Texts That Do NOT Support Original Sin

HP: I believe you have came to a fair conclusion concerning this text, in and of itself, in spite of your seeming advocacy of constitutional depravity. That is very commendable of you. You raise many good points that I believe we can address in time if we patiently and carefully approach the Word of God as you are exemplifying here. I like the way your sense of fairness in approaching the text overrides your own deeply seated conclusions. That is a rare but welcomed trait that few men or women exhibit. It is the sign of an open heart and mind that places truth above presuppositions or long held doctrinal positions. I am very glad to have had the opportunity to meet you on this list. May we provoke one another to a fair and wise examination of the Word of God!

Why don’t you pick a particular passage for us to examine? Let us try, in the same manner to approach the text you set forth without presuppositions to the best of our abilities, and see if in fact it can be said to support constitutional depravity. Once we have examined all the texts we think are applicable to the issue at hand, we can proceed with some of the philosophical questions you raise such as

Be as hard on me as you so desire. “Pr 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

 

HP: Before we move on to the text you mention, what about the about the text in question so far? Does Psalm 58:3 support universal moral constitutional depravity as is suggested by so many by the passage itself without the injection of presuppositions of ones choosing?

 

HP: Yet another fine example of approaching this text from an unbiased position, even though you seem to appreciate the term original sin, just without imputed guilt.(as I read you) In time, I hope we can speak to the philosohical issue(s) you raise concerning the nature you see as being passed on, and whether or not this nature is 'moral' in nature or if in fact it can be. We will have to save that discussion for another thread if we are to stay focused on the OP.

Again, this discussion in this particular thread is not designed to establish our opinions for or against OS, but rather to narrow the texts down to those that we feel can stand on their own, in the context they were written in, to either support or not support the notion of universal constitutional depravity.

I would still like to see others that have not checked in with their opinions on this verse, do so, especially if they are dissenting from those that have posted thus far.

In the meantime, we can move onto the passage you bring up in Psalms 51:5. This is a classic example of the texts used to support OS. Can one fairly use it to support OS from the context it is used in? I say no. I will develop a post this afternoon, the Lord willing, that will explain to the reader some of my thoughts why in fact this passage does not support constitutional moral depravity. In the meantime others might voice their opinions to this passage if they so desire.

 

HP: You are not addressing the issue from the text alone. You have offered several philosophical reasons, and made several assertions, but the point of this thread is to examine the text itself apart from presuppositions or RCC assertions, or any others for that matter.

I give you a D- for this input. It all belongs on a different thread. :smilewinkgrin:

Let me ask you again. Does THE PASSAGE IN QUESTION, apart from other history or supporting presuppositions, in any way suggest or support any notion of OS as DHK and others have suggested it does?

 

The text found in Psalm 51:5 has been raised as in support of original sin or universal moral constitutional depravity.

First, the context as I see it. David is crying out to the Lord concerning his own heart. He is pouring out his heart for God to wash him from his sin, and his iniquity. He acknowledges his personal transgressions, and is reminded every moment of his sin. He recognizes that his sin is against God alone, and the evil that he sees as his sin is something he has done. In verse 4 he states, “Against Thee only have I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight.” This indicates to me that David is expressing remorse for his own personal acts of evil before God and God alone. Just the same, as we enter verse 5 it would appear to me that his focus changes from himself and his own sin, to what he sees as a factor in finding himself in need of the forgiveness of his personal sins and acts of wickedness. The question is, is it the commonly held idea of original sin that he is expressing, or something else? I believe from the plain reading of the text, there is a different source of influence that he points to as opposed to OS. He shifts the focus from himself to the way he was ‘shapen’ and in particular his mothers actions. “ Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did ‘MY MOTHER’ conceive me.”

Webdog has suggest that the word, “shapen” means “brought forth.” I believe that to be a good explanation of the word. It says that he was ‘brought forth’ in iniquity. The first thing I would suggest, is that I see nothing that would suggest that David was establishing or suggesting any ‘universal’ context by this passage, but rather was speaking directly to his own life and his own circumstances. Can you imagine how one could misconstrue Scripture, if every time an author spoke in the first person, we would extrapolate it to be universally applied notion? The verse does say that the circumstances he was ‘brought forth’ in was indeed ‘in iniquity.’ We will look at this further in a moment. For now, I will simply conclude that for one, this passage is not a passage that can be applied universally, but rather is one individual pouring out his heart in repentance speaking to his own circumstances surrounding his birth.

The latter portion of this verse states that ‘in sin did my mother conceive me.” This is the most revealing portion of the text, but remains one of which a great difference of opinions arise. I would only ask of the reader to once again look at this verse apart from any preconceived notions of OS and open their minds for a simple explanation that I believe sheds great light upon this passage.

The question can be raised, how could have David’s mother conceived him in sin? Are their any distinct possibilities apart from this relating to the dogma of OS? I say absolutely. If one is to just read the text, it in no way suggests a sinful constitution on the part of humanity in the least, but relates the fact that even from his conception, sin was involved. David simply states that he was conceived in sin by his mother. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand how that is done, especially in light of all the talk on this list surrounding adultery and fornication. There is, I believe, much supporting evidence to support this idea, although within the confines of our discussion, when we are trying to limit our positions to those clearly established by the passage alone, should not be included at this time.

I believe that with just the information we can gather thus far, utilizing simply the words and context of this passage apart from any presuppositions of OS, a fair minded individual can say with confidence, this passage of Scripture does not lend itself to any universal idea of OS as is so widely taught and accepted.

 

HP: This particular text establishes no such thing. David is speaking about a group of wicked as opposed to a group of righteous in this chapter. There is not the slightest indication whatsoever of any general principles of the entire human race in this Psalm as being wicked Show me the verse that is universal in nature concerning going astray from birth. If that is true, where in the world did the righteous come into the picture that he contrasts with the wicked? Are you to tell us that David wanted to cut off the entire world including himself, and break the teeth of every man women and infant, and those of his own, in their own mouths?

 

HP: I am to blame here for the confusion. I have referred to OS as universal constitutional depravity and as universal constitutional moral depravity. In reference to OS, I should always insert the word ‘moral’ for the following reason.

There is no getting around universal constitutional depravity if we are speaking of the physical realm. If there was an undeniable fact, it would be that man is physically depraved as a result of inherited physical depravity. This physical depravity is in a sense could be said to be ‘constituitional,’ it is just not moral in nature.

The heart of morality lies in the will, not the realm of the physical. The physical can indeed influence the will via a proclivity, but a proclivity is not sin in and of itself, but rather serves as a temptation or influence to sin, not an occasion of sin. The will has to form an intent of selfishness or benevolence in order for morality to be predicated of any intent or subsequent action. In short, the realm of the moral is spiritual and is formulated and enacted upon by the will itself in the formation of its intents. There is nothing ‘moral’ in and of the flesh itself, for the will and not the physical flesh is the seat of all morality.

Sin is a moral issue, not a physical issue. Sin is a choice of selfishness as opposed to benevolence. It is a willful violation of God’s moral law. Due to this fact any discussion of the notion of OS must be denoted not just as ‘universal constitutional depravity,’ due to the confusion between the moral realm and the merely physical realm, but must always, if we are to avoid confusion, be termed in some manner to separate the two realms, as I have attempted to do so by denoting it as 'universal constitutional moral depravity' as opposed to mere 'universal constitutional depravity.'

Feel free to develop your own way of specifying that which pertains to the moral realm and that which pertains only to the physical realm. What I have stated is just what I feel in the best interest of avoiding confusion, ‘one way’ (possibly not the best way) of wording it that is less confusing, I would at least hope.

 

HP: I believe did so as if saying, ‘even from my very conception sin was involved.’ It is if though David realized the influences to sin that plague the human race, and even in the sinful act of adultery and fornication of the parents, influences our proclivities to sin are indeed felt by generations to come.

HP:I feel that David did in fact believe the sin of his mother as she conceived him, her sinful act of fornication or adultery, did in fact influence him in the decisions he made in his life. I do not believe he was trying to place the blame for his sins upon those of his mother that are mentioned, but rather only referring to it as a formidable influence to sin upon him.

HP: When we realize that David is referring directly to the sin of his mother in this particular verse, one can see why the ‘sin’ issue mentioned here was an imbalance in his mothers life, not some universal moral principle as OS sets forth. Sin can and does create a tremendous influence and imbalance upon the physical, that indeed is passed on from generation to generation. That is a far cry from imputed guilt or unavoidable moral guilt, an oxymorn at best, as OS implies.

HP: Now you shift the focus from the OP. I will say this. We all need Christ, not because we all could not help but be sinners, but that we all have chosen selfishness and as a result became guilty before God. “All we like sheep have GONE astray.” (Not born astray, but GONE astray) “From our youth up” is another Scriptural depiction of the timing of our contact with actual sin.

HP: I would agree with this assessment. The question though concerns what you see as involved in the word ‘nature.’ Again this is straying from the OP. We have much to discuss concerning this latter. The object of this thread is simply to see that David is not addressing any universal principle of OS at all, but his own sins and the sins of his mother that greatly influenced his own decisions.

David in this Psalm was repenting of HIS sin against God and no one else. He was not blaming his sin upon his mother or her sin, and certainly not upon any idea such as OS would imply that was completely foreign to the Jew. He was simply expressing that he had been greatly influenced by the sins of others in his life, in particular the sins of his mother, but was telling God that he fully accepted the responsibility for his own sins and begged God's forgiveness.

 

HP: BR, What a lucky man you are indeed. After getting a D- on your report card you still receive kudo’s at the same time.:laugh:

 

HP: That would open several kegs of worms that most likely will derail this whole thread. I would appreciate it if we can either start a new thread on those issues,or at least hold off for a while until we can go through the proof texts most commonly used to support OS. Fair enough?