Texts That Do NOT Support Original Sin

HP: First, let the reader know that it was our friend and moderator, DHK that brought this verse into question, not I or anyone else on this list.

HP: The far more pertinent question you need to ask is why did David only associate such wickedness from birth to the 'wicked' and in no way insinuates or implies it applies to the righteous spoken of in the later part of the text? Are only the wicked estranged from the womb?

Man Oh man, does this verse play into the hands of predestination of the wicked and predestination of the saved! Predestination of the wicked! That’s what this verse is all about. Necessitated deterministic fatalism!

 

HP: I would agree wholeheartedly. Due to the fact that only the wicked are estranged for the womb as opposed to the righteous, as fairly represented by this text, it cannot be seen as to establish any universal dogma of constitutional moral depravity.

Just as those holding to original sin seem to do so, from my perspective hold to the Augustinian dogma of OS ‘from the womb,’ it cannot be assumed that I mean they are born with predetermined notions of original sin. What I am trying to portray is that it does indeed appear ‘AS IF THOUGH’ this was the case due to the fact of their ability from a young age to mimic the influences of the teachers and influences around them.

Just as the wicked more than not have came from a line of wicked families, and it appears to David that it is ‘as if though’ it is generated as a direct result of their births into families and communities such as they are raised in, it could indeed be stated in a poetic fashion that the are indeed estranged from the womb. It could not be more clear to me that David is using a figure of speech to indicate that within the boundaries of those he sees as ‘wicked,’ that it would appear to him (IN A SINCE, or IT MIGHT APPEAR ‘AS IF THOUGH’) they are all born so even from the womb. What is hard about accepting that as a reasonable interpretation of the text?

 

HP: This is what is so frustrating to me. Even when the Calvinist unfairly causes a text to walk on all four legs to support their notions, and in all fairness it is simply wrong to do so, they still end up as the default winners of the text!

That can’t be good!:tear:

 

HP: What does being born with a sinful nature mean to you? Does it mean that one is born in such a state as to eliminate the possibility of making a benevolent choice as opposed to a selfish one? Does it mean that there was absolutely no possibility that from first light of moral agency such a one could choose to obey God and by doing so earn God’s favor and at least during that time period be a candidate for eternal life with God? Remember, I am speaking in the realm of ‘possibilities,’ and am not calling into question the Scriptural fact that all have sinned and all need to come to repentance.

I am asking this due to the fact that if it is an impossibility, remorse and repentance would be impossible for man. It is absurd to believe one can show remorse of repent for something he had absolutely no choice in determining. One could only point their finger at the Creator for creating them as they are. If such a scenerio is a true representation of the facts, fatalistic determinism rules.

 

HP: The church is full of false ideas concerning sin, and its remedy. We cannot decide among ourselves what is our obligation before God, whether in reality we have anything to repent of or if sin is really nothing more than the necessitated results of being born, much like being born with blue eyes, chubby cheeks, or blond hair. Try repenting of those necessitated characteristics.

If the Church is ever to see a revival of religion again, it is going to have to start thinking right about these issues again.

 

HP: Let’s don’t be too hard on the Catholics. If we desire to see a change with them it is going to have to start with a change in our own thinking. Both Calvinistic and Arminian circles are guilty of buying into the false notions of Augustine, the father of the doctrine of original sin. The Calvinist have their easy believism, and the Arminians have their eradication of a sinful nature, both of which are an aberration of truth at best.

The Calvinist explains to us that all we have to do is believe, and yet the sin nature continues after salvation and none can obey God with their whole heart, we, as believers, are just invisible to God.

The Arminian clearly recognizes our sincere need to repent as a condition of salvation, yet turns around and preaches that we need to eradicate the OS by a second work of grace, which more often than not is just another attempt to accomplish what the first work should have taken care of.

I believe that both camps are in doctrinal error.

 

HP: Amen Claudia, Preach it!:thumbsup:

 

With all of the false notions of OS abounding, we as a church have had to manufacture all sorts of unscriptural notions about the nature of Christ. We have had to move him away from the humanity God said He was born into, and have created for Him some sort of a third human race in order to provide cover for our false Augustinian notions of universal constitutional moral depravity. He took upon Himself the nature and seed of Abraham, was made like unto His brethren, was born of virgin yet was the physical son of Joseph and as such the rightful descendant of King David.

Yes it matters what we think about the question of OS. It is not about a bunch of useless argumentation, but finding the truth is the bedrock of understanding and motivating us to the gospel message.

What a man believes, he will find himself acting in accordance to. When we are told that we cannot escape the contagion of sin via OS in this life, I need not express to the attentive listener the results of such beliefs. We can see it evidenced everyday in our work-a-day world. Oh God, enlighten our hearts and minds to Your Truth, and motivate our hearts to obedience!

 

HP: It may be interesting but I personally would disagree with the conclusions it expresses. We are beginning to drift even futher away from the OP.

We have looked at least two verse in the OT. Are there any other verses we might look at? I have heard some make mention to some passages in Romans. Would someone like to tell us specifically where they are found and in doing so suggest that they establish the doctrine of OS?

 

HP: Good question. Although I am going to take the liberty to answer this question as well for the list, I want Grahame to answer it also.

Many say that we are not punished for our OS, but rather for our actual transgressions. While I welcome this inconsistency with the words, “Oh those blessed inconsistencies!” Yet it still is apparent that there is a contradiction going on. If in fact one sins due to a nature that makes sin unavoidable, the nature is in fact the very cause of why we are punished. Whatever is the cause of sin is the rightful seat of blame. When we shift the cause to an inherited nature, and away from our willfully formed intents of selfishness, we indeed do set up the false conclusion that we are being punished for the way we are born, in spite of lip service to the contrary.

 

HP: I still believe 'from the womb' is a poetic phrase or figure of sheech. "From ones youth up" is a more commom Biblical term IMO. It would be far more in line with the clear definitions of sin, because sin is at its root a violation of moral law. Reason would attest that such is imposssible for inncocent babies and those not yet, or incapable of, moral agency.

I am still pondering one of the most unusual cases in Scripture, that of the apostle Paul. Your suggested understanding would almost, again I say almost fit, IF he had not clearly stated AFTER his conversion that he had lived in all good conscience until that day. Rats! It matters not what conclusion we arrive at, it appears that there is always an example somewhere that will not fit neatly into our box. :BangHead:

God must desire to keep us humble and searching is all I can say.