It's all good!!

So much better in plain language my friend....thank you.

 

I think your logic is understandable, however the point of original sin is not individual actions that cause guiltiness before God.
I think we all agree, that inevitability, sooner rather than later, individual "sinning" follows every man born, save one.

The doctrine of original sin is a declaration of God upon mankind based entirely upon Adam's original sin.
God holds all accountable, because of our father Adam.
This is the point of Romans 5.
The evidence of God's condemnation being "just", is proved by "all sinning" individually.

This declaration or condemnation upon man has nothing to do with physical birth, except that it is simply how humans enter this world.
The "sin nature" is not passed by physical birth.
The "sin nature" is imputed by God to man, because Adam is our federal head.

Therefore, the Virgin Birth of Jesus puts Him outside Adam's progeny, thereby giving us the Saviour without a sin nature.
Again this is the point of Romans 5.

Let me illustrate. When the USA declared war on Germany, it was because of Hitler's transgression.
What he did as Germany's head was accounted to all of Germany.
Every German citizen, because of one man's evil, became the enemies of the USA.
(As a disclaimer, every illustration breaks down. Follow the logic, not the details of this illustration.)

Again a logical conclusion, if one is trying to absolve infant guilt.

However, this logic breaks down in the events of the "original sin".

I think your are contending that sin is only sin when it is committed with knowledge.
At least your contention is guilt is not assumed unless "conscience" is involved.

But "conscience", ie. the knowledge of good and evil was a by product of the "original sin". Adam first sinned, then his eyes were opened.

This is what the "law of God" does. It opens our eyes.
Sin can and very often does precede "knowledge of sin".
One does not need to "know" he is sinning to be guilty of sin.
And this person, who sins unintentionally, must have an atonement, therefore he is guilty.

Numbers 15:27-29 points this out.

BTW, I think this verse gives insight into the question of infants that die.

Notice the subject, unintentional sin.
Notice the guilt, atonement needed.
Notice the sacrifice, blood offering, ie the Cross.
Notice the GRACE, forgiven him.
Notice to whom this "law" or principle applies, native-born and stranger.

Infants are unintentional sinners.
Unintentional sin needs an atonement.
The atonement is in Jesus Christ alone.
God chooses and extends Grace unto these infants who die.

 

That is exactly how I see it. :thumbs:

 

Thats great hearing this now but where were you (meaning this answer) when the Hyper Boys were telling the wife & I our son is in hell & you put him there (later to be adjusted to "We dont Know where he is") status. My wife still cannot enter a church because of that kind of adherence to false doctrine. You pastors need to learn this stuff right out of the gate. Would have saved us all alot of grief (and I mean GRIEF literally). Now let me trot off here & tell her....sure she will be pleased.

 

So then babies go to heaven, not because of the blood of Christ but because they are "not guilty". They have committed no crimes and are not guilty of any crimes which require the blood of Christ or the grace of God.

So MOST of Heaven is populated without the cross, in your view.

 

I know what Pelagianism is. I have studied it personally and institutionally.

YOU just lack the theological comprehension to understand how your position IS Pelagianism.

Pelagius, WEBDOG, did not deny that men DIE. WHO would???

He admitted that men die due to Adam's sin.

That is what YOU believe. That is as far as you and Willis and Winman take original sin.

Yes, you say you believe that man cannot choose God apart from divine aid. Yes, as inconsistent as your position is, it is, in that slight area, different from Pelagianism- but only because you lack the consistency in your nameless theology that Pelagius had.

It does not change the raw FACT that you believe that men are not born sinners as did Pelagius.

 

I agree. These are issues colleges and seminaries could focus more upon in their training of pastors.

 

Luke in what way can Webdog's view of original sin be viewed as pelagian?

 

It can't...it's easier to resort to the ad hominem and defeat arguments that were never stated. This is the approach atheists use in refuting the existence of God (not saying that Luke's an atheist, just comparing the debate approach)

 

Christ atoned for their sin as well, even though it is unintentional. The point is not whether they will commit sin, it is if they are created sinners.

 

No what you've said multiple times is that I am an agnostic. I have ignored it because it is a dumb remark intended to get a rise out of me.

You and Pelagius are on the exact same page in this regard:

You both believe that men are not born sinners.

That is simple enough for a child to understand.

 

If they are not creates sinners, WEBDOG, then they do not need atonement.

Why is this so hard for you to get?

 

You don't understand pelagianism, as I have shown the entire net...yet you will still use your intellectual dishonesty to say I am.

You have admitted with your own keyboard there is some mysterious salvation for some sinners that we don't know about. That is clearly against Scripture.

 

They are not created sinners...they BECOME sinners since that is what is in their nature to do. You do not follow along well AT ALL!

 

Webdog are you an outright liar?

This "mysterious salvation" is bull.

Answer the question:

Why do babies that have NO SIN need grace? For their physical bodies???

What about spiritually? Are they sinners spiritually? If not why do they need grace?

 

No. Are you one to ask?

It is...you should really give up that false doctrine.

I've answered each and every one of these before...I'm not playing your games anymore. Of course everyone goes to Heaven by grace. Try arguing points that are actually made.

 

Why do they need grace Webdog? You will not answer it because you CAN'T.

Because you are a Pelagian.

You do not think men are born sinners.

People who are not SINNERS do not need GRACE.

People who are not SINNERS do not need the blood of Christ which was shed for... wait for it... SIN.

 

You can only put up with so much lying from a pastor.

 

Still avoiding it, aren't you?

 

Man is born with the Concupiscence toward sin. However, the person has not themselves sinned but their nature is tainted and given a choice they will lean towards sin. That is different then saying they've already sinned. Having a sinful nature is not inclusive of the act of sinning. Its a foregone conclusion that a person will sin unless there is divine intervention but it has not yet occured.