The Early Church Before Augustine on Free Will and Original Sin - Winkie Pratney

Winkie Pratney lectures on Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and the Early Church regarding free will and original sin. What did early Christianity, or the early Christians, believe on these issues? Is Calvinism really historic Christianity as Calvinists claim?

[@massieldelrosario3920]

John Calvin wrote, "Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings." Frightening!

[@MariusVanWoerden]

John Calvin was going against the Heresies of the Catholic Church. One of which was that Salvation is our own doing or even can be bought with money. He used one of their own saints, and the patron of the Augustinians, to have a strong argument against the catholic (pope) doctrine. Calvin did not agree on everything with Augustine, but disagreed with many of them. What matters is the question: "Did the Early Church Believe the Doctrines of Grace?" In his New Testament Commentaries, Calvin’s most preferred Church-Father is John Chrysostom, and not Augustine. Calvin portrays his usual trust in Augustine in theological issues; when it comes to exegetical matters, his reservations are evident. Calvin is critical of Augustine’s allegorical method,and points out a discrepancy between Augustine’s exegesis and Paul’s letters,rejecting the Church Father’s interpretations. There are a number of websites and KZbin Videos, (some quite terrible, others a bit scholarly, yet equally terrible) By quoting heretical people of the early church. and leave out the real church fathers. This as an attempt to dissuade investigative readers to believe that, except for Augustine, or at least until the “time of Augustine”, that the early church did not believe in the depravity of man, in unconditional election and/or a sovereign predestination, or in extent of Jesus Christ, grace that is irresistible, and the final perseverance of the saints. This is a tragedy. Why? With a hearty consulting of primary sources, readers can certainly find the “lack of knowledge” of all these Gospel doctrines throughout the writings of the early church. And not only these can be found with many of the early writers. the Bible makes mention of those 2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. Not in any Reformed church is Predestination the Topic of the sermon, but invitation like Calvin himself preached. THIS IS HOW CALVIN PREACHED THE GOSPEL (Calvin's Wisdom p119-120) He calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illumined by him. When we pray, we ought, according to the rule of charity, to include all. God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, BUT THE INGRATITUDE OF THE WORLD IS THE REASON why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. So did Charles Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards and all puritans who were Calvinist Millions came to Christ as their Lord and Savior under the preaching of Calvin Spurgeon, the Scottish Puritans like the Erskine brothers and so many more. Election and predestination is a Scripture teaching, but comes AFTER our salvation in Christ. Before is the free offer of Grace to ALL no exception. Free will, can say: “I DID IT” but election says: “BY GRACE I WAS SAVED” who of the two is false?

[@ScoutingtheScriptures]

Doctrines of grace... whenever you hear that, a Calvinist is speaking. Tell me, is an unregenerate man able to respond to the gospel, or does the Spirit have to regenerate him, give him the faith to believe, so that he can believe? And oh yes, this is all against his will (forced upon him).

[@MariusVanWoerden]

@@ScoutingtheScriptures Was the thief at the cross Regenerated? No-one will come to Christ without first the conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit Justification is a work of God the Father and the Holy Spirit in us and without us. Justification and faith do not have a sequence in time but in order Faith- Justification but are simultaneously in time. Sanctification is a work of The Holy Spirit in us but not without us. Justification and SANCTIFICATION cannot be separated. There is no sanctification without justification or justification without sanctification, this even when sanctification is just a begin of regeneration through all our life. Faith is by Grace and the free gift of God. The Bible teaches us the Justification of the UNGODLY. [Made/ declared Righteous. Based only on the righteousness of Christ] Not a regenerated believer is justified. The UNGODLY chooses SIN by nature. Sanctification is called Fruits of the Holy-Spirit. James 2: 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works [read FRUITS] is dead? Faith First then Fruits of Faith There is a general working of the Holy Spirit in the hearing of the Word that convicts and precedes faith but not always leads to salvation. See the parable of the sower. The plow is needed to make the soil good to receive the seed. Conviction is a work of the Holy Spirit and without no-one will come to Christ. Never lost is never saved. Jesus came to save the lost.

[@zombillyboogie9370]

This is by far the best teaching on the subject that I have heard in my ministry which started in 1995. I am so thankful for your ministry and your wisdom.

[@kimbrahunter7760]

I spent 4 hours listening to this. Replaying parts over and over. Thank you for educating me through your life study work of presenting the truth.

[@vaportimenow]

This is so wonderful !!!! The Lord has been leading me to the understanding that the early church fathers were all in unison about ONE THING!. God gave each of us a free will !! What are you going to do with Jesus? Repent and obey him, or not? Many of you have been saying no to the only one who can save you. Jesus is calling. You are not promised another day.

[@larrymcclain8874]

Isaiah 7:15-16; Hebrews 5:9

[@SugoiEnglish1]

Nope. See this writer and his direct quotes from Pre-Augustine Fathers...www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/gill/The%20Cause%20of%20God%20and%20Truth%20-%20Gill.pdf

[@OpenSourceCitizen]

Holy Shisters. Great talk. Where can we find an image of what he wrote on the board (diagram of all preachers on the F.W. spectrum)????

[@ravissary79]

I didn't read the video description till just now and then it occured to me that this was Winkie Pratney. I graduated from DTS and SOE programs at YWAM Tyler and Winkie was one of the teachers... but I never got a chance to sit under his teaching. But he's a very insightful writer. I knew other students who did get taught by him and they loved him as a brother from their own mother.... he's a very genuine and humble man by reputation, but now that I'm hearing this I realize just how much I missed out on.

[@davidjackson6817]

ravissary79 good to see another YWAMer on the thread!

[@globalrevival]

Adding my voice to the wish for a screenshot of the blackboard or any paper handout given out that day. Surely there is some archivist at YWAM or at Winkie’s Ministry of Helps which could provide the references and quotes used by Winkie in this audio recording? It is an excellent study and unfortunate that apparently only this audio exists.

[@nicksum29]

Augustinian Heresy is, was, and always will be an extreme abuse of God. Thank you for posting this.

[@pedjastanich4347]

+nicksum29 Thank you for that comment. Unfortunately Reformers have followed in the Augustin's footsteps.

[@SlavikChiley]

+Pedja Stanich What about the "Radical Reformers" (Annabaptists)?

[@pedjastanich4347]

In the beginning they ( Anabaptists) were good but eventually they succumbed to the pressure from contemporary evangelicals to either dump their adherence to the old ways and join merry wagon of evangelicalism or to be declared a cult and despised. Unfortunately they they chose first option and assimilated themselves with others. Now needless to say that there are few Anabaptist churches who stayed faithful to their history church and ultimately God but those are few and far in between. Mr David W. Bercot stated that main failure of Anabaptist was that they did not took scripture literally. Once thy started to "interpret" the scriptures that was the day they were on their way to nowhere and denominationalism. We in this day and age MUST go back to pre Nicene Christianity in order to survive. What Ante Nicene Christians believed and practiced must not be lost. I highly admire efforts of Alexander Campbell and Burton Stone in attempt to restore "Christianity" to it former glory. Again unfortunately even those churches have suffered from similar fate like The Anabaptists namely peer pressure. and of course liberal theology and postmodernism that crept in church via back door/feminism and weaker vessel. Hope you get what I am trying to communicate. Mr David W. Bercot wrote few books that are worth reading " Kingdom of God" , Will the real heretic please sit down, and so forth. if you are short of time to read Mr bercot gives short talks over the You tube Scroll publishing chanel and explains majority of early christian beliefs and practices. Highly recommended. dictionary of early christian believes is a book worth having as a quick reference guide. All the best with your search. Bible MUST be read LITERALLY. Jesus said " Let your yes be yes and your No be no anything more than this is from the evil one: So he does the same we must believe what HE PREACHES LITERALLY. Till He comes yurs faithfully Pedja.

[@peaveawwii1]

according to John Hagee

[@ruggedlifejewelry]

and yet most "non denominational" churches use it and people are unaware that is what they are being taught

[@bazzar4283]

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus! An excellent lecture !. One that has made me change my mind.There were so many reasonable points made I lost count no wonder alarm bells were ringing in my ears throughout most of the lecture! Thank you for putting this up so I could listen to so much common sense and truth! May blessings be yours from God our Father through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit!

[@rbuckwheat]

Thanks for the posting. Would you happen to have a link to the chart that Winkie is drawing on the board (regarding which camp different preachers are in)?

[@terijune3307]

What a breath of fresh and free air! Thank you for your investigative work and for those who published and promoted this wonderful knowledge of what the real Christianity was like.

[@rkirkpatrick01]

I wish I could see this chart the speaker is drawing.

[@JoeGeorge319]

The quote to Boniface from Augustine was Letter 185. Chapter 6, verse 23: "Is it not a part of the care of the shepherd, when any sheep have left the flock, even though not violently forced away, but led astray by tender words and coaxing blandishments, to bring them back to the fold of his master when he has found them, by the fear or even the pain of the whip, if they show symptoms of resistance"

[@Mr10glorious]

Great history lesson! No wonder so many Christians/believers are SO confused! They believe Augustine's teachings and the men that believed him also as being "Biblically Correct" doctrine!! Found it interesting that they also practiced the same "killing and persecution" of 1000's, as their "Father of the faith" did!! Wow!! Horrific!! Pray for the church to see and believe the truth!!

[@victorcritelli5790]

You know it KILLS me when I learned of these things I thought for sure people did not know this, If they knew this they would reject it, But I found just the opposite many people not only knew this but they would say things like well you have to understand the times they lived in, Or you cant thought out the baby with the bathwater, or to the other extreme if we are to hold them to their murders then we have to throw out Paul and Moses because they murdered before they were christians as IF that is = to what Augustine, Calvin and Luther did AS christians Other would rail you must think you are better and sinless if you want to hold them to their sins NOT one single person ever said You know I never knew that Paul and JEsus would never be good with such things we should reject their teaches as I did when I found out and I really don't understand why

[@BarHamelech]

I wish the Video would show the writing on the chalk Board!

[@beverlycrowell_]

The originals do. Winkie used to have a site which sold manybofnhisnold videos.

[@infowolf1]

the power of God to force involves making the person recognize God's reality, stripping the partly self imposed blindness from the heart, but the force done by a human cannot do anything but create a nominal Christian, there is no recognition of truth by the person forced by a human.

[@eugenejoseph7076]

A human created in the image of God. Let's not throw out the baby with........

[@rtgray7]

Very frustrating that you can't see where he is putting the names on the board!

[@stevensteven8719]

rtgray7 Just listen closely with the volume way up. (Works best with headphones) Now as he writes down the names his voice will either become louder or softer with each name. When his voice is louder he is writing on the one side of the board. When his voice becomes softer he is writing on the other side of the board. There you go.

[@donavoncash7739]

Seriously, all you hear is ticks on the board. Grrr

[@donavoncash7739]

@@stevensteven8719 That's very insightful there. Idk if you work as an FBI agent but if not you missed your calling😂

[@stevensteven8719]

@@donavoncash7739 No Sir. Those folks are much smarter than I. If you enjoy bible studies you might try Beyond The Fundamentals and/or Randy White Ministries. Thank you for your comment. Stay Blessed

[@stevensteven8719]

@@donavoncash7739 Bro. I searched for your go fund me page by copy and paste into chrome browser also highlight and search. You don't come up. put up a paypal link. I'm in for a few $.

[@usdollar999]

Augustine's sentiment still lives on in the Jesuit branch of the Catholic Church

[@RezG_777]

And in the Calvinist/Reformed branch of the Protestant church.

[@patcandelora8496]

It has been stated,mainly by Eastern Orthodox, that Augustine due to his deficiency in Greek interpreted Romans 5:12 incorrectly. At least where original sin is concerned. Or what the Eastern church calls ancestral sin.

[@bonniejohnson1518]

what is strange, is that Augustine said Pelagius was a godly man, and yet Augustine describes himself as being a reprobate....Whet could possibly go wrong with that mindset? Augustine is the rotten root of all so-called Christian theology....The 3 pillars of so-called Christian theology, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, all taught the bible in reverse, students of Plato, and the biggest heretics that ever lived....Pelagius, in his prologue to the book of Romans, said he could do nothing apart from the grace of God. He understood that Christ was the light that lighteth every man that came into the world. All people are born with the gift of the light of conscience. The more one seeks God the more increase of the Spirit one receives. Cornelius is a biblical example of that truth. He was already obeying God according to the light that he had in Acts chapter 10. He even came up as a memorial to God, so much so that God heard his prayers and food deeds..Remember; bible 101, God does not hear the prayers of wilful sinners...Cornelius received an increase of the Spirit when Peter brought the gospel to him...Same with story with Lydia.......both were already followers and worshipers of the one true God, and were diligently seeking Him. Hebrews 11-6b... This is built into all of mankind by default, he has to go against his own nature and conscience like Cain to do otherwise....sadly most all people do just that...

[@livelyara]

Amen sister! This is exactly what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me! I am so thankful for your post! The history is unreal! I am in the process of writing a book now. Stay safe and in His love, grace and mercy!

[@jjhbjhbhjgjhgfjhghjg]

it would be good to see the video since i would like to know what he was righting on the Board !

[@jjhbjhbhjgjhgfjhghjg]

No Man that Guy is ALive and in New Zealand he is in his 30s or something check out his Facebook page !!!

[@loganmeyer9283]

Winkie is alive and well. His residence is in Tyler Texas. I saw him just last year in October.

[@loganmeyer9283]

Yeah. I didn't know his personal views in these areas. All he taught us on was the fear of the Lord.

[@davidjohnzenocollins]

*writing

[@freedfromevil4213]

@@jjhbjhbhjgjhgfjhghjg he's got to be way older than that. I am 53 and I was reading articles by him when I was in my twenties! He's got to be older than me, I would say sixtites at least.

[@loganwright3687]

Does anyone know where the actual video to this is? Or what the title would be? I'd die to get my hands on that whiteboard.

[@turnkit]

The video likely does not exist. My understanding is that it came from an audio tape.

[@OpenAirOutreach]

Paul taught the election of the Gentile nations, not an individual predestination. He said God has chosen us (Jews and Gentiles). Those whom He foreknew (the Old Testament saints whom God knew before) they were called, predestinated, glorified, etc. Notice it is all past tense. And "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" is not preordained but were ordained then and there, and in context it is about how they disposed themselves to eternal life. Disposed is what the word means.

[@krakenhuevos3972]

Correct. The word that gets translated into "ordained" is the Greek word "Tasso." If you look at Acts 18:6 that says "When they opposed Paul..." the word there for opposed is "Antitasso" in the Greek. The opposite of "Tasso."

[@ShepherdMinistry]

That’s really reaching.

[@melindalemmon2149]

Please, I wish to see his charting of the preachers and their positions.

[@robertcoggin3366]

Invaluable information

[@tes767]

This video is the answer to a prayer I prayed this morning! I am writing a book and I have to explain (in my mind anyway) why Augustine changed his stand on free will. This is the absolute best explanation. It is amazing. Many thanks!

[@joelthompson90]

You might want to look into Ken Wilson's book "The Foundations of augustinian Calvinism. " I think that is the title. 🙂

[@ShepherdMinistry]

@@joelthompson90 a lot of people say that book has a lot of errors. Might want to look into that before recommending.

[@AnswerReADY]

Saying that Jerome's translation In Romans 5 is wrong is one thing, but saying that because that was wrong Jerome was wrong about God knowing the future is wrong is another. Its a violation of a law of Logic called "The Law of the Indivisible Middle" if I recall. Just because an elephant has legs, and you have legs, does not make to an Elephant. Just because Catholics believe in the virgin birth and you do, doesn't mean your Catholic. Same here with Jerome. Each error needs to be corrected 1 by1

[@orangeswell1469]

I didn't want that to end!

[@ravissary79]

Not sure how I feel about such glowing praise for Origen though. He thought some really kookie stuff.

[@Goonabasec7]

Dude is still alive!

[@rob5462]

An excellent lecture apart from one issue. Pelagius did not teach what he was accused of (Pelagianism) by Augustine. Pelagius taught that God's grace was necessary for salvation and the obedience of Good works. See below: www.libraryoftheology.com/writings/pelagianism/PelagiusWrittenAnathema.pdf Pelagius Written Anathema: Synopsis: By Rev. Daniel R. Jennings, MA Around 418 Pelagius was asked by Albina, Pinianus, and Melania, wealthy Roman converts to Christianity, to provide a written condemnation of all that had been alleged against him. In response, he provided the following anathema in their presence. It is unclear whether this is the complete written statement or just a fragment. It is found quoted in Augustine of Hippo’s two-part work "On The Grace Of Christ, And On Original Sin". "I anathematize the man who either thinks or says that the grace of God, whereby 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, is not necessary not only for every hour and for every moment, but also for every act of our lives: and those who endeavour to disannul it deserve everlasting punishment." Signed by Pelagius

[@infowolf1]

Constantine did NOT make Christianity official merely legal it was Theodosius who made it official.

[@bradbrown2168]

Can I get the charts Winkie was drawing?

[@DavidOhlerkingII]

Thanks for this.

[@seektruth8333]

I find it funny- for want of a better word that their are no comments condemning the presentation as false or the speaker as a false prophet, as they do persons who do not present as much indisputable HISTORICAL facts. Very, very good presentation - rooted in historical facts.

[@droptozro]

I'll have to listen to these later! I heard Winkie's other audio clip from your guys radio show long ago---really enjoyed his explanations and understanding. Thanks for posting this!

[@tomasa17mo]

If people would only accept that God is Sovereign and that they are not, then everything would fall into place according to God's plan and will. We are the subjects and God is the Master, in the good sense of the words. Also, since the beginning of the Church, individuals that were not converted to Jesus took matters into their own hands, and persecuted anyone that didn't agree with them. Until this day, 2015, true Christians are still persecuted by those that claim to be, and in the name of the so-called true church.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

tomasa17mo I If God is Sovereign, in the Calvinistic sense, then everyone accepts what they do as it was, is and shall be. So why would you presume to persuade God's decree in the minds of the people who do not accept your perspective. Who are you oh man.

[@Hebrew42Day]

No Christian denies that God is Sovereign this is a typical Calvinist straw man argument. Yes, God is sovereign, he's more sovereign and more just if man has the free will that the Bible tells us we have.

[@evanu6579]

tomasa17mo Do you even hear yourself?? “If people would only accept that God is sovereign and that they are not, then everything would fall Into place according to God’s plan and will.” So God’s plan and will is contingent upon us believing in His sovereignty? That sounds like the opposite of sovereignty to me. Calvinism is the most illogical, contradictory doctrine that’s ever been invented by man. It’s sad that so many people have been deceived by it.

[@evanu6579]

Seventh Day Anabaptists Free will is in the bible..... Ezra 7: 13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee. 1Cor 9: 17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. An alcoholic is enslaved to alcohol. A porn addict is enslaved to pornography. A gambling addict is enslaved to gambling. Are any of these people free to stop committing these sins? Sure it’s extremely difficult, but have you ever heard of an alcoholic having victory over his addiction? Calvinism typically takes certain phrases or passages and gives them their own special meaning to fit their doctrine. Calvinism is definitely not biblical. We should talk

[@ontologicallysteve7765]

tomasa17mo If God is sovereign (in the sense you say he is) then our accepting OR rejecting of this notion would have ZERO bearing upon it. If everything "falling into place" depends upon our acceptance...then I'm afraid you're disproving the very thing you have set out to prove. I'm not saying God isn't sovereign...but Calvinists misinterpret sovereignty (just like their founder Augustine & Calvin). Here's A.W Tozer's view on Calvinism: "God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not WHICH CHOICE THE MAN SHOULD MAKE but that he should BE FREE TO MAKE IT. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God IS sovereign. A God less than sovereign could and would NOT bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be too afraid to do so". Off quote. So often the Calvinist says: "Man has no free will because God is sovereign" when in fact, His sovereignty is THE very reason we are indeed free to choose. It seems the Calvinist is too dense to see this. They have an "either or... all or nothing" mentality that has morbidly affected not only their doctrine...but how they interact with others. To the Calvinist...if man has free will then God is not sovereign, and has therefore lost complete control. When in fact, because God decreed free will, whenever man makes a choice, it is BECAUSE he is in absolute control (even when man makes a decision AGAINST God's preference). It's no coincidence that many Calvinists are control freaks (in my experience anyway). It seems they see a bit of themselves in "God".

[@b.rocket]

Brilliant!

[@donaldduncan8894]

Are the charts that he was using available?

[@athb4hu]

Thank you, this was extremely interesting.

[@jonathanrbryce]

Thank you Jesse

[@SAMBUT]

quoting Augustine on Pelagius and saying this to be correct ? - I have recently heard detail teaching as to every time when Pelagius had the chance to defend his position he was considered orthodox, however in the end he was condemned by Augustine in his absence - and here you say that you can quote Augustine on Pelagius, maybe on what has become officially known as Pelagianism, but not on what Pelagius actually taught and believed...

[@seasharpdeflat]

Good lecture (once he finished writing on the blackboard)!

[@christiaanwildtham710]

He is writing things down on a board, and all I can see is a picture

[@andrewnichols2395]

Could you please let me know where and when this lecture was given?

[@ontologicallysteve7765]

dcdebbie1 I would LOVE to get the entire series. Can you send links for mp3 copies or do you sell cd's?

[@sdesoto]

Best lecture I have ever heard on theology!

[@Ekklesiajourney]

Do you have other video's on understanding the elect and predestination as understood by those like Harry Conn and Gordon Olson.

[@terijune3307]

Friend, Did you mention that Augustine was a Gnostic (Pagan) prior to his conversion to the church of Rome? The Gnostics apparently thought man was so depraved that he couldn't possibly have free will.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

Why does a man’s sin before conversion mean anything? You realize who the apostle Paul was right?

[@davidamoroso2322]

A lot of time could be saved if people were learning from the Holy Spirit. You might like the book- "Religion- The Devil's Best Idea" by David Edwards

[@ravissary79]

David Amoroso the two categories are not mutually exclusive.

[@007Tinkins]

Is there a way to know where he placed the names of modern preachers since there is no visual?

[@donavoncash7739]

The ideology that you earn God's grace is an oxymoron. Grace literally means unmerited favor. You can't earn Grace, what a ridiculous statement made by Augustine.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

Why do you believe and the unbeliever does not, given you both read Gods word?

[@AmericanShia786]

Winkie Pratney is a great speaker. I've seen a few videos by him over 20 years ago and own a couple of his older books. I disagree with the brother that made the comment that Augustinianism is a heresy. However, I believe that Augustine really converted, but was never able to shake off the teachings of the Manichaeans. Some Eastern Orthodox Christians will call him "Blessed Augustine" rather than "Saint Augustine". I certainly believe it is possible by the grace of God to be thoroughly converted, yet have bad theology. Augustine's testimony is a good one, but his doctrine is tinged with Manichaeanism. Many Calvinist Evangelicals will do to Charles Grandison Finney what some have done to Augustine. Because an early reviewer who was a Calvinist professor did not do a proper study of Finney's first edition of the Systematic Theology, that early reviewer accused Finney of full-blown Pelagianism, the idea that those who do not hear the Gospel are saved by following Christ's Example, so they do not need God's help. However, if one reads the very first of the Lectures of Revival of Religion, Finney clearly taught that sinners are saved with difficulty by the Holy Spirit, and that it is "impossible" to be saved without the grace of God. Thus, Finney clearly was NOT what Calvinists call a Pelagian. If the Eastern Church had a Reformation and they went back to early Eastern Christian writers (John Cassian, Gregory of Nanzianzen, and etc.,) I believe those hypothetical Eastern Reformers would have been either Moral Government Wesleyan Arminians (as seen in John Miley's Systematic theology, or New School like Finney himself. Winkie Pratney is absolutely correct that pre-Augustine Christians believed differently than Augustine. I can find good things in both the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, as well as their followers, but their views on Man, Sin, Atonement, and Regeneration are not the same as early Christians. Hugo Grotius, the student of Jacob Arminius, did a very excellent study of early and Eastern Christian writers and influenced the natural and spiritual descendants of Jonathan Edwards. I'm just a big wind bag, but I am really thankful to have met a dear brother now promoted named Jeff Paul, who saw my interest in Charles Grandison Finney, and gave me books by Gordon C. Olson that really got me thinking in a different way about what it means to be saved and that its all about God's Benevolent Moral Government, not about me.

[@AmericanShia786]

One more thing ... I told you I'm a wind bag! ... Even though I was never able to personally accept the doctrine of Open Theism as taught by Wesleyan Holiness theologians in the late 1800s, I truly believe the late Gordon C. Olson and Harry Conn and their colleagues were truly converted Christians who participated properly in God's activities. I truly believe Gordon C. Olson was the greatest theologian of the 20th Century, so I'm happy to see that the baton has been successfully passed to the 21st century!

[@propdannyb6815]

#MindBlown

[@stephendufort4154]

Wow,first time I heard some details about Augustine and what the early Church,thought previous Fathers. Is there a book and references on this lecture which I could get?????

[@stephendufort4154]

Hi thanks Art ,I will listen.....It interest me to understand the difference between Catholic and Orthodox views and this issue,and and the difference between Jesus ,redemption,salvation ,and how we look at who Jesus is....As a former Catholic.....I prefer the Jesus that emerges from the Orthodox perspective,and though I do not grasp it much yet.You know of course both Luther and Calvin were both former Augustinian Monks!

[@howardharper7590]

Art Anson orthodox revolutionary

[@emf49]

“What Love is This?” by Dave Hunt is very comprehensive and includes lot of church history.

[@AarontheGreatXCII-kn4gj]

*Constantine lived from 272-337* These are the Popes before him 1) St. Peter (33-67) 2) St. Linus (67-76) 3) St. Cletus (76-88) 4) St. Clement 1 (88-97) 5) St. Evaristus (97-105) 6) St. Alexander I (105-1l5) 7) St. Sixtus I (1l5-125) 8) St. Telesphorus (125-136) 9) St. Hyginus (136-140) 10) St. Pius I (140-155) 11) St. Anicetus (155-166) 12) St. Soter (166-175) 13) St. Eleutherius (175-189) 14) St. Victor I (189-199) 15) St. Zephyrinus (199-217) 16) St. Callistus (217-222) 17) St. Urban I (222-230) 18) St. Pontian (230-235) 19) St. Anterus (235-236) 20) St. Fabian (236-250) 21) St. Cornelius (251-253) 22) St. Lucius I (253-254) 23) St. Stephen I (254-257) 24) St. Sixtus I1 (257-258) 25) St. Dionysius (256-268) 26) St. Felix I (269-274) 27) St. Eutychian (275-283) 28) St. Caius (283-296) 29) St. Marcellinus (296-304)

[@wilsclanmom]

This is hilarious. Catholic wishful thinking.

[@AarontheGreatXCII-kn4gj]

@@wilsclanmom wikipedia is not Catholic

[@AarontheGreatXCII-kn4gj]

@@wilsclanmom architecture and archeology are not "wishful thinking" they are proves of a fact of history. Where was your church?

[@sheilasmith7779]

God created humans with Free will AND desire. It is desire that can seek God or the lust of the world.

[@simonskinner1450]

Faith is complete trust and the duty to fulfil that trust. Faith cannot be given or gifted as it is the belief that one person holds about another, and the loyalty show to them.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

Ephesians 2:8-9

[@simonskinner1450]

@@ShepherdMinistry Read again my friend. Grace is from God not of ourselves, and faith (of ourselves) not of works (sin) lest any man boast. Works are sin which you find in my video #1. Faith is love, and God responds to those who love him, the law of faith is a command for us to do. Think on. I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity' and this sort of myth is dealt with, so please watch they are free and eye opening, they are in my full name Simon John Skinner.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

@@simonskinner1450 Ephesians 2:8-9 [8] For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, [9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Faith is a confident trust and reliance upon Christ Jesus and is the only means by which one can obtain salvation. this. The Greek pronoun is neuter, while “grace” and “faith” are feminine. Accordingly, “this” points to the whole process of “salvation by grace through faith” as being the gift of God and not something that we can accomplish ourselves. This use of the neuter pronoun to take in the whole of a complex idea is quite common in Greek (e.g., 6:1); its use here makes it clear that faith, no less than grace, is a gift of God. Salvation, therefore, in every respect, is not your own doing.

[@simonskinner1450]

@@ShepherdMinistry Thr law of faith is the law of righteousness, so you must have complete trust in the commandments and promises of the believer, and the duty to fulfil yhat trust. Believe Galatians 5:21. If you do not walk in the Spirit you return to condemnation.

[@simonskinner1450]

@@ShepherdMinistry Grace is free gift because it cannot be paid for, no offering will please God, only through forgiveness after repentance can we receive grace to cover past sins, as learnt by Abraham due to his believing. And concerning Abraham his believing was proven as Genesis 26:5, he obeyed God's laws, which is proof of belief known as faith.

[@Hebrew42Day]

I wish the video of this was available - when He starts saying, "this person is on this side, this other person is on this side" it's completely meaningless as I have no visual reference for which side is which side.

[@EdgeOfEntropy17]

So I am suppose to accept this guy's opinion on textual criticism as the authority?

[@grantikos]

He didnt touch on textual criticism.

[@infowolf1]

ephesus council had nothing to do with any of this, it was about Nestorius, and only mentions approval of decision against Pelagius. This guy hasn't read the councils canons and so forth he is pretty good, but is drawing on some information fed him by the usual anti Constatine and otherwise misinformed people. RC and Eastern Orthodoxy both reject predestination and support free will. It was the protestants who went whole hog Augustinian. the persecution issue wasn't the work of a council.

[@the4gospelscommentary]

No, the Roman Catholic Church preserved the teaching of St Augustine, that includes both predestination and free will. Protestants are certainly not the followers of Augustine.

[@SugoiEnglish1]

1. God wills all to be saved. Which will? His moral will. 2. Daniel and other texts teach that God's will can't be thwarted So, what is the best view?

[@WonRyatt_9000]

But what if God wills that someone resist his will?

[@waynehampson9569]

Just a question. If man is capable of attaining salvation by himself why the Cross?

[@edwardzamudio9610]

+Wayne Hampson.... Am astonished by your statement that your a reform that the simplicity of the gospel has escape your intellect. If your not selected or elected then your statement make sense.

[@h54h52]

God does not want anyone to perish.. He from His grace and compassion provides the way of salvation through His son Christ Jesus. Through the preaching of the Gospel, through the life and witness of the saints, through their prayers God moves to touch men's consciences. All a man or woman has to do is respond to God's grace. Remember the parable of the sowing of the seed? It's a process.

[@davidgrosse6590]

To declare God's righteousness in the forgiving sin. Rom 3:25

[@Hebrew42Day]

Who said we're capable of salvation by ourselves? God demands obedience to give us the undeserved gift. Romans 11:19 - 22 You have been grafted in to the tree of Salvation. If you _DO NOT_ remain obedient, you will be cut off. Hebrews 10:26-31 Those who _willfully_ sin after knowing Christ will face the wrath of God. Galatians 5:21 Those who keep sinning will not inherit the Kingdom of God Ephesians 5:1-7 Imitate God, (with your free will) Crucify your flesh and it's carnal desires. If you don't, you will face the wrath of God with the other sons of disobedience and will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Therefore, DO NOT partake with those still sinning! Colossians 3:1-11 Duplicate of the warning in Ephesians 5, here Paul explains how the substitionary atonement works. It's replacing the _OLD_ man, it does not cover *FUTURE* sin. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 We are judged by belief in God and Obedience to Christ. 1 Peter 1:17 We are judged by _our works_ of righteousness. 2 Peter 2:20,21 Those having known Christ, if they return to sin, it would have been better for them to _NEVER_ have known Christ. 1 Corinthians 3:14-16 Your body is a temple of God, and if you defile that Temple, God will destroy you.

[@larrymcclain8874]

Hebrews 5:9 "And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him." Obedience to God is never legalism; obedience to God is not our own works (Ephesians 2:10; Matthew 7:21-23)

[@ruggedlifejewelry]

Is the church of Christ pelagian ?

[@michaelragnanese]

Your comments show that you did not listen to the lecture concerning the Greek and Latin confusion of the scriptures

[@morningjoeapologetics7982]

Does anyone know what Pratney’s source is for this teaching?

[@bungalobill7941]

What everyone seems to forget. Jesus was speaking to the Jews who were God's chosen. Paul and the apostles were speaking to the Church who were God's chosen. The warnings were to the Church, not to the world. Everyone seems to forget that they are not to all people everywhere. The Gospel was to be preached to all people everywhere, but all the writing of the new testament though was to the Church.

[@Theolife]

I would love to see the video and see who is on what side.

[@jamesbertram7925]

an education on religion but nothing about Christ and true Christianity

[@bradbrown2168]

Augustine reminds me of Mohammed’s transformation from Meccan to Medina Islam. From persuasion to jihad.

[@eugenejoseph7076]

The Lord said 'wolves' would come and divide the flock right at the offset of the church. Why so many churches still teach and promote these false doctrines that started in the 4th century is proof that the Lord was speaking prophetically re: the church. The original was birthed in the serpent, not Eve. But the serpent's lie poisoned our first parents. God, in His forknowledge, knew He would have to do the unthinkable, send His only Son to reclaim His beloved creation. Then Adam and Eve and their offspring would be told of a coming Redemption. The rest, as the say, HiStory. The lie has never changed, never deviated, never stopped, never altered its main purpose, to fool mankind into doubting the Word Of God : DID GOD REALLY SAY?

[@SopaterTheBerean]

Ah, but the Trinity is not clearly taught in the Bible as is the freedom of choice. Even tje scholars admit that this was a later development. Lets just be consistent and reject what Jesus didn't teach!

[@SopaterTheBerean]

Do you have one explicit statement that God is three? Jesus, a practicing Jew said the greatest commandment is the Shema. God is one. How did he observe this command? Jesus also said that people void God's word to establish their traditions! Just as you can trace original sin back to Augustine, the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is traceable and scholars flat out admit it is not taught in Scripture!

[@SopaterTheBerean]

I used to be a Trinitarian. I'm also not an Arian. You assume much. I no longer accept the Trinity because it's not what Jesus or the apostles taught. Lot's of men, sure. And those men love to condemn others who go no further than what Jesus taught, because of the words of men whose fruit was bad. All of this means that the people haven't been careful to hear Jesus. I hope God graciously gifts you with the knowledge of the truth and gives you the wonderful liberty that follows it, William!

[@brucemercerblamelessshamel3104]

from genesis 1 the Triune God is taught and from genesis 3 the enslavement of humanity to sin is taught

[@vaportimenow]

bruce mercer john mark evangelism How can you say "the enslavement of humanity to sin is taught"? From the very first gospel message we see you are incorrect. Genesis 4: 6 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7“IF YOU DO WELL, WILL NOT YOUR COUNTENANCE BE LIFTED UP? And if YOU do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, BUT YOU MUST MASTER IT.”

[@PapyJr.]

If I am going to be honest, I am struggling to get through this lecture. There is a certain absence of authority in Pratney's tone and delivery. I was curious if anyone felt the same.

[@greatsea]

He was very self taught, but has been connected with YWAM most of ministry life. His knowledge is profoundly wide ranging, but lacking in a certain quality of academic rigor. He doesn't have a masters or Ph.D in theology from some Divinity school, but he has a genuine in depth knowledge of church history that he leverages in the main thrust of his ministry endeavor which is preaching and teaching people a primarily Arminian/Moral Government brand of Christianity. I am profoundly indebted to Winkie Pratney for my early Christian development but at some point I found his lack of academic rigor as no longer suiting my own particular pursuits in further Christian growth. He is a dear man who has left a sterling legacy of discipleship among a generation of evangelicals who otherwise would never have been exposed to a more cerebral intellectually oriented side of Christian faith. I'm not sure if you listen through the whole lecture, but I would strongly encourage you to. He is building a case that begins to come together beautifully about 2/3s of the way through. It is one of the best expositions of Augustine's thought I've ever heard.

[@dcdebbie1]

Actually Winkie has 5 earned Ph.Ds. He didn't have them at the time of this lecture but over the course of his ministry he has earned them. He also has created a Revival Library located on the campus of YWAM in Lindale, Texas. His library has over 17,000 books. As for "absence of authority"... is this guy kidding? FYI... these 3 messages were given as a small part of a leadership conference for YWAM in 1974. I wasn't there BUT I was given the tapes 15 years later and 12 years after that I put them on computer and gave CD copies to Winkie. Jesse got them from the revival library. This is a small part of a full blown 22 message teaching on Moral Government. I have the originals and as far as I know I have the only copies that exist. If you want the entire teaching you are welcome to contact me. Kevin - [e-mail]

[@jeremyjsimon]

Anyone have the video if this? I’d love to see where he’s placing names and such to follow along.

[@therepentguy1653]

" Repent is the START ....... "

[@P.H.888]

Yes have your mind changed by God’s Truth! ✝️ Christ Jesus died & Rose Again So we all can have His New Like

[@kylefulton688]

Open theist? Hrm

[@claytonbenignus4688]

There is a moderate position taken by Sts. Join Chrysostom and John Cassian which is taken by the Orthodox, Catholics, and some Arminians.

[@AnswerReADY]

I think Finney would have corrected Winkie on the "Time" issue. Augustines Forced Predestination View, and Open Theism Gods Ignorant View are not the only options. Finney did a great job of presenting a view of Foreknowledge that did not contradict the Bible, OR violate the will of man. God does say we are Free and yet Foreknown. Let Him be true. I like how Winkie at least says thats his "opinion".

[@imalive4u169]

The heresy was Pelagianism. St. Augustine defended dogmatic doctrine which was already there before he refuted the errors of Pelagius and St. Augustine was not alone on this it was actually St. Jerome that first noticed the heresy. For example before St. Augustine you had Church Fathers teaching that Baptism is nessisary for salvation (to be saved). The concept of original sin predated St. Augustine for instance St. Ambrose had taught about original sin long before St. Augustine converted to Christianity. I guess you can say the person who put this video is ignorant of Church history.

[@yohanessaputra9274]

Yes, sadly you hear this from a protestant

[@MrArtbyart]

Who were the Early church leaders, in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries, and how did they practice? The word "Catholic" was referenced in the year 108AD, by Ignatius of Antioch (Also where the word Christian originated). If you honestly study the first three centuries, you will find that Christians practised exactly as Catholics do today. Eucharist, confession, infant Baptism, infusion (pouring), venerating Mary, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Liturgy and justified by works and not by faith alone. I encourage your followers to read their letters themselves, instead of listening to commentary: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers

[@maxboucher86]

you read history with tainted glasses, the word Catholic wasn't about Roman Catholicism but meant universal as in the apostles Creed conversion of faith.

[@maxboucher86]

there are a few quotes here, there are early church fathers who's doctrine was faith plus works but there are also those that are by faith alone. carm.org/early-church-fathers-salvation

[@krishyyfan5153]

really very funny... cherry picking the church fathers to assert the heresy of Faith alone.... yet if you are honest and read their writings, they ALL believe in the Sacraments, bishops and deacons, Eucharist, Mary and the Saints... they are all Catholic and Not Protestant...

[@JesusisLord1130]

Nowhere in the PRE Nicene fathers do you find veneration of images and icons, prayers to Mary or the saints and Etc. This comes in during the POST NICENE FATHERS. The only thing they said about Mary was that she was like the 2nd Eve. One PRE NICENE FATHER said that. People need to read them themselves so they aren't deceived by those fat lies.

[@larrymcclain8874]

@@maxboucher86 Hebrews 5:9; Matthew 7:21-23; Ephesians 2:10

[@infowolf1]

you don't need logical consistency when you are dealing with a mystery, only part of which is comprehensible to the limited human mind.

[@chrisfletcher6827]

Great lecture, unfortunately the sound goes to pot about half way through.

[@AnswerReADY]

Augustine's Early View Closest to Biblical View - "For it is ours to believe, and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit." To Bad he ditched the truth and became a Fatalistic Heretic. "The point is this, the Real Christian view is this; We need God not only to teach us, but to empower us,and to live through us and live in us, to live the kind of life God called us to. In other words, God did not design us to live alone."Winkie

[@HeavenGuy]

Determinism is also what Muslims hold. The devil sings the same Melody using different choirs.

[@OnlyVisitingU]

An otherwise very good and interesting presentation with lots of facts, quotes and insight, but this presentation has nothing to do with Pelagius who Augustine most likely never understood. Winkie Pratney doesn't seem to know much about Pelagius either and yet still declares him to be a heretic on the basis of Augustine's ignorance.

[@wilsclanmom]

How do you suggest finding out what Pelagius actually taught and believed. Sounded like Pratney had read the records of their back and forth debate.

[@OnlyVisitingU]

​@@wilsclanmom Most people only read the one sided account given by Augustine. Pelagius's surviving writings fall into three categories (1) Those that Scholars affirm are his such as The letters to Demetrias and to Celantia (2) Those that Augustine claimed he wrote such as "On the Christian Life" and (3) Collections of other writings such as the Caspari Letters - over which there is some doubt. You will find most published in the Book called "Pelagius - Life and Letters" by Brindley R Rees (B R Rees). As a starter you could also read "The Myth of Pelagianism" By Ali Bonner - though it is expensive. A very useful critique of Augustine is Dr Ken Wilson's D.Phil (Oxford) and a summary called "The foundations of Augustinian-Calvinism". I hope that helps and happy to help further if I can. Just to say that in many places Pelagius claims that believers who exercise faith in Jesus are saved by exercising Faith, Baptism and the Blood of Jesus. (In Demetrias, Celantia and On the Christian Life, for example).

[@wilsclanmom]

@@OnlyVisitingU I did get Dr. Wilson’s summary book and am reading it. I love it. I’m sort of an outsider looking in and finding this fascinating. I am a Latter-day Saint (Mormon) and find all this stuff about the history of the Christian church fascinating. I must say it confirms my feelings that there was an apostasy from original Christianity and a need for a complete restoration (new download of the original program.). Anyone who reads the Book of Mormon faithfully could never accept Calvinistic doctrine. The Book of Mormon is clearly on the side of the flip side of every TULIP doctrine. I wish there was more scholarly interaction between the faculty at BYU and the rest of the Christian world’s thinkers and scholars. Sigh. I guess I’ll have to wait for the millennium, which doesn’t look like it’s very far away at the rate we’re going.

[@OnlyVisitingU]

@@wilsclanmom I'm glad you're enjoying the book. Your reference to "scholarly interaction" ... well I'm not so sure about that in today's polarised world. It is probably better to seek out the differing views and let people make their own judgement - but that is also fraught with problems too in that often one simply interprets through one's own presuppositions. I can only fall back to the words of Jesus for those who sincerely seek the truth "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Blessings on you :-)

[@TheGuinnesschris]

Nicene creed does not mention Original sin. Man has an inbuilt tendency for evil and sin though is born innocent with our soul given by God by definition can only be good. It is from our free will we choose in our own individual lives we make choices good and bad that we as individuals make through our lives. These choices are how we are to be judged. The New Testaments of the life of Christ and Acts of the Apostles do not ever mention original sin. People may quote from the Old Testaments to justify themselves though I will say I am a Christian from the teachings of Christ in the New Testaments and Acts of The Apostles. If I lived by the Old Testament I would be Judaic, The word of Christ is in the NEW Testaments and not in historical development. it is within your life and those around you that you live with the teachings of compassion forgiveness and love of Christ

[@ShepherdMinistry]

Yes, all people inherited sin from Adam and Eve, specifically from Adam. Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18). Genesis 3 describes Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God and His command. Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, sin has been an “inheritance” for all of their descendants. Romans 5:12 tells us that, through Adam, sin entered the world and so death was passed on to all men because all have sinned. This passed-on sin is known as inherited sin. Just as we inherit physical characteristics from our parents, we inherit our sinful nature from Adam. The virgin birth is important in that it preserves the truth that Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time. His physical body He received from Mary. But His eternal, holy nature was His from all eternity past (see John 6:69). Joseph the carpenter did not pass on his sinful nature to Jesus for the simple reason that Joseph was not the father. Jesus had no sin nature (Hebrews 7:26). Only Jesus was innocent.

[@bradbrown2168]

Can I get his chalkboard motes?

[@bazzar4283]

Just a point! Fact...."God is absolutely sovereign over all he has created"! If God granted to man "free will"! And will call him to account for what he did while in this earthly life with regards to his sinfulness and yet through Gods grace alone in Jesus Christ he will blot out his sinfulness if he accepts this provision! Why would this decision in anyway affect Gods sovereignty? Dose God not in the end up with people "this being the case" who because of their own "free will" Love him and want to be obedient ? But if God ends up with people who Love him and are obedient only because he makes them and they never had any choice! Where is the joy in this for God or those he saves? Would he not know the moment he gave them "free will" they would rebel against him and his authority? As a parent I always got more joy because my children did the right thing out of their own choice and not much at times when I had to make them do what was right! Is this not the wish of every parent even GOD?????

[@amazingrazin]

Are you trying to say that just because He knew how each one of us would utilize free will, we actually don't have free will. Sorry, that simply is not a cogent line of reasoning. We choose to do His will or not to do His will in every action we take. Whether He knew about it beforehand or not. Seeing as how my track record is abysmal at best in this regard, I take great joy in the knowledge that He has put into place a way out for me. I am eternally grateful for His provision.

[@bazzar4283]

cocoonbreach My track record is very much the same as yours but more than likley a much much worse record... Before I read your comment I had been thinking to myself..Were it not for Gods grace in Jesus Christ I would be lost forever! I try to do Gods will but sadly I am such a miserable failure!!! Who will rescue me?? Only God in Jesus Christ can! So like you I am eternally grateful for Gods undeserved kindness to all who believe and accept his provision in Jesus Christ! "Even though your sins are scarlet I will make them as snow"! Isaiah 1 vr 18 to 25 May Gods blessings through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit eternally be yours my friend to his praise and glory

[@rosstemple7617]

Obviously narcissist will love Augustine’s later teaching. It gives them excuse to act badly and to get their way. Benefiting Self. Totally contrary to scripture confirming truth. But we shouldn’t go off the rails to the other side either. God gives us free choice, but not free will. God is still at work in the earth and He will accomplish His will.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

Calvinism is about selflessness and relying on God

[@rosstemple7617]

@@ShepherdMinistry no it’s about selfishness. Special chosen children. It’s about ego. You can’t see God that never made Hell for man. Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

@@rosstemple7617 Ok well I’m up to have a mature Christian dialogue and put that to the test. Do you believe you’re saved by grace alone and there isn’t anything good you could do to be saved?

[@the4gospelscommentary]

Augustine never taught what you are describing. Try reading some of his works, perhaps, befor you are writing nonsense.

[@rosstemple7617]

@@the4gospelscommentary this post was 4 years ago, but the only thing I’d change is we don’t have free will. Choices are free will, but God gives the choices and consequences are already in the way.

[@ChristMyFreedom]

This is really interesting stuff...only problem is can't see the chalk board he is using to teach from...particularly the parts where he is pointing to the 2 poles of beliefs with different well known preachers and what side they tend to lean to or were from because he doesn't name 'pelagianism' or 'augustinianism'...he just says 'this side' 'that side'... other than that though this is really good stuff....

[@barbasiaz4557]

THE "CHURCH" was actually born at Mt Sinai....martyr Stephen confirmed it in ACTS 7:28 and YESHUA Himself said in MATTHEW 18:17 the same.... Barnabas added in HEBREWS 4:2 that indeed EVANGELION (Good News) was preached at Mt Sinai. What was that evangelion?..... 10 commandments -- WORD OF GOD that became flesh. No wonder that YESHUA said that not even "yud" will disappear from GOD'S PERFECT INSTRUCTIONS aka LAW until all will be fulfilled. We still have HIS Millennium ahead....and ISAIAH 66:23 says how we will worship HIM. Many "christians" will be.......... disappointed.

[@barbasiaz4557]

it did not happen yet, William, as wedding chuppa is just ahead for Jews....Gentile believers could serve in HIS temple if they do what Isaiah 56:6-7 says.

[@barbasiaz4557]

HE did not fulfilled all as HE said that until heaven and earth passes away, and such are seen in the END of Revelation when millennium will be over. HE fulfilled the Law of Marital Jealousy described in Numbers 5 concerning HIS Jewish Bride, and for her adulteries. The cup that adulterous wife was to take, HE took and died for her. HE did not remove any of HIS PERFECT LAW, as such will be in FULL mode in HIS millenium per Isaiah 2:2 -4 and confirming in Micah 4:2 Many Gentiles will go and say, “Come, let’s go up to the mountain of Adonai, to the house of the God of Ya‘akov! He will teach us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths.” For out of Tziyon will go forth Torah, the word of Adonai from Yerushalayim. Zachariah 14:16 talks plainly that nations WILL BE celebrating Sukkot - Feast of Tabernacles, just as Passover meal the wedding meal for Yeshua and HIS Bride. Isaiah 66:23 also confirms that ALL people will worship HIM from one Shabbat to another, from one new moon (Rosh Chodesh) to another. That's the fulness of Gentiles...coming to submission to HIS TORAH as HE IS TORAH HIMSELF. Believers do not see it thinking HE nullified something. That's Babylonian/Greek interpretation of rebellious spirit in non-Jewish believers, who carnal minded do not submit themselves to Torah and not seeing WHO Torah is.

[@barbasiaz4557]

HE did not fulfill the Law as last chapters of Ezekiel show HIS temple in Jerusalem again. Zachariah is NOT fulfilled neither. You do not distinguish between the laws but Paul wrote about them in Romans 7 and beginning of 8. HIS PERFECT LAW is not gone - it is HIS IRON SCEPTER He will rule the nations. John Darby, protestant pope-in-demise introduced wrong interpretation of Jewish Scriptures and has delusioned followers in nowadays congregation that do not read in Hebrew context. Darby JUMPED to conclusions that HIS PERFECT LAW is fulfilled. Yeshua said " it is finished", but not "it is all finished". Indeed, there is more to come so prophets and HIS ORDER/LAW are not put aside until new heaven and new earth --- after 1000 years of HIS millennium.

[@barbasiaz4557]

Proverbs 24:7

[@EdgeOfEntropy17]

Augustine is not the authority, so why do people trace Calvinism back to him? Paul taught predestination and even if you are not a Calvinist you must accept it, for whom God did foreknow, He also did predestinate. Those He did predestineate to be conformed to the image of His son, He also called, and glorified. God called them unto salvation through the power of the Holy Spirit, the Father drawing those to believe in Christ. Acts 13:48 says, "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

[@lovedavidl]

Acts 13:48 is mis-interpreted to establish a proof text for predestination as taught by Calvinism.

[@anti-illuminati685]

Because Calvin, Luther and the puritans all saw Augustine as their primary influence for understanding the bible. Remember Augustine wrote a lot of literature - his 'City of God' was the first Christian treatise for shaping a Christian world. It was written by Augustine to defend christianity from pagans who claimed that the christian god couldnt protect Rome, which in Augustine's time was in a lot of trouble. Augustin reshaped christianity into his own image in the 5th century, Calvin and Luther reference Augustine heavily in their doctrines. Yet none of the early Greek/ East Orthodox fathers get anywhere near the same influence in Western thinking. So you have one individual with a warped theology that blends christianity with platonic philosophy that has shaped the entire western way of thinking. If you want to see how far this influence goes, look no further than the Salam witch hunts or Kellog's antisex campaign. It's a powerful reminder of how pervasive memes can be in shaping society. The SJW/white-guilt brigade have also shaped their thinking from Augustinian guilt. If you travel the world no other society or people have a guilt complex yet it is rife across the anglosphere and western europe. The more closely a society has based its religion from catholicism or calvinism/puritanism the more of a guilt complex it will have even if it is not a religious guilt.

[@OpenAirOutreach]

I also uploaded a second video by Winkie about Augustine and his Original Sin doctrine.

[@mr400meter]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6XIq6CKnrGJkMk You've been exposed as a heretic. Congratulations.

[@john-zz6qo]

58:14 "for out of the heart of man"

[@FreeGrace289FaithAlone45-li]

Original sin BEFORE Augustine “The same Apostle writes as follows to the Hebrews, “Moreover Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes. For he was still in the loins of his father Abraham when Melchizedek met him as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings.” If then Levi, who is born in the fourth generation after Abraham, is declared as having been in the loins of Abraham, HOW MUCH MORE WERE ALL MEN, THOSE WHO ARE BORN AND HAVE BEEN BORN IN THIS WORLD, IN ADAM’S LOINS WHEN HE WAS STILL IN PARADISE. AND ALL MEN WHO WERE WITH HIM, OR RATHER IN HIM, WERE EXPELLED FROM PARADISE WHEN HE WAS HIMSELF DRIVEN OUT FROM THERE; AND THROUGH HIM THE DEATH WHICH HAD COME TO HIM FROM THE TRANSGRESSION CONSEQUENTLY PASSED THROUGH TO THEM AS WELL, WHO WERE DWELLING IN HIS LOINS; and therefore the Apostle rightly says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”..Through Adam , from whom all mortals derive their origin, that sin is said to have entered, and through sin, death.” (Origen of Alexandria commentary on Romans book 5 chapter 1.14) “our body the body of sin, it will assuredly be taken in agreement with the understanding which DAVID SPEAKS IN REFERENCE TO HIMSELF, “FOR I WAS CONCEIVED IN INIQUITIES AND IN SINS DID MY MOTHER CONCEIVE ME.” And the Apostle himself says elsewhere, “Who will rescue me from the body of this death?” and again he calls our body “the body of lowliness.” Moreover, he says of the Savior in a certain passage that he came “in the likeness of the flesh of sin, so that with respect to sin he might condemn sin in the flesh.” HE IS SHOWING BY THIS THAT OUR FLESH IS INDEED A FLESH OF SIN, BUT CHRIST’S FLESH IS SIMILAR TO THE FLESH OF SIN. For he was not conceived from the seed of a man, but the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and the power of the Most High overshadowed her so that what was born from her should be called the Son of the Most High.” “even in the law it is commanded that sacrifices be offered for the child who was born..WAS A NEWLY BORN CHILD ABLE TO SIN? AND YET IT HAS A SIN FOR WHICH SACRIFICES ARE COMMANDED TO BE OFFERED, AND FROM WHICH IT IS DENIED THAT ANYONE IS PURE, even if his life should be one day long. It has to be believed, therefore, that concerning this David also said what we recorded above, “in sins my mother conceived me.” FOR ACCORDING TO THE HISTORICAL NARRATIVE NO SIN OF HIS MOTHER IS DECLARED. IT IS ON THIS ACCOUNT AS WELL THAT THE CHURCH HAS RECEIVED THE TRADITION FROM THE APOSTLES TO GIVE BAPTISM EVEN TO LITTLE CHILDREN. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were committed were aware that in everyone was sin’s innate defilement , which needed to be washed away through water and the Spirit.” (Origen of Alexandria commentary on Romans book 5 chapter 9.10 and 11) “Cursed be the day in which I was born, and the night in which they said , behold a male child. Cursed be he who announced to my father, saying, ‘A male child was born to you’..Does it appear to you that the prophet could have invoked such severe and oppressive things UNLESS HE KNEW THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THIS BODILY BIRTH THAT WOULD SEEM WORTHY OF SUCH CURSES and for which the Lawgiver would blame so many impurities for which he subsequently would impose suitable purifications?” “hear David speaking, “In iniquity I was conceived and in sins my mother brought me forth,” showing that EVERY SOUL WHICH IS BORN IN FLESH IS POLLUTED BY THE FILTH “OF INIQUITY AND SIN” and for this reason we can say what we already have recalled above, “No one is pure from uncleanness even if his life is only one day long.” To these things can be added the reason why it is required, since the baptism of the Church is given for the forgiveness of sins, that, according to the observance of the Church, THAT BAPTISM ALSO BE GIVEN TO INFANTS; SINCE, CERTAINLY, IF THERE WERE NOTHING IN INFANTS THAT OUGHT TO PERTAIN TO FORGIVENESS AND INDULGENCE, THEN THE GRACE OF BAPTISM WOULD APPEAR SUPERFLUOUS.” (Origen of Alexandria Homilies on Leviticus Homily 8.3 and 8.5) “But the prophets, who have given some wise suggestions on the subject of things produced by generation, tell us that A SACRIFICE FOR SIN WAS OFFERED EVEN FOR NEW-BORN INFANTS, AS NOT BEING FREE FROM SIN. THEY SAY, “I WAS SHAPEN IN INIQUITY, AND IN SIN DID MY MOTHER CONCEIVE ME;” ALSO, “THEY ARE ESTRANGED FROM THE WOMB;” which is followed by the singular expression, “They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” Besides, our wise men have such a contempt for all sensible objects, that sometimes they speak of all material things as vanity: thus, “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that subjected the same in hope;” at other times as vanity of vanities, “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, all is vanity.” WHO HAS GIVEN SO SEVERE AN ESTIMATE OF THE LIFE OF THE HUMAN SOUL HERE ON EARTH, AS HE WHO SAYS: “VERILY EVERY MAN AT HIS BEST ESTATE IS ALTOGETHER VANITY?” HE DOES NOT HESITATE AT ALL AS TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRESENT LIFE OF THE SOUL AND THAT WHICH IT IS TO LEAD HEREAFTER. He does not say, “Who knows if to die is not to live, and if to live is not death” But he boldly proclaims the truth, and says, “Our soul is bowed down to the dust;” and, “Thou hast brought me into the dust of death;” and similarly, “Who will deliver me from the body of this death?” also, “Who will change the body of our humiliation.” It is a prophet also who says, “THOU HAST BROUGHT US DOWN IN A PLACE OF AFFLICTION;” MEANING BY THE “PLACE OF AFFLICTION” THIS EARTHLY REGION, TO WHICH ADAM, THAT IS TO SAY, MAN, CAME AFTER HE WAS DRIVEN OUT OF PARADISE FOR SIN. Observe also how well the different life of the soul here and hereafter has been recognised by him who says, “Now we see in a glass, obscurely, but then face to face;” and, “Whilst we are in our home in the body, we are away from our home in the Lord;” wherefore “we are well content to go from our home in the body, and to come to our home with the Lord.” (Origen of Alexandria Against Celsus Book 7 chapter 50)

[@FreeGrace289FaithAlone45-li]

“an infant, who being lately born, HAS NOT SINNED, EXCEPT IN THAT, being born after the flesh according to Adam, HE HAS CONTRACTED THE CONTAGION of the ancient death at its earliest birth”. (Cyprian, The Epistles Of Cyprian Epistle 58, Note 5) “For when the Lord at His advent had cured THOSE WOUNDS WHICH ADAM HAD BORNE, and had healed the old poisons of the serpent, He gave a law to the sound man, and bade him sin no more, lest a worse thing should befall the sinner…NOR WOULD THE INFIRMITY AND WEAKNESS OF HUMAN FRAILTY have any resource, unless the divine mercy, coming once more in aid, should open some way of securing salvation by pointing out works of justice and mercy, so that by almsgiving WE MAY WASH AWAY WHATEVER FOULNESS WE SUBSEQUENTLY CONTRACT.” (Cyprian, The Treatises Of Cyprian Treatise 8, Note 1) “Vices and carnal sins must be trampled down, beloved brethren, and THE CORRUPTING PLAGUE OF THE EARTHLY BODY must be trodden under foot with spiritual vigour”. (Cyprian, The Treatises of Cyprian Treatise 10, Note 14) “54. That no one is without filth and without sin. In Job: “For who is pure from filth? Not one; even if his life be of one day on the earth.” Also in the fiftieth Psalm: “BEHOLD, I WAS CONCEIVED IN INIQUITIES, AND IN SINS HATH MY MOTHER CONCEIVED ME.” Also in the Epistle of John: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (Cyprian, The Treatises Of Cyprian Treatise 12, Book 3, 1st Testimony, Note 54)

[@FreeGrace289FaithAlone45-li]

“Do not through LAZINESS give up what is already present, and do not take for granted the enjoyment of the things that do not exist, or things that perhaps will not exist, as if they were in your hands. DOES NOT THIS INFIRMITY NATURALLY EXIST IN THE YOUNG, who having frivolously expansive minds regard things hoped for as already present?” (Basil the Great Homily on the words “Be attentive to yourself” #5) “God created the human being according to the image and likeness of God, and made him worthy of knowledge of himself, and equipped him with reason in contrast to the animals, and granted that he take delight in the inconceivable beauties of paradise, and appointed him ruler of all things on earth. THEN HE WAS OUTWITTED BY THE SERPENT AND FELL INTO SIN, AND THROUGH SIN INTO DEATH, AND THE EVILS ATTENDANT ON THIS, yet God did not overlook him. First he gave the law as a help, appointed angels to guard and care for him, sent prophets to reprove evil and teach virtue, THWARTED THE IMPULSE TOWARD EVIL by threats, awakened eagerness for good things by promises, often reveled the outcome of good and evil in different persons, judging them in advance as a warning for others. God continued in all these and similar benefactions and did not turn away in response TO OUR DISOBEDIENCE. For we were not sent away, dismissed from the goodness of the Master, nor did we thwart his love for us, as we insulted the Benefactor by the insensibility to the honors given us. Rather, WE WERE RECALLED FROM DEATH AND GIVEN LIFE AGAIN by our Lord Jesus Christ himself.” (Basil the Great, Long Rules Question 2: Answer 3, On the Human condition p.115-116) “Now, then, the word ‘anew,’ I think, clearly means THE REPAIRING OF THE FIRST BIRTH IN THE DEFILEMENT OF SIN. Job says: ‘No one is free from stain, not even if his life last for one day .’ AND DAVID LAMENTS AND SAYS: ‘I WAS CONCEIVED IN INIQUITY AND IN SINS DID MY MOTHER CONCEIVE ME.’ The Apostle also declares: ‘For all have sinned and do need the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Basil the Great, Concerning Baptism chapter 2, FOTC volume 9, pg.357)

[@FreeGrace289FaithAlone45-li]

“If one considers the inevitable experiences affecting the soul, he will think it absurd and impossible that the evils connected with them should be removed. OUR VERY BIRTH HAS ITS BEGINNINGS IN PASSION, growth proceeds by way of passion, and in passion life also ends. SOMEHOW EVIL IS MIXED UP WITH OUR NATURE THROUGH THOSE WHO FIRST SUCCUMBED TO PASSION, AND BY THEIR TRANSGRESSION MADE A PERMANENT PLACE FOR THE DISEASE. Now the nature of living beings is transmitted in each species by its descendants so that, ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF NATURE, THAT WHICH IS BORN IS THE SAME AS THAT FROM WHICH IT IS BORN. SO MAN IS BORN FROM MAN, THE SUBJECT OF PASSION FROM THAT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO PASSION, THE SINNER FROM THE SINNER. HENCE SIN IN SOME WAY COMES INTO EXISTENCE TOGETHER WITH THOSE WHO ARE BORN; it is born and grows with them, and at the end of life it also ceases with them.” (Gregory of Nyssa, The Beatitudes, sermon 6) “I think that man is called a peacemaker par excellence who pacifies perfectly THE DISCORD BETWEEN FLESH AND SPIRIT IN HIMSELF AND THE WAR THAT IS INHERENT IN NATURE, SO THAT THE LAW OF THE BODY NO LONGER WARS AGAINST THE LAW OF THE MIND, but is subjected to the higher rule and becomes a servant of the Divine ordinance…by such peacemaking human nature, too, goes beyond its twofold composition; it returns completely to the good and becomes simple and free from deceit. Thus it is made truly one, so that what appears is the same as what is hidden” (Gregory of Nyssa, The Beatitudes, sermon 7) “the purification indicates MAN’S RETURN FROM DEFILEMENT TO HIS NATURAL PURITY; THE CIRCUMCISION MEANS THE CASTING OFF OF THE DEAD SKINS WHICH WE PUT ON WHEN WE HAD BEEN STRIPPED OF THE SUPERNATURAL LIFE AFTER THE TRANSGRESSION” (Gregory of Nyssa, The Beatitudes, sermon 8) “Now since by a motion of our self-will WE CONTRACTED A FELLOWSHIP WITH EVIL, AND, OWING TO SOME SENSUAL GRATIFICATION, MIXED UP THIS EVIL WITH OUR NATURE LIKE SOME DELETERIOUS INGREDIENT SPOILING THE TASTE OF HONEY, and so, falling away from that blessedness which is involved in the thought of passionlessness, WE HAVE BEEN VICIOUSLY TRANSFORMED-for this reason, Man, like some earthen potsherd, is resolved again into the dust of the ground, in order to secure that he may part with the soil which he has now contracted, and that he may, THROUGH THE RESURRECTION, BE REFORMED ANEW AFTER THE ORIGINAL PATTERN; at least if in this life that now is he has preserved what belongs to that image… SINCE, THEN, THERE HAS BEEN INBRED IN THE SOUL A STRONG NATURAL TENDENCY TO EVIL, IT MUST SUFFER, JUST AS THE EXCISION OF A WART GIVES A SHARP PAIN TO THE SKIN OF THE BODY; FOR WHATEVER CONTRARY TO THE NATURE HAS BEEN INBRED IN THE NATURE ATTACHES ITSELF TO THE SUBJECT IN A CERTAIN UNION OF FEELING, and hence there is produced an abnormal INTERMIXTURE OF OUR OWN WITH AN ALIEN QUALITY, so that the feelings, when the separation from this abnormal growth comes, are hurt and lacerated. Thus when the soul pines and melts away under the correction of its sins, as prophecy somewhere tells us, there necessarily follow, from ITS DEEP AND INTIMATE CONNECTION WITH EVIL, certain unspeakable and inexpressible pangs” (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, chapter 8)

[@odouls779]

At that time they did not know how to attract audience. I am bored in the first minute.

[@2610paul]

This side and that side ya if only i can see which side is this side and that side, I can only see the picture of a lion waiting to maul some people. This side and that side hopeless ......

[@alexdahn5329]

We are indeed born into sin - it's called Death. It doesn't make sense does it? So there's something wrong. Jesus has the answers. Just ask. Finding Out is great.

[@evanu6579]

alex dahn We’re not born into sin. Sin results in death, but that happens after we’ve received the knowledge of good and evil. Children don’t have this knowledge. You know they have it when they know they’re naked.

[@Itsatz0]

Wow, christianity is really screwed up.

[@Itsatz0]

***** Low life.

[@Itsatz0]

***** The lower the life the more ignorant.

[@Itsatz0]

***** No, ignorant in the sense that you take the bible to be true, when it obviously is a fraud.

[@Itsatz0]

***** Cars, planes, buses and food are real. Yaweh isn't.

[@sketchbook1]

+itsatz Yahweh, by definition (in His very name, which means, "I AM") is the Eternally Existent One. He is actually the only one with true, self-existent, non-dependent Reality.

[@sammyDAbull2]

1:18:18

[@the4gospelscommentary]

Loool, a man who has never read the Church Fathers and who has no repect for them (he is calling them "guys" and "dudes") is lecturing on what they were teaching, as if he cared what they had to say. And he is accusing perhaps the greatest of the Fathers - St Augustine - of being a "bad exegete". 💀

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

If you'd actually studied Augustine’s theology, you'd know his unbiblical doctrine of Original Sin was concocted to support the equally unbiblical practice of paedobaptism and his denial of free will came straight out of his background in Manichean gnosticism.

[@the4gospelscommentary]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh You have no clue what you are talking about. Original sin is a biblical doctrine and was taught by all the Church Fathers, as was also infant baptism. St Augustine also didn't straight away deny free will, but he taught that free will was weakened after the sin of Adam, and needs God's grace to be freed, which again is an entirely biblical doctrine.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

​​​​​​​@@the4gospelscommentary Such authoritative ignorance! Contrary to your uninformed assertions, early church writers overwhelmingly believed infants were born innocent, nor did they teach or practice infant baptism (paedobaptism). For example, the _Apology of Aristeides_ (c.125, 15.11), the _Epistle of Barnabas_ (c.130, 6:11), and the _Shepherd of Hermas_ (c.100-c.160, 27:1; 101:1-3) all expressed the conviction that children are born in a state of innocence.There is also no evidence at this early stage of paedobaptism. Indeed, the _Didache_ (aka _The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,_ c.90-150, 7:1-4) reserved baptism for persons old enough to have received instruction and to have fasted for at least the day before. Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) viewed baptism as rendering the Christian "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" ( _First Apology_ 34) and restricted it to those who "are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins" acquired when they were "brought up in bad habits and wicked training" ( _First Apology_ 61). Had Justin believed infants were born in a sinful state, he would hardly have thought that being "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" (cf. Matthew 18:3; 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) was a worthwhile outcome. Note, too, how Justin viewed one's sinful state as resulting from one's upbringing, not as something inherited. Irenaeus (c.130-202) expressed the view that Christ sanctified infants and children: “becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age” ( _Against Heresies II,_ 22.4) and that faith in Christ was necessary for the remission of sins ( _Against Heresies III,_ 12.2, 7). Concerning the ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’, Irenaeus wrote: _For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom_ ( _Against Heresies III,_ 16.4). It is difficult to argue these infants were regarded by Irenaeus as being in a sinful state. Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) wrote _For so also we lie under Adam’s sin through similarity of sin_ ( _Fragments_ 2.4, c.195). Note that there is no hint of inherited sin in this allusion to Romans 5:12. The first steps towards the development of a doctrine of original sin as it later came to be understood were recorded by Tertullian (c.160-220). Writing c.205-210, Tertullian objected to what appears to have been the newly-introduced practice of paedobaptism. His objection was, not only that were infants innocent but also that they were incapable of ‘coming’ of their own volition (cf. Matthew 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) to express faith or to confess or repent from any supposed sins ( _On Baptism,_ 18). Instead, baptism was to be preceded by prayer, fasting, night-long vigils, and the confession of all past sins ( _On Baptism,_ 20). In _The Apostolic Tradition_ (c.215), Hippolytus of Rome (c.170-c.235) endorsed paedobaptism (21.16) but gave no theological justification for the practice. Origen of Lyons (c.185-254) thought souls had a pre-incarnate existence ( _De Principiis_ 1.7.3-5) and people were born into a state reflecting the relative departure from good done by them during that existence ( _De Principiis_ 2.9.1-7). Hence, everyone was born in a state of sin ( _Homilies on Leviticus_ 8:3, _Commentaries on Romans_ 5:9). Nevertheless, they shared with Adam only physical descent and the mortality with which he was punished ( _Against Celsus_ 4.40). Quoting Romans 5:12-21, Origen rejected the existence of a sinful state inherited from Adam ( _Commentaries on Romans_ 5:1). Perhaps the first Christian theologian to formally posit the inheritance of the sins and guilt therefore from Adam was Cyprian of Carthage (c.200-258). Cyprian said infants were contaminated by descent from Adam and baptism provided forgiveness for any sins thus inherited ( _Epistle_ 58.5; 64.5). According to Cyprian, personal repentance (cf. Acts 2:38) was not a prerequisite for baptism, which was considered efficacious for salvation in its own right ( _Epistle_ 73.7). Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329-390) regarded infants as being born morally neutral but, because salvation required positive righteousness, were eligible to be baptized so as to acquire it; otherwise they would be left in a state of limbo. Conversely, Christians who desired baptism but died beforehand were lost ( _Oration_ 40.17, 22-23). Therefore, baptism was crucial to salvation. Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-c.395) argued that, not only are infants born innocent, they’re born in a state of grace such that “in the case of infants prematurely dying … they pass to the blessed lot at once” ( _On Infants’ Early Deaths_ ), negating any presumed necessity for paedobaptism. John Chrysostom (c.349-407) expressed the firm view that infants are born innocent, writing “the soul of a little child is pure from all the passions” ( _Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew_ 62.4). In this context, one might note the qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (cf. Matthew 18:3; 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) and for those already in the church (1 Corinthians 14:20). The _Apostolic Constitutions_ (c.375-380) implied that infants are born innocent, saying: _ye have “been baptized into the Lord’s death,” and into His resurrection, as “new-born babes”._ (5.3.16). The only mention of paedobaptism was in the context of a criticism of those who would delay their own baptism till they were approaching death (so as to avoid compromising the perceived efficacy of their baptism) but would hypocritically baptize their infants, thus denying those infants the same opportunity (6.3.15). Paedobaptism was neither approved or disapproved in this passage. Elsewhere, however, baptism was restricted to those who had fasted and received instruction beforehand (7.2.22, 7.3.34). Jerome (c.347-420) held the view that all sins are forgiven at baptism ( _Letter_ 64.2, 4, 7; _Letter_ 123.11), which even children require ( _Letter_ 85.6) for inherited guilt - for which he cited Cyprian and Origen as authorities ( _Against the Pelagians III_ 18-19) - and in spite of noting scriptures opposing that stance (e.g. Ezekiel 18:4, 20) ( _Letter_ 39.4). Augustine of Hippo (354-430) argued that the sin of Adam - including the guilt for it - is inherited by all humans ( _Letter_ 55.8; _Letter_ 164.6, 19; 250.2). Fundamental to Augustine’s hermeneutics was his belief that the practice of paedobaptism necessarily evidenced the existence of Original Sin ( _On Marriage And Concupiscence_ 1.22) and was a tradition based on revelation to the church through Scripture. He saw his task as being to identify the relevant Scriptures, not to question the practice or the tradition. The core of Augustine’s argument supporting paedobaptism was that Adam’s sin was inherited, an argument he largely based on an interpretation of what he _knew_ from Ambrosiatser's _Commentary on Romans_ to be a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12b, which construed Adam as the one ‘in whom’ all sinned ( _A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians_ 4.7, _On Marriage And Concupiscence_ I.1). In subsequent debates with Julian of Eclanum, Augustine’s chief opponent and who knew Greek, Julian repeatedly criticised Augustine’s reliance on Ambrosiaster’s endorsement of the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12. Yet, Augustine continued to defended his interpretation (cf._ Answer to Julian,_ 6.75; _Unfinished Work Against Julian,_ 2.48-55; _Faith, Hope and Love,_ 45, 47; _On Nature and Grace,_ 48; _Letters,_ Vol. 3, 157, Vol. 4, 176). Coupling his reliance on the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12b with an interpretation of poorly-translated texts of Psalm 51:5a and Job 14:4-5a, Augustine argued that even infants are held guilty because of Adam’s transgression ( _On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants_ I.34, III.13). Hence, according to Augustine, having inherited Adam’s sin, infants needed baptism for its remission ( _Letter_ 158.1, _On Marriage And Concupiscence_ 1.22). Augustine, it should be noted, had no knowledge of Hebrew and only a superficial knowledge of Greek, limitations that undoubtedly hindered his ability to extract the original meanings of the texts he worked with. Nevertheless, Augustine had enough familiarity with the Greek manuscripts to know he was relying on a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:14 also ( _On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants_ I.13). So, until Augustine, the only early church writers claiming infants were born in an inherited sinful state were Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine’s contemporary, Jerome. Against these three, Aristeides of Athens, the writer of the _Epistle of Barnabas,_ Hermas of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and the writer of the _Apostolic Constitutions_ all viewed infants as being born innocent. So much for your ignorant claims that Original Sin "was taught by all the church fathers, as was also infant baptism".

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

@@the4gospelscommentary The doctrine of Original Sin is a plain contradiction of: *Deuteronomy 24:16* _The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin._ *Ecclesiastes **7:29* _Behold, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many devices._ *Ezekiel 18:20* _The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself._ What Scripture clearly shows is that people are not to be held accountable for the deeds of others, that human sinfulness arises during one’s youth (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 3:25) and that children must reach a certain level of maturity before they are able to make moral choices between good and evil (Isaiah 7:15-16). Furthermore, since the human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents but is given to each person individually by God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9), it is unreasonable to suppose it is any less pure at conception than the source from whence it comes. What has passed down to us from Adam is the collateral consequences of Adam's sin. This is no different than if you or I were to be convicted of a crime and imprisoned for it; we would be punished but our dependents would also suffer as a result. What Adam’s descendants inherited from Adam as a result of his sin was his mortality and what they lost was access to the Tree of Life.

[@the4gospelscommentary]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh First, it is completely irrelevant what translation of Romans 5:12 we use, because in one way or another Romans 5 teaches that through the one sin of Adam all his descendants have become sinners, as St Augustine abundantly proves in his books On the Merit and Forgiveness of Sins, And the Baptism of Infants. It is simply a lie that the original sin interpretation of Romans 5 is based on one single supposed "mistranslation" of Romans 5:12. Second, the doctrine of original sin was defined by the Council of Carthage, which received papal approval from Pope St Innocent I. Thus, even if you could cite one or two Fathers against the doctrine, it doesn't matter, because the dogmatic definition of the Church trumps whatever any individual Father might have said. Third, for the most parts the Fathers you have cited as saying that infants are born innocent, can be interpreted as saying that they are not guilty of any personal sin. It does not follow, however, that infants are not held guilty on account of the sin of Adam. Similarly, when the Fathers teach that baptism is for those who believe, they are talking about the adults, who must accept the faith before they are baptized. This does not mean, however, that the adults are not supposed to bring their infants with them, according to St Peter: "For the promise is to you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN." Acts 2:39 Now to the individual Fathers. St Irenaeus consistently teaches original sin. To give just one example: "But inasmuch as it was by these things that we disobeyed God, and did not give credit to His word, so was it also by these same that He brought in obedience and consent as respects His Word; by which things He clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed WE HAD OFFENDED in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For WE WERE DEBTORS to none other but to Him whose commandment WE HAD TRANSGRESSED at the beginning." [Against Heresies 5:16:3 (A.D. 189)] Tertullian never says that infants are innocent. Rather he says: "In expressing vexation, contempt, or abhorrence, you have Satan constantly upon your lips; the very same we hold to be the angel of evil, the source of error, the corrupter of the whole world, by whom in the beginning man was entrapped into breaking the commandment of God. And (the man) being given over to death on account of his sin, the entire human race, TAINTED IN THEIR DESCENT FROM HIM, were made a channel for transmitting his condemnation." [The Soul's Testimony 3] Origen does not teach merely the sins from the preexistence of souls, but - just as Augustine and other Fathers - that we all sinned IN ADAM. You are correct about St Cyprian and St Jerome, so I pass over them. But for some reason you just ignore St Hilary: "When we are renewed in the laver of baptism through the power of the Word, we are separated from the sins THAT COME FROM OUR ORIGIN, and are separated from its authors." [Commentary on Matthew 10:24] You also ignore St Ambrose: "In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died; how shall the Lord call me back, except He find me in Adam; GUILTY AS I WAS IN HIM, so now justified in Christ. If, then, death be the debt of all, we must be able to endure the payment." [On the Death of Satyrus 2:6 (A.D. 379)] "For we men are ALL BORN UNDER SIN, and OUR VERY ORIGIN IS IN EVIL, as we read in the words of David: For lo, I was conceived in wickedness, and in sin did my mother bring me forth. Therefore the flesh of Paul was a body of death, as he himself says: Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? But the flesh of Christ condemned sin, which He felt not at His birth, and crucified by His death, so that in our flesh there might be justification through grace, in which before there had been pollution BY GUILT." [On Repentance 1:3:13 (c. A.D.384)] St Gregory Nazianzen does not regard infants as morally neutral. He writes: "But further - Jesus goes up out of the water...for with Himself He carries up the world...and sees the heaven opened which Adam had shut against himself AND ALL HIS POSTERIY, as the gates of Paradise by the flaming sword." [Oration 39:16] "None can see or enter into the Kingdom, except he be born again of the Spirit, and be CLEANSED FROM THE FIRST BIRTH, which is a mystery of the night, by a remoulding of the day and of the Light, by which every one singly is created anew." [Oration 41:14] Now, what is this cleansing from the first birth? Obviously he doesn't mean a physical cleansing, so the only thing he can mean is the cleansing of sin, derived from birth. You completely misrepresent St Gregory of Nyssa. It is true that he says: "But in the case of infants prematurely dying there is nothing of that sort; but they pass to the blessed lot at once...", but what you conveniently left out is what he adds right after: "... IF THOSE WHO TAKE THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER SPEAK TRUE." So the possibility of salvation of unbaptized infants is not his own, but the opinion of others. He himself, on the other hand, denies that unbaptized infants can go to heaven. At other places he clearly teaches original sin, such as: "So it is with us, we inherit the sinful ways of our parents - sinner from sinner from sinner. As a result, sin - in some sense - LATCHES ONTO US WHEN WE ARE BORN and grows within us until our life comes to its end." [Sermon 6 on the Beatitudes] It is true that St John Chrysostom was one of the rare exceptions among the Fathers, in that he was weak on the doctrine of original sin, but even he says this: "Christ came once and found us bound by the paternal handwriting which Adam wrote. He showed THE BEGINNING OF THE DEBT, through our sins the interest increased." [Homilia ad neophytos (in St Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:26)] So, even he believed that there is some debt that needs to be paid, that is solely on account on Adam's sin, and not also our personal sins. I could quote several other Fathers, but in order to keep it short, let me just add one, a contemporary of St Augustine, the one who was fluent in Greek and who definitely didn't rely on a "Latin mistranslation" of Romans 5. St Cyril of Alexandria says this: "Thus has the guilt of the disobedience that is by Adam been remitted: thus has the power of the curse ceased, and the dominion of death been brought to decay. And this too Paul teaches, saying, 'For as by the disobedience of one man, the many became sinners, so by the obedience of the One, the many became righteous.' Romans 5:19 For THE WHOLE NATURE OF MAN BECAME GUILTY in the person of him who was first formed; but now it is wholly justified again in Christ." [Sermon 42 on the Gospel of Luke] ........................................................ AS THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE DOGMATICALLY DECLARED: "Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned, than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration."

[@ericklluch2399]

Silly silly silly talk cloaked as cutting edge philosophicaly high gear "correct" theology. Very interesting entertainment for a few minutes. Boring shit after that.