Moral Neutrality ???

The discussion of mans natural state, Dead, Alive, or something else.

Please read this first. It will help you gain insight into what I am talking about.

Pelagianism was a 5th-century heresy taught by Pelagius and his followers which stressed that humans have the ability to fulfill the commands of God apart from Sovereign grace, and which denies original sin. Pelagius' teachings were opposed by the Church and it's leading figure (Augustine) in particular.
Simi Pelagianism: Later, John Cassian's doctrine in a compromise between the Pelagius view and the Augustine view surfaced. This doctrine taught man was not dead in tresspass and sin, just sick. That man was only weakened by the fall and that man had the ability to save himself by accepting or rejecting of his own will, Christ's offer.
Pelagius himself was excommunicated, and his theology condemned by a series of church councils, though the issues of the doctrine of free will have remained a sore point for the Church even to our day. The Church looks on the three positions as, St. Augustine regarding natural man as dead, Pelagius regarding him as alive and well, and Cassian regarding him as being merely sick. Augustine's position being the only one that leans entirely on the Sovereign mercies of God. (http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/glossary.html)


I have become more and more concerned with the approach that Christians are taking towards the presumption and presentation of mans inherent state, namely the debate over whether or not man is inherently Good, Evil or something else. When I speak of man’s inherent state I mean the position in which he is brought into this world, his existence on this earth from conception, the inherited traits of his life from his father and fathers father all the way back to Adam. Now the debate that has arisen in earlier Christianity is where is man when it comes to that inheritance? What did man inherit from his father concerning his sinful state, did he inherit a state of moral evil; born into a place of sin, fully lost from day one, corrupted by sin. Moral good; born into a state of not yet corrupted by the sins of this world and in fact in a position of being good from day one until sin starts to tempt and take over and then that child falls prey to sin and becomes morally corrupted after birth. Both have had their hay day in the debate arenas. And both sides have strong leaders to back and support and debate there sides. I for one am a strong believer in mans inherited moral EVIL state. It’s Scriptural Romans 5:12 – just as one man’s sin entered the world and sin spread to all men because all have sinned. I don’t need to teach my children to disobey, even in a way my children from day one start exhibiting selfishness. Feed me now, change my diaper now. Granted that is our duty as parents and we do it out of delight but that is selfish behavior from day one that no one had to teach them, although we look past it and obviously don’t hold it against them but it is still selfishness being exhibited. And some would say even look at the selfishness of achild in the uterus. Now the side that man is inherently morally good. It’s just not right, I don’t see from scripture where this belief can have any merit or bases and yet the scary thing is, is that this belief, usually held by many people of the world, has become a common belief in some Christian circles. But as bad as that is, I believe there is an even more dangerous belief that has started to quietly and possibly unbeknownst to many creep into teachings, songs, twitter updates, facebook statuses, readings, writings, beliefs, and preaching. And that is the belief and presumption that man is inherently morally neutral. It is a danger to believe that man is born into a somewhat morally lukewarm state somewhere between good and evil. The danger in this belief as I hear things is this. It’s not man’s inherited state that many are viewing, it’s the belief that the inherited state of mans moral neutrality is something that stays with him until he makes a choice to either choose heaven or choose hell. Excuse the language but it literally fits here, who in hell would choose hell. And if we are inherently evil we are dead and residing in a soul hell. To be a Christian who is witnessing to a lost soul, if we are viewing that person’s life and soul as neutral we will be prone to not take such a strong stance on the truth of the gospel. If that person is neutral what’s the rush, if that person hasn’t made the choice for either heaven or hell what’s with the hurry. Man IS inherently evil and because of that state of being we must view people who or lost with that image, a person who is lying lifeless and dead due to their sin, not there acted out sin but there inherited sin. And we must with all earnestness start preaching to that lost dead evil person in hopes that the message of the cross will become to them Christ crucified the only hope of glory.