Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

Frankly I am astounded that you even have to defend the doctrine of original sin. Maybe that is a cultural thing in Canada/US.

No, I don’t think it is a cultural thing. What I think it is, is a reaction to any teaching that goes beyond original sin and touches areas that the Bible doesn’t teach. There mere mention of an inherited sin nature can cause many to think that I have accepted all the unBiblical additions that are common today. But I don’t believe in throwing out what is Biblical because it has been warped along the way. The fact is that we have all be touched by the fall and all are kept under sin so that all can be draw to the Savior.

It seems pretty clear to me in the bible the nature of our depravity. Not only that Pelagianism was wiped out early on as heretical teaching by the church. It appears however that it still runs rampid. I applaud you for defending the bible here.

Thank you, Mark, I do appreciate that! I don’t think many here know or understand that the rejection of the sin nature coming from Adam was part of Pelagianism and it was condemned as heretical. I tend to want to show from the Scriptures where the “old man” nature is an issue and must be dealt with instead of ignored and rejected as if it doesn’t exist. To merely say that this teaching has already been rejected as heretical isn’t always helpful until one can show why the correct teaching is true. Maybe I am wrong in thinking this way, but that’s how I think.