Texts That Do NOT Support Original Sin

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Heavenly Pilgrim, Jan 18, 2007.

  1. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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


    HP: 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. Is DHK holding to the belief 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!

    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 constitutional depravity or original sin in this text, 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.

    In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the wicked appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin or constituitional depravity would seem to indicate. DHK simply wrongly assumes something the text in no way supports.
     
  2. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    So are you saying that the notion or original sin began with the apostle Paul? For they did believe that a person was born in sin. For we can see this from the scriptures themselves. For David himself said
    (Psalm 51:5) Also this is seen from the words of the Pharisees to the blind man that was healed by Jesus
    (John 9:34)
     
    #2 grahame, Jan 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2007
  3. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    well of course we have inherited depravity from our parents and their parents and theirs. We are born with the sin "nature" which gives us the propensities to sin.

    But it is the act of "sin" (transgression of the law) that makes us sinn-ers.

    we must be aware of what we are doing for God to hold us accountable for sin.

    Jms:4:17: Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

    The Roman Catholic Church is who holds to the "Original Sin" thing and then you get into the Virgin Mary stuff and all of that.

    In my church they have debates about this all the time on their Message Boards. There really are "Two Packages" to choose from. Each one leads you off in an entirely different direction.

    There's this whole idea about how either sin separates you from God or else is is the separation from God that is "sin". Then Behavior becomes the issue... and whether its your behavior that is the issue or whether its your relationship with God thats the issue. Oh man, I just remember all the longgggggg debates about this.


    Claudia
     
  4. Dustin

    Dustin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Adam, all mankind sinned. All mankind physically dies because the wages of sin is death. We're born seperated from God. That's "kindergarten stuff". I'd go on but I've got to get to work. This is one of the base doctrines of Christianity, not even many heretics deny it.



    Soli Deo Gloria,
    Dustin
     
  5. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, but I think what Pilgrim was saying is that the Jews did not believe in original sin. In fact this is quite true. Just type it in and search in google. Therefore, Pilgrim contends, you cannot use Psalm 58:3 as a proof text for original sin.
    But of course the question is why did they not believe in original sin when it is clearly seen in Genesis 2:17 and this is confirmed by Paul the apostle in Romans 5:12
    The fall of Adam therefore is the reason we all sin and the reason we are all born in sin. It is of course the reason that Christ came. By his death on the cross and by his resurrection he has dealt with sin at the very source of the problem, the fall of Adam.

    Why the Jews could not reason that out I don't know. By the way Neither do Muslims believe in original sin. They think it is foolish to think that we are all punished because of Adam's sin. He, they say was forgiven. Well yes perhaps he was. But it still left the "effects" of sin which was death. And of course that his children inherited his sinful nature.

    I therefore contend that although the Jews did not believe in original sin, nevertheless that does not mean that the prophets never spoke of it. The prophets did not comprehend everything they prophesied about. So I think it is a bit of a weak argument to say that just because the Jews did not believe in original sin it is therefore not in the old testament. Because obviously the apostle Paul himself (who was a Jew by the way) found it in the Old testament, for that is where he got the doctrine from in the first place.
     
    #5 grahame, Jan 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2007
  6. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the Catholic idea of original sin is different, isnt it? Thats why they go around baptising infants.


    Besides that, think about the fact that Jesus Himself took upon Himself our sinful NATURE" yet was WITHOUT SIN...

    so where does that leave us where "Original Sin" is concerned?


    Rom:8:
    3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh
    4: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


    Rom:1:3: Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh


    Heb:2:16: For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.


    Heb:4:15: For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.


    THAT is where all the debates really begin at least in MY Church, about all of this...
     
    #6 Claudia_T, Jan 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2007
  7. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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


    HP: It is apparently hard for some to focus even for a brief moment on the OP and the topic ant hand.( You two as well Claudia and Dustin:) ) This is NOT a topic to discuss ones individual beliefs on original sin per say, nor is it time to focus on Paul, or even jump to other verses just yet. This verse in PSALMS 58 was brought forth as proof of original sin. Stay focused please. We will more than likely get to all your questions in time. My question to you and the list deals specifically with this verse and the context it is written in. Use this moment to share with the list concerning the verse in question. Once we have fairly looked at this verse, then we can move on to some other favorite proof text of all involved. Fair enough?

    Does THIS verse in Psalms 58 support the notion of original sin? What is the purpose ad design of the writer? Is it to establish universal constitutional depravity as original sin implies and DHK suggests?

    Do your own research as Grahame has started in his second post. (Thanks for honestly trying to look objectively at this one idea) It is a well known fact, EVEN by scholars who themselves might hold to original sin that there was NO place in Jewish theology for the idea that man was or is born constitutionally depraved as original sin, as introduced as such into the Church by Augustine who taught and believed it. It was Augustine himself that is noted as ‘the father of the doctrine of original sin.’ Read renown authors such as Alfred Edersheim, the Jewish scholar, or George Wolfgang Forell on Christian Ethics, or a book as I recall entitled, “The History of Christian Doctrines” which has somehow escaped my library. I am sure there are many other sources well that attest to these facts.
     
    #7 Heavenly Pilgrim, Jan 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2007
  8. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    well okay I'll stay out of it then
     
  9. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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


    HP: Once again, it is not the purpose of this particular thread to prove whether or not original sin is true. We are in the process of examination of the Word of God, and texts that are used to support the idea of universal constitutional depravity, to see if in fact the texts that are being used are in harmony with the writers object and intent, and to fairly, and hopefully with godly wisdom, reach conclusions concerning them. :thumbs:
     
  10. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was rather dealing with this aspect than the context. Because although you did explain that the context does not support original sin, granted. I chose, perhaps wrongly to pick up on the remark that Jewish theology held no place for original sin. I'm not quite sure that Augustine was the author of the subject of original sin though. Although he may have picked up on it. Rather I thought that Paul the apostle was the one who originally explained it? I know what you mean by staying focused. But you began with a two pronged approach and I chose that branch that interested me. Sorry, I should have kept to the original proposition, rather than going off on a tangent.
     
  11. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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



    HP: No way Claudia! We all need your input. Stay in here by all means. Just stay focused on the OP. Can the verse in Psalms 58 be honestly and fairly utilized to support any notion of constitutional depravity as DHK claims? What is the intent of the author, and what was the thrust and meaning of this passage? Place into concise words what you feel is the intent of the author of this Psalms for the list in your own words. If you think it was to establish universal constitutional depravity, just explain why.

    We need everyones input on this topic. We all can learn from each other if we stay focused.
     
  12. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0

    okay well Im not into all the "scholarly works" and all of that, Im just a regular old person who didnt even finish high school. (not because I couldnt but just because I didnt want to)..

    But anyway I will try, its just hard for me to stay in something that makes me feel like I am "confined" to one place... I usually feel like we should just allow the Holy Spirit to lead us wherever He wants to. But I will try, I suppose sometimes thats better to stay focused on one thing.

    Claudia
     
  13. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    ok well the very first thing I notice is that its talking about "the wicked"... and apparently not everybody... but anyway I will come back and read the openng thingy and see what I think about this...
     
  14. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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

    HP: I sure appreciate your spirit and dedication to fairly examine these ideas. :thumbs: I can be blamed for leading us all astray from the OP with the other issues I raised. Forgive me.

    OK, let’s try and just come to some conclusions as to the authors intent in the passage in question,(Psalms 58) and them move on to other passages that are used. Give us, in your own words, a synopsis of the passage and what in fact was the overall authors intent in writing it? Was the authors thrust universal constitutional depravity as DHK ( and MULTITUDES of others by the way) set forth?
     
  15. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Claudia,
    I thought that your contribution was very valuable and although you may underrate yourself, nevertheless we need your input. I myself am no great scholar. But I do see value in what Pilgrim is saying. For if we do not understand what a particular text of scripture is actually saying, then the whole of our argument falls flat. But please stay in the conversation, for we can all learn from one another. :thumbs:
     
  16. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is there no one on this list that would defend this text, Psalms 58:3, as one indicating universal constitutional depravity as is so often purported?

    How about you DHK? I know this verse has been used for decades to support the notion of original sin, but in all fairness does it? You are the one that brought this text into question. Why not either support the notion you said it supported, or in fairness admit that it does not walk on all four legs to support the notion of original sin as you suggested?
     
  17. grahame

    grahame
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    I personally would not use this text to support original sin. If I wanted to teach that I would immediately go to the epistle to the Romans. However, the Psalmist obviously wanted to convey the total corruption of the wicked, or he would not have used the words "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." It does beg the question why are the wicked so? Do they inherit this wicked nature from their parents? Or do they learn it from the same?
    It may demonstrate that the wicked are totally depraved that they cannot but do evil "as soon as they be born". But it does not seem to teach directly, original sin as such. That is that they are wicked because Adam sinned in the beginning. But it does still beg the question why are men so wicked? It explains that the wicked go astray frommthe beginning, but it does not tell us why they do in other words.
    It does put me in mind of the words of the apostle Paul concerning the whole of mankind in Romans 3:10-17 "There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes." Which seems to express the same sentiment as the Psalmist.
     
    #17 grahame, Jan 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 20, 2007
  18. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can anyone please explain what the difference is between the doctrine of Original Sin and just having a sinful human nature is?

    Because everybody has a sinful human nature. Jesus took that fallen nature upon Himelf.

    Rom:8:3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

    I used to know something about all of this but have forgotten.

    Claudia
     
  19. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    well I just looked it up and this is the difference between just being born with the sinful human nature and that of Original Sin instead:

    ORIGINAL SIN:
    This concept held that we not only inherit the weakness and nature of fallen Adam, and the natural tendency and inevitable inclination to follow his pathway of sin, but that we are also personally condemned and are personally guilty for Adam's sin--in addition to our own sins.


    Okay so the question is, does this verse support the concept of Original Sin?

    Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

    well first of all you are not condemned for something you are ignorant of...

    Jms:4:17: Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

    and a baby that is born does not know he or she is transgressing the law of God.


    Claudia
     
    #19 Claudia_T, Jan 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 20, 2007
  20. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP: OK Claudia, you are giving this some great thought. Just the same, let me play the advocate of constitutional depravity for a moment. If I held to constitutional depravity, and did not desire to give this verse up as a stronghold for my belief, I might respond to your post in this fashion.

    You are approaching this passage from a presupposition that God would not condemn you for something you are ignorant of. You are begging the question, for you have not substantiated that point. James 4:17 might in fact serve to substanciate the point to a degree, by a particular way you apply your logic to that verse, but that verse, in and of itself does not in my opinion make the case in a way that will set aside all uncertainties that one might find applicable to that verse as well.

    Now you know full well that I do use that verse, much the same as you did in your post, but as I say it can only be fairly used as supportive evidence if one approaches this verse 'with presuppositions' (although we would agree that are in accordance to reason as in this case) concerning the justice of God.

    What I am desiring to see 'all sides' do in the case of these proof texts, is to try and leave all presuppositions aside for a minute, and just fairly look at the Scripture itself, and see if in fact it can be used, in and of itself, to support the notion of constitutional depravity.

    Aside from all presuppositions (regardless of how reasonable and fair they may seem or actually be) does the text lend itself to the notion of constitutional depravity? What is the context of the passage itself? Is it written to support the notion of original sin or not. Why or why not?
     
    #20 Heavenly Pilgrim, Jan 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 20, 2007

Share This Page

Loading...