Texts That Do NOT Support Original Sin

No, I don't think he scripture is wrong. I think we need to use some common sense when reading it though.

Who knows of an infant who lies?

 

Well, no one has to teach you to lie, it comes naturally.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Heavenly Pilgrim, when exactly does one pass the age of accountability? I can't seem to find that in Scripture.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

As an infant? You have to not only use that scripture but the whole bible to get the true picture and Jesus said "such is the Kingdom of Heaven".

It says:
"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

Its talking about the "wicked" so must be talking about them later in life for they certainly could not of known if they were wicked at birth. So, if it is talking about a wicked person it seems to be saying as we say at times "you never was any good". But, we have to weigh it with the rest of the Bible, to get a clear answer. If you read this and say all babies are wicked, I think you have completely missed the point, for Jesus contradicts that notion in the NT.


I will dwell on this for a while and Hope God gives me a much clearer answer.

I wonder what the original Hebrew really says.

 

ARe you saying you have heard an infant "speak" from birth? Must have been watching "Look Who's Talking" too much...

 

I would say that verse like these speak volumes to the a time when a person is at an age in which they are accountable. Yes I agree it is not specified in those words in scripture but then again neirther is the Trinity, Theology, soterology and the like however they are there by implication for sure.

THe 'age' is different for each person but it still signifies the same fact. It is a time in which the person knowing truth and the ramifations of disobeying STILL does so regardless of any authority but their own self. You say it is the age of of awareness of the full potential of rebellion and dispite the facts says 'so what'.

 

Hi Bob,
Rather than being guided by what the scriptures says here, you are philosophising. Unfortunately I see a few folk here who are doing the same. They seem to say that they must keep to the scripture in order to prove whether this verse supports original sin or not. But then when it teaches that a person, sorry, a wicked person is estranged from the womb, they say, "oh that can't be right". Surely we must keep to the scripture here. Either it teaches that they go astray from the womb or they do not. Which is it to be?

 

Hi Pilgrim.
No I'm not confusing you with the author. But if there is an apparent contradiction in a text, then it is probably ourselves who have the wrong interpretation as to what the text is saying.
Now all I've seen here so far is philosophying. What do I mean by that. Well what I mean is that if we don't like what a certain piece of scripture says, we tend to find ways round it so that it teaches what we think it teaches just to make it fit into our own philosophical way of thinking.
For example, if a verse seems to teach that babies aren't saved, we say to ourselves, "Wow" that can't be right, I don't think God will do that kind of thing". So we dismiss that piece of scripture by telling ourselves that it cannot possibly teach that.
Example: Bob said that he cannot see how an infant can speak lies as soon as it is born. Although the scripture seems to teach that it is so. So what happens? Bob then asks (sorry Bob for speaking about you in the third person) "Have you ever heard a baby speak lies?" or words to that effect. And Pilgrim, you say, "The voice of reason at last". So immediately the integrity of the text is compromised. Because of philosophysing. What we should be asking is, why has the psalmist chosen those particular words to describe the wicked?" What does he mean? Instead of jumping to conclusions because it does not fit into our own belief system, we surely must delve a little deeper into this text. For it seems that either scripture is wrong, because it does not fit in with our own reasonings. Or that we have got the wrong interpretation.
Pilgrim, can I remind you of what you said?

So, do we hold to what the scripture says here? Or do we interpret this verse in the light of our own common sense? Or to put it another way. Is scripture defective? Or is our reasoning defective? If we are trying to understand the text, then let us do that and not try to fit it into our own limited understanding as to what happens to babies when they die. For that is a big philosophical question in and of itself and for the most part scripture is silent on it. I for one have never said anything to indicate that I believe that babies go to hell. I'm just trying honestly (which of course everyone here is) to understand what this text is saying.

 

I wonder if we are reading this right? Let's look at the construction of the verse. "Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men. Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear"
Now looking at things from a logical aspect for a moment. Bob is right, logically speaking. babies straight from the womb do not even speak, let alone lie. But is the verse actually saying that?
Now change the full stop to a comma and read it again The wicked are estranged from the womb they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies, their poison is like the poison of a serpent. Read it like that and the two parts can be read differently.
Now let's read it from the beginning, "Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men? Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies, their poison is like the poison of a serpent:"
Do that and the passage immediately makes sense. In fact it is now more in harmony of the apostle Paul's words as he describes the wicked in Romans 3:13, "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips".
Now all we have to do is determine the meaning of the words, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born."

 

I know this is a strange thought but speaking of serpents, does it HAVE to mean born from the womb in a human birth sense? The Pharisees were called a bunch of vipers by John the Baptist and they were wanting to be baptised (born again) without the benefit of "bringing forth fruit meet for repentence"

thus, their baptism or "rebirth" would be wicked from the start. (think of "born again")


Mt:3:
7: But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8: Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance


okay now read it again:

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent.



:null:

 

There is such a thing as "rightly dividing the word of truth" and if we as human beings know from our own existance and knowledge that a baby can't speak when it is born then lets use some sensible rationale here.

The writer had to mean that the first thing the wicked did when it came to know good or evil from the womb, is to choose evil. Anything other than that is going beyond the pail into a never never land.

 

Pilgrim. Concerning my putting in some philosophical statements was to try and get some idea what everyone believed concerning original sin. Unfortunately these questions were never answered. Instead folk put forth yet more philosophical questions to try and counter mine. So that was a waste of time as far as I am concerned.

So then I try and look at the verse in a more straightforward way and see what it looks like putting different emphasis on certain words.
This to my mind is what should be done. I am trying to look at the verse honestly. For only if we do this will we hopefully, eventually arrive at the truth of the text.
But what I was referring to were that all I have seen so far, even before I asked my philosophical questions (I remind you again they were never really answered) folk were philosophising upon it already. Aking themselves and others if they believed if God would damn little children.

Now please try and follow my reasoning here. Let's stay "focussed" as you said.
Let me emphasise to you again, that I am trying to understand the actual text in psalm 58 and have in no way said that I believe that little children will go to hell. But what I will say is that no one will go to heaven without Christ and without what he has done on the cross. For we are complete in him.
Having said that I would think it strange for anyone to try and build a doctrine of original sin from this verse before us. For there are much more clearer texts that teach this doctrine directly.

But then again I think the words in this text need to be understood and answered. What does it actually mean to say that "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born."
I think that since you brought up the verse that it is much more up to you to prove that they only go astray at the age of accountability and not as soon as they are born.
Amuch more pertinent question, rather than saying that it cannot mean what it says. Is rather to say why do they go astray as soon as they are born?

 

Brother Bob,
Please go back to my post and re-read it and this time read all of it and don't just quote parts of it. Please look at it closely. Yes you are right. One must rightly divide the word of truth. And this is what I am trying to do.
This is what I said:

Now do you or do you not think that that reads more logically?

 

Dear Pilgrim. Turn that argument round the other way. As for me, I have never read Augustine on original sin. That's right, never. Neither have I ever heard anyone quote him concerning this. I am not dogmatically inclined, well not as dogmaticlly as you are against the doctrine that is. I have from the very beginning of my Christian life (around 40 years now) been examining and re-examining many doctrines of the "established" Christian church, as well as many of the cults. So it does not trouble me one iota to re-examine this docrine here again with you. My mind is open I can assure you. :thumbs:

ps: Oh by the way. I have not been a Christian from an early age. I was redeemed by the grace of God in my mid twenties and I still have a questioning mind. The problem for many people is to look at these things in a logical analytical way, because it militates against their own fast held views. I am not one of those people.

 

Why do you have to believe in Original Sin to believe that it takes Christ for all to be able to go to Heaven. He conquered over death, hell and the grave with His blood. Though the child is not condemned to hell, it still is condemned to die the natural death because of Adam and without the blood of Christ, there would be no resurrection of the dead. So, the infant when it died that would be the end of it if not for the blood of Christ. The infant still needs the blood to overcome the natural death and the grave and receive a heavenly body. So, without the Original Sin, the infant still needs the Blood of Christ to go to Heaven, even though it was never condemned to the second death.
So, this is your answer to ALL needing Christ.