Original Sin: Your View

Pelagian: Adam's sin does not affect us directly, but a bad example and a cursed environment
0% (0 votes)
Federal View: Human race affected by Adam's sin and thus cursed, even though Adam sinned alone
38% (6 votes)
Augustinian View: We sinned in Adam
31% (5 votes)
Combination of 2 or more of the above
19% (3 votes)
Other
13% (2 votes)
Total votes: 16
1910 reads

There are 5 Comments

Ed Vasicek's picture

What are your views on original sin and the guilt of Adam's sin upon us? Were we seminally present in Adam? Can one hold to the Pelagian view and still be a fundamentalist? Do you embrace a viewpoint that is not quite captured in the poll?

Now is your time to speak. You theologians can wax eloquent, but try to keep it fairly brief!

Looking forward to some good thoughts and lively discussions.

"The Midrash Detective"

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Can one hold to a Pelagian view and still be a Christian?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Ed Vasicek's picture

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
Can one hold to a Pelagian view and still be a Christian?

I think it would be possible to hold to the Pelagian view about original sin and be born again. If you know you have sinned and repent and trust in the atoning work of Jesus and his resurrection, you will be saved. As a matter of fact, many people who have never heard of original sin become born-again real-deal believers.

"The Midrash Detective"

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

First, I agree that you don't have to know all doctrine to be saved. However, there are some doctrines you cannot deny and be saved - agreed?

Second, the Pelagian view does away with original sin. It undermines the universal need of a savior. It makes man a clean slate. I am not sure a person can come to Christ on those terms, accepting redemption while denying other parts of the Bible which clearly teach total depravity. I don't think you can have (positively hold rather than neutrally not understand) a Pelagian view of original sin without ending up with a Pelagian view of man's condition and a Pelagian view of salvation.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Ed Vasicek's picture

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
First, I agree that you don't have to know all doctrine to be saved. However, there are some doctrines you cannot deny and be saved - agreed?

Second, the Pelagian view does away with original sin. It undermines the universal need of a savior. It makes man a clean slate. I am not sure a person can come to Christ on those terms, accepting redemption while denying other parts of the Bible which clearly teach total depravity. I don't think you can have (positively hold rather than neutrally not understand) a Pelagian view of original sin without ending up with a Pelagian view of man's condition and a Pelagian view of salvation.

Chip, there is a big difference between what one must believe to be saved and what one must believe to be fundamental and solid. For example, people realized they are sinners because they recall sinning. How that tendency to sin came to them is usually not relevant at the point of salvation.

Some people do not even believe in a literal Adam, but they still believe we are lost sinners because we sin and need a Savior. I would not let such a person join our church, etc.,

I think you agree with me that many who believe in the gap theory, theistic evolution, day-age theory, local flood, etc., are still saved. Their hermeneutics are despicable, but if they have turned to Christ believing the Gospel, they are saved. I would label such "probably saved but not solid."

I do understand your concept, though. Many people are saved without comprehending the deity of Christ, but, once confronted with it, they will readily embrace it. If they do not, we would say they are unsaved, and we are right to do so. To extend this idea to the concept of inherited sin, however, is a horse of a different color.

"The Midrash Detective"