Is Original Sin Doctrine Found in Bible?

[Darrell C]

And it is an interesting topic. Augustine interpreted Scripture in light of a presupposed philosophy (Neoplatonic philosophy influenced his understanding of the Bible and his development of doctrine…specifically his dualistic approach to the physical and spiritual). I don’t think we can fault Augustine for reading into Scripture his own philosophy as we often do the same - the reason most believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin is that it has been engrained in our traditions (consider how our forefathers were taught: the New England Primer taught children “in Adam’s Fall we sinned all”).

I agree that objectivity and hind sight strongly cautions against Augustine’s doctrine, but it remains the most common view in our churches.

When I brought up Psalm 51 it was also to disagree with the idea that the Psalmist alluded to original sin. Instead of pointing to a sinful conception he was pointing to a conception that would result in being born into a world enslaved to sin and death.

The Doctrine of Original Sin is a flawed theory based more on philosophy than Scripture as an attempt to answer how sin entered into a perfect world. It fails at the start (with Adam actually sinning), but it has become a common fixture in Western theology (both in Catholic and Reformed doctrine).

I think perhaps philosophy intervenes in areas where it may be thought we do not have enough in Scripture to draw dogmatic conclusions. The problem I have with that is that on this issue (if my supposing were valid) we do have enough. As I said, this is kind of a new project (so to speak) for me, so while I have not yet come to the point where i feel comfortable being dogmatic about everything I would present in this discussion, for the most part there are some general truths, basic principles which deny a traditional view. When I was first saved I was taught along the lines of Augustine's doctrine, even to the point of describing sin as a disease of sorts. But, at this point, based on other areas of study, I can no longer express such doctrine.

I had a friend who was pretty solid in his doctrine, and he decided to go to Seminary and become an ordained minister (which he accomplished). Not long after that he was back to playing heavy metal and playing in bars (he was the guitar player in a metal band I played in, it was a four piece band, and three of us have been saved: him, the drummer, who is now an ordained minister in the CoC, and myself...always thought that was odd, what are the chances of three out of four hooligans getting saved, lol), and I am pretty sure drinking and smoking pot again. In a conversation we had he actually told me that Philosophy was more important than Theology.

Going to Seminary was the worst thing that has happened to him, in my view.

Biblical literacy is simply not something common in today’s church.

I agree, but...who do we fault for that? Lazy Christians? Or Lazy leadership?

Its just my view that the notable "Church Fathers" have in one sense wrought more harm to the Body of Christ than probably any others that could be named.

We are currently looking for a new Church Home and the fellowship we have been visiting seems promising. They seem to have a passion for the Word of God. They have home group studies (we have not yet gotten involved in one, we have only been twice so far), but we will see. Their "about us" states they are "Dispensational" and "Reformed (Salvation Only). " I keep telling the Pastor I am going to call him but I haven't, partly because I am often disappointed when I talk to Pastors, and they often look at me funny afterwards, lol.

The discussion will never gravitate to Scripture or towards evaluating each theory on its merit because people today cannot even recognize what part of their belief is philosophical and which part is the biblical text. They read their understanding as implied and therefore inspired.

True in part, but, with a direct focus on the issues and a mandatory adherence to a proper exegesis of Scripture, I think we can at least bring the minority into agreement on these issues. Basically a Doctrinal Discussion that does not have Scripture as its measure is not Doctrinal Discussion, its just chatting.

I wish it were not so, but I’ve been on this forum since 2001 and have yet to see a sustained and legitimate discussion on such topics.

Well...let's change that, beginning with this thread, lol.

The reason we need to address philosophies is that without philosophy doctrines such as the Doctrine of Original Sin, Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and the Impassibility of God would never have existed.

And that's a bad thing?



Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

These things arose as men tried to address questions about Scripture through philosophical reasoning imposed upon the biblical text and developed into theories. From there theories were built upon other theories until they encompassed and overshadowed Scripture itself.

Kind of like the Gap Restoration Theory. I view it as a response to Evolution by those who bought into the "scientific Facts" espoused by unbelievers. They said "The earth is millions of years old, and we can prove it!" And some men were intimidated. Well, we've seen those "facts" change dramatically over the last century, but, Genesis One still remains the same.

The reason I say we will never get to Scripture on these topics is that too much has been invested.

Not sure I can fully agree.

Evangelical Theology is based on the theologies of the Reformation which took for granted several Catholic theories either by acceptance or revision.

I often tell people I witness to that the understanding they have is due to their knowledge of the Media Spotlight Church, which is not to be confused with the Body of Christ, the Church. I am not a big fan of some of the "heros" men have from Church History. I find the Doctrine and actions of both Catholics and Protestants equally appalling, and to be honest, see the end result as, not a return to Scripture, but another venture in Religion.

So I agree that, in light of God's Word, these philosophies can be proven wrong.

Then that should be the goal, right?

But they never will as without philosophy things like Calvinism, Arminianism, Penal Substitution Theory, many detailed eschatological schemes, Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, etc. simply would not exist.

As far as Eschatology and "Dispensational Theology," I would disagree. Eschatology is what it is, and when we look at the way several Eschatological systems are built we can see their departure from a Scriptural Basis. Dispensationalism is a little different, because there are differing degrees as to how "dispensational" one is, but, the bottom line is that I have found them closer to a Biblical understanding than any other System. I don't call myself a "Dispensationalist" because much of my Doctrine agrees with what is taught by them, just as I don't call myself Catholic because we both believe God is Triune, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

I don't see Philosophy as necessary to a Dispensational view. You might be able to give examples to better help me understand what you mean by that. The others, I understand.

People are not going to give up their traditions without a fight.

This is true, but, that is the model Paul gave us:


Acts 17
King James Version (KJV)

1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.


Acts 18:4
King James Version (KJV)

4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.


Acts 18:19
King James Version (KJV)

19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.


Acts 19:8
King James Version (KJV)

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.


And my personal favorite:


Acts 19:9
King James Version (KJV)

9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.


As much as people are in the Word of God around here, and on other forums, we would think that there would be a settling of issues in their hearts, but, often we see the same topics batted around with no real settling. I think it should be in the best interests of every forum to declare their positions on numerous topics and explain why that conclusion has been drawn. Of course, we are asking for something equally difficult, which is that the leadership come to an agreement as well.

But I think you're right in part about traditional views being clung to, despite, perhaps, being presented with a Scriptural Basis that settles the issue. Its sad to present people with dogmatic statements from Scripture and see them disregarded. One example would be one member who insists that Moses and Elijah were in glorified form on the mount of Transfiguration, and ignoring the numerous statements in Scripture that state Christ is the First to rise from the dead, never to again die.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful reply Jon.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

let us specify, does original sin condemn you?

Yes.


Romans 5:16
King James Version (KJV)

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.


The result of Adam's sin impacts all of his descendants. The question before us is, "How does it impacts his descendants?"

Think back to the Garden, where Adam, prior to his disobedience to the revealed will of God, was not under threat of death. He had access to the Tree of Life, and would still be there today if he had not sinned.

What was lost for Adam was everlasting life which was physical, and the physical communion he enjoyed with God in the Garden:


Genesis 3:22-24
King James Version (KJV)

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


From then on, Adam and Eve would "know good and evil" in an experiential sense, rather than in an intellectual sense. We see that they "knew" what good and evil was prior, because Eve knew it was bad to eat of the fruit that she saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise.

So it was not a matter that they could not sin, just a matter that they did not sin until Eve was deceived. Adam placed his wife before the will of God and also ate.

But the primary issue is not the nature of man (which already had the potential for sin), the issue is the loss of relationship with God and access to the Tree of Life.

Now I ask you, do you think that a close relationship with God would keep one from sin? It does. In the promise of the New Birth God declares how He will cause men not to sin:


Ezekiel 36:24-27
King James Version (KJV)

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Christians are made holy and cleansed from sin through the ministry of God in their lives. And until one is born again they have no desire to do God's will, because they do not fully understand God's will. That is why the Pharisees wrested the teachings of the Law into man-made doctrines suited for their personal benefit, rather than the basic principles of God's Law (Will) which has always had Mankind's best interests at heart.

All men come into this world under condemnation, not because they are born sinners, but because they are separated from God they will inevitably sin. Even for the Old Testament Saint, entrance to God was not given because they obeyed His will, because when they died they did not go to be with God in Heaven. They went to Sheol/Hades, and there the Old Testament Saint awaited their redemption just as much as those who were alive in Christ's Day awaited theirs, just as every man born into this world is in need of. I mention that because we must be careful not to view the infant or young child, or babe in the womb as separate from this condemnation because they were not born, or did not grow up to sin. They stand in the same place the Old Testament Saint stood in, awaiting the grace of God in Redemption through Christ.


God bless.

 

[loDebar]

Yes.


Romans 5:16
King James Version (KJV)

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.


The result of Adam's sin impacts all of his descendants. The question before us is, "How does it impacts his descendants?"

Think back to the Garden, where Adam, prior to his disobedience to the revealed will of God, was not under threat of death. He had access to the Tree of Life, and would still be there today if he had not sinned.

What was lost for Adam was everlasting life which was physical, and the physical communion he enjoyed with God in the Garden:


Genesis 3:22-24
King James Version (KJV)

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


From then on, Adam and Eve would "know good and evil" in an experiential sense, rather than in an intellectual sense. We see that they "knew" what good and evil was prior, because Eve knew it was bad to eat of the fruit that she saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise.

So it was not a matter that they could not sin, just a matter that they did not sin until Eve was deceived. Adam placed his wife before the will of God and also ate.

But the primary issue is not the nature of man (which already had the potential for sin), the issue is the loss of relationship with God and access to the Tree of Life.

Now I ask you, do you think that a close relationship with God would keep one from sin? It does. In the promise of the New Birth God declares how He will cause men not to sin:


Ezekiel 36:24-27
King James Version (KJV)

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Christians are made holy and cleansed from sin through the ministry of God in their lives. And until one is born again they have no desire to do God's will, because they do not fully understand God's will. That is why the Pharisees wrested the teachings of the Law into man-made doctrines suited for their personal benefit, rather than the basic principles of God's Law (Will) which has always had Mankind's best interests at heart.

All men come into this world under condemnation, not because they are born sinners, but because they are separated from God they will inevitably sin. Even for the Old Testament Saint, entrance to God was not given because they obeyed His will, because when they died they did not go to be with God in Heaven. They went to Sheol/Hades, and there the Old Testament Saint awaited their redemption just as much as those who were alive in Christ's Day awaited theirs, just as every man born into this world is in need of. I mention that because we must be careful not to view the infant or young child, or babe in the womb as separate from this condemnation because they were not born, or did not grow up to sin. They stand in the same place the Old Testament Saint stood in, awaiting the grace of God in Redemption through Christ.


God bless.

Then you are prepared to say all infants do not go to Heaven but to hell?

 

[Darrell C]

reconcile your statenment with this verse:

Eze 18:20

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.

This shows that God is righteous to judge men based on their personal actions.

However, this is a physical context, and the death in view is physical, not everlasting. While we would likely suppose many who were put to death due to disobedience will end up in Hell, we still cannot wrest this passage as so many do.

Consider:


Ezekiel 18:4-9
King James Version (KJV)

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.

5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,

6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;

8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,

9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God.


Now, if you impose an eternal context into this passage, then you must equally conclude that everlasting life can be obtained through keeping the Law. The problem with that is...we already know that isn't true:


Galatians 3:21-22
King James Version (KJV)

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


The reason people impose an eternal context to Ezekiel 18 is a faulty understanding of the term "soul" as used in the Word of God. The popular modern concept of man being a tri-part being, body, spirit, and soul, with the soul being viewed as the, or part of the immaterial aspect of man...causes many to misinterpret key passages like this one.

If you read the chapter and keep in mind that "soul" and "Souls" refers to the person or persons, rather than an immaterial aspect of man, you will see that it will make much more sense and correspond to the framework of the Law better.

Might make for a good sermon, but it doesn't make for sound Theology. God is not here promising eternal life for keeping the Law, He is simply stating that the penalty for sin will not be physically exacted on those who keep it.

But you are right in pointing out that God justly imposes sentence on those who are guilty for their own sin, not for the sin of their fathers.


God bless.

 

[Calypsis4]

Then you are prepared to say all infants do not go to Heaven but to hell?

loDebar, what in the world are you driving at? You have been given solid answers to your inquiries but you don't seem to want true biblical answers. What is it that you are looking for, friend?

By the way; you have an interesting name. 'LoDebar literally means 'land of nothing'. Did you choose that name to reflect your mental attitude about life and the questions you are asking? Just curious.

 

[Darrell C]

Then you are prepared to say all infants do not go to Heaven but to hell?

That is actually the opposite of what I said, lol.

As I said, the babe in the womb, the infant, the young child, and we will add those mentally impaired as well...all stand/stood in the same place the Old Testament Saint did: dependent on the grace of God. It was God's forbearance that did not exact the penalty for death in the eternal sense prior to Christ dying in the stead of the Just.

God judges men based on the sin they commit, and the fact is...we cannot charge the infant in the womb who is murdered in abortion with sin. Nor the infant, not even the young child, though around two all bets are off...

God judges based on the will He has revealed to men. Adam was judged based on the revealed will he had received. God said "Don't eat of that fruit," he did it, and that was what he was judged on. So too, all men are judged according to that same just method. The men prior to the Law were not judged according to the Law. The men under Law were not judged according to New Covenant standards. Men in this Age, who reject Christ, His Sacrifice, His Covenant, and the ministry of the Spirit of Grace (The Comforter)...

...will be judged according to a more severe standard:


Hebrews 10:28-29
King James Version (KJV)

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


God judges according to what men know, not based on what they don't know. And no man that has been born, and grown up...can plead ignorance. Because God has placed an internal witness of His will in all men:


Romans 2:11-15
King James Version (KJV)

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)


In v.11 we see God plays no favorites among men, because He is just and judges justly.

In v.12 we see that sin still holds penalty whether men had the Law or not (and I think it important that Paul maintains a context that distinguishes between Jew who have the Law and Gentiles who did not). Gentiles may not have had the Law but in v. 14-15 we see...

...them keeping the Law. They are doing the things contained in the Law, naturally, thus they will be justified for their obedience to the internal witness they are being obedient to.

Now, back to infants and Hell: not one infant will ever go into Hell.

That is an indisputable fact, because that would suggest that God was a respecter of persons. Why would we He forbear the sins of the Old Testament Saint (and even the Just of the Old Testament sinned, including Abraham, lol) and not show grace to those who had absolutely no mental capacity to understand any form of God's will and therefore be disobedient to it?

He wouldn't.

Listen, the only means for Reconciliation to God is through faith in Jesus Christ. The Old Testament Saint...did not do that. They were obedient to the Will that was revealed to them, thus were declared just, thus were not consigned to torment when they died. Their eternal destiny was based on the same thing ours is, the grace of God through faith. So the infant that is murdered in the womb, or dies in the womb, or dies at an early age in infancy...

...will have extended to them the same grace extended to the Old Testament Saint.

There is a lot that has to be understood to see this clearly, such as the Gospel of Christ being a Mystery that was not revealed until the Spirit of Truth came on the Day of Pentecost, but, I am confident that I can defend this position Scripturally.

Hope you better understand my views on infants going to Hell.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

loDebar, what in the world are you driving at? You have been given solid answers to your inquiries by you don't seem to want true biblical answers. What is it that you are looking for, friend?

By the way; you have an interesting name. 'LoDebar literally means 'land of nothing'. Did you choose that name to reflect your mental attitude about life and the questions you are asking? Just curious.

Whoops, I thought that was an I, not an L.

Good catch, Calypsis4.


God bless.

 

[Calypsis4]

Whoops, I thought that was an I, not an L.

Good catch, Calypsis4.


God bless.

Thanks, Darrell. I am wondering if this individual qualifies as one who is 'ever learning but never and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.' Not sure yet.

By the way my word 'by' should have been 'but' in 'but you don't seem'. My typo.

Best wishes.

 

[Darrell C]

Thanks, Darrell. I am wondering if this individual qualifies as one who is 'ever learning but never and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.' Not sure yet.

By the way my word 'by' should have been 'but' in 'but you don't seem'. My typo.

Best wishes.

Its just something we see in a lot of people who are becoming more interested in what Scripture actually says. Sometimes people grasp onto random doctrines and seek to defend them. This is usually seen in newer believers, but, most are new to study of God's Word.

Our best course of action is to seek to encourage this fellow in learning to look to Scripture for the answers necessary for a sound Theology. And yes, that means fielding the same questions over and over, lol. But its good for us too, because it drives us back to the Word of God, and oftentimes it is discussions like these that help us to further strengthen our own positions. Meaning, "Oh, those twenty verses were enough? Let me find you a few more..."




God bless.

 

[loDebar]

loDebar, what in the world are you driving at? You have been given solid answers to your inquiries but you don't seem to want true biblical answers. What is it that you are looking for, friend?

By the way; you have an interesting name. 'LoDebar literally means 'land of nothing'. Did you choose that name to reflect your mental attitude about life and the questions you are asking? Just curious.

It actually means no pasture, a hard way to make a living for a shepherd

The "biblical " answers are in conflict with scripture. They (some) are man's traditions. We have been fed a bias toward that the human condition is more important than the spiritual. Original sin is man's error from man's ego. Sin is not through the physical life, We share in the flesh and blood death of Jesus. Humanity is the method we are saved.

One has to deny original sin and accept that infants do not go to hell or vice versa .
Both cannot be true.

 

[Calypsis4]

loDebar; It actually means no pasture, a hard way to make a living for a shepherd

Actually they are one and the same. Minor point. But you did not answer my question as it pertains to your purpose here.

The "biblical " answers are in conflict with scripture.

No, they aren't. Biblical answers are truthful answers. They only become human answers when personal opinion takes precedence over God's revealed Word.

They (some) are man's traditions. We have been fed a bias toward that the human condition is more important than the spiritual. Original sin is man's error from man's ego. Sin is not through the physical life, We share in the flesh and blood death of Jesus. Humanity is the method we are saved.

One has to deny original sin and accept that infants do not go to hell or vice versa .
Both cannot be true.

I am going to let Darrell discuss this with you. I am actually on another project right now. Goodnight.

 

[loDebar]

loDebar; It actually means no pasture, a hard way to make a living for a shepherd

Actually they are one and the same. Minor point. But you did not answer my question as it pertains to your purpose here.

The "biblical " answers are in conflict with scripture.

No, they aren't. Biblical answers are truthful answers. They only become human answers when personal opinion takes precedence over God's revealed Word.

They (some) are man's traditions. We have been fed a bias toward that the human condition is more important than the spiritual. Original sin is man's error from man's ego. Sin is not through the physical life, We share in the flesh and blood death of Jesus. Humanity is the method we are saved.

One has to deny original sin and accept that infants do not go to hell or vice versa .
Both cannot be true.

I am going to let Darrell discuss this with you. I am actually on another project right now. Goodnight.

Goodnight

 

[HankD]

I agree. Things like this are never brought into agreement. Scripture speaks of a human nature that sins and of sin and death entering the world, but never a "sin nature" that has fallen from its original state. This doesn't mean the theory isn't correct, just that ultimately it is not Scripture but philosophy that we must address. That's the thing with many theologies. So often each side can affirm the same Scripture yet retain philosophical differences.

Amen, I am OK with "predilection to sin" rather than "sin nature" though the later is my preference.

 

[loDebar]

Where did we get a " predilection to sin"?

Psa 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

[JonC]

Amen, I am OK with "predilection to sin" rather than "sin nature" though the later is my preference.

I can work with many term, but my preference is simply "flesh". It seems this is the most common term (in Scripture) to refer to the human nature.

 

[loDebar]

Where did we get a " predilection to sin"?

Why am I condemned already if not sin nature?

i quoted myself

Why am I condemned already if there is no sin nature?

 

[HankD]

And nowhere do we see that sin passed upon all men, but death, for all sin.

Or in other words, "The reason everybody dies is because everybody sins."

Now what you need is a verse that states sin is inherited.




But Hank, that is Paul's entire point: God gave Gentiles, who did not have the Law...the same advantage those who had the Law had.

His will was written on their hearts.




I think this...


Romans 2:13-15
King James Version (KJV)

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)


Illustrates his point very well. "The doers of the Law shall be justified; Gentiles do the Law written on their hearts."

Its just my opinion that we cannot divorce understanding of the Word of God (which represents the will of God for man) from the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men. If we said that they, of their own ability, performed the works of the Law, we violate some fairly basic principles of the Word of God. Meaning, we contradict the teaching that the spiritual truths of God are only revealed by the Spirit and understanding is only given by the Spirit.




I think this statement is dealing with the fact of man's condition. It does not mean that David was shaped by sin, just that he was brought into a world of sin.

We would have a conflict with those passages which teach the marvel of man's creation and procreation, and of God's presence and foreknowledge of men before birth:


Psalm 22:9-10
King James Version (KJV)

9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.

10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.


God was not using sin to shape David, nor Christ (in its Messianic application).

This...


Psalm 58:3
King James Version (KJV)

3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.


...would seem to fit better with a view of being "shaped by sin" but it is a condition all men are born into. David speaks of God's perspective (in reference to his own person), whereas this is an indictment on the enemies of David (and Christ, in the broader context).

These...


Psalm 71:6
King James Version (KJV)

6 By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee.


Psalm 127:3
King James Version (KJV)

3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.


Psalm 139:13-17
King James Version (KJV)

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!


...do not speak of procreation as something hideous, but the continuing miracle of God in the creation of man.

So going back to your text...





Psalm 51
King James Version (KJV)

1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.

4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.


...I think we see David appeal to the condition of man, but that doesn't mean that his formation in the womb has to be considered "sinful," or that somehow there is a transference from mother to son like we might say of a physical disease.

The condition of man goes back to his mother, but because she was also in the condition for which David appeals to God for mercy for. He recognizes that men are dependent on God.




Correct, but, we have to think why that is, and the condition that Christ remedies is...man's lack of relationship to God on an eternal basis.

And going back to the point I made, we see Gentiles do by nature...the works of the Law.

So in the case of sin, it is due to a lack of relationship to the One Who teaches men not to sin, and in the case of the Gentiles...it is God who taught them to do His will.




Even men not indwelt by God, born again, and in eternal union with God can obey God.

That is Paul's point.

And we see this exampled in men like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, and even...David.

None of these men are said to be just until God first called them.




And both are right.

And that's the problem, they are overzealous in their doctrine, to point of excluding an equally valid understanding which is seen not only explicitly, but implicitly across the pages of Scripture.


God bless.

I could take each of your objections and give a response but would just be a repeat of past clashes.
This has become too prolonged and convoluted for my sensibility.

So, you may very well be right. You make some compelling responses.

Let the readers mull over the scriptures.

 

[JonC]

Kind of like the Gap Restoration Theory. I view it as a response to Evolution by those who bought into the "scientific Facts" espoused by unbelievers. They said "The earth is millions of years old, and we can prove it!" And some men were intimidated. Well, we've seen those "facts" change dramatically over the last century, but, Genesis One still remains the same.




Not sure I can fully agree.




I often tell people I witness to that the understanding they have is due to their knowledge of the Media Spotlight Church, which is not to be confused with the Body of Christ, the Church. I am not a big fan of some of the "heros" men have from Church History. I find the Doctrine and actions of both Catholics and Protestants equally appalling, and to be honest, see the end result as, not a return to Scripture, but another venture in Religion.



Then that should be the goal, right?



As far as Eschatology and "Dispensational Theology," I would disagree. Eschatology is what it is, and when we look at the way several Eschatological systems are built we can see their departure from a Scriptural Basis. Dispensationalism is a little different, because there are differing degrees as to how "dispensational" one is, but, the bottom line is that I have found them closer to a Biblical understanding than any other System. I don't call myself a "Dispensationalist" because much of my Doctrine agrees with what is taught by them, just as I don't call myself Catholic because we both believe God is Triune, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

I don't see Philosophy as necessary to a Dispensational view. You might be able to give examples to better help me understand what you mean by that. The others, I understand.




This is true, but, that is the model Paul gave us:


Acts 17
King James Version (KJV)

1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.


Acts 18:4
King James Version (KJV)

4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.


Acts 18:19
King James Version (KJV)

19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.


Acts 19:8
King James Version (KJV)

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.


And my personal favorite:


Acts 19:9
King James Version (KJV)

9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.


As much as people are in the Word of God around here, and on other forums, we would think that there would be a settling of issues in their hearts, but, often we see the same topics batted around with no real settling. I think it should be in the best interests of every forum to declare their positions on numerous topics and explain why that conclusion has been drawn. Of course, we are asking for something equally difficult, which is that the leadership come to an agreement as well.

But I think you're right in part about traditional views being clung to, despite, perhaps, being presented with a Scriptural Basis that settles the issue. Its sad to present people with dogmatic statements from Scripture and see them disregarded. One example would be one member who insists that Moses and Elijah were in glorified form on the mount of Transfiguration, and ignoring the numerous statements in Scripture that state Christ is the First to rise from the dead, never to again die.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful reply Jon.


God bless.

Thanks for the reply. To answer your question, I say Dispensationalism because, like Covenant Theology, it reasons out that God's interactions should be viewed through such a system. As far as I know, most adherents of both sides acknowledge the existence of dispensations and covenants within Scripture, but IMHO it becomes more philosophical when we decide one is the way God's activities with man should be viewed. That said, I see your point as there exists a wide range of Dispensationalists.

 

[Darrell C]

Thanks for the reply. To answer your question, I say Dispensationalism because, like Covenant Theology, it reasons out that God's interactions should be viewed through such a system. As far as I know, most adherents of both sides acknowledge the existence of dispensations and covenants within Scripture, but IMHO it becomes more philosophical when we decide one is the way God's activities with man should be viewed. That said, I see your point as there exists a wide range of Dispensationalists.

And that is why I do not consider myself a Dispensationalist. As I said, you would find much that would agree, but I embrace no System of Theology, and seek only to work towards a Biblical view. Its sad to see people embrace systems and then be forced to conform Scripture to that taught by it. Sad, but there is some humor there too, lol.


God bless.