The Nature of Man

Sorry, double post

 

Quote:
HP: If one takes the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one will 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.

HP: I do not see you following anything to a logical end. Here is why I do not believe your comparison holds water. Certainly God had hidden from their view many things concerning Christ, and that they saw only through types and shadows, yet they were keenly aware that God would send them a Messiah and God had by many means told them that the Messiah would suffer and die for their sins. A suffering Messiah was by no means foreign to the Jews. Read Isaiah 53 for a brief sample. To say that none believed in a suffering Messiah to come is simply not the case. The Messiah should not have came upon them unawares, but it did to many, (yet not all, ) not because they had no place in it in their theology, but rather due to the hardness of their hearts. Have we forgotten the many witnesses in the NT of Jews waiting and watching for the Messiah, who willingly accepted Christ when he appeared as the true Messiah foretold by the prophets? Many knew (all Jews should have known) and some accepted His Advent with joy and adoration! God had hid many things that would happen to Christ from their understanding, revealing things in types and shadows, but the message of the Messiah was the fulfillment of their whole system worship, to those that had eyes to see and ears to hear. God had been in the business of revealing Christ to them for over two thousand years. Not so with the dogma of Augustine foisted upon the Church concerning the false notion of original sin.

HP: Certainly they had built in false notions. Who refutes that? Still, they neither believed in nor did Christ introduce to them any such notion of Augustinian original sin.

HP: I agree. And take carefull notice how Christ delivered no such notion, neither did He establish or clarify any such notion as the Augustinian dogma of original sin imbibes. Disagree? Show us where Christ introduced or clarified any such notion such as original sin.

 

How does me reading Isaiah 53 prove to us the Jews knew all about a suffering Messiah?

To this day Judaism rejects a suffering messiah. In fact, I heard testimony from Jewish believers in Christ that to this day Isaiah 53 is not read in their synagogs. They refuse to read it because it sounds to much like Jesus whom they reject as Messiah. They are still looking for a conquering King in a Messiah.

Actually, I have not read Augustine's writing on original sin. I will check it out. My post was about citing the Jews' theology on subjects, believing it somehow establishing biblical truths when Jesus had to refute them on their theology over and over again.

:jesus:

 

HP: First no one said all the Jews knew anything. The only thing that I have said is that they did not believe or teach anything concerning original sin. The idea was foreign to their theology as taught to them by God.

HP: I see. So they did at one time know, and some clearly understood by the words they wrote concerning their Messiah. Some simply then and now know and understood, and yet some then and now rejected that truth. Not hardly the same thing as finding no place in their theology for the idea of original sin.

None of the Jews, including the prophets and all other leaders of the Jews, believed in or supported the notion of original sin. That is a well know fact, not my idea Steaver. Read Alfred Edersheim, one of the most able if not the most able writer on Jewish antiquity. I have seen it mentioned as fact by other historians as well.

Augustine is known the world over as the author of the doctrine of original sin, not Scripture or any Jew. I believe it is very pertinent to the issue to mention that fact. There are other perfectly understanable and believable interpretations for Ps 51:5 and PS 58 other than the Augustinian notion of OS that any fair minded individual could see if they would. What is obvious to me is that many of the churches today have so committed themselves to the false notions of Augustine and the traditions that have followed, that they are not unlike the Jews of Jesus day and the traditions they so tenaciously held to that kept them from seeing the light of the truth that Christ had to offer.

Now to be completely fair, there were some Jews in the OT that must have had some false ideas concerning inherited moral depravity to some degree, because God through the prophet Ezekiel set the record straight once for all on the issue.(or at least God tried to set the record straight) Read God’s Word carefully on the issue Eze 18:1 ¶ The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. …
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall NOT bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. …30 ¶ Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

 

Job 3:16,17 Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not seen; as infants which never saw light. There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.
Seems like a type of heaven to me. Don't you think?

 

Hi, Amy! Yes, but the issue here is not that we know right and wrong but if we are accountable. You clearly said earlier that Paul was not accountable until he knew the law, and that is what I disagreed with. Do you still maintain that position? I am not speaking of infants or young children here, but of adults.

 

I did some research and in my initial findings I think the Roman Catholic version sounds pretty solid so far.

I don't see "original sin" as though we are accountable for Adam's personal sin, but that because of Adam's sin, sin entered into all of his offspring and thus we are all born tainted with the sin nature. Maybe this would not be truly a "original sin" definition, so maybe i cannot claim I believe in "original sin" theology as taught by Augustine.

What is Augustine's definition of "original sin"? Did Augustine teach we are accountable for Adam's personal sins, or any of our ancestor's personal sins? Which I do not believe. Or did he teach we are tainted with sin from the womb because of Adam's sin? Which I believe is what the scriptures teach.

:jesus:
​

 

Adults are accountable. Children are not accountable. There is a point in our lives when we became accountable. Only God know when that is for each individual.

 

It would depend on the adult. An adult born mentally handicapped is not accountable. There is a point when we realize that the wrong things we do are against God, and this is when we are accountable. For some it may be 5, some 13, some 18...who knows.

 

Yes. I should have mentioned mentally handicapped adults..Thanks for pointing that out.

 

HP: This is a test.:smilewinkgrin:

How do you know that is true? Do you have any first truths of reason, matters of fact, or truth of immutable justice you could point to as evidence?

 

Here is what you need to know.

All have sinned; all are sinners; no one excluded.
All have sin natures, including infants, mentally handicapped, etc.; all have sin natures. The only one excluded from that category is Christ. Up until the fall, so was Adam and Eve.

If the above was not true there would be no need for a Saviour. There would be no need for Christ to die for the sins of ALL the world. He would only have to die for some of the world, but not all the world. He died for all, for all have a sin nature. We are guilty from the day that we are born. No one is innocent. We are guilty the day that we are born. The day we are born we are in need of a Saviour. The day we are born, we are in need of the blood of Christ.

Are there exceptions? Not really. However, God in His mercy does take some to heaven that have not had the chance to break His law of their own volition. We can only come to that conclusion from David's experience with his own child. David expects to see his child in heaven. The reason is the mercy of God. God in his mercy will take some to heaven.

This does not nullify in no way that all have a sin nature passed on from Adam; from generation to generation--for that all have sinned.

The Hindus in India and the Muslims in Pakistan must be saved by the blood of Christ, whether or not we think that they have heard of Christ.
Christ is the only way to heaven.
All men are born with a sin nature. It shows us our sinfulness. It points us to Christ, our need of a Saviour. Without our sin nature, why would the Hindu need a Saviour?

 

HP: Simple. It does not take a sin nature to sin. Need proof? Try Adam, Eve, Satan and all the angels that followed in his rebellion…... and in our generation, all that reach the age of accountability sin and become guilty before God. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”

Why do men sin? That remains a mystery. We could say selfishness, but again why do all act selfishly? You have your Augustinian theory highly influenced by his pagan background, and I have my mystery.

Man need a Savor because all have sinned, not because of a sin nature. Romans is clear. We all need a Savior “for all have sinned.”

 

I don't read Augustine. I don't know what you are talking about. My theology comes from the Bible. Where does yours come from?

Man needs a Saviour because he has sinned.
Man needs a Saviour because he has a sin nature.

Both statements are true. We sin because we have a sin nature. That is what Rom.5:12 teaches.

Why does a parent need to teach their children to tell the truth?
Why doesn't a parent need to teach their children to tell a lie?
Please explain.
The speak lies as soon as they be born. They have a sin nature.

 

If you find it a mystery, then you are ignoring the scriptures.

According to scripture, men sin for two reasons;

One, deception, we are given the freewill choice to obey or disobey God's Word, i.e. Adam and Eve.

Two, scripture declares a sin curse was passed on to all because of Adam's sin. This would not be the same as freewill choice to sin or not to sin, but rather an infection in need of a cure.

Satan took advantage of God's freewill design in man and deceived Eve into making a sin choice, Adam followed.

There is no mystery, God tells us plainly, Adam made a choice to sin and God cursed everything because of Adam's sin choice/disobedience. Sin passed onto all because of Adam's "disobedience/bad choice/sin".

Jesus' obedience has trumped Adam's disobedience and the sacrifice/atonement has been made for the "curse".

Age of accountability, wherever that is found in the scripture I don't know, would have nothing to do with the curse verses atonement factor.

The curse is the reason "All have sinned" whether they made conscience choices to sin is a moot point. All mankind is infected with the curse from the womb and without Jesus' atonement they could not be saved. All are cursed from the womb, choice has no part in the curse, Adam took care of that for us all. And Jesus took care of the curse for us all! Praise Him!

:jesus:

 

Simle, faith is the only way to salvation. Faith comes from hearing (understanding). Understanding takes a mental capacity to do so, as does choice and acceptance. Either a fetus has the mental capacity to choose Christ or reject him, or he doesn't. There is no middle ground. Same applies to MR/DD, and knowledge and understanding are needed to actively choose are reject truth.

 

Yes, but we are not talking about children but about the passage Paul wrote, which is what I was responding to.


Amy, did you not say that Paul was not accountable until he knew the law? I've asked you this twice but you haven't answered me. This would mean adults are not accountable who do not know the law. And then we have the question of what "the law" means.

Somehow this thread has veered way off topic. I didn't realize Paul's passage had anything to do with infants or mentally handicapped adults. Let's stick to the topic.

 

Is this 'the' Matthew Black, from this forum? Or another Matthew Black?

 

There is a difference between knowing and understanding. Understanding leads to faith, while simply knowing something does not. Those who can understand will be held accountable, because even the invisible attributes of God are "known", not to mention the conscience and the desire to live eternally (Ecc. 3:11)

 

I answered this to the best of my ability in post #38.
Here it is again.