|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 26, 2006 20:59:47 GMT -5
Here is a link from an Irish Orthodox Deacon that gives a basic overview of Pelagius. I think it's helpful to get a non-Reformed perspective on him. I've not read his works (most are not extant), but since he's often brought up I thought this would be useful. www.twtministries.com/articles/1_cal_arm/pelagius2.htmlHere's how it begins: "Few churchmen have been so maligned as Pelagius in the Christian West. For nearly 1,500 years, all that anyone has known of the British monk's theology has come from what his opponents said about him — and when one's opponents are as eminent as Augustine and Jerome, the chance of getting a fair hearing is not great. Consequently, it has been easy to lay all manner of pernicious heresies at Pelagius's doorstep. Only in the last couple of decades have scholars been able to recover and examine Pelagius's works directly. What they have found is that very little of what has historically passed for "Pelagian" heresy was actually taught by him." Wesley wrote of the Augustine / Pelagius controversy: "Yea, I would not affirm, that the arch-heretic of the fifth century, (as plentifully as he has been bespattered for many ages,) was not one of the holiest men of that age, not excepting St. Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him, as George Fox himself.) I verily believe, the real heresy of Pelagius was neither more nor less than this: The holding that Christians may, by the grace of God, (not without it; that I take to be a mere slander,) "go on to perfection;" or, in other words, "fulfil the law of Christ."
"But St. Augustine says:" -- When Augustine's passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit :"St. Augustine said it."
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 26, 2006 21:47:00 GMT -5
This is taken from the book "Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology" by Mildred Bangs Wynkoop
Pelagius
In A.D. 409, A British Monk by the name of Pelagius came to Rome. He was a man of high character and known for his personal sanctity. A. C. McGiffert says of him: "He was profoundly interested in Christian conduct and devoted himself to the task of improving moral conditions in the local community which seemed to him in sad need of change for the better. He had a large following and wielded considerable influences as a religious and moral leader. In accordance with the best Christian tradition he laid emphasis particularly on personal purity and abstinence from the corruptions and frivolities of the world. While he was not an extreme ascetic his teaching was rigorous and he made a strong appeal to the more serious-minded in the Church."
Pelagius felt that the undue emphasis Tertullian gave to original sin had a tendency to undermine a sense of personal responsibility. McGiffert continues: "The doctrine of original sin he wholly rejected, insisting that sin is purely voluntary and individual and cannot be transmitted. Adam's fall affected neither the souls nor the bodies of his descendants. Their flesh comes from him but not their souls, and their flesh is good as everything made by God is good. So far as their nature and abilities go, all human beings are in the same condition Adam was in the beginning. They suffer, however, from the bad example of the race as he did not. In spite of his they are free, as he was free, and are able freely to choose either good or evil. Like Adam every man creates his own character and determines his own destiny. His character belongs to him and cannot be handed on to another. Moreover his character does not determine his conduct. He is able to change his course of action whenever he so desires."
Only a few fragments of Pelagius' writings have been preserved. Most of what we know of his writings has been included in Augustine's works, and in the works of Pelagius' disciples who added rationalistic and naturalistic elements. From these sources we may summarize his teachings as follows: Adam was created mortal and death is natural expectation of all men. Death is not punishment for sin. Mans will is absolutely free. By making use of his natural ability he may choose good over evil freely. If God demanded obedience to His law he must have given man power to obey. There is no bias toward sin in the human heart-no inbred sin carried in the race. No man's sins can affect another; Adam's sin could not affect the whole race.
Pelagius was well aware that most men did sin and would suffer punishment eternally. Sinners need to be saved and Christ came to save sinners and was our Example and Inspiration for Christian living.
"Though Pelagius made so much of human ability and independence he yet talked about the necessity of divine grace, insisting that without it no one can win eternal life. He meant by divine grace, however, not some indwelling divine power or substance, but instruction and enlightenment. He even used the word grace in a still broader sense to denote free will and the gifts of reason and conscience with which all men are endowed."
Pelagius had gone to Rome but it was very doubtful that he had heard of Augustine until political problems in Rome made it agreeable for him and his follower Coelestius to go to Carthage, where Augustine's influence was very great. From 411 onward, the controversy between the two men was increasingly pronounced. Eventually Pelagius went est and made his home in Palestine, where his views became popular and where Augustine's views never could get a foothold. But Augustine carried on the controversy in the form of many published essays.
Pelagius summed up in his theological position that which became the major theological tenets of the Eastern Church. The speculative nature of Estern mind tended towards an endue emphasis on man's freedom and perfectibility. Eastern thought lost the deep sense of guilt and sin, and hense, of grace. Wiley feels that the great controversy between Augustine and Pelagius was in a much more fundamental sense "a conflict between the East and the West [as] focused in these eminent theologicans."
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Feb 8, 2006 2:32:00 GMT -5
So to you guys, someone saying you are not born in sin is okay? That's SO foundational and it is why MANY councils labeled him a heretic,
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 9, 2006 15:34:35 GMT -5
It is ok because the Bible teaches we are not born in sin. Why is this so foundational?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Feb 10, 2006 12:16:47 GMT -5
My frist post here... Hi saints!!!
(here's my 2 cents) Since Scripture doesn't say "we are born as a sinner", lets ask if it matches with GOD's character. He is just, good and perfect. To condemn a man for something His dad did, or much less, his great great great great great great great great grandfather did, wouldn't be just but ridiculous, even a child can understand that. Sure, three to four generations might be held to the sin's consequence, but not eternally condemned for it. Sin is ALWAYS spoken as something done, an action, by the individual, not a blood type or character. We are in the fallen nature to which we long to sin, but until we are of age to understand right-wrong and we choose wrong, we are not condemned as a sinner (the age of accountability). If we were, one could ask how Jesus was considered sinless being born in our same nature. And to say He wasn't, but we are, would put him in less of a state of tempation as we are and therefore remove the equality of His stand on earth to which He had victory over! He came as a man, meaning in our fallen nature, but we KNOW He was not a sinner.
We deserve Hell because we sin...
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 10, 2006 12:41:18 GMT -5
Amen brother! Excellent post!
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 10, 2006 18:47:02 GMT -5
I believe in the total depravity of mankind. We are born in sin, in that a sinful nature has been passed down to us causing us to bend towards sin as soon as we are born. This corrupted nature was not given to Christ because I believe the corruption comes from our fathers, going right back to our federal head, Adam.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 10, 2006 19:39:05 GMT -5
Armen,
If Jesus was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15), and He was born without a sin nature and we are born with a sin nature, how could He be tempted in all points as we are?
|
|
|
Post by ejuliot on Feb 10, 2006 19:47:08 GMT -5
So, I have been ignoring this whole original sin thing but every time I read a post about it this verse pops into my head... Psalm 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." I was looking at other versions (even though I only read KJV) and they all say the same thing. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by josh on Feb 10, 2006 22:16:25 GMT -5
I believe in the total depravity of mankind. We are born in sin, Now I am still working out where I stand on this issue, but if we are born in sin. Wouldn't that make Christ a sinner? After all Mary was a sinner, and Jesus still had the same DNA as His mother. Or was Christ born with a sin nature (i.e the ability to sin) but yet born without sin. If a child is born in sin, what sin has the child commited? After all we have to give an account of our own actions. So as a child what sin did he/she commit?
|
|
|
Post by josh on Feb 10, 2006 22:19:17 GMT -5
This corrupted nature was not given to Christ because I believe the corruption comes from our fathers, going right back to our federal head, Adam. Disagree 100 % Jesus did have the ability to sin. He was fully man, and fully God. If Christ didn't have the ability to sin, why then did the Spirit lead Him into the Wilderness to be tempted? The mere temptation of Christ suggests that Christ could have sin, but we see a clear cut case of Jesus submitting to God, and resisting the devil. Its not temptation if you cannot sin.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 10, 2006 23:37:48 GMT -5
ejuliot,
Psalm 58:3 like the "few" other verses taken out of context in the Bible to try to prove original sin is figurative not literal. For example, if children tell lies right from their mother's womb and estrange themselves from God then they are sinners and hence children of the devil. Then if children die they must go to hell because they are liars and sinners and that is where they go (Revelation 21:8, Matthew 25:41). I do not believe children go to hell I am just following this theory to it's logical conclusion. Of course we excuse that by saying "There is grace until the age of accountability" but no scripture to support that one.
Jesus said "except ye be converted and become as LITTLE CHILDREN you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" Matthew 18:3. Children are pure and innocent.
1 Corinthians 14:20, "Howbeit in malice be ye children..." Children are without malice.
John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb. Was he born with a sin nature?
Job 1:21, "Naked came I out of my mother's womb and naked shall I return thither..." Was Job going to return to his mother's womb when he died or was he just using a figure of speech?
Job 31:18 says Job was a guide to the widow from his mother's womb. Was he born a sinner, but yet guiding widows from his mother's womb? Or is he speaking figuratively? Of course he is speaking figuratively. David said in Psalm 71:6 that God had been his help from his mother's womb.
Hope this helps. Please see also Ecclesiastes 7:29, Deuteronomy 1:39, and Isaiah 7:15-16.
|
|
|
Post by ejuliot on Feb 11, 2006 12:46:14 GMT -5
Thanks that helps a lot. I have another question... This is just thinking about my own experience as a child. I can't remember anything till I was about 4-5 but I know that as a child I KNEW what was right and wrong and I willfully chose to do wrong. I was a VERY bad kid. My little sister knew what was right and wrong as well. I can tell when kids know they are doing wrong because they will hide or lie about doing something. Will they be judged for those sins? Does the age of accountability end when they have a knowledge of right and wrong or when they can understand the gospel. I know a lot of 20 year olds who can't understand the gospel. I am really curios about this because I have always heard the age of accountability was around 8-10, but I was was already sinning profusely when I was 5. I have spoken to young children on the streets and they will blaspheme God's name worse then grown ups do and they know it is wrong! I want to believe that children don't go to hell but it isn't making sense to me yet. I think if I died at 5 God would have had every right to send me to hell...maybe this is just me?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 11, 2006 15:33:05 GMT -5
Can God sin? I don't believe that he can. God is absolute and has absolute authority and power and therefore is not subject to what we are subject to. Christ was 100% God and 100% man, not 50% God and 50% man. Christ's humanity was tempted but the character of God could not sin. If what you are saying is true then all of us are born as perfect as Jesus. If the moral corruption of our father (Adam) is not passed down through all fathers then we are born as perfect as Jesus. If this is the case then how come no one as yet has lived perfectly just like Christ because you say that Christ COULD sin. If he COULD then he was in EXACTLY the same position as us and I don't know how he did something that is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for anyone else to do, namely living without sin.
The point I am making is that Christ was NOT born as we are because we are born corrupted and he wasn't and that he COULD not sin because of his 100% divinity, unlike us. If we are born the same and have the same character as Christ towards sin then it would be POSSIBLE for someone else to live the life that Christ lived.....but you know rightly that it is not!
The scripture is clear brethren....
God bless!
|
|
|
Post by josh on Feb 12, 2006 0:50:44 GMT -5
he COULD not sin because of his 100% divinity, Then Christ was not 100% man, and that means He has no idea about temptations. Because if He could not sin, then He could not have been tempted. How do you explain the temptation of Christ? Josh
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 12, 2006 0:52:37 GMT -5
Armen,
Sorry but I disagree with you 100%. It was possible for Jesus to sin otherwise He could not have been tempted. It is also possible for all of us not to sin, otherwise God should not send us to hell.
We are all born with the same opportunity not to sin as Jesus but we sin because we choose to or want to.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 12, 2006 0:56:06 GMT -5
ejuliot,
If a child sins after they reach the age of accountability of course they will go to hell. I do not know if it is possible for yourself or anyone else to reach the age of accountability by the age of 4-5 but if it is possible then by that age you would go to hell if you died.
Children below the age of accountability are innocent and may do things that seem to be selfish or sinful but they are not responding according to reason but to discomfort, pain, or senses.
Sin must be a choice (1 John 3:4, Romans 6:16).
|
|
|
Post by ejuliot on Feb 12, 2006 1:04:28 GMT -5
Thanks, this has been really helpful.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 12, 2006 17:38:29 GMT -5
The divine side of Christ could not sin. The humanity of Christ was tempted, but could not sin because of its union with divinity. So in essence he WAS tempted but did not sin, neither could sin. To say that we are born in the same position that Christ was born is crazy in my opinion.
I actually went to a methodist church tonight for the first time and the minister touched on the depravity of the human heart, being bent towards sin from birth. I was pleasently surprised!
Gen 8:21 "the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth" Ps 51:5 "i was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me" PS 58:3 "the wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" Ps 143:2 "for in thy sight shall no man living be justified" (it's not possible to be justified of ourselves) Ecc 7:20 "there is not a just man upon the earth that doeth good, and sinneth not" Ecc 9:3 "there is evil among all things that are done under the sun...the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil" Jer 17:9 "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" Is 64:6 "we are all as an unclean thing" Luke 11:13 "if ye then, BEING EVILl..." Gal 3:22 "but the scripture hath concluded ALL UNDER SIN" Eph 4:18 "...understanding darkened...ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart."
I conclude...we are born and continue in a state of depravity until the glorious light of the gospel shines in.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Feb 12, 2006 20:31:47 GMT -5
Can God sin? I don't believe that he can. God is absolute and has absolute authority and power and therefore is not subject to what we are subject to. Christ was 100% God and 100% man, not 50% God and 50% man. Christ's humanity was tempted but the character of God could not sin. (my 2 more cents) With all due respect, I think you have an unclear understanding of what sin is. Sin is not a virus or disease that can be caught but a result of selfishness, going against the will of GOD, which is perfect and holy. GOD is all knowing, and so He does NOT sin because He Himself knows the result of sin. Sin brings death! For example, it would be stupid for me to put a loaded magnum to my mouth and pull the trigger, right? (ok, unless you wanted me dead) That would be stupid because I know what that thing will do to me. Hence, I don't do it. But we sin because we look at the short term results first and care more about pleasing ourselves now than pleasing GOD, and we also don't fully understand/believe in what GOD's warned us about sin. And since GOD knows the end means of sin, there's no way you're gonna see Him sin. It would be STUPID!~ Now sin is not a product of our body, though passages may lead one to think of it that way because of the way its implemented into symbolisms, "of the flesh", but it is from our character, our DESCISIONS. Scripture says we are "inventors of evil" Romans 1:29-31. We "decide" to follow our selfishness which goes against the greater good (GOD). Something that most people don't continue in doing when looking out GOD and ourselves is that we have two most basic aspects about us... 1) we are physical, 2) we are moral. GOD does have physical mass, some "stuff" that we can't really understand yet. He also has morals, character, His personality and decisions. We are in His image in this way, not connected to His physical mass (meta physics) but connected to Him by His morals... but as we decide to sin we break that connection and no longer have a relation to Him. Hence what Christ brings to us... a means to once again be connected to GOD morally, in Spirit, being moral creatures once again, back into the image He once created us to be, working towards the greatest good... GOD.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Feb 12, 2006 21:30:36 GMT -5
The humanity of Christ was tempted, but could not sin because of its union with divinity. So in essence he WAS tempted but did not sin, neither could sin. The problem is then, that it was never a temptation. If Christ could have never sinned. Then He was not tempted. The very nature of being tempted dictates that Christ had the ability to sin. But He refused to sin.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 12, 2006 21:37:00 GMT -5
Armen,
You did not put down anything to prove the doctrine of original sin. I already refuted Psalm 58:3 in a previous post (did you read it?) showing how it is figurative language and not literal. The same with Psalm 51:5. David also speaks of his bones being broken and being purged with hyssop. Is this figurative language or literal? I think I have already posted this previously. The rest of the scriptures you posted just affirm that man chooses to be sinful which I have no disagreement with.
I do not believe men are born sinners. I do believe that man chooses to become sinful.
Romans 2:14 says, "For when the Gentiles which have not the law DO BY NATURE the things contained in the law..." It is natural to obey God's laws. It is unnatural to sin. Your body is affected negatively by sin. You can use a dectector to tell if someone is lying or not because their body responds negatively.
The doctrine of original sin gives homosexuals a great excuse to say they are born that way.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 12, 2006 21:38:36 GMT -5
Josh Williamson,
Amen! I agree with you 100%.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Feb 12, 2006 21:58:07 GMT -5
Can God sin? I don't believe that he can. God is absolute and has absolute authority and power and therefore is not subject to what we are subject to. Christ was 100% God and 100% man, not 50% God and 50% man. Christ's humanity was tempted but the character of God could not sin. (my 2 more cents) With all due respect, I think you have an unclear understanding of what sin is. Sin is not a virus or disease that can be caught but a result of selfishness, going against the will of GOD, which is perfect and holy. GOD is all knowing, and so He does NOT sin because He Himself knows the result of sin. Sin brings death! For example, it would be stupid for me to put a loaded magnum to my mouth and pull the trigger, right? (ok, unless you wanted me dead) That would be stupid because I know what that thing will do to me. Hence, I don't do it. But we sin because we look at the short term results first and care more about pleasing ourselves now than pleasing GOD, and we also don't fully understand/believe in what GOD's warned us about sin. And since GOD knows the end means of sin, there's no way you're gonna see Him sin. It would be STUPID!~ Now sin is not a product of our body, though passages may lead one to think of it that way because of the way its implemented into symbolisms, "of the flesh", but it is from our character, our DESCISIONS. Scripture says we are "inventors of evil" Romans 1:29-31. We "decide" to follow our selfishness which goes against the greater good (GOD). Something that most people don't continue in doing when looking out GOD and ourselves is that we have two most basic aspects about us... 1) we are physical, 2) we are moral. GOD does have physical mass, some "stuff" that we can't really understand yet. He also has morals, character, His personality and decisions. We are in His image in this way, not connected to His physical mass (meta physics) but connected to Him by His morals... but as we decide to sin we break that connection and no longer have a relation to Him. Hence what Christ brings to us... a means to once again be connected to GOD morally, in Spirit, being moral creatures once again, back into the image He once created us to be, working towards the greatest good... GOD. Good post Grant!
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 13, 2006 13:13:25 GMT -5
"it is unnatural to sin"
do you REALLY believe that micah? I have NEVER heard anyone come out with that before and frankly, I think it sounds rediculous brother. That verse is not saying that at all, it is saying that because God has planted in man his moral law, men know that certain things are wrong without being taught, eg. murder. I have read your apparent 'refute' of the fact that we are born in sin, but it does not make sense to say it is figurative. And if it is figurative, what is David trying to say other than what it means at face value?
You say none of those verses apply to the depravity of man but these verses are RULES for man. They are stating the way all men HAVE been, and WILL be. But you say it is possible to live a perfect life from beginning to end, but if this happened then these verses, such as "we are ALL as an unclean thing" are broken and cannot be definately said about every man.
Man is bent towards sin. We would all be murderers, rapists, etc if it was not for God's common grace upon man. As we find in Gen 20:6 where God withheld Abimelech from sinning. I recommend you listen to A. W. Tozer's message on 'the plague of a man's heart'. It is excellent.
Grant, I know what sin is. It is a choice and a transgression of the law. However, it is as plain as the nose on our faces that man's will is BENT. It is clear that it does not naturally lean towards that which is holy. God NEEDS to intervene to make a man holy. That is absolute!
God bless!
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Feb 13, 2006 14:10:59 GMT -5
Armen: Do you believe man is born guilty?
About the age of accountability: I think it is interesting to note that in Jewish culture one becomes a 'man' at the age of 12.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 13, 2006 17:24:11 GMT -5
Armen,
I believe in depravity but not physical depravity like you do (that man is born a sinner). It is unnatural to sin. It goes against the conscience, it goes against the body, it goes against natural laws.
If it is not possible for us to live without sinning, then we should not deserve hell. It is only because we have a choice to do what is right or what is wrong and willfully choose the wrong that we are guilty and deserve hell.
All men choose selfishness and sin, but they do not have to. They want to.
If sin goes against the conscience, against the body, and against natural laws (earth cursed because of sin), then it is unnatural.
What is meant by unnatural? They way something was created to function. Did God create man to sin? NO! Did God create man to glorify Him and live pure? Yes. Sinning is unnatural because it was not the purpose God created man for.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Feb 13, 2006 18:28:12 GMT -5
Grant, I know what sin is. It is a choice and a transgression of the law. However, it is as plain as the nose on our faces that man's will is BENT. It is clear that it does not naturally lean towards that which is holy. God NEEDS to intervene to make a man holy. That is absolute! I agree with you there, Armen. But correct me if I'm wrong but what you just said doesn't seem to line up with "man is born guilty of sin" but instead "man's will leans towards sin". Only until we transgress against the law are we then guilty. Perhaps I haven't understood your points though. But I appreciate this dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 13, 2006 18:48:27 GMT -5
Your reasoning I believe is all to do with fairness. That it wouldn't be fair for God to ask us to do something we couldn't do (not taking into consideration that ORIGINALLY we could, but our federal, lawful representative disobeyed, plunging all his seed into sin and death). I mean if that is your logic, then why oh why are we not born with the capacity to live forever as Adam and Eve were originally given? How come death was passed down, but not moral corruption?
What about those in the bible who disobeyed God and then there whole family were punished because of it? Like the man (name has slipped my memory) who Joshua had to deal with when God pointed out that there was sin in the camp and it turned out that he something hidden under his tent that he shouldn't have. The man did it, but his whole family were punished. Oh how unfair our God is. I think you don't understand that God does as he pleases.
What you are saying doesn't make sense. The bible nowhere indicates that it is at all possible for fallen man to please God and gain eternal life through his own merit. The bible is clear that it is IMPOSSIBLE. But you say it is POSSIBLE, even if very narrowly possible, that a man can please God his entire life.
If you believe in depravity, how far does it go if we can still please God?
When a sinner thinks about commiting adultery, it does not go against the body, the sinner finds it very natural (because of his bent will). The only thing that MAY stop him is not because it goes against the body or even the conscience towards God (ask any sinner, they will laugh if you tell them it's unnatural), but rather that he may be found out, or his conscience towards his partner.
"What is meant by unnatural? They way something was created to function. Did God create man to sin? NO! Did God create man to glorify Him and live pure? Yes. Sinning is unnatural because it was not the purpose God created man for. "
In the beginning dear brother, in the beginning. Our purpose is still the same, however we are absolutely incapable of fulfilling our purpose since the fall and THAT is why Christ came. To fulfill the law and to please God (our purpose) and then give us the power to do it ourselves to a much better degree.
Frankly, I believe with your view you degrade the work of Christ, and steal his glory by even suggesting that fallen humanity could please God as He did.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 13, 2006 18:55:53 GMT -5
Grant - I don't know if man "is born guilty of sin" so much as he is born with the guilt and corruption of sin. He is not guilty of his OWN sin at birth, but Adam's. "...death passed upon all, for that ALL HAVE SINNED" (Rom 5:12). This verse would seem to indicate that Adam's sin and its guilt and condemnation has passed to all and that is why Paul is able to profoundly say, "all have sinned".
|
|