-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Born in Sins
- Thread starter Heavenly Pilgrim
- Start date
- Status
I'm suggesting Jewish theologians denied, and for the most part continue to deny, a Biblical view of the fall of man and the subsequent teachings of original sin; though both are taught implicity and explicity in Old Testament writings. David, for example, was familiar with the concept of original sin when he confessed he was conceived in iniquity, and sinful in his inward parts (See Ps. 51).
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
The notion of attributing the doctrine of original sin to Augustine is by far not novel with myself.
As to the Trinity, I simply have to say that I have never studied out the origins of that doctrine, but have simply accepted it as basic truth. I have to admit that I certainly have questions in my own mind as to the nature of the Incarnation. As I have stated, in the books I have read on the Trinity I came away with far more questions than answers.
As to the Trinity, I simply have to say that I have never studied out the origins of that doctrine, but have simply accepted it as basic truth. I have to admit that I certainly have questions in my own mind as to the nature of the Incarnation. As I have stated, in the books I have read on the Trinity I came away with far more questions than answers.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1772575#post1772575
HP: Are you certain? Are you suggesting that the ONLY place being 'born in sins' or any reference to being 'born in sin' is not even talking about original sin?
HP: That is like saying you would teach against original sin in what you write when you say you believed in it. I would not agree, neither does any OT text support the Augustinian notion of original sin. I would be more than happy to look at any verses carefully you suggest teach original sin in the OT. Pick your favorite proof text. Shall we look at Ps 51?
Here is a short simple response. We can go into more details later.
The text found in Psalm 51:5 has been raised as in support of original sin or universal moral constitutional depravity.
First, 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.”
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 such as original sin, 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.
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1772575#post1772575
HP: Are you certain? Are you suggesting that the ONLY place being 'born in sins' or any reference to being 'born in sin' is not even talking about original sin?
HP: That is like saying you would teach against original sin in what you write when you say you believed in it. I would not agree, neither does any OT text support the Augustinian notion of original sin. I would be more than happy to look at any verses carefully you suggest teach original sin in the OT. Pick your favorite proof text. Shall we look at Ps 51?
Here is a short simple response. We can go into more details later.
The text found in Psalm 51:5 has been raised as in support of original sin or universal moral constitutional depravity.
First, 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.”
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 such as original sin, 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.
Jerry Shugart
New Member
Let us look at the verse you reference in its context:
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice" (Ps.51:5-8).
If all of these verses are to be taken literally then verse seven can be evidence that men are cleansed from their sins "with hyssop." Verse eight can also be taken in a literal sense to teach that broken bones rejoice!
So there is no reason to suppose that verse 5 must be taken literally. And with the following verse in view how can you deny that verse 5 should not be taken literally?:
"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).
If a child is conceived in sin then how do explain the words of the Lord Jesus in regard to "little children" in the following passage?:
"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).
Are we to believe that the Lord thought that infants are spiritually dead but yet He would say of them that "such is the kingdom of heaven"? Of course not! Children are described as being "an heritage of the Lord":
"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).
HP: "[H]ow could have David’s mother conceived him in sin... 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"
Me: I'd be interested in your (scriptural) evidence.
Me: I'd be interested in your (scriptural) evidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
You have provided good evidence why verse five teaches original sin. You have provided Scripture that demonstrates not all Scripture is to be taken absolutely literally, but much of it, especially in poetical books like psalms, are written in with figures of speech--and you have provided good examples. Thus you strengthen our position. Taken literally would strengthen the position of HP, that David's mother committed adultery, and thus David was conceived in sin. That would be the literal interpretation. You have provided us with evidence to the contrary that the verse is teaching the doctrine of original sin.
I have a degree in biology, as well as theology. If you would like to expound this entire passage and see how the psalmist is exclaiming how we are fearfully and wonderfully made, I would more than glad to oblige you. But this verse in no way takes away from man's sin nature. God has given us a wonderful body, that in spite of all the harm we do to it, the body continues to function, the heart beats without our thinking, the blood circulates, the brain acts like a computer and is smarter than any computer that man has invented. We are fearfully and wonderfully made.
And how does this contradict any other teaching of the Word.
These children grow and will reach an age where they too will have to make a decision for Christ. But until then, they will by their sinful natures choose to make selfish decisions. They will lie, deceive, whine and cry (sometimes for no reason but attention). They have from birth sinful natures. There is no such thing as "innocence."
The clearest text used to support the doctrine of original sin is found in Romans the 5th chapter. Here (Rom. 5:12) Paul simply states, "through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin".
One of the surest evidences of original sin is found in the fact that death comes upon all men.
One of the surest evidences of original sin is found in the fact that death comes upon all men.
Well duh! :laugh:
There must have existed among the general population of Jews at the time an idea that someone born blind must have been born that way because God was judging the sins of his parents, because the disciples asked the Lord, "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:2). Maybe they got that dumb idea because they knew David and Bathsheba's firstborn died young, and so they drew some wrong conclusions about that.
If the Lord's disciples thought such was a possibility, then no doubt the rest of the Jews probably also thought that might have been a possibility. Then when the blind man offended the big-shot Pharisees by giving them a straight answer (I love that guy in the account), they lashed out against the man with the worst thing they could think of saying which was to accuse him of having been born blind for his own sins as well as his parents' sins. Just like when they blasphemed against the Holy Ghost by accusing the Lord of casting out devils by the power of the devil, these high-minded Pharisees showed their utter foolishness when confronted by the truth of God.
I think of a quote in a movie I saw once (please forgive me for admitting this), "Napoleon Dynamite", when I read about these Pharisees who show their true colors when the Lord exposes them to the truth: "Idiots".
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
I find your response, Marke, a good one. :thumbs:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: The choosing you speak of is not choice in the least. If the nature of man dictates the intents and actions of man, no choice in reality takes place. Choice only happens in a system of freedom and you are depicting one of necessity. If the nature of man is responsible, it is the nature that deserves all blame and not the man himself. Your choosing does not represent choosing in the least or anything to do with choice.... Unless of course you believe that a smell 'chooses' to freely rise from a dead carcass.
Of a truth, 'freedom to do as one wills' does not represent freedom in the least.
Anyone who has raised children knows that they are the most self centered beings on earth. They have to learn to be good and to make good choices, going against the flesh. The flesh wants what it wants and wants it now. We have to teach our children to discipline the flesh and do what is right. So without question, there is a sinful nature present in every human being at birth. We are not only created in God's image, but also in fallen Adam's image. Not fair? Tough. That's the way it is. The bible is clear on this.
On the other hand, an infant doesn't know his right hand from his left and therefore is not held accountable for his nature. But as he grows, he will be held accountable for choosing sin over righteousness.
On the other hand, an infant doesn't know his right hand from his left and therefore is not held accountable for his nature. But as he grows, he will be held accountable for choosing sin over righteousness.
It is only a non sequitur to you because you believe in one but not the other. Thus you attribute Original Sin to Augustine. The Catholics also claim to have come up with the doctrine of the trinity. Do you believe that also. Two doctrines; both Catholic?
The fact is that both are Biblical and both don't have anything to do with the RCC. Both the trinity and original sin are Biblical doctrines. There is no non sequitur here.
That is simply not true! Original sin is derived from clear, concise, literal passages that are in addition further described in symbolic language.
A. Clear, concise, literal passages:
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;
He is talking about birth and length of life of man in these two verses
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
He is talking about the clean state of man from birth!
Pr 22:15 ¶ Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
The problem of foolishness is "in the heart of a child" not from their environment or from bad examples.
B. Literal reinforced by symbolic language
Psalm 53:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
Jerry Shugart
New Member
What about the Lord Jesus who was born of a woman? Of course you refuse to believe that the Lord Jesus was made like us in every way:
"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).
Now it is again your turn to try to prove what is said there is in error by telling us the many ways that He was NOT made like us IN EVERY WAY.
What about the explicit clear concise literaly texts I just presented?
You are changing the subject from clear concise literal texts to texts that say nothing explicit and clear about how man is born into this world! You are changing the subject to a text you must INFER is a problem while IGNORING his virgin birth as the solution to your undue INFERENCE!
I will not play this mary-go-round game with you. DEAL WITH THE CLEAR EXPLICIT CONCISE TEXTS presented! Deny what they say and NECESSARILY infer and I will deal with that!
- Status