Featured Original Sin

This verse proves precious little.
It simply gives the information that infants have souls when they are born. Is anyone going to argue that fact?

The question here is not so much sin, as a sin nature.
The verse, however, is in the context of God's sovereign purposes.

You are missing the real point. The point of this verse is that you are taking it completely out of context. It is a Messianic Psalm, referring back to the physical birth of Christ. Look further on:
Psalms 22:13-14 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
--It is a Messianic Psalm. All these verses vividly and poetically describe Christ.

What do these verses have to do with the depravity of man?
Nothing! Stay on course here!

 

........and the beat goes rumbling on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on................................

 

Very true. The Eastern Orthodox Church disagreed with Augustine's interpretation from a Latin text and have NEVER held to Augustine's concept of Original Sin. This is historical fact. There have been hundreds of millions of Christians who did not believe in Original Sin (and still are).

Augustine used a Latin text that incorrectly said "in whom all have sinned" which Augustine interpreted to mean Adam. The EOC which always had Greek texts said this verse should be rightly interpreted to say "for that" or "because" all have sinned as our English translations correctly say. The EOC insisted this meant each man dies for his own personal sin and not that of Adam's

Romans 5:12 does not say sin passed on all men, it says DEATH passed on all men. But those who believe in OS interpret it falsely to believe it says sin passed on all men. Total error.

 

HP: BUT, the one you gave is a credible source. Sure DHK. :laugh:

 

Not true. Augustine wrote much, but that doesn't mean there was nothing before him. Here is the original statement of HP that I was replying to:

The last statement is a logical fallacy. It is a universal negative and cannot be proven. For the statement to be proven true, HP would have to have the means, not only to have access to all written literature ever written before the time of Augustine, but be able to interview all Christians that lived before the time of Augustine as to what they believed. What did the early Christians believe? How can HP know for sure since he has no way of interviewing those that lived before Augustine.

No such notion was held by the early church prior to Augustine.
Really! Prove it!

 

Has it? Prove that Augustine is the one who "invented" the doctrine of "Original sin" or the depravity of man. That assertion is false and should not even be posted. That is why I keep saying this. It cannot be documented as such, and just a little bit of research will prove otherwise:

http://warrantedfaith.org/theology/calvinism/485-calvinism-declared-by-the-church-fathers

You can do the same thing. A search engine is a wonderful thing nowadays.

 

this night could last until 2055, and you won't be any closer than you are now.

 

If you hold to O.S., you'd better hold some rosary beads as well. :smilewinkgrin: :laugh:

 

First, I don't agree with Wikipedia's assessment of the topic.
Second, the topic of the thread says "original sin," so I take it for what it is worth. And that being the topic, it would include the depravity of man.
Third, I don't agree with the typical Calvinist view of the depravity of man, which is total inability. I myself, am not a Calvinist.

Thus this discussion cannot center around just one person's definition of the depravity of man, or his definition of original sin, especially since there were a number of early church fathers that believed in the depravity of man that lived long before Augustine.

To say that you are only dealing with the definition of Augustine stunts all debate. It halts it in its tracts right here and now. Of course there was no one that used Augustine's definition before Augustine. Duh!!

Depravity is taught in the Bible, and unlike Wikipedia would like to claim, in the OT as well. David referred to his own sinfulness in Psalm 51:5, his Psalm of repentance. So Wikipedia is just plain wrong. It is not the greatest source for information--as to its reliability, though we all have a tendency to use it.

Your above quote concerning Augustine is only based upon a presupposition that the depravity of man was a doctrine that Augustine invented, a false premise which demands a false conclusion. You can see from what I have provided you that others that lived before him believed in the depravity of man.

 

HP: Show us how in your own mind you differ from the standard Calvinistic notion of total depravity. If salvation is all of God and none of man, apart from man exercising some special abilities granted to God to some by grace, I for one would find it very hard to associate your beliefs apart from the run of the mill Calvinist, regardless what one desires to be called.

Why you are at it, I cannot remember you documenting the least bit of evidence from the ECF or other sources that whatever it is that you say you beleive, was taught in the early Church. Let's see you do some research and leg work needed to support whatever it is that you believe.

Explain to us the freedom of the will you hold to. Freedom of the will lies at the very heart of the debate over the depravity of man. It was Augustine that mainstreamed the denial of freedom of the will in his view of total depravity, AFTER he had written book(s)s in support of it early on.

So again, if you desire to distance yourself from the necesssity of Calvinism, establish the free will of man for us in plain terms that a wayfaring man though a fool can understand you. Be sure to document your views with the ECF etc.. or the sources of your choice, so your ideas will not be labeled justly as a novel doctrine of your own without merit. :thumbsup:

 

Wrong! You better go back and read the record again. No one refuted what I said on this verse before. There is a difference in attempting to refute and refuting. I exposed the eisgetical attempts before to be unsound responses and no one was able to overthrow my position on this as well as all the texts I used in Job.

The best that you could do before was to claim it was metaphorical language applied to Israel in the manner you suggest above and my response now is the same then! Metaphors are based in reality not fiction! However, you didn't understand the proper use of metaphors then and I don't expect you have learned anything since or else you would not be repeating the same false eisgetical opinion.

Funny! You actually think that human nature miraculously changes after they are manifested into this world "from the womb"??????? Realy funny!

Another real funny eisgetical false assumption! Paul is not dealing with the character of the human nature in the womb. Paul is simply stating that the determining factor was God's purpose of election of grace rather than anything "DONE" after their birth that could be regarded manifestly as good or evil "works" for his choice of Jacob over Esau. If post-birth works had been considered then Esau would have been the most likely choice rather than Jacob the deceiver. Is this the best you can do?

That verse along with many others in the Old Testament clearly teach OS and all you have done is shown your own inability to objectively and fairly deal with the context and content of these scriptures.

Have you ever heard of anything called "context"??? Apparently not. Peter says that David was a prophet and in writing Psalm 16 he was not speaking of himself but of the Messiah.

Psalm 22 is one of the most famous Messanic Pslams in the entire Bible and is prophetic of Jesus Christ who was without OS due to the incarnation. In this same Psalm David speaks of being peirced in his hands and feet! Do you really think he was speaking about himself or speaking prophetically as the Messiah and about the Messiah??? The answer is so obvious but this is the extent you are forced to go to defend your false doctrine.

Not at all! But are you really serious using Ezekiel 16:20-21 as a defense of your position???? Are you that hard pressed???

You are suggesting that natural born Jews are literally God's spiritual children and therefore they are His children by nature from the womb!!!! Are you serious??????

God speaks of them as His "children" metaphorially as they are REPRESENTATIVE of true children of God.

Paul denies that Israelites are birthed as LITERAL children of God (Rom. 9:6-8) but are only children according to the flesh not according to the Spirit! Jesus told Nicodemus a natural born Jew that he must be born again, born of the Spirit.

The very fact that Paul denies PHYSICAL Israelites are the SPIRITUAL children of God proves that God is speaking about the PHYSICAL Israelites in a metaphorical sense of what they REPRESENT as types.

Surely you can do better than this?

 

What UNINSPIRED men from different times in history meant is an endless useless debate that determines nothing.

This is where you must flee to escape the clear teaching of scriptures. Job 14:1-5; 15:14; 25:3 clearly teach OS the total depravity type. Paul clearly teaches OS and the total depravity type. David clearly teaches OS and the total depravity type. Isaiah clearly teaches OS adn the total depravity type.

Your attempts to prove otherwise have been exposed as eisgetical speculations and so you are now forced to flee to uninspired speculations of men.