The Nature of the Will

HP: Note the clear manner that Jesus pointed him to eternal life. He did not say if you are one of my elect, or if God has regenerated you, or you must first be regenerated in order to repent and believe. No, but rather he pointed him directly to the commandments. Jesus then did not even argue with him, or tell him he was a liar, or that he was ignorant of his own self, or that he was ignorant of inheriting an evil heart from Adam, or that he was born in sin therefore a fool to act as if though he had kept the commandments. He simply said, there is ONE thing that he still lacked. Something he had evidently never thought of doing or being required of him before that moment in time. Christ told him to recognize the truth of original sin, or the matter of being or not being one of the elect, or all you have to do is believe? No, He did not mention any of those things but did ask him to perform a work, no less!

Was Christ preaching salvation by works?? If not why not? let us review. He came asking Christ Himself what he must do to inherit eternal life. Christ gave him a response, i.e., to DO SOMETING, PERFORM A WORK in order to inherit the kingdom.

That is exactly how to exegete this passage. Simply say one understands exactly what he asked and what Jesus told him in response. Now for your theories and philosophy.........

Now a mere personal observation: Christ could have asked him about calling Him Good to simply to see if in fact he thought He was really God manifest in the flesh. It well may have been for other reasons simply not known to us because we are not 'Omniscient.' .I will wait and save my questions to ask Christ when I see Him. One thing I will not do is to read into this passage something that simply is not there, with no indication it should have been there, simply to try and make a passage walk on all four legs for a proof text in support of the false Augustinian notion of original sin. That I refuse to do. :thumbsup:

 

A thought to ponder. Just suppose the rich young ruler of Mat 19 would have simply turned and went out and did precisely what Jesus commanded him to do? What do you think would have been the results? Would have Christ told him that it was all a joke, that He was just kidding about selling his goods, or that even though he had done that there was still 'yet' something he lacked,.... and after that, 'yet' something else that he lacked,..?

I have speculated in my mind more than once that this young man could have honest as the driven snow before he came to Jesus. He might have indeed walked according to all the commandments from his youth up, a shining example of obedience to the law, much like the Apostle Paul before his conversion. Now coming face to face with the Master, Christ, 'at that moment' revealed to him new light, forcing him to make a life changing decision. He was not like Paul, who followed the light, but turned away from the light of that moment, choosing selfishness as opposed to benevolence, and thus rejecting Christ's offer of eternal life.

One thing we know for certain. This was indeed and unusual case with an unusual response from our Lord. It may even leave us with more questions than answers. It may well not be the best model in Scripture to form ones approach to evangelism by, and certainly not a Scripture to establish the doctrine of original sin by, at least IMHO.

 

.

HP: Since when do my responses to a verse you, not I , say supports the notion of original sin dictate your proving the verse does in fact do what you say it does?? Because I do not know the mind of Christ, does that in any way prove that you do? I think not. You have told us what you think was His reason, but telling us what you think and establishing clear evidence of the truth FROM SCRIPTURE is two completely different things. Nothing you have said in any way establishes this verse in support of original sin period. If you say it does, the burden of proof is upon you, not I, to prove it from the text itself.



I indicated clearly that I can only guess as to why Christ responded as He did. I am not Omniscient. Are you?

 

HP: If you would beat the pulpit a little harder, or strike several exclamation marks after the sentence instead of just one, maybe, just maybe, 'Biblicist saying so' might be more persuasive. :thumbs:

 

HP: Here might be another approach to his remarks.

Fine, have it your way, with 'is' being present tense. From that we can safely conclude that it in no way speaks to those in the past or any to come in the future.

 

HP: To extrapolate your conclusions from the words of our Lord, to act as if though Jesus believed infants were sinful is nothing short of an abuse of Scripture.

You might try reading the whole Psalm for something other than a convenient proof text. David spells out the context of the passage in concise pointed and clear fashion, that only one bent on finding support for false heathenistic notion as set forth by Augustine would be so willing to blindly stumble over. Instead of proof texting, why don't we look closely at the entire passage for a welcomed change.:thumbs:

No one on this list that I know of would argue that all men, especially in our generation, have become morally depraved. Scripture asserts that all are in need of repentance. The question is, does the passage of Scripture you present here make a case for original sin. (for that is what I believe you must be referring to) I say it does not for several reasons. It would seem to me that you should have picked up on the clear context of this passage in the first verse which you conveniently do not mention or even allude to. Here it is to get us in focus with just who the Psalmist is referring to. "The FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART, There is no God. THEY ((who are ‘they??? The fools) are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

The point is NOT that I believe that man has not became morally depraved, or that all are not sinners, but rather that this passage is NOT establishing any notion of issues like original sin by even a precursor reading of the text itself.

The Jews did NOT believe man was born in sin and rightfully so. The renowned scholar Alfred Edersheim points out clearly in “The Life and Times of Jesus Christ the Messiah” that there was simply no place whatsoever in the theology held by the Jews for any such notion as original sin. I for one believe Mr. Edersheim in his conclusion. Others have came to that conclusion as well. The notion of original sin was not introduced or taught in the church prior to Augustine that is clearly and justly denoted as the father of the doctrine of original sin.

David was comparing TWO groups of individuals in this text as he did in other texts as well, Psalm 53 for instance. There he once again pits the “FOOL” in the following manner: Ps 53:3 EVERY ONE of THEM is GONE BACK (not born that way, but GONE BACK) they are altogether BECOME FILTHY; (not born filthy) there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

David was speaking directly to those he considered as fools and was by no means making any universal acknowledgement of original sin in both Psalms, 14 as well as 53.


David uses the cliché’, “children of men” in this passage much the in the same manner he did in another passage, to point to a group of individuals unlike himself. He considered himself to be a follower of God and righteousness, and those workers of iniquity to be merely referred to as the ‘children of men.’ Listen to David as he speaks again in the same manner in yet another text. 1Sa 26:19 Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the LORD have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering: but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the LORD; for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the LORD, saying, Go, serve other gods.” Note clearly that these workers of iniquity David spoken of were NOT as himself, but are those evil persons who drove him from abiding in the presence of the inheritance of the Lord.

 

HP: Paul, in Romans 3 was addressing the problem of the Jews, who thought they had an advantage in inheriting the kingdom due to them being circumcised and/or simply being a Jew. They knew that they were considered as 'oracles of God', the Word of God being given first to them, and falsely concluded, that due to this special favor bestowed upon them by God, they were secure in their eternal salvation.


This was no discourse on original sin, nor of infants being sinners. To ascribe that as the purpose , intent, or substance of this passage is handling the Word of God simply to ones own dogmatic advantage.

The summation of this passage is clearly in agreement to the context and intent as spelled out in verse 20. Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Once men have transgressed the law, no matter who they are or from whence they came, they cannot in any way absolve themselves from the just condemnation of the law. NO deeds of the law will ever resolve their just condemnation by the law apart from the blood of Jesus Christ. All need Christ.

Again, just as the Psalms addressed in the last post have nothing at all to do with inherited depravity from birth as Biblicist falsely suggests, Romans 3 does not do any such thing either. From the truth of Paul and Scripture that all men now have indeed sinned and are justly all under the condemnation of the law, it cannot be extrapolated that such is due to an inherited sin nature from birth as Biblicist falsely assumes, neither can it be reasonably or justly assumed that the 'all' spoken of includes infants and those not even under the law, not being moral agents.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
No one on this list that I know of would argue that all men, especially in our generation, have become morally depraved.

HP: Let the reader and Scripture be the judge of Biblicist's remark.

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Oh, and here was one in the very VERSE, no less, that Biblicist pulled his 'proof text from.

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

 

Biblicist repeatedly tries to force the Scriptures he presents in support of original sin, to suggest that babies are sinful. Nothing could be further from the truth of Scripture and reason than such a remark.

Babies are not sinful, but are the very essence of purity and innocence.

Biblicist has mentioned Psalm 51.Lets look at Scripture for a moment.

Scripture consistently represents babies as pure and innocent. Jesus said, referring to children, Mr 10:14 Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Mt 18:3 Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 1Cor.14:20 In malice, be ye children There is not one scintilla of evidence that children are born sinful or that the inherited nature of all children is wicked. Notice the clear expressed language in the following passages. "1.Ec 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.2. Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.3. Eze 4:14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.4. Gen. 8:21 for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;5. Jer 3:25 We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God.6. Jer 3:25 We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God. 7.Jer 32:30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth:

God hates sin. God is committed to punishing sin. The thought of God punishing innocent children for a nature that they are born with is a most repulsive notion to any resemblance of justice, love, compassion, or parental love. The notion of original sin is a blot upon the character of God.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” This verse says nothing directly as to sin’s “accounted against him”, but rather, the subject in the verse is clearly that of his mother’s sin. David states this simply to show that from his conception, sin has been closely associated to him. Sin had played a role in his very conception, and that sin of his mother he obviously felt had had an impact upon his life, as indeed it had. To use this verse as a proof text for a sinful nature or original sin, is a clear misuse of it’s intent on several accounts.
An important point to remember is that David was a King of the Jews, who understood and believed as the Jews. There was absolutely no parallel in any rabbinic writing to original sin. Clearly, the Jews did not believe in original sin. Several Biblical scholars point this out, including Alfred Edershiem, the author of “The Life and Times of Jesus Christ the Messiah,” and “The Temple”. The notion that David, a Jew among Jews, would purport a notion that was clearly at antipodes with the teachings of the Jews, and, that was not held or believed by the Jews, is simply absurd. Original sin clearly found it’s origin in the writings of one man over four hundred years after Christ had left this earth, namely, Augustine. Augustine is clearly remembered and recognized as the “Father of the doctrine of original sin”.
Scripture seems to indicate that indeed David was illegitimate in the eyes of Jewish law. It would appear, according to Scripture, that David’s mother, and the mother of David’s two half sisters, was a former concubine of, or former wife of, Nahash. David’s mother clearly had conceived his two half sisters by Nahash. It would appear that David could have been only a half brother to his other brothers, and for this reason they had reason to despise him as they did. (1Chron. 2:13-16 and 2Samuel 17:25) It would also make sense as to why Nahash showed kindness to David. This could also have been the reason why Jesse did not bring him as the prophet had requested; in order to be one of the ones picked from to be the next King of Israel (1Sam.16:4-11) It clearly could have been the reason why David’s brothers looked down on him so.(1Sam.17:28-30) In the eyes of the Jewish law, David’s mother would have been seen as “defiled”, as a result of her former relationship with an Ammonite, namely Nahash. ( Related Scriptures: Nu.25 1-2, De7:3-4, 1Kings 11:2-4, Ez. 9:2, Ne. 13:23-25,11Cor. 6:14-17)

At any case, it is a total mistake to take a verse where David spoke of himself and his mother’s sin in the first person, and extrapolate that to include all mankind as being born under the same conditions. It is a complete misuse of Scripture to take this passage and use it to support the false notion of Augustinian original sin.

 

Yet another excellent post Jerry. :thumbsup:

 

Jerimiah 2911, you are as kind as my saintly mother was. God bless you! She disagreed with me as well, but I still loved her dearly. You have the right to believe as you will, and of course I will do the same.

I can only do what I feel God has led me to do, and that is to refute error no matter where it shows its head or on how high the platform is of the opposition. I am certainly not alone in being outnumbered on an issue. Others in the past have found themselves in such a place as well. Should I be placed above them and my Lord? Duty is mine, the results are the Lord's.