Dueteronomy 30:6

fltom

Well-known member
That's fine if your Arminian position holds that point, but Pelagius said it first, and it's a Pelagian view, no matter what you say or believe.

This goes to show you lack church history here, Tom. I will not spoon feed you, you do the leg work.

Instead of posting this that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, to which you are just diverting once again, and avoiding the tough questions! When I was Arminian, I did not avoid the tough questions, but took the challenge head on to find the truth, and that was the only thing that matter to me, not party, but the truth! You guys are struggling so hard to escape the quicksand, that you are sinking in further in!
Sorry no

You were given 6 witnesses which defined Pelagianism

Not one supported your claim

And you deal not deal with them

And don't tell me about you taking on hard questions as you have ducked a number i provided

Deal with the definition of Pelagianism

and then I will deal with Rom 5
 

Ladodgers6

Well-known member
Did you not read?

Deal with the definition of Pelagian then we can deal with Rom5

Once we have taken your false claim out of the way we can deal with it
Here's Scripture, let's see if you reply to it???

"By the trespass of the ONE the many died" (vs. 15); "the judgement was from ONE unto condemnation" (vs. 16); "by the trespass of the ONE death reigned through the ONE" (vs. 17); "through ONE trespass judgment came UPON ALL men unto condemnation" (vs. 18); "through the disobedience of the ONE-MAN the many were constituted sinners" (vs. 19).

We might think that Paul has needlessly repeated himself, but it is a repetition which establishes beyond dispute that Paul regards CONDEMNATION & DEATH as having passed on to all men by the ONE TRESPASS of the ONE-MAN Adam!

So, will you reply to Scripture?????????????
 

fltom

Well-known member
That's fine if your Arminian position holds that point, but Pelagius said it first, and it's a Pelagian view, no matter what you say or believe.

This goes to show you lack church history here, Tom. I will not spoon feed you, you do the leg work.
Sorry even Calvinist authors refute you

According to Pelagius, a person is always “able to sin and able not to sin” (posse peccare et posse non peccare). Naturally, such a view of freedom carries implications for the doctrine of original sin. Pelagius denied that human beings derive a corrupt nature from Adam; if they did then they would not be responsible for their sins

William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 959.

Pelagius: A fifth-century monk who taught (Pelagianism) that man has the ability to obey God’s commands and can take the first and most important steps toward salvation on his own. (24D.2)

Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004), 1250.

B. It contradicts Scripture in denying: (a) that evil disposition and state, as well as evil acts, are sin; (b) that such evil disposition and state are inborn in all mankind; (c) that men universally are guilty of overt transgression so soon as they come to moral consciousness; (d) that no man is able without divine help to fulfil the law; (e) that all men, without exception, are dependent for salvation upon God’s atoning, regenerating, sanctifying grace. (f) that man’s present state of corruption, condemnation, and death, is the direct effect of Adam’s transgression.

Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907), 598–599.

1. It is really a revival and concoction of several ancient heresies: of Pelagianism, with its denial of human depravity and its assertion of the natural ability of man to save himself

L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 387.

the doctrine that men have the power by nature perfectly to keep the commandments of God, as pure Pelagianism.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 329.

Pelagianism. By his transgression, Adam injured only himself, not his posterity. In respect to his moral nature, every man is born in precisely the same condition in which Adam was created. There is therefore no original sin.
A.A. Hodge cited at Monergism.com

Pelagianism is the unbiblical teaching that Adam’s sin did not affect future generations of humanity. According to Pelagianism, Adam’s sin was solely his own, and Adam’s descendants did not inherit a sinful nature passed down to them. God creates every human soul directly, and therefore every human soul starts out in innocence, free from sin. We are not basically bad, says the Pelagian heresy; we are basically good. Got question.org cited at Monergism.com

Even your Calvinist peers show you really do not know what you are talking about
 

Ladodgers6

Well-known member
Sorry even Calvinist authors refute you

According to Pelagius, a person is always “able to sin and able not to sin” (posse peccare et posse non peccare). Naturally, such a view of freedom carries implications for the doctrine of original sin. Pelagius denied that human beings derive a corrupt nature from Adam; if they did then they would not be responsible for their sins

William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 959.

Pelagius: A fifth-century monk who taught (Pelagianism) that man has the ability to obey God’s commands and can take the first and most important steps toward salvation on his own. (24D.2)

Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004), 1250.

B. It contradicts Scripture in denying: (a) that evil disposition and state, as well as evil acts, are sin; (b) that such evil disposition and state are inborn in all mankind; (c) that men universally are guilty of overt transgression so soon as they come to moral consciousness; (d) that no man is able without divine help to fulfil the law; (e) that all men, without exception, are dependent for salvation upon God’s atoning, regenerating, sanctifying grace. (f) that man’s present state of corruption, condemnation, and death, is the direct effect of Adam’s transgression.

Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907), 598–599.

1. It is really a revival and concoction of several ancient heresies: of Pelagianism, with its denial of human depravity and its assertion of the natural ability of man to save himself

L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 387.

the doctrine that men have the power by nature perfectly to keep the commandments of God, as pure Pelagianism.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 329.

Pelagianism. By his transgression, Adam injured only himself, not his posterity. In respect to his moral nature, every man is born in precisely the same condition in which Adam was created. There is therefore no original sin.
A.A. Hodge cited at Monergism.com

Pelagianism is the unbiblical teaching that Adam’s sin did not affect future generations of humanity. According to Pelagianism, Adam’s sin was solely his own, and Adam’s descendants did not inherit a sinful nature passed down to them. God creates every human soul directly, and therefore every human soul starts out in innocence, free from sin. We are not basically bad, says the Pelagian heresy; we are basically good. Got question.org cited at Monergism.com

Even your Calvinist peers show you really do not know what you are talking about
Or now you're using theologians instead of Scripture?????? The reason you do not understand, Tom. Is because you do not understand Paul's affirmations in Romans 5:15-19. You really can't see your mistake??? If not, I'll point it out for you.
 

fltom

Well-known member
Here's Scripture, let's see if you reply to it???

"By the trespass of the ONE the many died" (vs. 15); "the judgement was from ONE unto condemnation" (vs. 16); "by the trespass of the ONE death reigned through the ONE" (vs. 17); "through ONE trespass judgment came UPON ALL men unto condemnation" (vs. 18); "through the disobedience of the ONE-MAN the many were constituted sinners" (vs. 19).

We might think that Paul has needlessly repeated himself, but it is a repetition which establishes beyond dispute that Paul regards CONDEMNATION & DEATH as having passed on to all men by the ONE TRESPASS of the ONE-MAN Adam!

So, will you reply to Scripture?????????????
I would be happy to

once you now deal with the 13 different sources refuting your claim of pelagianism

the last seven all Calvinists

Correct you error and I will address the verses you supplied
 

Ladodgers6

Well-known member
I would be happy to

once you now deal with the 13 different sources refuting your claim of pelagianism

the last seven all Calvinists

Correct you error and I will address the verses you supplied
Is theologians or Scripture your authority?
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Here's Scripture, let's see if you reply to it???

"By the trespass of the ONE the many died" (vs. 15); "the judgement was from ONE unto condemnation" (vs. 16); "by the trespass of the ONE death reigned through the ONE" (vs. 17); "through ONE trespass judgment came UPON ALL men unto condemnation" (vs. 18); "through the disobedience of the ONE-MAN the many were constituted sinners" (vs. 19).

We might think that Paul has needlessly repeated himself, but it is a repetition which establishes beyond dispute that Paul regards CONDEMNATION & DEATH as having passed on to all men by the ONE TRESPASS of the ONE-MAN Adam!

So, will you reply to Scripture?????????????
but it says death spread to all men BECAUSE all men sinned
 

fltom

Well-known member
Or now you're using theologians instead of Scripture?????? The reason you do not understand, Tom. Is because you do not understand Paul's affirmations in Romans 5:15-19. You really can't see your mistake??? If not, I'll point it out for you.
Even RC Sproul refutes you

It was the position of Pelagius that Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. That is to say, as a result of Adam’s transgression there was no change wrought in the constituent nature of the human race. Man was born in a state of righteousness, and as one created in the image of God, he was created immutably so. Even though it was possible for him to sin, it was not possible for him to lose his basic human nature, which was capable always and everywhere to be obedient. Pelagius went on to say that it is, even after the sin of Adam, possible for every human being to live a life of perfect righteousness and that, indeed, some have achieved such status.

I case you lost count that is now 14 sources refuting you

Don't let your pride stand in the way of truth
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Even RC Sproul refutes you

It was the position of Pelagius that Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. That is to say, as a result of Adam’s transgression there was no change wrought in the constituent nature of the human race. Man was born in a state of righteousness, and as one created in the image of God, he was created immutably so. Even though it was possible for him to sin, it was not possible for him to lose his basic human nature, which was capable always and everywhere to be obedient. Pelagius went on to say that it is, even after the sin of Adam, possible for every human being to live a life of perfect righteousness and that, indeed, some have achieved such status.

I case you lost count that is now 14 sources refuting you

Don't let your pride stand in the way of truth
Gen 9:6. God continues to create man in His image, which is why men should not murder each other.
As far as a change in our nature, Genesis says man would die. There is very little Biblical discussion on what this specific verse means, yet people write at length to explain the ramifications of this, I think few people keep Gen 9:6 in mind that we are still created in His image.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
There is no " continued " creation. Creation ended with Genesis chapter 1.

Do you know the difference between creation and procreation ?
Gen 9:6 uses the same word used when Gen 1:7 states He made the expanse, so "created" is a legitimate sense of that word.
 

Ladodgers6

Well-known member
Even RC Sproul refutes you

It was the position of Pelagius that Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. That is to say, as a result of Adam’s transgression there was no change wrought in the constituent nature of the human race. Man was born in a state of righteousness, and as one created in the image of God, he was created immutably so. Even though it was possible for him to sin, it was not possible for him to lose his basic human nature, which was capable always and everywhere to be obedient. Pelagius went on to say that it is, even after the sin of Adam, possible for every human being to live a life of perfect righteousness and that, indeed, some have achieved such status.

I case you lost count that is now 14 sources refuting you

Don't let your pride stand in the way of truth
Tom, like I have said before, debating with you gives me a headache. Take your blinders off and try to understand what Paul is saying here. If you deny that Adam guilt (sin) is imputed, then you also deny that Christ's righteousness is imputed as well, follow??? This is the emphatic affirmation Paul is making in Romans 5:15-19, notice how many times hammers home this point! Paul contrasts the two Adams here, by One Act of disobedience and One Act of Obedience, if you fail to see this point Paul is making, then you will fall into Pelagianism, no way around it that pitfall!


Which means that salvation can be attain by self-righteousness, in other words humans can achieve perfection without Grace! Which is not biblical and has been condemned by the early church.

The Pelagian exegesis destroys the force of the analogy which Paul institutes in this passage as a WHOLE. The doctrine Paul is illustrating by appeal to the analogy of the condemnation and death proceeding from Adam is the doctrine that men are justified by the free grace of God on the basis of the righteousness and obedience of Christ. What Paul has been controverting (refuting)in the earlier part of the epistle is that men are justified by their own works (This is the Pelagian part you have been missing)!!! He is establishing the truth that men are justified and attain to life by what another has done, the One-Man Jesus Christ (Gospel)!

Understand now??? If not, you're lost, sorry bro!
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Thank you, Seth, for bringing up Scripture. Great point, so how did it spread? Was it by One-Man, or by the individual sins of everyone?
You thanked me for the scripture, and the answer was there. Are you sure you read it? it says BECAUSE all sinned.
And maybe the issue here is which meaning of death are we talking about?
The second death in the lake of fire
The death by which we leave our bodies
Spiritual death
Metaphoric death that is the end of something.

What are you thinking?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You thanked me for the scripture, and the answer was there. Are you sure you read it? it says BECAUSE all sinned.

You really are full of yourself, aren't you?
You find it incapable to believe you could EVER be wrong in your understanding of ANYTHING.
And anyone who "dares" disagree with you must be ignorant, right?


A.T. Robertson, a Greek scholar (which is a skill YOU don't have):
"And so death passed unto all men (kai houtōs eis pantas anthrōpous diēlthen). Note use of dierchomai rather than eiserchomai, just before, second aorist active indicative in both instances. By “death” in Gen. 2:17; 3:19 physical death is meant, but in verses 17, 21 eternal death is Paul’s idea and that lurks constantly behind physical death with Paul. For that all sinned (eph’ hōi pantes hēmarton). Constative (summary) aorist active indicative of hamartanō, gathering up in this one tense the history of the race (committed sin). The transmission from Adam became facts of experience. In the old Greek eph’ hōi usually meant “on condition that,” but “because” in N.T. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 963)."


Sin wasn't transmitted from Adam "because" all sinned, which is nonsensical on both a logical framework and a temporal framework).

What Paul is saying here is that we KNOW sin was transmitted from Adam BECAUSE our experience in knowing all have sinned. If only some subgroup of mankind sinned, then it would originate in some other source, but because sin is universal, we know it originated in Adam.

"Are you sure you can read", seth, you English "scholar" you?
 
Top