The Doctrine of Original Sin

And so you create a false dilemma. Election precedes Faith - both are given by God's grace and are components of the salvation process or ordo salutis. This is the clear teaching of Scripture and the doctrine of old.

 

And it is not my lens - it is the lens of the orthodox Christian faith.

 

You can give me no proof, biblical or otherwise that an infant has faith. It is a presupposition needed in order to make your theology work, but it is quite false.

 

They are. This is the number one mark of a Pelagain person.

FACT:
"Pelagius was a heretic who opposed the doctrine of "original sin"

Arminius said...

Even Wesley believed in OS.
FROM: The Order of Salvation in John Wesley’s Theology

.

All of classic Arminian holds to OS...

Arminian Adam Clark.....

"

WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN OS???

well, I know of one group.
Unitarian Universalists....and they love Pelagius as a hero

Maybe you know of others

 

James, we've danced this dance before. From wikipedia...
It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which God called very good), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid.

Since I don't believe man can choose Christ "without Divine aid", and sin did affect mankind's "human nature" ...I am NOT a pelagian. It would help if you guys got this simple fact.

As I stated earlier, sharing the same belief of the Trinity, or the view abortion is murder with a (Roman) Catholic does not make one a RC.

I thought you would have learned that lesson by now.

 

The Bible says that we are "objects of wrath by nature" and that we're responsible for our own sins, and we have all sinned in Adam (Eph 2:3; Rom 5:12).

We have to take it all and try to make some sort of sense.

 

Paul says:

1. In Adam all sinned (Rom 5:12);

2. And that We are objects of God' wrath by nature (Eph 2:3).

We have to take them both.

 

1st...I think I would find a better source then wikipedia.

2nd, if we were to talk your word for it, this only proves you are much closer to Pelagius then Wesley, closer then Arminius, closer then Adam Clark then anyone save Unitarian Universalists. That would worry me to be to that extreme.

 

It matters not if it's wikipedia...the definition stands. That is what pelagianism is in a nutshell. Don't discount wikipedia because you don't like the definition.

I don't know if you meant "take" your word for it...but by doing just that, you would know that I am not "closer to Pelagius". You are a riot.

 

Pelagianism
The teaching of a monk named Pelagius in the fifth Century. He taught that man's will was and still is free to choose good or evil and there is no inherited sin (through Adam). Every infant born into the world is in the same condition as Adam before the fall and becomes a sinner because he sins. from here

webdog - Which part of this teaching would you say you disagreed with?

 

From this definition that we are all born as Adam before the fall. We are appointed ONCE to dies...unlike Adam. Our natures are tainted with sin, meaning we WILL sin, but we ourselves are NOT sinners until WE sin.

 

Please expound on this with Scriptural references, please.

How?

so you agree with this part of the definition?

 

How about this definition from THEOpedia?.

.

1) It denies imputation of Adam's sin
2) It denies original sin
3) it denies total depravity
4) it denies substitutionary atonement

5) It says man has libertarian free will.
6) It teaches man his the ability to come to God without a divine calling (election)

*****

Classic Arminianism holds to (does not deny) 1-3
Classic Arminianism is split on number 4
Classic Arminianism holds to 5 and 6

If I understand you right you deny 1-3 but may hold to 4
You also hold to 5 and 6.

Again, does this make you closer to Pelagius then an Arminian?

 

If we sin because we have a sin nature or because we are sinners already at birth, what is the explanation for why Adam sinned? He had no sin nature. He was created sinless and perfect.

 

free. will.

 

muuuch better!

 

Adam sinned because he had free will? Then why isn't that why we sin?

I know Calvinism states that fallen man has no free will. If that's the case then we can't help but sin. I will blame that on Adam. Do you think God will let me pass?

 

no - because without Christ all Men are condemned under the curse of Adam and condemned for their own sin. That is what Scripture teaches.

God's initial act of grace was to not completely destroy mankind when Adam sinned - He only delayed judgment for the sake of the elect and the glory of Christ.

 

Is not sin, the deeds done in the body? Do babies have to pay for Adam's original sin, or do they have to pay for their own sins, done in their body?

And if the orginal sin brings death to us all physically and in most cases, in the future. How come the spiritual death by the orginal sin, be somewhere in the future also, such as when we come to the age of accountability? why the difference? Why the insistance that the spiritual death is at birth, but the natural death, usually is in the future? Both brought death, why the difference in time of the death?

BBob,

 

Infants, passing from infancy, are responsible for original sin and their own sin.

Infants, dying in infancy, are only responsible for original sin, and since they have none of their own sin and cannot repent and be forgiven are saved by the grace Christ revealed that He has for infants in infancy.