Many Scriptural proofs of man’s inherited sin nature

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by evangelist-7, May 6, 2012.

  1. evangelist-7

    evangelist-7
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    0

    Let’s start with WHY no human could be the father of Jesus.
    “… she (Mary) was found with child of the Holy Spirit …
    that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:18,20)
    “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35)
    This miracle of the Holy Spirit ensured that Jesus would not inherit man’s sin nature.

    Some verses from David … enjoy!
    “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” (Psalm 51:5)
    “The wicked (sons of men, verse 1) are estranged from the womb;
    they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” (Psalm 58:3)
    “The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men … They have all turned aside,
    they have all become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one.” (Psalm 14:2-3)
    “God looks down from heaven upon the children of men … Every one of them has turned aside;
    they have all become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one.” (Psalm 53:2-3)
    “… for in Your sight no one living is righteous.” (Psalm 143:2)

    Next up … various and sundry verses … enjoy!
    “… (for there is no one who does not sin) …” (1 Kings 8:46, 2 Chronicles 6:36)
    “For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20)
    “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one!” (Job 14:4)
    “For I knew that you (Israel) … were called a transgressor from the womb.” (Isaiah 48:8)
    “For we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses
    are like filthy rags (women’s menstral cloths)” (Isaiah 64:6)
    The Pharisees said to a man, “You were completely born in sins …” (John 9:34)

    Jesus, of course, understood man’s disasterous spiritual condition
    “If you (Jesus’ disciples) then, being evil, know how to give good gifts …” (Luke 11:13)
    Did Jesus purposely choose evil men to be His disciples? No, He’s just saying that all men are evil.
    “But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, and had no need
    that anyone should tell Him about man, for He knew what was in man.” (John 2:23-25)
    “I am He who searches the minds and hearts.” (Revelation 2:23)
    “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts,
    false witness (lies), blasphemies.” (Matthew 15:19)

    Paul (the Jewish scholar) just repeated what his Old Covenant Scriptures say
    “As it is written: ‘There is none righteous, no, not one … there is none who does good,
    no, not one.’ ” (Romans 3:10-12). Paul is quoting here from Psalm 53:2-3.
    “The Scripture has confined all under sin …” (Galatians 3:22)
    “… through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin,
    and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned …” (Romans 5:12)
    “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.
    … the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.” (Romans 7:18-19)
    “… through one man’s offense (Adam’s sin) judgment came to all men,
    resulting in condemnation … in Adam all die (spiritually) …” (1 Corinthians 15:18, 22)
    “And you He made alive, who were (spiritually) dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1-3)

    The Fall of Man affected more than just the human race
    What happened between …
    Genesis 1:31 “Then God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good.”
    and …
    Romans 8:21-22 “… the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption
    into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans
    and labors with birth pangs together until now.”
    What happened was “the Fall of Man” and this caused:
    (1) a cursed man … an inherited sin nature, evil, sickness, physical death, spiritual death.
    (2) a cursed creation … suffering, pain, disorder/chaos, death of God’s creatures.


    Noah and his family carried the sin nature
    Noah left the ark, built an altar, and offered a burnt offering to the Lord (Genesis 8:18-20).
    ”Then the Lord said in His heart, ‘… the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth …’ ” (Genesis 8:21)

    Jews … how can you not believe in original sin?
    Muslims … how can you say God’s prophets were all sinless?
    Christians … how can you (especially) not believe in original sin?

    .
     
  2. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP: What is so evident is, that regardless of what is written in Scripture or why it is written in Scripture, ones presuppositions lead the way and are assumed without proof at every turn.

    Here we have a passage posted that says nor indicates anything in regards to original sin, YET, an assumption is made via the presupposition of original sin, that this manner of conception was needed to keep Jesus from inheriting man's sin nature. That is neither stated or implied by the text period.

    What is stronger than the bars of a castle upon the minds of men? Man made presuppositions such as original sin, that bar the truth from shedding the least glimmer of revelation upon the hearts and minds of men.
     
    #2 Heavenly Pilgrim, May 6, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2012
  3. evangelist-7

    evangelist-7
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    O great enlightened one, didst thou read the other Scripture verses?
    .
     
  4. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely I did, but the reader needs to see the error of your approach starting with the first example you posted. :thumbs:
     
  5. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    The text found in Psalm 51:5 has been raised as in support of original sin or universal moral constitutional depravity.

    First, David is crying out to the Lord concerning his own heart. He is pouring out his heart for God to wash him from his sin, and his iniquity. He acknowledges his personal transgressions, and is reminded every moment of his sin. He recognizes that his sin is against God alone, and the evil that he sees as his sin is something he has done. In verse 4 he states, “Against Thee only have I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight.” This indicates to me that David is expressing remorse for his own personal acts of evil before God and God alone. Just the same, as we enter verse 5 it would appear to me that his focus changes from himself and his own sin, to what he sees as a factor in finding himself in need of the forgiveness of his personal sins and acts of wickedness. The question is, is it the commonly held idea of original sin that he is expressing, or something else? I believe from the plain reading of the text, there is a different source of influence that he points to as opposed to OS. He shifts the focus from himself to the way he was ‘shapen’ and in particular his mothers actions. “ Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did ‘MY MOTHER’ conceive me.”

    It says that he was ‘brought forth’ in iniquity. The first thing I would suggest, is that I see nothing that would suggest that David was establishing or suggesting any ‘universal’ context by this passage, but rather was speaking directly to his own life and his own circumstances. Can you imagine how one could misconstrue Scripture, if every time an author spoke in the first person, we would extrapolate it to be universally applied notion? The verse does say that the circumstances he was ‘brought forth’ in was indeed ‘in iniquity.’ We will look at this further in a moment. For now, I will simply conclude that for one, this passage is not a passage that can be applied universally, but rather is one individual pouring out his heart in repentance speaking to his own circumstances surrounding his birth.

    The latter portion of this verse states that ‘in sin did my mother conceive me.” This is the most revealing portion of the text, but remains one of which a great difference of opinions arise. I would only ask of the reader to once again look at this verse apart from any preconceived notions of OS and open their minds for a simple explanation that I believe sheds great light upon this passage.

    The question can be raised, how could have David’s mother conceived him in sin? Are their any distinct possibilities apart from this relating to the dogma of OS? I say absolutely. If one is to just read the text, it in no way suggests a sinful constitution on the part of humanity in the least, but relates the fact that even from his conception, sin was involved. David simply states that he was conceived in sin by his mother. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand how that is done, especially in light of all the talk on this list surrounding adultery and fornication. There is, I believe, much supporting evidence to support this idea, although within the confines of our discussion, when we are trying to limit our positions to those clearly established by the passage alone, should not be included at this time.

    I believe that with just the information we can gather thus far, utilizing simply the words and context of this passage apart from any presuppositions of OS, a fair minded individual can say with confidence, this passage of Scripture does not lend itself to any universal idea of OS as is so widely taught and accepted. Rather than expressing any such notion such as OS implies, David is simply stating how sin was involved in his very conception by the sinful act of his mother.

    There is a whole discussion that could be breached involving the notion that the Jews have held, i.e., that indeed David was an illegitimate son of Jesse. There is more than one Scriptural references to establish this point, but that is another discussion.

    The plain truth is that Psalms 51:5 in no way establishes any such universal notion such as original sin.
     
  6. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0


    HP:Your arrogance is duly noted before we even engage in a reasonable discussion. This makes me wonder if you are honestly willing/capable of a reasonable discussion on the subject you have breached, or if in fact all you can do is to regurgitate the false presuppositions of your fathers?
     
  7. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let the open minded reader be reminded that there was absolutely no place in Jewish theology for any such notion such as OS implies. OS was indeed foreign to Jewish thought and doctrine. I find it absolutely preposterous to consider that David, being a Jew, to be introducing something so absolutely foreign to his own beliefs as well as the well known ideas held by Jews at large.

    Albert Edersheim, in his great work entitled "The Life and Times of Jesus Christ the Messiah" makes it exceptionally clear that there was absolutely no place for the notion of original sin in Jewish thought or doctrine. OS was simply unknown and at antipodes with Jewish thought.

    Augustine is the father of the notion of original sin (OS) as it is understood in the Church today. It was not taught or a doctrine required of any believer in the Church prior to Augustine.
     
  8. evangelist-7

    evangelist-7
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I agree ... that first section certainly is a far cry from being any kind of a proof.

    In my zealousness, I thought everyone might see the connection between it and all of the other verses.

    If you're not a believer in the OP,
    I suggest you research what the Bible commentators say about Paul's Romans 8, for example.
    .
     
    #8 evangelist-7, May 7, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2012
  9. evangelist-7

    evangelist-7
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    .
    “For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,
    that we should no longer be slaves to sin” (Romans 6:6 – NIV, 1984)

    “For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law
    were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. … I know that nothing good lives in me,
    that is, in my sinful nature. … So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law,
    but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.” (Romans 7:5,18,25 – NIV, 1984)

    “Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires;
    but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
    … Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
    … Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation — but it is not to the sinful nature
    … For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die …” (Romans 8:5,8,12,13 – NIV, 1984)

    “But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.
    … So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
    For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature.
    … Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.
    (Galatians 5:13,16,17,24 – NIV, 1984)

    “The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction” (Galatians 6:8 – NIV, 1984)

    “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following
    its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.” (Ephesians 2:3 – NIV, 1984)

    “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done
    by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ … When you were dead in your sins and in
    the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ.” (Colossians 2:11,13 – NIV, 1984)

    “This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.
    For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature
    (2 Peter 2:10,18 – NIV, 1984)
    .
     
  10. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try reading the same passages in the KJV. Pay close attention to the wording, in that sinfu nature, nature to sin etc., is simply not found in the text.

    With that aside, if one thinks that a 'sinful nature' or a 'nature to sin' proves the case that such is a nature from birth, they are simply begging the question. There is not a shred of evidence that supports the notion of OS just because a sinful nature might be referrred to. For instance, I believe all men have a sinful nature in a sense, but I do not believe in original sin, nor is a nature to sin in and of itself sin. Having a sinful nature is not one in the same with original sin. The passages you post, even with what I believe are misleading/confusing notations in the NIV, do not support the notion or establish the notion of OS as you evidently believe they do. You are reading into those verses your preconceived notion of OS without realizing it. Sinful nature in no wise makes the case that all are sinners by birth as OS implies.
     
  11. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes it is.

    Ephesians 2:3 (KJV)
    Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.


    Nature (Eph. 2:3)
    Strongs
    phusis foo'-sis
    from 5453; growth (by germination or expansion), i.e. (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension, a genus or sort; figuratively, native disposition, constitution or usage:--(man-)kind, nature(-al).


    "by nature" means we were born that way.
     
  12. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP: Sure, but only if OS is your unsupported presupposition.
     
  13. evangelist-7

    evangelist-7
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try reading all of the leading Bible commentaries ... they all say this "flesh" of yours came down from Adam.
    And they ain't sayin' dat ta please da folks cause da folks ain't buyin' it.
    There isn't one Christian in 100 these days (on the forums anyway) who believe in man's inherited sin nature.
    Satan is the greatest liar and deceiver in the history of this world.
    .
     
  14. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does "by nature" mean to you HP? Do you think Strong's is wrong?
     
  15. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  16. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    12strings, simply crying out to God showing how via his mothers sin, that sin was involved in even his conception. The sin of the parents do have influence upon the children, in many ways. It is not an excuse, but none the less is a formidable evil influence in many cases.

    Let me tell you how the sins of even those on this list can influence the lives of others. When some hear preachers of the gospel say they sin everyday, who are they, not even being a minister, to worry about their sin? If the preacher is doing it, do they think they are to act more godly and righteous than a preacher? When they are told they are forgiven before they even sin, why should they fret or fight against sin? Even the mere words of some in their very testimonies can have a sinful and evil effect upon the lives and hearts of others. Is it any wonder that we shall all give an account for every idle word spoken and every deed done in the flesh? I believe there will be a lot of preachers at the judment that will have to give an account for their influence to sin via their own admonitions and testimonies.

    Whatever the reason is that David mentions the sin of his mother, I may not know for certain, but one thing I do know, it was the sin of his mother that he mentions before God as being an influence upon his own life in verse 5 "In sin did my mother conceive me." Bear in mind, it is common knowledge that there was NO place in Jewish theology for any such notion as OS. OS was a foreign idea to the Jews. BUT David did understand and mentioned to the Lord the sinful act involved in his conception by his own mother.
     
    #16 Heavenly Pilgrim, May 7, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2012
  17. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0




    HP: If Strong's claims that the word 'nature' implies OS, they are indeed wrong. Nature implies a natural tendency, but it can certainly be developed as one grows and matures, often aided by repetition and habit. It does not indicate something natural from birth in the spiritual realm, for infants are not even moral agents. Nature does indicate to me things in the physical realm, such as tendencies via the physical sensibilities, which are indeed depraved from their natural state, and serve as formidable influences to sin, but are not sin in and of themselves.



    Sin is a transgression of the law. Where there is no law, there can be no transgression. We can have proclivities to sin from birth via the sensibilities, but sin cannot be formed until one reaches the age of accountability.
     
  18. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP: Forcing the text that uses the word 'nature' to indicate sinners from birth or original sin is not gaining that idea from the text itself. You can do that as well as apply any presupposition to any text, but what you cannot say is that the text, apart from your presupposition, makes the case you are making as to it supporting the notion derived from your presupposition, not the text itself.

    Let me illustrate. Take my position that the nature we are born with is indeed depraved, not spiritually or 'in sin', but rather depraved via natural physical propensities directly due to the fall of man. Now I could indeed indicate that the verse proves my point in precisely the same way you use the text to support OS. What I am getting at is that the text itself indeed speaks of a 'nature' but what it DOES NOT state or imply is what the nature consists of, physical depravity or sin as you would indicate. Are you following this point?

    Scripture indicates that once stained with sin one cannot be anything other than a sinner apart from Christ. If OS is correct, God is seen as punishing man for something he in no way can avoid. That is at antipodes with any semblance of justice. If God can be just and punish man for an avoidable fate, we could not in any manner have a conception of justice period. That is not the case. God has indeed instilled into the heart of everyman a sense of immutable justice. It testifies that if one does anything blameworthy or praiseworthy, one must be the first cause of their moral intents. OS destroys all God-given instilled wisdom of that sense of justice.

    The bottom line is, when a text can be used to prove, or even if it can be said to prove, "either point," it proves neither. Using the words 'by nature' does not establish, BY THE TEXT ITSELF, OS, nor does it establish the depravity being limited to the physical realm as I believe it indicates, 'in and of the text itself.'
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,116
    Likes Received:
    206
    At least David admitted he was a sinner, more than that can be said about you. To suggest that David was passing the buck to his mother in regard to his own sin against Bathsheba and Uriah is so pitful and silly it is beyond belief that you can even utter such a rediculous thing! So mr. sinless is now passing the buck to someone else for his sins. Another escape artist from being a sinner I suppose?????
     
  20. evangelist-7

    evangelist-7
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry that I missed this earlier ... it's in such small print.
    But ... no, I must admit that I am totally unwilling/incapable of a reasonable discussion on the subject!
    When a spiritual Truth is so obvious from Scripture (i.e. not from man), what's to argue about, o great enlightened one?
    Gee, your title does have a nice ring to it, doesn't it.
    .
     

Share This Page

Loading...