If God elects people, how can He rightly punish the non-elect?

[sparkman]

I am not sure of the exact teachings of Pelagius, but with regard to what is taught as Pelagianism now, it is a heresy.

Like I said, most of them are open theists and hold sinless perfectionism.

In addition, anyone that denies original sin, justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, and penal substitutionary atonement has pretty well gutted the Gospel message.

By the way, Arminians also affirm justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness, so to deny either doctrine places one outside of the realms of evangelical theology. This is not a Calvinism vs. Arminian debate. It is an evangelical vs. non-evangelical difference. Pelagians are not evangelical Christians.

Too late. I have been a Calvinist myself and studied its theology extensively and found it unscriptural. According to the dispute of Pelagius, that godly misrepresented man who was exhonerated, and the real heretic Augustine, he believed in prevenient grace and did not lift up man.

 

[atwhatcost]

Too late. I have been a Calvinist myself and studied its theology extensively and found it unscriptural. According to the dispute of Pelagius, that godly misrepresented man who was exhonerated, and the real heretic Augustine, he believed in prevenient grace and did not lift up man.

Ever consider stop buying into some guy centuries ago got it all right in one sitting, and going back to the Bible? Considering you think there was another Bible before St. Jerome made the Vulgate, I have to ask that obvious question.

I'm a Calvinist and can see where Calvin got it wrong! I trust God's word, not John Calvin's word! Who are you trusting, since you listed three humans you don't trust? Obviously you trust some dude.

 

[Jason0047]

God elects those who endure in their faith based on his future foreknowledge of their free will choices. See 1 Peter 1:1, 2 (with a special focus on verse 2). Also, if Original Sin was not true, then that means the Righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to you when you repent of your sins and accept Him as your Savior. For in Adam... all die; And for in Christ...all shall be made alive. For what would be the purpose in having a Savior if Christ is not our substitute? Read Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Original Sin and the Imputed Righteousness of Christ is clearly taught in these chapters. To deny it, is to deny the gospel and Christ as one's Savior. Christ died for me. He died in my place. If Christ did not die for me, then who did He die for then? If Christ did not die for me, then would I not be lost? Also, just look at babies and children when they are young. They instinctively do bad things even at such ages when they do not know right from wrong yet. Folks who are truly innocent would not do anything wrong. For there are tons of passages that talk about how man is sinful. This is why he must be born again spiritually. Anyways, here is a link for a super long list of Scripture verses on man having a sinful nature inherited to him by Adam.

List of Verses on Man Inheriting Adam's Sinful Nature.


Side Note:

Please take note that I am not a Calvinist and I believe man has free will to accept or reject Jesus (Even after they have repented of their sins and accepted Him as their Savior). A believer has to choose this day (every day) in who they will serve. For OSAS (or Once Saved Always Saved) is a false doctrine. For there are many warnings in the Bible that one has to ignore in order to make OSAS work.

 

[Jason0047]

Jesus also was a baby when he came into this world. But he did not inherit Adam's sinful nature because he was born of a woman only whereby the sinful nature of Adam could not be passed on to Him. It's why Jesus had a virgin birth. For sin is passed down thru the male seed (i.e. in Adam... all die). For the curse of sin did not go into effect until Adam ate of the wrong tree. For it was only when Adam ate of the wrong fruit that caused both Adam and Eve's eyes to be opened. Jesus was the uncreated eternal Son of God made flesh and did not ever sin once (Not even as a baby or as a young child). Jesus was the only man alive who did not ever sin once ever in His life. Why because He is God. Yet, other men today have done sinful things instinctively since birth.

Now, does this mean babies go to Hell if they die? No. Most certainly not. The Scriptures say sin is not imputed where there is no Law. Seeing a baby is not aware of the Law yet, sin cannot be imputed to that baby. So Christ's sacrifice pays the price for any sin done by a baby who is unaware of the Law.

And praise be to God because of that.

 

[Skinski7]

skinski

Can you tell me which version of the scriptures was in use before the Latin Vulgate please? I am interested in what the Celtic Christians which includes Pelagius I assume used. Thanks.

The very early Christian's used the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the various regional congregations had more limited access to the Greek New Testament writings (ie. they did not have a "Bible" as we know it today).

We do not know who had access to what except in the context of who various letters were addressed to and which texts are quoted in the writings of the first century (and subsequent) Christians.

Basically they did not have a systematic theology but adhered to the preaching of repentance proven by deeds and a faith that works by love. They taught that a Christian must be walking in righteousness otherwise they were not a Christian. We see this in the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, etc.

Here is an example from First Clement...

1Clem 5:1
But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation.
1Clem 5:2
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.
1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.
1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,
1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.
1Clem 6:1
Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the
elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims
of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves.
1Clem 6:2
By reason of jealousy women being persecuted, after that they had
suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dircae, safely
reached the goal in the race of faith, and received a noble reward,
feeble though they were in body.
1Clem 6:3
Jealousy hath estranged wives from their husbands and changed the
saying of our father Adam, This now is bone of my bones and flesh
of my flesh.
1Clem 6:4
Jealousy and strife have overthrown great cities and uprooted great
nations.
1Clem 7:1
These things, dearly beloved, we write, not only as admonishing you,
but also as putting ourselves in remembrance. For we are in the same
lists, and the same contest awaiteth us.
1Clem 7:2
Wherefore let us forsake idle and vain thoughts; and let us conform
to the glorious and venerable rule which hath been handed down to us;
1Clem 7:3
and let us see what is good and what is pleasant and what is
acceptable in the sight of Him that made us.
1Clem 7:4
Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how
precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation
it won for the whole world the grace of repentance.
1Clem 7:5
Let us review all the generations in turn, and learn how from
generation to generation the Master hath given a place for repentance
unto them that desire to turn to Him.
1Clem 7:6
Noah preached repentance, and they that obeyed were saved.
1Clem 7:7
Jonah preached destruction unto the men of Nineveh; but they,
repenting of their sins, obtained pardon of God by their
supplications and received salvation, albeit they were aliens from
God.
1Clem 8:1
The ministers of the grace of God through the Holy Spirit spake
concerning repentance.
1Clem 8:2
Yea and the Master of the universe Himself spake concerning
repentance with an oath:
1Clem 8:3
for, as I live saith the Lord, I desire not the death of the
sinner, so much as his repentance,
1Clem 8:4
and He added also a merciful judgment: Repent ye, O house of
Israel, of your iniquity; say unto the sons of My people, Though
your sins reach from the earth even unto the heaven, and though
they be redder than scarlet and blacker than sackcloth, and ye turn
unto Me with your whole heart and say Father, I will give ear unto
you as unto a holy people.
1Clem 8:5
And in another place He saith on this wise, Wash, be ye clean. Put
away your iniquities from your souls out of My sight. Cease from
your iniquities; learn to do good; seek out judgment; defend him
that is wronged: give judgment for the orphan, and execute
righteousness for the widow; and come and let us reason together,
saith He; and though your sins be as crimson, I will make them
white as snow; and though they be as scarlet, I will make them
white as wool. And if ye be willing and will hearken unto Me, ye
shall eat the good things of the earth; but if ye be not willing,
neither hearken unto Me, a sword shall devour you; for the mouth of
the Lord hath spoken these things.
1Clem 8:6
Seeing then that He desireth all His beloved to be partakers of
repentance, He confirmed it by an act of His almighty will.
1Clem 9:1
Wherefore let us be obedient unto His excellent and glorious will;
and presenting ourselves as suppliants of His mercy and goodness, let
us fall down before Him and betake ourselves unto His compassions,
forsaking the vain toil and the strife and the jealousy which leadeth
unto death.
1Clem 9:2
Let us fix our eyes on them that ministered perfectly unto His
excellent glory.
1Clem 9:3
Let us set before us Enoch, who being found righteous in obedience
was translated, and his death was not found.
1Clem 9:4
Noah, being found faithful, by his ministration preached regeneration
unto the world, and through him the Master saved the living creatures
that entered into the ark in concord.
1Clem 10:1
Abraham, who was called the 'friend,' was found faithful in that he
rendered obedience unto the words of God.
1Clem 10:2
He through obedience went forth from his land and from his kindred
and from his father's house, that leaving a scanty land and a feeble
kindred and a mean house he might inherit the promises of God.

Obedience to God is a given in their writings. They NEVER excuse ongoing sin but instead uphold walking in righteousness, purity and truth.

There was no talk of Romans wretches (in the context of a present Christian walk) or chiefs of sinners (in the context of a present Christian walk) until after Augustine in the fourth century. The early church simply did not argue in favour of sin. They clearly upheld free will and personal responsibility which is why so many later theologians have denounced them as ignorant, error prone, and even as heretics.

Regarding Pelagius, he clearly utilised both Greek and Latin sources for he was well educated and fluent in both languages and thus he was able to compare.

Here is something worth reading for some historical context...

Pelagius's Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul
https://archive.org/stream/pelagiussexposit01pela/pelagiussexposit01pela_djvu.txt

Augustine, it seems, was not comfortable with the Greek language which explains why he utilised the Latin translations and not the Greek. Augustine did uphold the Greek as being even more accurate than the Hebrew, it appears he just could not utilise it effectively.

 

[Skinski7]

On a roll this morning - aren't you Skinski!

Simply put: That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. There are your two natures of man. One (flesh) is in the likeness of Adam and has a fallen nature. (Gen. 5:3) One (Spirit) is in the likeness of God and is partaker of the divine nature. (2 Peter 1:4) The flesh profiteth nothing (John 6:63); it cannot please God (Rom. 8:8) and in it is no good thing. (Rom. 7:18) The flesh is the "old man nature"; the spirit is the "new man nature".

The flesh is a BASE NATURE and has nothing to do with being "born guilty" or being "born condemned" or being "born disabled from being able to yield to God," all of which the doctrine of Original Sin teaches.

The error of Original Sin teaches that when Adam sinned that it somehow changed the nature of all his descendents. When the Bible speaks of the flesh it is speaking of the natural or carnal passions and when it speaks of how the "flesh cannot please God" the context is of one "walking in a base state" as opposed to yielding to the Spirit of God. It is not speaking of some sin infection wrought by Adam and then passed down whereby an individual lacks the ability to obey God.

Original Sin = Inability.

Inability = Man is not responsible because man can not DO what God commands man to do.

Augustine redefined grace to be an "offset to inability."

The Bible does not teach dual natures existing in man at the same time. The Bible teaches that we are present in flesh bodies by which we are tempted.

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The "lusts of the flesh" are not a "sinful nature." The translators of the NIV often translate Sarx as "sinful nature" because their theology was rooted in the dualism of Augustine. Sarx simply means flesh and the context is the natural passions, not a sinful nature.

Jesus was in the same flesh that we are in and was tempted in all points as we are. The difference with Jesus is that He never CHOSE to sin. Nor was Jesus ever ignorant of righteousness for He was born of the very Spirit of God and abided in it at all times. We are clearly born neutral and ignorant BUT NOT DISABLED.

The flesh body is not a nature, a nature is a predisposition to do something and is related to our constitution. This is why the word nature in the Greek means...

G5449
φύσις
phusis
foo'-sis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).

Thayer's offers even more clarity...

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 5449: φύσις

φύσις, φύσεως, ἡ (from φύω, which see, as Latin nature from nascor, ingenium from geno, gigno), from Homer, Odyssey 10, 303 down; nature, i. e. a. the nature of things, the force, laws, order, of nature; as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse: ὁ, ἡ, τό παρά φύσιν, that which is contrary to nature's laws, against nature,

Romans 1:26 (οἱ παρά φύσιν τῇ Ἀφροδιτη χρώμενοι, Athen. 13, p. 605; ὁ παιδεραστής ... τήν παρά φύσιν ἡδονήν διώκει, Philo de spec. legg. i., § 7); as opposed to what has been produced by the art of man: οἱ κατά φύσιν κλάδοι, the natural branches, i. e. branches by the operation of nature, Romans 11:21, 24 (Winer's Grammar, 193 (182)), contrasted with οἱ ἐγκεντρισθεντες παρά φύσιν, contrary to the plan of nature, cf. 24; ἡ κατά φύσιν ἀγριέλαιος, ibid.; as opposed to what is imaginary or fictitious: οἱ μή φύσει ὄντες θεοί, who are gods not by nature, but according to the mistaken opinion of the Gentiles (λεγόμενοι θεοί, 1 Corinthians 8:5), Galatians 4:8; nature, i. e. natural sense, native conviction or knowledge, as opposed to what is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law: ἡ φύσις (i. e. the native sense of propriety) διδάσκει τί, 1 Corinthians 11:14; φύσει ποιεῖν τά τοῦ ναμου, natura magistra, guided by their natural sense of what is right and proper, Romans 2:14.


b. birth, physical origin: ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι, we so far as our origin is considered, i. e. by birth, are Jews, Galatians 2:15 (φύσει νεώτερος, Sophocles O. C. 1295; τῷ μέν φύσει πατρίς, τόν δέ νόμῳ πολίτην ἐπεποιηντο, Isocrates Evagr. 21; φύσει βάρβαροι ὄντες, νόμῳ δέ Ἕλληνες, Plato, Menex., p. 245 d.; cf. Grimm on Wis. 13:1); ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία, who by birth is uncircumcised or a Gentile (opposed to one who, although circumcised, has made himself a Gentile by his iniquity and spiritual perversity), Romans 2:27.

c. a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature: ἦμεν φύσει τέκνα ὀργῆς, by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God, Ephesians 2:3 (this meaning is evident from the preceding context, and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought through Christ by the blessing of divine grace; φύσει πρός τάς κολασεις ἐπιεικῶς ἔχουσιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, Josephus, Antiquities 13, 10, 6. (Others (see Meyer) would lay more stress here upon the constitution in which this 'habitual course of evil' has its origin, whether that constitution be regarded (with some) as already developed at birth, or (better) as undeveloped; cf. Aristotle, pol. 1, 2, p. 1252{b}, 32f οἷον ἕκαστον ἐστι τῆς γενέσεως τελεσθεισης, ταύτην φαμέν τήν φύσιν εἶναι ἑκάστου, ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου, etc.; see the examples in Bonitz's index under the word. Cf. Winers Grammar, § 31, 6a.)).

d. the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: φύσις θηρίων (the natural strength, ferocity and intractability of beasts (A. V. (every) kind of beasts)), ἡ φύσις ἡ ἀνθρωπίνῃ (the ability, art, skill, of men, the qualities which are proper to their nature and necessarily emanate from it), James 3:7 (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 31, 10); θείας κοινωνοί φύσεως, (the holiness distinctive of the divine nature is specially referred to), 2 Peter 1:4 (Ἀμενωφει ... θείας δοκουντι μετεσχηκεναι φύσεως κατά τέ σοφίαν καί πρόγνωσιν τῶν, ἐσομενων, Josephus, contra Apion 1, 26).

The theologians who uphold Original Sin NEVER show people that definition, especially as it relates to both Eph 2:3 and Rom 2:14. What the theologians do is snip Eph 2:3 and use it as a proof text for an inherited sin nature (note: Eph 2:3 says NOTHING of birth) whilst they IGNORE the use of Phusis in Rom 2:14.

Phusis can go either way, a natural disposition to do evil or a natural disposition to do good. CHOICE IS INVOLVED NOT INABILITY.



Summary - The issue here (as raised in the OP) is ABILITY versus INABILITY to obey God. If man is unable to obey God due to lacking independent free agency by where he can CHOOSE to yield to the known light of God or not then man is not responsible. If man is not responsible then it would be unjust for a God to hold him accountable for deeds that he could not do otherwise.

It is simple logic and Biblical.

 

[gb9]

no, summary- pleagianism. false teaching. the sin nature is real. I believe the Bible. you believe a disgraced monk. easy choice.

 

[Skinski7]

God elects those who endure in their faith based on his future foreknowledge of their free will choices.

You contradict yourself Jason.

Out of one side of your mouth you speak of "free will choices" and then out of the other you speak of...

Jesus was the only man alive who did not ever sin once ever in His life. Why because He is God. Yet, other men today have done sinful things instinctively since birth.

How can you possibly uphold free will if you claim babies sin from their very birth?

You have thrown CHOICE out the window as it pertains to sin. You cannot logically have it both ways.

You cannot teach that, on the one hand, you are responsible for your sin due to choice and then, on the other hand, teach that all people sin due to lack of choice. Cannot you see the logical inconsistency in your thinking?


You conclude...

...if Original Sin was not true, then that means the Righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to you when you repent of your sins and accept Him as your Savior.

Where does the Bible teach that the "righteousness of Christ" is imputed to you when you accept Jesus as your saviour?

The Bible does not teach that. The Bible teaches that God reckons FAITH ITSELF as righteousness (Rom 4:5). Why don't you teach what the Bible teaches? Why do you instead teach what the Reformers taught with their "moral transfer" doctrine?

Original Sin is not true nor is the Reformed doctrine of "imputed righteousness of Christ." Impure means RECKON and God simply counts the FAITH of the faithful as righteousness because it is representative of a pure heart. In other words God does not count our past sins against us if we have truly repented and are walking faithfully. There is no "imputed righteousness of Christ." Quote me anywhere in the Bible which teaches that the "righteousness of Christ" is imputed to anyone. It is not in the Bible, the Bible specifically says...

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Faith is counted for righteousness. What kind of faith? A faith that WALKS (Rom 4:12), a faith that establishes the law of God in the heart (Rom 3:31), a faith that works by love (Gal 5:6). Why not teach that instead of the traditions of men?

You go on...

For what would be the purpose in having a Savior if Christ is not our substitute?

I have shown you before but you don't seem to care Jason.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

The Bible teaches that Jesus died in order to cleanse our conscience from the guilt associated with our past sins. This guilt is purged via entering into the New Covenant with God via the blood of Jesus Christ, the covenant which Jesus put into force through His death.

The death of Jesus Christ has NOTHING to do with this false doctrine of Penal Substitution. Nor does it have anything to do with the false doctrines of Moral Government or Satisfaction (which are all substitutional).

The substitution for the wrath you deserve is your REPENTANCE AND FAITH which is something God has granted you through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In other words, without the New Covenant there would be no means to find reconciliation with God because God would not have provided such a means.

Jesus did not die as your substitute. Jesus died on your behalf and Jesus died as your example. A substitute is not an example, a substitute is a replacement. Jesus is not your replacement. Jesus is your LEADER and you are to FOLLOW.

Read Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Original Sin and the Imputed Righteousness of Christ is clearly taught in these chapters.

Where? Where is it clearly taught?

Where in those chapters does it teach that the "righteousness of Christ" is credited to your account?

Where in those chapters does it teach that Jesus died as your substitute?

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Do you really think your guilt is associated with simply BEING BORN because Adam chose to sin? Adam sinned for you and you are guilty because of that? Adam was your disobedience substitute? Adam disobeyed for you?

Do you really think your righteousness is associated with simply ACCEPTING JESUS because Jesus obeyed God? Jesus obeyed for you and you are righteous because of that? Jesus was your obedience substitute? Jesus obeyed for you?

That is EXACTLY how "Original Sin" and the "Imputed Righteousness of Christ" doctrines utilise that verse. How can you be so easily deceived by such nonsense Jason?

Judgement came upon all through Adam in the context of EXAMPLE. Adam led the way in sinning against God and ALL HAVE SINNED and thus all have wrought their own condemnation.

om 5:12 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:

Not that "all have sinned IN Adam" as Augustine believed due to the error in the Vulgate, no, rather that all have sinned either like Adam (disobedience to a direct command) or sinned unlike Adam (disobedience to the light of conscience).

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Original Sin is not taught in Romans chapter 5. People just say it is and then others repeat it like mindless parrots.

To deny it, is to deny the gospel and Christ as one's Savior.

Is that so?

To deny that which is not in the Bible is to deny the Gospel? Where did Jesus teach Original Sin and where did Jesus teach that His righteousness would be credited to your account? Jesus taught...

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus said "YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" and the context was clearly related to HEART PURITY. You don't preach the Gospel Jason, you preach a perverted message premised on the teachings of men and then somehow try and mix "obedience to God" into it. You need to count it all dung (like Paul) and start fresh.

Christ died for me. He died in my place. If Christ did not die for me, then who did He die for then? If Christ did not die for me, then would I not be lost?

Jesus Christ dying FOR YOU does not equate to DYING IN YOUR PLACE. When Jesus...

Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

... He did not do that as your substitute because you could not do it. Only Jesus was spotless and without blame, only Jesus was worthy.

Jesus Christ dying FOR YOU does not equate to DYING IN YOUR PLACE. When Jesus...

1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1Pe 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

... He did not do that as your substitute but did it as an EXAMPLE that you might FOLLOW IN HIS STEPS.

Joh 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Joh 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
Joh 12:26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

Jesus did not teach substitution anywhere and Jesus PREACHED THE GOSPEL.

Also, just look at babies and children when they are young. They instinctively do bad things even at such ages when they do not know right from wrong yet.

Babies are born subject to the natural passions of the flesh. They are not sinners.

Sinning unto death involves REBELLION TO GOD and REBELLION REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE AND CHOICE.

I bet Jesus did the wrong thing in ignorance as a baby. I bet Jesus pooped his pants. I bet Jesus made a mess as an infant. I bet Jesus cried because he wanted something. Yet when the intellect of Jesus developed enough where He was aware of the light of conscience He did not CHOOSE to rebel against God and that is why He is worthy. If there is no CHOICE then vice and virtue have zero meaning. Is that not self evident?

Folks who are truly innocent would not do anything wrong.

Jesus never pooped His pants as an infant? Do you think somehow Jesus, as an infant, was not subject to the natural passions of the flesh like any other baby?

For there are tons of passages that talk about how man is sinful.

There are none that teach that man is BORN WICKED AND CONDEMNED.

This is why he must be born again spiritually.

We must be born again because God is Spirit and to abide with God we must walk in the Spirit. The necessity of the new birth has nothing to do with being "born a sinner." We are born carnal subject to base passions, we have to rise above that through CHOICE and bring our bodies into subjection to God.

Anyways, here is a link for a super long list of Scripture verses on man having a sinful nature inherited to him by Adam.

List of Verses on Man Inheriting Adam's Sinful Nature.

Here is the recommended reading list from your link...

Recommended Reading

• Pink, A.W. Our Accountability to God (formerly Gleanings From the Scriptures: Man's Total Depravity).
• Boettner, Lorraine. Total Inability. In The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.
• Boston, Thomas. The State of Nature. In Human Nature in its Fourfold State.
• Calvin, John. Book 2, Chapters 1-5. In Institutes of the Christian Religion.
• Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will.
• Edwards, Jonathan. Freedom of the Will (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 1).

A whose who list of people who all argued in favour of being able to sin and not surely die.

Side Note:

Please take note that I am not a Calvinist...

You might as well be because your theology is established on the exact same foundation and thus you are really in opposition to yourself. Not only that but you blatantly promote Calvinist material.

You really need to stop posting an reconsider your position Jason. You are under a strong delusion.

 

[Gr8grace]

Based on this verse, I don't understand how God can punish those who are not elect.

Ephesians 1:4-5 (KJV) "According as he hath chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"

So if He has chosen some, then that means that nobody else has the ability to get saved now, right? But how can they be blamed if they don't have the ability to do good (since they are born sinners), or accept Jesus' sacrifice to cover them?

Some of you might say that they still deserve to go to hell because they have chosen to sin against God, but because of the conditions we've been put in, it's impossible not to. No one chose to be born. None of us chose to be put into a life where it's impossible to stop doing the very thing that condemns them. But even if they're given the gospel, it doesn't matter because they weren't made to be saved and go to Heaven anyway.

Thanks to everyone who responds.

We need to understand that election and predestination is for believers only. Election and predestination are rewards AFTER we believe.

Before the foundation of the world, He chose that we would have wonderful grace gifts in the Church.

We are not elected to salvation, we are elected to 40 or more Grace gifts when we believe.

We are not predestined to believe, our gift of adoption was predestined to all believers. This adoption is the Roman custom of a Aristocrat(Royalty) naming someone other than his own son to be an heir. So we are predestined to royalty through our adoption in Christ. We are not predestined to be saved.

God is Just when it comes to judging His creation(us.) But righteousness goes hand in hand with Justice. So He judges in righteousness.

He gave everybody a conscience, and He gave everybody the Cross. He judges men based upon what we do with His Son on the Cross.

Psalm 9:8~~New International Version
He rules the world in righteousness and judges the peoples with equity.

New Living Translation
He will judge the world with justice and rule the nations with fairness.

English Standard Version
and he judges the world with righteousness; he judges the peoples with uprightness.

New American Standard Bible
And He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity.

 

[Hepzibah]

Pelagius's Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul
https://archive.org/stream/pelagiuss...1pela_djvu.txt

Thanks skinski I appreciate that link very much indeed and is the information that I have been searching for, for a long time. What I have known about Pelagius up till now has been centered on his dispute with Augustine over the interpretation of Romans 7 and which I have found to be grossly misunderstood. I just wondered what he ordinary Celtic believer used for scripture in Britain and Ireland, who did not have Latin or Greek. I certainly wish I had more of these two languages as well as more of French for reading the link you provided.

There was no talk of Romans wretches (in the context of a present Christian walk) or chiefs of sinners (in the context of a present Christian walk) until after Augustine in the fourth century. The early church simply did not argue in favour of sin. They clearly upheld free will and personal responsibility which is why so many later theologians have denounced them as ignorant, error prone, and even as heretics.

skinski, I believe that you are mistaken here. There is a third interpretation which I believe that Pelagius taught. Augustine started this new interpretation of the sinning believer as normal in response to his debate with Pelagius, so according to your understanding that there are only two versions, why would they be debating if they were on the same page?

Like I said, most of them are open theists and hold sinless perfectionism.

I am no open theist but certainly believe in sinless perfection like Pelagius but he is grossly misunderstood to be saying that man does not need Christ as saviour.

Ever consider stop buying into some guy centuries ago got it all right in one sitting, and going back to the Bible? Considering you think there was another Bible before St. Jerome made the Vulgate, I have to ask that obvious question.

I'm a Calvinist and can see where Calvin got it wrong! I trust God's word, not John Calvin's word! Who are you trusting, since you listed three humans you don't trust? Obviously you trust some dude.

No I trust in the Holy Spirit's revelation of Romans 7 to me, and not just by mental assent opf a doctrine but as a reality when He made me walk in purity of heart when my sin nature was put to death.

 

[Hepzibah]

You might as well be because your theology is established on the exact same foundation and thus you are really in opposition to yourself. Not only that but you blatantly promote Calvinist material.

You really need to stop posting an reconsider your position Jason. You are under a strong delusion

Yes that ^^^^^

 

[Skinski7]

I am not sure of the exact teachings of Pelagius, but with regard to what is taught as Pelagianism now, it is a heresy.

Pelagius is misrepresented by people who have never read him. You even admit to not being sure of his teachings and yet you use this term "Pelagianism" frequently.

I never use the term "Pelagianism" to refer to what I believe because "Pelagianism" is a strawman construct invented by false teachers which is often used to negate dealing with specifics by instead dismissing by association. It is far easier to call someone a heretic and simply dismiss them without actually dealing with the specifics of what they say. This is what the Pharisees did to Jesus. The theologians today are not really much different to the Pharisees in the time of Jesus.

Anyone can claim that...

anyone that denies original sin, justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, and penal substitutionary atonement has pretty well gutted the Gospel message.

Yet such a statement cannot be substantiated.

I have presented voluminous references to historical material which absolutely prove where the doctrines of Original Sin, Imputed Righteousness of Christ, Penal Substitution, all have their origin. In general people do not care because they want to believe that which they are emotionally attached.

Paul knew that massive deception would infiltrate nominal Christianity and he warned about it with tears every day and night for three years.

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Peter warned of those who twist the words of Paul and the other scriptures in order to uphold the error of the wicked.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

He made this warning immediately after stating...

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

A teaching all but ignored today because so many believe it is impossible to found without spot and blameless, in peace, all within the context of walking in all holiness and godliness. Preach that today and you will be maligned as a Pelagian heretic who thinks one does not need Jesus.

Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. That is what Jesus taught.

Is your heart pure?

 

[sparkman]

I specified that those who deny such core doctrines are heretical, regardless of the source of their teaching.

Denying them guts the gospel message.

Each of those doctrines can be systematically proven from Scripture. The fact is that you won't acknowledge them as true even if they are proven, so there's no use beating a dead horse.

By the way, receipt of a new nature, called regeneration, is the orthodox teaching of the Church and this involves a change in desires. God sanctifies the believer over time. So while imputed righteousness is correct, the individual who is saved also goes through a sanctification process. He works from the salvation which is already given...

I would encourage everyone to avoid the teachings of this man. Pelagianism is a massive error and deception. Sinless perfectionism is only one if it's many issues. In essence, it denies that Christ was our substitutionary atonement and that is damning.

Pelagius is misrepresented by people who have never read him. You even admit to not being sure of his teachings and yet you use this term "Pelagianism" frequently.

I never use the term "Pelagianism" to refer to what I believe because "Pelagianism" is a strawman construct invented by false teachers which is often used to negate dealing with specifics by instead dismissing by association. It is far easier to call someone a heretic and simply dismiss them without actually dealing with the specifics of what they say. This is what the Pharisees did to Jesus. The theologians today are not really much different to the Pharisees in the time of Jesus.

Anyone can claim that...



Yet such a statement cannot be substantiated.

I have presented voluminous references to historical material which absolutely prove where the doctrines of Original Sin, Imputed Righteousness of Christ, Penal Substitution, all have their origin. In general people do not care because they want to believe that which they are emotionally attached.

Paul knew that massive deception would infiltrate nominal Christianity and he warned about it with tears every day and night for three years.

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Peter warned of those who twist the words of Paul and the other scriptures in order to uphold the error of the wicked.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

He made this warning immediately after stating...

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

A teaching all but ignored today because so many believe it is impossible to found without spot and blameless, in peace, all within the context of walking in all holiness and godliness. Preach that today and you will be maligned as a Pelagian heretic who thinks one does not need Jesus.

Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. That is what Jesus taught.

Is your heart pure?

 

[Skinski7]

skinski, I believe that you are mistaken here. There is a third interpretation which I believe that Pelagius taught. Augustine started this new interpretation of the sinning believer as normal in response to his debate with Pelagius, so according to your understanding that there are only two versions, why would they be debating if they were on the same page?

Here is what Pelagius wrote about Romans 7:14-25...

14Now we know that the law is spiritual. Which enjoins spiritual things. [Now the argument proceeds in the person of one who is of legal age. For one who says that the law is spiritual condemns himself when he sins of his own will. This is why he added: 'But I am carnal, sold as a slave under sin.' He indicates that while he was free he sold himself as a slave to sin. For what, again, does he say?] But I am carnal. I, someone who accepts the law and is in the habit of living carnally. Sold to sin.

15For I do not understand what I do: for I do not do what I want to do, but what I hate to do I do. [Sold as if] I were resolved upon sin, so that, should I accept its advice, I make myself its slave, I of my own accord subjecting myself to it (cf. John 8:34); and now, as if drunk with the habit of sins, I do not know what I do: 'For I do not understand what I do.' Or: It should be read this way: I do not understand, therefore, that what I accept [in a way] against my will is evil.

16Ifthen I do what I do not want to do, I agree with the law that it is good. If I do not want to do the particular evil I commit, at least I agree with the law, which does not desire evil and prohibits it. But it can also be understood thus: If I sin, I myself subject myself to the severity of the law.

17however, now I no longer do it. Before it became a habit, therefore, I myself did it willingly. But sin that lives in me. It lives as a guest and as one thing in another, not as one single thing; in other words, as an accidental quality, not a natural one.

18For I know that what is good does not live in me, that is, in my flesh. He did not say: 'My flesh is not good.' For it is near to me to wish. The will is there, but not the deed, because carnal habit opposes the will. But I do not find it in myself to carry out what is good. I do not see myself doing it.

19For I do not do the good that I want, but the evil that I do not want I do. Just as if, for instance, someone who has been swearing regularly now for a long time swears even when he does not wish to.

20But if I do what I do not want to do, it is not I that does it, but sin that lives in me. Not I, because I do it [as it were] against my will, but the habit of sin, though I myself have provided myself with this compulsion.

21So then I find a law for me when I wish to do good, that evil is there with me. If I want, I find that I have a law to do good against the evil that lies near [me].

22For I delight in the law of God with the inner self. [The inner self is the rational and intelligible soul, which is in harmony with God's law, for its law is to live rationally and not to be led by the passions of the irrational animals. The outer self, on the other hand, is our body. Now its law is the wisdom of the flesh, which instructs one to eat and to drink and to enjoy other sensual pleasures. These fight against reason, and if they gain the upper hand subject it to the law of sin. For if it is the case, as some suppose, that we do what we do not want to do, he would not have said the next verse:

23But I see another law in my members, fighting against. Habitual desires, or the persuading of the enemy. The law of my mind. Namely, of natural conscience, or of the divine law, which resides in the mind. I agree to the law with the mind. And taking me prisoner for the law of sin that is in my members. In the habit of transgressions.

24What a wretched person I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? I who am held prisoner in this way--who will set me free from this fatal, corporeal habit?

25The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Grace sets free] the one whom the law could not have set free. Was Paul then not yet set free by the grace of God? This shows that [the apostle] is speaking in the person of someone else, [not in his own person]. Therefore I serve the law of God with my mind. He reviews the main points in order to bring the discussion to an end. But the law of sin with my flesh. The carnal person is, in a sense, made up of two persons and is divided within himself.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z0z1WvscKkkGr7nX-p5vj7DRYUSmhs4Csfm0aF_RsyY/edit?pli=1

The reason Pelagius opposed Augustine was because Pelagius realised that Augustine was teaching Gnostic Dualism and thus denied man's inherent ability to obey God.

Augustine presented GRACE in the context of an "inability" offset. Pelagius presented grace in a context of a "guiding light."

Those who misrepresent Pelagius generally teach that Pelagius denied grace. The truth though is that Pelagius denied Augustinian Grace, not grace itself.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

The flesh is a BASE NATURE and has nothing to do with being "born guilty" or being "born condemned" or being "born disabled from being able to yield to God," all of which the doctrine of Original Sin teaches.

The base nature of man is to sin.

The error of Original Sin teaches that when Adam sinned that it somehow changed the nature of all his descendents. When the Bible speaks of the flesh it is speaking of the natural or carnal passions and when it speaks of how the "flesh cannot please God" the context is of one "walking in a base state" as opposed to yielding to the Spirit of God. It is not speaking of some sin infection wrought by Adam and then passed down whereby an individual lacks the ability to obey God.

Original Sin = Inability.

Inability = Man is not responsible because man can not DO what God commands man to do.

Augustine redefined grace to be an "offset to inability."

flesh = carnal or natural passions - the natural man, carnal man, fleshly man is a man that walks in a base state. What is a base state? One that does what their natural passions or tendencies lead them to do. How does a 3 year old know how to lie? When you ask a three year old if they took a cookie and ate the cookie . . . they will answer no. Natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit. Does a natural man know to do good or evil? Yes . . . most people have some type of moral compass; for you can find people not born again who know to do good and those that have great compassion for others. When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that knowledge was passed on. The difference between a Christian - spirit filled believer - is that now they have the Spirit of God and Christ helping them in their decisions for the choices they make. There is NOT an INABILITY to not do good but that ABILITY to do good to walk in the Spirit comes from God. Does man allow his flesh to dominate over the Spirit? At times that does happen but man is still responsible for the choices he makes - rather in truth or in error.

The Bible does not teach dual natures existing in man at the same time. The Bible teaches that we are present in flesh bodies by which we are tempted.

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The "lusts of the flesh" are not a "sinful nature." The translators of the NIV often translate Sarx as "sinful nature" because their theology was rooted in the dualism of Augustine. Sarx simply means flesh and the context is the natural passions, not a sinful nature.

Again the "natural passions of man" is to sin. The Bible doesn't teach the two natures of man? That which is born of the flesh is flesh = base characteristics of man. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit - Spiritual characteristics of man. The flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit lust against the flesh for these are contrary the one to the other (Gal. 5:17) = flesh vs. Spirit - for I delight in the law of God after the inward man (Spirit) but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. The conflict between the flesh and the Spirit.

Jesus was in the same flesh that we are in and was tempted in all points as we are. The difference with Jesus is that He never CHOSE to sin. Nor was Jesus ever ignorant of righteousness for He was born of the very Spirit of God and abided in it at all times. We are clearly born neutral and ignorant BUT NOT DISABLED.

Jesus Christ was not born of a man - the seed that conceived him did not come from a man and therefore the sin nature was not imparted unto him. God created the seed in the woman by which Jesus Christ was conceived. "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and "her seed". (Gen. 3:15) [Man usually carries the "seed"]

The flesh body is not a nature, a nature is a predisposition to do something and is related to our constitution. This is why the word nature in the Greek means...

G5449
φύσις
phusis
foo'-sis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).

Thayer's offers even more clarity...

The theologians who uphold Original Sin NEVER show people that definition, especially as it relates to both Eph 2:3 and Rom 2:14. What the theologians do is snip Eph 2:3 and use it as a proof text for an inherited sin nature (note: Eph 2:3 says NOTHING of birth) whilst they IGNORE the use of Phusis in Rom 2:14. Phusis can go either way, a natural disposition to do evil or a natural disposition to do good. CHOICE IS INVOLVED NOT INABILITY.

"a nature is a predisposition to do something and is related to our constitution" - a nature is a predisposition - natural man predisposed to sin; we all have the knowledge of good and evil and we all can make a choice to do one or the other - it is just that man's predisposition is to choose evil. . . . we are by nature the children of wrath. Again, how does a 3 year old know how to lie? When you ask a three year old if they took a cookie and ate the cookie . . . they will answer no.

The "flesh" (old man nature, carnal mind, natural man) has the tendency to choose to steal, covet, be angry, be bitter, commit adultery (fornication), commit idolatry, etc. without a second thought . . . but once a man of the flesh is born again and partakes of the divine nature - although still living in the flesh, NOW there are two natures living within him and therein lies the conflict - Does this excuse the acts of a man once he is born again? NOPE . . . Does this mean that the man in the flesh but yet has partaken of the divine nature is INABLE to make sound decisions (choices)? NOPE . . . Because now he has the holy spirit within him to help him in his decisions. Is there still conflict between the flesh and the Spirit? Scripture says there is . . . .
Summary - The issue here (as raised in the OP) is ABILITY versus INABILITY to obey God. If man is unable to obey God due to lacking independent free agency by where he can CHOOSE to yield to the known light of God or not then man is not responsible. If man is not responsible then it would be unjust for a God to hold him accountable for deeds that he could not do otherwise.

It is simple logic and Biblical.[/QUOTE]
When man hears the word of God - man has the ABILITY to believe what he has heard . . . man has the ABILITY to chose to believe in the only begotten Son of God - man has been given a brain with the ABILITY to reason . . .

Does man KNOW the light of God without being born of the Spirit?

 

[Skinski7]

I specified that those who deny such core doctrines are heretical, regardless of the source of their teaching.

Denying them guts the gospel message.

That is your assertion and it has no basis. None of those things were taught in early Christianity and most of them were not even taught until 400 years ago.

Each of those doctrines can be systematically proven from Scripture.

Systematic theology is the problem. Systematic theology takes snippets of scripture and removes them from their context and the result is a systematic system of error which teaches the very opposite of what Jesus actually taught. This is why I can quote the very words of Jesus all day long to you and you will simply ignore them.

I'll raise the issue of heart purity and you'll just ignore it in favour of a petition to the doctrines of a systematic theology invented by men.

The Gospel in your mind consists of "confess, trust and receive" by which an ongoing wicked state is cloaked by a provision you think Jesus enacted. Thus ongoing wicked deeds wrought from an impure heart are uncondemnable because you think "Jesus paid the fine due to them." You also think that Jesus obeyed in your place and that His track record is credited to you and that this serves to cloak your manifest wicked state.

Thus when I teach that we actually have to HEAR AND DO, in your mind it is "adding to the provision" provided what you think was "Jesus finished work on the cross."

The religion you believe is a complete fabrication and Jesus didn't teach anything like it and that is why if one is to go through all your posts they won't find anything to do with HEARING AND DOING as being mandatory, even though HEAR AND DO is what Jesus taught we must do if the house we build is to stand.

Jesus taught a very different message to that which the modern institutional church denominations teach today.

 

[oldhermit]

Based on this verse, I don't understand how God can punish those who are not elect.

Ephesians 1:4-5 (KJV) "According as he hath chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"

So if He has chosen some, then that means that nobody else has the ability to get saved now, right? But how can they be blamed if they don't have the ability to do good (since they are born sinners), or accept Jesus' sacrifice to cover them?

Some of you might say that they still deserve to go to hell because they have chosen to sin against God, but because of the conditions we've been put in, it's impossible not to. No one chose to be born. None of us chose to be put into a life where it's impossible to stop doing the very thing that condemns them. But even if they're given the gospel, it doesn't matter because they weren't made to be saved and go to Heaven anyway.

Thanks to everyone who responds.

People are not saved because they are the 'elect', they are the elect because they are saved.

 

[sparkman]

Every cult tries to teach that traditional Christianity is in massive error. Pelagianism is no different.

Read the book of Romans. It deals a death blow to Pelagianism.

Read all of the verses regarding Christ being our propitiation for sin. Think about the meaning behind the animal sacrifices which pointed to Jesus Christ as our ultimate sin sacrifice.

A believer does endeavor to resist sin, but incidences of sin continue to occur. I John 1 is clear on this. For those who claim they don't have incidences of sin after salvation, they are liars or deceived. Take your choice. It's the clear word of Scripture.

That is your assertion and it has no basis. None of those things were taught in early Christianity and most of them were not even taught until 400 years ago.

Systematic theology is the problem. Systematic theology takes snippets of scripture and removes them from their context and the result is a systematic system of error which teaches the very opposite of what Jesus actually taught. This is why I can quote the very words of Jesus all day long to you and you will simply ignore them.

I'll raise the issue of heart purity and you'll just ignore it in favour of a petition to the doctrines of a systematic theology invented by men.

The Gospel in your mind consists of "confess, trust and receive" by which an ongoing wicked state is cloaked by a provision you think Jesus enacted. Thus ongoing wicked deeds wrought from an impure heart are uncondemnable because you think "Jesus paid the fine due to them." You also think that Jesus obeyed in your place and that His track record is credited to you and that this serves to cloak your manifest wicked state.

Thus when I teach that we actually have to HEAR AND DO, in your mind it is "adding to the provision" provided what you think was "Jesus finished work on the cross."

The religion you believe is a complete fabrication and Jesus didn't teach anything like it and that is why if one is to go through all your posts they won't find anything to do with HEARING AND DOING as being mandatory, even though HEAR AND DO is what Jesus taught we must do if the house we build is to stand.

Jesus taught a very different message to that which the modern institutional church denominations teach today.

 

[ChrisHill]

None of you would be having this discussion if you hadn't given death multiple definitions. If death is death, all these answers are simple.

And the only reasons to believe death has any other meaning than the obvious come from ancient pagan belief systems, not the bible.

 

[valiant]

The flesh is a BASE NATURE and has nothing to do with being "born guilty" or being "born condemned" or being "born disabled from being able to yield to God," all of which the doctrine of Original Sin teaches.

Man is born in such a state that he will not voluntarily yield to God truly in order to be made righteous. He does not want to be made righteous. It is against his very nature. He wants benefits but he does not want transformation. Thus he will call on God for many things, possibly hoping to twist His arm, but he will never call on Him to truly save him.

The error of Original Sin teaches that when Adam sinned that it somehow changed the nature of all his descendents.

But that is precisely what did happen. Man inherited a fallen nature. Cain and Abel were not restored to Adam's original state. They now knew by experience good and evil. And both died because of their sin. And all who followed them died. Why? Because they were born sinful.

When the Bible speaks of the flesh it is speaking of the natural or carnal passions and when it speaks of how the "flesh cannot please God" the context is of one "walking in a base state" as opposed to yielding to the Spirit of God. It is not speaking of some sin infection wrought by Adam and then passed down whereby an individual lacks the ability to obey God.

yes the fallen natural and carnal passions which because of their sinful nature were out of control. Fallen man cannot please God because his motives are never right. The natural man cannot please God. He is of course able at times to OBEY God.
But even when he does so his motives are wrong. Thus he does not PLEASE God.

Original Sin = Inability = Man is not responsible because man can not DO what God commands man to do.

Man IS responsible. He knows what he should do and he does not do it. Thus he brings himself under judgment. He can never excuse himself by saying 'I could not obey God'. He could have done if he had wanted to. What he could not do was fully and continually please God by obeying from the right motive.

Augustine redefined grace to be an "offset to inability."

I am really not interested in what Augustine did. I am not an Augustinian.

The Bible does not teach dual natures existing in man at the same time.

No, we have one nature. a sinful one. That is why Paul could say with such certainty, 'there is none good, not even one.' That is why Jesus had to be conceived of the Holy Spirit so that He would not inherit man's nature.

The Bible teaches that we are present in flesh bodies by which we are tempted.

That is GNOSTICISM. We ourselves are sinful, body and soul.

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

But this is spoken to Christians in whom the principle of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has made them free from the principle of sin and death. They can will to pleas God.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

So all men are lustful and all men sin and die. Sinful nature proved.

The "lusts of the flesh" are not a "sinful nature."

They are the consequences of sinful nature.

The translators of the NIV often translate Sarx as "sinful nature" because their theology was rooted in the dualism of Augustine. Sarx simply means flesh and the context is the natural passions, not a sinful nature.

But that is the point. The natural passions are out of control because man is sinful. His nature is sinful.

Jesus was in the same flesh that we are in and was tempted in all points as we are.

So you were conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin? I don't think so. He was born without the taint of sin inherited from Adam. His desires were under total control.

The difference with Jesus is that He never CHOSE to sin.

And why was that? Because He was UNIQUELY born. He had no sinful nature to drag Him down.

Nor was Jesus ever ignorant of righteousness for He was born of the very Spirit of God and abided in it at all times. We are clearly born neutral and ignorant BUT NOT DISABLED.

Then why do babies die? Death is the consequence of sin. This demonstrates that the baby is seen by God as sinful. The Bible says that the baby goes astray from the moment it is born. Why? Because it is sinful. So it IS morally disabled.

The flesh body is not a nature, a nature is a predisposition to do something and is related to our constitution

True so we cannot blame our passions for our sins. It is our predisposition to sin that causes us to sin. It comes from our 'fallen' constitution.

This is why the word nature in the Greek means... G5449 φύσις phusis foo'-sis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).

Yes it means what we are in ourselves. Our constitution, body and soul. WE are naturally sinful.

The theologians who uphold Original Sin NEVER show people that definition, especially as it relates to both Eph 2:3 and Rom 2:14. What the theologians do is snip Eph 2:3 and use it as a proof text for an inherited sin nature (note: Eph 2:3 says NOTHING of birth) whilst they IGNORE the use of Phusis in Rom 2:14.

LOL I do love these amateur linguists who tell the experts where they are wrong. Ephesians 2. demonstrates that as a consequence of our constitution we are children of wrath. Why? Because we are sinful.

Are you suggesting that our constitution has nothing to do with our birth? You are clearly a little naïve.

What does Rom 2.14 speak of? Someone who as a consequence of what he essentially is (his nature) does good. But Paul is speaking of a theoretical case. As he goes on to say. No such person exists. for 'there is NONE who does good, no not one.'
You must always consider context.

Phusis can go either way, a natural disposition to do evil or a natural disposition to do good.

True. Jesus had a natural disposition to do good. We have a natural disposition to do evil. Apart from Jesus there is 'none who does good, no not one'. Why? Because we have a natural disposition to do evil.

CHOICE IS INVOLVED NOT INABILITY.

All have choices. The One Who had the natural disposition to do good, chose good. WE who have a natural disposition to do evil choose evil.

Summary - The issue here (as raised in the OP) is ABILITY versus INABILITY to obey God.

you start with the wrong basis. the issue is not ability to obey God. The issue is ability to PLEASE God. All men at times obey God. But it is not pleasing to Him because the motive is tainted. It is only when we 'obey God from the heart' that we please Him. In other words do it with right motives.

If man is unable to obey God due to lacking independent free agency by where he can CHOOSE to yield to the known light of God or not then man is not responsible.

Man has the ability to choose. But because of his evil disposition/constitution/nature he will never choose to yield to God's light, for men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. He may sometimes obey God. But he will never please God. Because he does not obey God from the heart.

If man is not responsible then it would be unjust for a God to hold him accountable for deeds that he could not do otherwise.

But he is responsible. He does what he chooses to do. Walks in the way of evil. What he cannot do is choose to make himself good. He does not have the ability to do that because he is sinful..

It is simple logic and Biblical.

yes it is. I rest my case