Original Sin Or Committed Sin

There is of course this verse

And this one

 

Grahame: Quote:
"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." (Psalm 58:3)

And this one
Quote:
"
Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened : for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously , and wast called a transgressor from the womb." (Isaiah 48:8)


HP: On Psalms 58:3: If one would take the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one would come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least. There was no place in their theology for such a notion. Original sin was simply foreign to them.

The context of the Psalm clearly indicates two groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the wicked and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of them pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘all’ of them and wash His feet in their blood. Are we to believe that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? God help us! Is David calling on God to smash the teeth of infants? If so, infants being without teeth would make that very difficult would it not?

Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.

Concerning Isaiah 48:8, much the same applies to this verse as well. Again, there was no place in the theology of the Jews for any such notion of original sin. This verse speaks directly to some wicked Jews who evidently would not flee their idolatrous practices. It cannot be taken as any universal statement of all of mankind period. To do so one has to completely ignore to whom these words were directed. A common sense interpretation of this passage would indicate that they from their earliest years never seemed to do anything but sin. Note it was a specific group that were so evil they ‘were called’ transgressors from the womb.

 

HP: I know that Scripture. The question remains is, can it be taken in a literal sense in that every man, woman, and child that have ever lived have the opportunity to respond to the gospel message?

 

HP: This distinction of being in the image of God and in the image of man by no means supportive of the notion of original sin. Here again, as in every passage you align for proof of that doctrine, you simply insert original sin as an understood presupposition. You are not providing proof of original sin by any means. If Adam would never have sinned and had children, it could have been rightfully said of his children, they were born in the 'likeness' of Adam. The argument you present here is as hollow today as whenever it was first coined. The ‘likeness notion’ cannot be reasonably shown to be evidence of original sin in the least.

HP: All any of these texts prove is that all were estranged from God due to sin. It in no wise supports any such notion as original sin regardless of the words ‘child’ or ‘children’ etc. We today are children of God. Does that somehow show that were born that way or that we are in fact in age as children? Neither doe the word ‘all’ insinuate that infants before the age of accountability are classified as part of the ’all’ and as such sinners. The word ‘all’ takes on different meaning in different situations.

HP: Well, that is indeed a telling statement. How can you make such a statement without espousing double predestination precisely as Calvin did? Damned from the fetus stage? Created by God to damnation. You have left the farm of reason DHK, and acknowledged a doctrine novel only to Calvinism in its rankest form. If they were not known by God from a fetus, why is it not correct to say that they were damned by God from the fetus? Why cannot one say that any that are lost were in fact created to be lost by God for God never gave them the slightest opportunity to be saved, having damned them from before birth. How do you escape the clear notion that before they ever heard the gospel or had the chance to hear the gospel they were not in fact damned? Before they ever could have conceived of rejecting Christ they were damned. How can one reject something that was an absolute impossibility for them to accept, God having damned them before birth? And you would say that a God that would do as such is Just? If you do not desire to be seen in support of the most gross errors of Calvinism, you might think about restating your position.

HP: Let the listener clearly note the absolute fatalism of the arguments DHK presents, just as does the same arguments made by Calvin himself. Forget any notion of ‘choosing’ to reject Christ. The 'cause' is stated here by DHK as 'ones nature,' developed far before a choice is even possible, determining ones fate by nothing short of deterministic fatalism.

Then he tries to rectify this horrible deterministic pit he has fell into by saying we are “accountable ultimately for our sin,” sin necessitated on us due to our necessitated nature. Can anyone wonder why the system of thought DHK clearly appears to be espousing is duly noted as a maelstrom of confusion? They say one thing in one breath and contradict it in another then lay any blame for the stark contradictions most often than not on God’s ways being higher than our ways.

 

Drfuss, I do not believe the article accurately depicts the sentiments of Palagius. He said, "The only effect of Adam's sin on his posterity is that of bad example." I have never found that in reading Pelagius's writings, the few that survived Augustines attempt to burn everything he wrote because he disagreed with him on original sin. That sounds more like a statement from Augustine about Prelagius than an accurate depiction of Pelagius's thoughts. Certainly bad example went a long way in corrupting the race. Even David clearly sets forth the sin of his mother in Psalms 51:5 that shows the effects of bad example in David's life. Still, bad example is not the 'only effect' upon mankind. The many effects are so clear that I cannot for a minute believe Pelagius could not witness physical depravity in his day and attribute it to the fall as well.

 

Drfuss, here is yet another excerpt in error IMO of course.
The unknown author wrote: “In the case of the first man Adam, his sin was the rejection of the true God and the acceptance of knowledge and wisdom, that is, reason, as God. As important and good as these are in their proper place, they are not divine; they are not God. Adam's sin is basically an idolatry of reason.”

They are not God but they are inspired by God. It was not wisdom or reason that was Adam or Eves god, it was the acceptance of a lie in direct contradiction to a known commandment of God wherein lied the sin. Wisdom and reason certainly have their origin in God Himself, imparting to man tools to use to discern truth. Wisdom and reason are only influences upon the will of man. Adam and Eve proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they could act in direct opposition to the God instilled reason and wisdom, choosing selfishness as opposed to benevolence and obedience. Selfishness may be the result of ones reasoning, but satan, the flesh, and the lusts of the flesh have obviously influenced it to a wrong end if sin is chosen.

Wisdom and reason were not the gods of Adam’s and Eves fall. Selfishness was. Wisdom and reason should have clearly been influencing them to obedience, not sinfulness.

I find numerous errors in this article as I read further.

 

You are right. David doesn't "try" to establish a dogma of original sin. That was not his purpose in writing any of these psalms. Nevertheless the doctrine was taught in his writing, whether you agree with it or not. It is the Holy Spirit that penned the words. Did you want to assign blame to Him?

 

There is no recorded sin of David's mother. If there was, David wouldn't have been chosen king, a man after God's own heart. He would have been disqualified. Your theories make no sense. You will do any amount of Scripture twisting to deny the doctrines of the depravity of man, and original sin. That truly is sad. Honour thy father and thy mother. But you have David dishonoring his mother. It is a Psalm of repentance where David in a very poetic manner admits not only his sin but his sin nature, right from the depths of his conception onward. The sooner you realize that the better off you will be.

 

HP: Here we go again with the very same attitude noted by others besides myself. To disagree with DHK is evidently in his mind synonymous with assigning blame to the Holy Spirit.

I think there is a word that clearly depicts the attitude DHK exhibits.

 

HP: Now I could say that the Holy Spirit directed David to penn those words directly concerning the sin of his mother, (which is indeed true) and then ask you if in fact you desire to place blame on the Holy Spirit……….. but that would be presenting the same attitude as DHK has presented to me, so I will not ask that question. :saint:

 

I can point to dozens of Scripture that substantiate the depravity of man and original sin--as I have done for you many times--and you simply dismiss. But you cannot point to any Scripture which demonstrates sin on the part of David's mother. You cannot substantiate or demonstrate that what you say is Scriptural. Your philosophy is vain.

 

HP: I have not simply dismissed any Scripture that I know of. I have given careful explanations combined with well documented facts …and what have you done with them???

I pointed directly to the statement where David did in fact speak to the sin of his mother, “in sin did my mother conceive me.” Yet you dismiss my remarks off hand in favor of your presupposition of original sin. Your interpretation and philosophy are in error.

Lets see, shall we move on to discussing politics? :smilewinkgrin:

 

If your interpretation is correct, then that sin would have to be fornication and David was an illegitimate child. And this would mean Jesus would have fornication in His lineage.

Is this your position?

 

I am not dismissing anything but an improper interpretation. The interpretation must be in light of Scripture. So show in Scripture where did David's mother sin? This you have not done, never!!

 

DHK, forgive me, but we have hashed this out enough for the time being. Possibly I will be led in the near future to continue our direct discussions. :thumbsup:

 

7 chapters separate one Psalm stating we are sinner then from conception, one from birth...which is it? To build a theology on poetic language that is not to be taken literally in all instances is shaky hermeneutics

 

Wasn't a prostitute listed in His lineage?