of God keeps ignoring the Holy Spirit while living in sin that could be a sin unto death ( PHYSICAL ), and if one listens and repents it WAS NOT A SIN UNTO DEATH.

 

[glorydaz]

Adam disobeyed God. God told Adam to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and he did.

Right, so he must have had a "sin nature", too, even though created in the image of God.



Perhaps all men really have a human nature, and not a "sin nature" at all.

 

[dodge]

[glorydaz;4981683]Right, so he must have had a "sin nature", too, even though created in the image of God.

Adam and Eve even though naked did NOT know or recognize their nakedness ( no sin nature ) AFTER they disobeyed God they were ashamed and knew they were naked SOMETHING CHANGED ( sin nature).

Perhaps all men really have a human nature, and not a "sin nature" at all.

Everyone after Adam was born with a sin nature.

 

[Tambora]

If a child of God keeps ignoring the Holy Spirit while living in sin that could be a sin unto death ( PHYSICAL ), and if one listens and repents it WAS NOT A SIN UNTO DEATH.

When the priests and David and his men transgressed the law by eating the temple shewbread, were they ignoring the Holy Spirit when they transgressed the law?
Scripture says they were blameless.

 

[glorydaz]

Adam and Eve even though naked did NOT know or recognize their nakedness ( no sin nature ) AFTER they disobeyed God they were ashamed and knew they were naked SOMETHING CHANGED ( sin nature).




Everyone after Adam was born with a sin nature.

That doesn't explain how Adam sinned when he supposedly didn't have a sin nature.

He sinned while in God's image.



We sin while in God's image, too. Clearly, man is still in God's image.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.​

 

[dodge]

When the priests and David and his men transgressed the law by eating the temple shewbread, were they ignoring the Holy Spirit when they transgressed the law?
Scripture says they were blameless.

IF the Holy Spirit had told them NOT to eat there would have been consequences.

Jesus explained it this way:

Mar 2:27

And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

 

[dodge]

glorydaz;4981694]That doesn't explain how Adam sinned when he supposedly didn't have a sin nature.
He sinned while in God's image.

Eve listened to Satan and Adam listened to Eve BOTH disobeyed God.

He sinned while in God's image.

Sure it does Adam disobeyed God. God told Adam not to and he did what God told him not to.He didn 't have a sin nature until AFTER he disobeyed God.

We sin while in God's image, too. Clearly, man is still in God's image.

Man after Adam are created in Adam's likeness and IMAGE not God's.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.​

The human race started out in God's likeness NOW we also have Adam's image i.e. sin nature.

 

[Danoh]

We both agree that ALL men die eventually, but as of now NO ONE has explained that when a 1 day old baby dies what sin they could have committed !

Everyone dies because death is the result of sin on that we agree.

To carry that out and apply it to a one day old baby makes no sense UNLESS you understand that every man is born with a sin nature which of course explains why a one day old baby can die, because they for sure have NOT sinned it is not possible. Babies die because they inherited death from Adam.

When Adam's genealogy is given it says Adam was created in the image of God.

Then when you see Cain's genealogy it is "different" than Adam's. Scripture says Cain was created in the likeness and IMAGE of ADAM ( not of God ) , which includes sin nature and all.

Yep.

The Law was added that they might be made aware of the fact of indwelling sin.

The issue is not that anyone is blameless; rather that their unawareness of indwelling sin is not reckoned unto such.

But that still left the problem of indwelling sin needing to be dealt with.

In other words, a person IS sin.

And that has to be dealt with, solved for.

Because corruption cannot inherit incorruption.

Thus, the Law.

For by the Law...is the knowledge (awareness) of indwelling sin.

You're right.

This is why you are.