The Pelagian Heresy is Alive and Well in America

[Arial]

Amen, bro. Ignorance is not innocence.

I know it hurts the sensibilities of those who assume that intention is necessarily conscious, and worse, that if God sets things out where some are, "before they did anything good or bad", already guilty of sin, that it is counter-justice and monstrous of God to do things that way. (Strange that they order individual treatment as far as guilt, but generality as relates to actually committing sin).

The thing not recognized all too often is that even if we have not yet committed any particular sin, we are born a sinful being. A creature that is sinful in their very nature. And that cannot dwell with the holiness of God. Jesus not only redeemed us with the forgiveness of the sins that we have committed, but he redeemed us from our sinful condition in Adam. The sins are forgiven now; he defeated the power of sin to condemn us because of the imputation of his righteousness and our being legally justified before God. "Sinner" is a legal indictment. Justified is a legal ruling. All by the person and work of Christ and through faith.

 

[JesusFan]

It's not a rule.



Sure, both were innocent of committing sin.



No it doesn't because I am not arguing about which was elected.
I am arguing that both were innocent of committing sin.
So when your OP stated that it was heretical to believe "everyone is born innocent", I joined the thread to argue that point.
I did not join the thread to argue about who was elected.



Everyone is innocent until they themselves commit sin.



A "federal headship" is also not my argument.
Both Jacob and Esau were innocent of committing sin even though they both were descendants of Adam.
And scripture also tells us that a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. (Ezekiel 18)



Romans 5:19 also says by one man's obedience the many were made righteous.

All of us, except for the Lord Jesus, were caught under the curse and Fall of Adam, and being in his line, each received our Adamic sin natures at conception , as all of us were born from tjhe womb as sinners

 

[JesusFan]

The thing not recognized all too often is that even if we have not yet committed any particular sin, we are born a sinful being. A creature that is sinful in their very nature. And that cannot dwell with the holiness of God. Jesus not only redeemed us with the forgiveness of the sins that we have committed, but he redeemed us from our sinful condition in Adam. The sins are forgiven now; he defeated the power of sin to condemn us because of the imputation of his righteousness and our being legally justified before God. "Sinner" is a legal indictment. Justified is a legal ruling. All by the person and work of Christ and through faith.

When born first time physically, we inherited the very sin nature of our father Adam, and at second spiritual birth, receive the Holy Spirit and our new natures in new head Jesus

 

[Tambora]

All of us, except for the Lord Jesus, were caught under the curse and Fall of Adam, and being in his line, each received our Adamic sin natures at conception , as all of us were born from tjhe womb as sinners

Umm, Jesus was also in the line of Adam as scripture tells us.
What made Jesus sinless is that He committed no sin, and yet He died as scripture tells us.
So being sinless does not mean those in the line of Adam won't die as scripture tells us.

I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend.

 

[Arial]

Umm, Jesus was also in the line of Adam as scripture tells us.
What made Jesus sinless is that He committed no sin, and yet He died as scripture tells us.
So being sinless does not mean those in the line of Adam won't die as scripture tells us.

I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend.

Your statement is category confusion. It is not that something is difficult for others to understand.

Jesus was not born in Adam. He was born of God, who he was in as the second person of the Trinity. It is not about genealogical descent.

And Jesus as perfectly righteous, having no sin nature and never committing any sin, died in our place. He took upon himself the penalty that awaited us for sinning and being a sinful creature. That is what he redeemed us from. That is why God the Son came to us in the flesh---so that he could die.

 

[JesusFan]

Umm, Jesus was also in the line of Adam as scripture tells us.
What made Jesus sinless is that He committed no sin, and yet He died as scripture tells us.
So being sinless does not mean those in the line of Adam won't die as scripture tells us.

I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend.

Jesus by passed inheriting the sin nature via the Virgin Birth

 

[JesusFan]

Your statement is category confusion. It is not that something is difficult for others to understand.

Jesus was not born in Adam. He was born of God, who he was in as the second person of the Trinity. It is not about genealogical descent.

And Jesus as perfectly righteous, having no sin nature and never committing any sin, died in our place. He took upon himself the penalty that awaited us for sinning and being a sinful creature. That is what he redeemed us from. That is why God the Son came to us in the flesh---so that he could die.

His Virgin birth meant has a sinless nature, not like the one of Adam

 

[Tambora]

Your statement is category confusion. It is not that something is difficult for others to understand.

Jesus was not born in Adam. He was born of God, who he was in as the second person of the Trinity. It is not about genealogical descent.

Sorry, but Jesus is indeed said to be in Adam's line.
The genealogy of Jesus specifically tells us He was.

And Jesus as perfectly righteous, having no sin nature

"sin nature"???
Another term used by Calvinism but isn't in scripture.

and never committing any sin,

On that I agree, that's why He's called "sinless".

died in our place. He took upon himself the penalty that awaited us for sinning and being a sinful creature. That is what he redeemed us from. That is why God the Son came to us in the flesh---so that he could die.

Jesus came in the flesh as a descendant of Adam's line; scripture tells us that.
It is about genealogy because scripture also tells us Jesus was a son of David according to the flesh.

 

[Arial]

Sorry, but Jesus is indeed said to be in Adam's line.
The genealogy of Jesus specifically tells us He was.

Still the same category confusion. When it comes to Jesus' sinless it not only means that he committed no sins but also that he was not in Adam. Remember in Romans 5 Paul's discussion on how sin came into the world through Adam? And
17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. That is the category of "in Adam" and "in Christ" It does not deal with genealogy.

It is about genealogy because scripture also tells us Jesus was a son of David according to the flesh

That is the other category. It deals with the royal kingship line and is about genealogy.

"sin nature"???
Another term used by Calvinism but isn't in scripture.

Actually, it is part of the Christian doctrine of original sin, and not unique or exclusive to Calvinism. That aside the term Trinity s used in Calvinism also and is not in scripture---would you consider that a reason to automatically discard it as untrue?

 

[Tambora]

Still the same category confusion.

I am definitely not the one confused.
Not only does scripture clearly tell us that Jesus was a son of David ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, but scripture also tells us that Jesus was a son of Adam.
The genealogy of Jesus is not lying.
The genealogies is in scripture assures us that Jesus was in the line of both David and Adam.

When it comes to Jesus' sinless it not only means that he committed no sins but also that he was not in Adam.

Nope.
Jesus was most definitely in the line of Adam, just as He was most definitely in the line of David.
That cannot be disputed.
Both David and Adam sinned, and yet Jesus was in the line of both of them.

Remember in Romans 5 Paul's discussion on how sin came into the world through Adam?

Yep, and Romans says righteousness came into the world through Jesus.

And
17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. That is the category of "in Adam" and "in Christ" It does not deal with genealogy.

It cannot and does not make the genealogy of Jesus being in line of both Adam and David null and void.
The genealogy of Jesus tells us explicitly that Jesus is in the descendant line of both Adam and David.

That is the other category. It deals with the royal kingship line and is about genealogy.

Of course it's about the genealogy of Jesus.
Jesus is a descendant of David just as much as He is a descendant of Adam.
The genealogy of Jesus lists both of them (David & Adam) and that Jesus is in the genealogy line of both of them.
Not just one of them, both of them.

Actually, it is part of the Christian doctrine of original sin, and not unique or exclusive to Calvinism. That aside the term Trinity s used in Calvinism also and is not in scripture---would you consider that a reason to automatically discard it as untrue?

"original sin"
Another term Calvinists like to use, but scripture never does.
It's getting to be a pattern for Calvinists.

"trinity"
Another term scripture doesn't use.
YHWH can be shown as 3 being 1 by using terms in scripture without ever using the term "trinity".
Perhaps believers in YHWH should do the same.

 

[Arial]

@Tambora

CATEGORY CONFUSION

(often called a category mistake or category error) is a logical or conceptual error that happens when someone treats something as if it belongs to one kind of thing (one “category”) when it actually belongs to a different kind.

In short: it’s mixing up what type of thing something is, and then reasoning about it in the wrong way.

Category confusion = attributing properties, roles, or explanations to something that only make sense for a different kind of thing.

In a theology it often shows up in ontological categories (what something is), functional categories (what something does), moral or legal categories (guilt, debt, punishment).

You have collapsed two distinct biblical categories into one: genealogical (Historical descent). Federal/ontologically solidarity ("in Adam").

Being "in Adam" is Federal (participation in a fallen human condition under a covenant head---not merely biological descent.
"In the line of David" is strictly genealogical and historical.

And I did not say you were confused, I said you were confusing categories ---another category mistake.

"original sin"
Another term Calvinists like to use, but scripture never does.
It's getting to be a pattern for Calvinists.

It isn;t a Calvinist term, it is a Christian doctrine that refers to the fall of mankind, which is in the Bible. Saying something is invalid because it is Calvinist is an invalid argument. In fact it is no argument at all. It is an opinion of Calvinism. I don't know why so many people use it. It is Shroom's (remember him) go to rebuttal. That and "No it isn't". Both equally empty.

YHWH can be shown as 3 being 1 by using terms in scripture without ever using the term "trinity".

Please. Let me see you do it.

 

[JesusFan]

Sorry, but Jesus is indeed said to be in Adam's line.
The genealogy of Jesus specifically tells us He was.


"sin nature"???
Another term used by Calvinism but isn't in scripture.


On that I agree, that's why He's called "sinless".


Jesus came in the flesh as a descendant of Adam's line; scripture tells us that.
It is about genealogy because scripture also tells us Jesus was a son of David according to the flesh.

Jesus was Virgin born, was God incarnated, not a "normal human"

 

[Tambora]

@Tambora

CATEGORY CONFUSION

hehe!
I know what it means.
I just deny the category of Adam being the "Federal Headship" of all of mankind.
Nor did Adam ever claim to be per scripture

It isn;t a Calvinist term,

It is.
Calvin relied so heavily on Augustine for his doctrine that he once said he could write his entire doctrine with Augustin's words alone.
ALONE. Let that sink in.
Augustine was the first to use the unbiblical term of "original sin".
His doctrine of "original sin" comes from his gnostic influence.
Gnosticism taught that flesh man could only be corrupt.

Please. Let me see you do it.

Both the OT and NT taught it without ever using the term "trinity".

 

[Tambora]

Jesus was Virgin born, was God incarnated, not a "normal human"

So?
It does not mean He was not in the line of Adam and David because scripture tells us Jesus was a son of David and a son of Adam.

 

[Arial]

I know what it means.
I just deny the category of Adam being the "Federal Headship" of all of mankind.
Nor did Adam ever claim to be per scripture

Does you denying Adam's federal headship make it not true? It would be wonderful if people could defend their positions instead of just stating them, as though that settled the matter.

Adam does not need to claim to be the federal head of all humanity. It is in both the OT and the NT without it ever being named. Federal headship is a concept, not a title. It describes a relationship and it is in creation itself. God the head of all---King. Man, the head of the woman, Christ the head of the church. Adam was first human therefore he represents humanity. You are arguing against God's order of creation. All sin and all die because they are born of natural birth in Adam---and are just like their father. Not born in Eve. Born in Adam. Isn't that what the Bible says?

It is.
Calvin relied so heavily on Augustine for his doctrine that he once said he could write his entire doctrine with Augustin's words alone.
ALONE. Let that sink in.
Augustine was the first to use the unbiblical term of "original sin".
His doctrine of "original sin" comes from his gnostic influence.
Gnosticism taught that flesh man could only be corrupt.

Who came first---Augustine or Calvin? And why are you trying to defend everything you say by attacking the dead man Calvin? The doctrine of original sin comes straight out of the Bible, and if you claim it came from gnostic influence instead then you need to demonstrate that with evidence---not just say it. I can't believe you deny original sin. What else have you given up of traditional Christianity since I have seen you on that defunct thread? I am surprised. PM me if there are things going on that are causing you to question things.

Both the OT and NT taught it without ever using the term "trinity".

I know they do. Can everyone see it? And I asked you to do it.
https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/matt-16-13-18.3514/

 

[Arial]

So?
It does not mean He was not in the line of Adam and David because scripture tells us Jesus was a son of David and a son of Adam.

It never ever says Jesus is a son of Adam. It says he is the Son of God. And it says he is a sone of David "according to to the flesh". Joseph was in the line of David, the royal, kingly line. but he did not father Jesus. He was his adoptive father according to Jewish custom.

 

[Tambora]

It never ever says Jesus is a son of Adam.

Neither have I.
I have said Jesus is in the line of Adam.

It says he is the Son of God. And it says he is a sone of David "according to to the flesh". Joseph was in the line of David, the royal, kingly line. but he did not father Jesus. He was his adoptive father according to Jewish custom.

Scripture does not use "grandson", "great grandson", etc. to denote one's descendant line; instead "son" is used.

Descendant= son​

Ancestor = father​

All the Jews in the days of Jesus could call Abraham their father to denote their ancestor line.

 

[Arial]

Neither have I.
I have said Jesus is in the line of Adam.

scripture tells us Jesus was a son of David and a son of Adam.

 

[John Bauer]

His virgin birth meant has a sinless nature, not like the one [who is] of Adam

On the contrary, his virgin birth meant he could sit on David’s throne.

If Joseph had fathered him, he would have been disqualified from occupying the throne of David due to the curse on Jeconiah and his descendants according to the flesh (Jer 22:24-30; cf. Matt 1:6-7, 11, 16). However, the Messiah must be David’s son (2 Sam 7; Ps 89; Isa 11), so this creates a redemptive-historical dilemma: If he is fathered by Joseph, he is disqualified. If he is not descended from David at all, he is disqualified.

The virgin birth resolves this dilemma. Jesus is legally Davidic (via Joseph, his legal father), granting him lawful claim to the throne and fulfilling the Davidic promise, and also biologically Davidic (via Mary), but through Nathan, not Solomon, thereby avoiding the Jeconiah curse.

 

[John Bauer]

The genealogies is in scripture assures us that Jesus was in the line of both David and Adam. … The genealogy of Jesus lists both of them (David & Adam) and that Jesus is in the genealogy line of both of them.

Correct, thus identifying Jesus as the messianic seed promised to Eve (Gen 3:15).

Nope.

Actually, yes. Being “in Adam” does not mean “in the biological line of Adam,” in exactly the same way that being “in Christ” does not mean “in the biological line of Christ.” (This is covenantal language used by Paul, as seen in 1 Cor 15:22.) In other words, you are both right: Jesus descended from Adam biologically, as you point out, but he was not born in Adam covenantally, as Arial points out (which is why he was not a sinner, as are all who are in Adam).

Yep, and Romans says righteousness came into the world through Jesus.

That is an evasive move that persistently refuses to deal with the explicit statement in Romans 5:19 that we are all constituted sinners (κατεστάθησαν ἁμαρτωλοί) even before we have committed any sins ourselves.

Calvin relied so heavily on Augustine for his doctrine that he once said he could write his entire doctrine with Augustin's words alone.
ALONE. Let that sink in.
Augustine was the first to use the unbiblical term of "original sin".

Then it is Augustinian, not Calvinistic.

His doctrine of "original sin" comes from his gnostic influence.

Please demonstrate to us from Augustine’s De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione (On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, c. 412 CE) [PDF]—the work in which he first articulates and defends the doctrine against Pelagius—that he derived it from his gnostic influence.

For the readers: Classical gnosticism (e.g., Manichaean) typically involves (1) an ontological defect in material creation, (2) evil rooted in matter itself, (3) salvation as escape from embodiment via secret knowledge (gnōsis), and (4) often a pre-temporal fall of souls. Augustine explicitly rejects all four, laying out an anti-Manichaean argument from Scripture.