OT refutation of Augustinianism

[Winman]

In typical red neck fashion, you didn't answer the question.

Returning to something or someone that you have never been to is ridiculousness. That is the typical double speak of the determinist.

There are MANY scriptures that show we were not born lost, separated from God, but most people read right over them and do not even notice. But if you pay attention, they are everywhere in scripture. Here is another verse in Isaiah that uses two words that show we were not originally lost.

Isa 44:22 I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.

Again, you can only return someplace you have already been. But the word "redeemed" also shows we were not originally lost. When we sin, then we are "sold under sin" as Paul describes in Romans 7:14, but Jesus has "redeemed" us, bought us back with his blood.

The word "redeem" is ga'al which literally means to "buy back". How can you "buy back" something that never belonged to you?

So, the scriptures are full of words that show we were not born lost, not born separated from God, but most people do not read the scriptures with comprehension and completely overlook these many words, believing false doctrines taught by men.

 

[DHK]

There are MANY scriptures that show we were not born lost, separated from God, but most people read right over them and do not even notice. But if you pay attention, they are everywhere in scripture. Here is another verse in Isaiah that uses two words that show we were not originally lost.

Isa 44:22 I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.

Again, you can only return someplace you have already been. But the word "redeemed" also shows we were not originally lost. When we sin, then we are "sold under sin" as Paul describes in Romans 7:14, but Jesus has "redeemed" us, bought us back with his blood.

The word "redeem" is ga'al which literally means to "buy back". How can you "buy back" something that never belonged to you?

So, the scriptures are full of words that show we were not born lost, not born separated from God, but most people do not read the scriptures with comprehension and completely overlook these many words, believing false doctrines taught by men.

Your problem is historical or one with time.
A dog vomits, and then "he returns to his own vomit," as the Scriptures say.

But you cannot say that about sinful man, even if you believe he is innocent at birth. You want to "turn back" the time-clock; "go back" in time; do what is impossible to do.
Whatever your age is now, you cannot travel that many years back to the time when you were born; you cannot "return" or rather go back, turn back the clock to that time. It is not a matter of returning.

So, David, in Psalms 51:5 "looks back" (not returns) to the time of his conception. And he sees his sinful self and weeps in repentance of his sin and admits that he is a sinner for as long as he can remember even from the womb.
He is not returning; he is looking back in time.
No one can return in time.

 

[convicted1]

So if Adam is the "federal head"... And man is created dead, how does he " return" to a state he was never in?

That would be like me saying I returned to Russia on my very first trip there ever, or receiving a phone call saying I have to return to Russia when I've never even crossed the Atlantic before in my life.

Adam is the "Federal Head" of us all, Jesus Christ is the "Federal Head" of the church. The first Adam is of the earth, earthly, which is mankind as a whole. The last Adam is a quickening Spirit, which is the church, which is in Christ. God sees us through either the first or last Adam.

That is why we, who are His elect, are as sheep having gone astray in Adam. God sent us the Shepherd, to bring us back into the fold. The fold was in Adam, and when he went astray, so did we. Christ puts us back into His fold. Christ undid for His sheep, what Adam did to us.

 

[Winman]

Your problem is historical or one with time.
A dog vomits, and then "he returns to his own vomit," as the Scriptures say.

But you cannot say that about sinful man, even if you believe he is innocent at birth. You want to "turn back" the time-clock; "go back" in time; do what is impossible to do.
Whatever your age is now, you cannot travel that many years back to the time when you were born; you cannot "return" or rather go back, turn back the clock to that time. It is not a matter of returning.

So, David, in Psalms 51:5 "looks back" (not returns) to the time of his conception. And he sees his sinful self and weeps in repentance of his sin and admits that he is a sinner for as long as he can remember even from the womb.
He is not returning; he is looking back in time.
No one can return in time.

Psalm 51:5 has been addressed MANY times, it is not speaking about Adam or his posterity, but David. As has been shown many times there is some controversy about David's birth. His mother had two children with a non-Jew before David was born and might have been considered a polluted woman. It is even possible David was conceived outside marriage and then afterward Jesse HAD to marry her, but it is not completely known. Whatever it was, David was treated as the "black sheep" in his family. He was treated poorly by his brothers, and when Samuel asked to see all of Jesse's sons, twice Jesse did not bring David forth. Jesse's other 7 sons were all invited to this feast, while David had to keep the sheep. So, his family seems to have been ashamed of him for some reason, and many scholars believe this is what David was expressing in Psa 51:5.

But David was not saying he and all men are born sinful. In another Psalm David declares that he is fearfully and wonderfully made, and that God had possessed his reins in his mother's womb.

Psa 139:13 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.

What would be wonderful or marvelous about being made a wicked sinner? Nothing, so this verse easily refutes your view.

The Jews knew Psa 51:5 fifteen hundred years before Augustine and never believed it taught Original Sin. It was only Augustine who would routinely pull scripture out of context who used this verse as a proof text for his new and novel theory that was unknown to the early church.

If Psa 51:5 were teaching Original Sin (and it isn't) it would contradict Psa 51:1-4 where David is confessing his personal sin with Bathsheba, and would blame God for his sin. Absurd.

 

[convicted1]

Willis 's BFF

I don't know about BFF, having never met him in person, but I do think the world of him. :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Adam is the "Federal Head" of us all, Jesus Christ is the "Federal Head" of the church. The first Adam is of the earth, earthly, which is mankind as a whole. The last Adam is a quickening Spirit, which is the church, which is in Christ. God sees us through either the first or last Adam.

That is why we, who are His elect, are as sheep having gone astray in Adam. God sent us the Shepherd, to bring us back into the fold. The fold was in Adam, and when he went astray, so did we. Christ puts us back into His fold. Christ undid for His sheep, what Adam did to us.

As shown earlier, the Federal Headship theory was completely unknown to the church until the 17th century, and there is not a single word to support it in scripture.

Show where God made a covenant with Adam that if he kept his commandment his posterity would be sinless, but if he sinned a sin nature would pass upon his descendants. You can't do it, because it doesn't exist anywhere in scripture.

 

[Winman]

As for Adam, guess how many times Paul speaks of Adam in the book of Romans? Once. Yep, that's it, look and see for yourself.

That's it, once. And does he say all men sinned in Adam? NOPE, he says that men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the similitude of Adam.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin Adam's sin. They died because they violated the law written upon men's hearts that Paul spoke of in Romans 2:12-15;

Rom 2:12 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; )

Romans 5:13-14 is simply showing what Paul had explained earlier in chapter 2, that men without written law from Adam to Moses died because they had violated the law written on their hearts and conscience, not because of Adam.

And was Paul teaching all men are born with a sin nature? NO, Paul says that the Gentiles "by nature" keep the commandments of God. This absolutely refutes the notion that Paul is teaching Original Sin.

Further, if Romans 5 were teaching Original Sin (but it is not) it wouldn't have stopped at Moses, for the theory of Original Sin extends to ALL men, not men from Adam to Moses who did not have written law.

This is even more proof that Romans 5 is NOT teaching Original Sin whatsoever.

What Paul IS teaching in Romans 5 is that both Adam and Jesus were "legal precedents" for those who followed in their footsteps. This is a common practice in law, when someone commits an offense for the first time, courts will treat this as a "precedent" in future cases. Those who commit similar crimes in the future will be given like sentences and punishment. This ensures fairness and equality in law. And this is what Romans 5 is showing, that those who sinned against God as Adam did are judged as "sinners" and condemned to death as he was, and those who believed as Jesus believed on his Father are judged "righteous" and given justification and life.

 

[DHK]

Psalm 51:5 has been addressed MANY times, it is not speaking about Adam or his posterity, but David. As has been shown many times there is some controversy about David's birth. His mother had two children with a non-Jew before David was born and might have been considered a polluted woman. It is even possible David was conceived outside marriage and then afterward Jesse HAD to marry her, but it is not completely known. Whatever it was, David was treated as the "black sheep" in his family. He was treated poorly by his brothers, and when Samuel asked to see all of Jesse's sons, twice Jesse did not bring David forth. Jesse's other 7 sons were all invited to this feast, while David had to keep the sheep. So, his family seems to have been ashamed of him for some reason, and many scholars believe this is what David was expressing in Psa 51:5.

But David was not saying he and all men are born sinful. In another Psalm David declares that he is fearfully and wonderfully made, and that God had possessed his reins in his mother's womb.

Psa 139:13 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.

What would be wonderful or marvelous about being made a wicked sinner? Nothing, so this verse easily refutes your view.

The Jews knew Psa 51:5 fifteen hundred years before Augustine and never believed it taught Original Sin. It was only Augustine who would routinely pull scripture out of context who used this verse as a proof text for his new and novel theory that was unknown to the early church.

If Psa 51:5 were teaching Original Sin (and it isn't) it would contradict Psa 51:1-4 where David is confessing his personal sin with Bathsheba, and would blame God for his sin. Absurd.

Do you think it is impossible to express two different thoughts at two different times. They are completely different contexts.
Psalm 51 is a psalm of deep contrition and sorrow with repentance.

Psalm 139 is a psalm of praise and amazement at God's creation, particularly the human body. Have you never done the same thing?
Have you ever repented of sin in your life?
Have you ever gave the Lord thanks for your life, including the fact that your heart pumps without you having to think about it?

 

[Winman]

Do you think it is impossible to express two different thoughts at two different times. They are completely different contexts.
Psalm 51 is a psalm of deep contrition and sorrow with repentance.

Psalm 139 is a psalm of praise and amazement at God's creation, particularly the human body. Have you never done the same thing?
Have you ever repented of sin in your life?
Have you ever gave the Lord thanks for your life, including the fact that your heart pumps without you having to think about it?

First of all, if you substitute words in Psa 51:5, it immediately becomes clear that this verse is describing the actions of his mother, not David.

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

Now substitute some words and look what it says.

Behold, I was beaten in anger; and in wrath did my mother scourge me.

That may seem silly, but it clearly demonstrates this verse is speaking about David's mother, not David.

And as I wrote earlier, there is some controversy concerning her. There is something about her that caused Jesse and his other seven sons to be ashamed of David and treat him very poorly. It might be because she had had relations and children with Nahash the Ammonite, or it is possible David was conceived out of wedlock, and that Jesse had to marry her.

But there is scripture to support that David's seven older brothers were born to another mother, they were tall and very handsome, while David was very short and not "goodly" to look at.

1 Sam 16:5 And he said, Peaceably: I am come to sacrifice unto the LORD: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice. And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice.
6 And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD'S anointed is before him.
7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
8 Then Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, Neither hath the LORD chosen this.
9 Then Jesse made Shammah to pass by. And he said, Neither hath the LORD chosen this.
10 Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these.
11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.
12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.

Again, Samuel came to Jesse and requested to see all his sons. They made a feast and Jesse brought only his seven oldest sons. They were tall and handsome, but God did not pick any of these men to be the king.

Samuel asks to see the sons again, and again Jesse presents only his seven oldest sons, but none of them are God's chosen.

Finally Samuel asks if there are any more sons, and Jesse admits that he has one more son, the youngest, and that he has been left keeping the sheep.

This shows that Jesse was ashamed of David and did not want to present him to Samuel. But as we know, David, though rejected by his own father and brothers, was the man God chose to be king of Israel.

So, David was the black sheep. There was some shame attached to his mother, and many scholars believe this is what he was expressing in Psa 51:5. He was simply confessing he was the lowly "dog" his own family had always said he was.

 

[DHK]

First of all, if you substitute words in Psa 51:5, it immediately becomes clear that this verse is describing the actions of his mother, not David.

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

Now substitute some words and look what it says.

Behold, I was beaten in anger; and in wrath did my mother scourge me.

That may seem silly, but it clearly demonstrates this verse is speaking about David's mother, not David.

And as I wrote earlier, there is some controversy concerning her. There is something about her that caused Jesse and his other seven sons to be ashamed of David and treat him very poorly. It might be because she had had relations and children with Nahash the Ammonite, or it is possible David was conceived out of wedlock, and that Jesse had to marry her.

But there is scripture to support that David's seven older brothers were born to another mother, they were tall and very handsome, while David was very short and not "goodly" to look at.

1 Sam 16:5 And he said, Peaceably: I am come to sacrifice unto the LORD: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice. And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice.
6 And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD'S anointed is before him.
7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
8 Then Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, Neither hath the LORD chosen this.
9 Then Jesse made Shammah to pass by. And he said, Neither hath the LORD chosen this.
10 Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these.
11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.
12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.

Again, Samuel came to Jesse and requested to see all his sons. They made a feast and Jesse brought only his seven oldest sons. They were tall and handsome, but God did not pick any of these men to be the king.

Samuel asks to see the sons again, and again Jesse presents only his seven oldest sons, but none of them are God's chosen.

Finally Samuel asks if there are any more sons, and Jesse admits that he has one more son, the youngest, and that he has been left keeping the sheep.

This shows that Jesse was ashamed of David and did not want to present him to Samuel. But as we know, David, though rejected by his own father and brothers, was the man God chose to be king of Israel.

So, David was the black sheep. There was some shame attached to his mother, and many scholars believe this is what he was expressing in Psa 51:5. He was simply confessing he was the lowly "dog" his own family had always said he was.

Talk about "attributing words." You just made up a whole story of fantasy.

 

[Winman]

Talk about "attributing words." You just made up a whole story of fantasy.

I will let the reader decide if I just made that story up, or if scripture supports it.

One thing is clear, no amount of evidence could ever persuade you to change your mind on any issue, you think you already know EVERYTHING.

 

[webdog]

How can the unsaved return to the place they once were if they never were saved in the first place. "Innocence" cannot get one into heaven. Only Christ can do that.

False dichotomy. Christ is innocent. His innocence is the only reason anyone is in Heaven. We are found not guilty due to Christs innocence. We come into this world not guilty, violate His law and incur guilt, then clothe ourselves with His innocence to be found not guilty once again. This is redemption, repentance, returning, etc.

 

[DHK]

False dichotomy. Christ is innocent. His innocence is the only reason anyone is in Heaven. We are found not guilty due to Christs innocence. We come into this world not guilty, violate His law and incur guilt, then clothe ourselves with His innocence to be found not guilty once again. This is redemption, repentance, returning, etc.

Christ is eternal and can go back in time. In fact, with him, there is no time. Time was created for man. It is also absurd to compare sinful man to the God-man, Jesus Christ.

 

[DHK]

Talk about "attributing words." You just made up a whole story of fantasy.

The whole story was a nice copy and paste, one that you have made up and pasted many times. But you avoided answering my question. Here it is again:

Do you think it is impossible to express two different thoughts at two different times. They are completely different contexts.
Psalm 51 is a psalm of deep contrition and sorrow with repentance.

Psalm 139 is a psalm of praise and amazement at God's creation, particularly the human body. Have you never done the same thing?
Have you ever repented of sin in your life?
Have you ever gave the Lord thanks for your life, including the fact that your heart pumps without you having to think about it?

 

[webdog]

Christ is eternal and can go back in time. In fact, with him, there is no time. Time was created for man. It is also absurd to compare sinful man to the God-man, Jesus Christ.

No idea what you are talking about as you are on a completely different plane than I am. Not even discussing time or comparing us to Him.

 

[Winman]

The whole story was a nice copy and paste, one that you have made up and pasted many times. But you avoided answering my question. Here it is again:

Do you think it is impossible to express two different thoughts at two different times. They are completely different contexts.
Psalm 51 is a psalm of deep contrition and sorrow with repentance.

Psalm 139 is a psalm of praise and amazement at God's creation, particularly the human body. Have you never done the same thing?
Have you ever repented of sin in your life?
Have you ever gave the Lord thanks for your life, including the fact that your heart pumps without you having to think about it?

Sure, everyone has ups and downs. But that is not the issue, the issue is whether Psa 51:5 is teaching Original Sin or not, and I do not believe that it is. It is David in his humiliation and shame declaring himself to be guilty of committing a very serious sin. He is indeed admitting he is a worm, a dog, a thing of shame. But that is not the same thing as saying all men are born guilty of Adam's sin. It doesn't say that at all.

Psalm 139 refutes that men are born wicked sinners. David is saying that he was formed and made by God, and that he is fearfully and wonderfully made, that all of God's works are marvelous. Being made a horrible sinner would not be considered wonderful by anyone. And unlike Psalm 51, Psalm 139 is actually addressing how men are made in their mother's womb, and David says he is fearfully and wonderfully made. Game over in my book.

Besides that, David would be blaming God, because it was God who made him. I do not believe God can make anything that is evil or sinful.

I think you have just heard that Psalm 51:5 is teaching Original Sin all your life, and you just believed what folks told you without putting any serious thought into it. You are not the only one, millions of Christians believe what they are told without questioning it. Most Christians don't even really study their Bible, they rely on preachers to tell them what the scriptures say, and if the seminaries tell the preachers that Psa 51:5 is teaching OS, they pass it along.

But no one in the early church interpreted this scripture to teach OS until Augustine came along. He introduced MUCH error into the church that still remains unto today, because folks refuse to study or think, and just believe what they are told.

 

[convicted1]

As far as needing Jesus, even though babies and little children have not sinned, they are still under the curse that Adam brought, and indeed this is why babies and little children die.....

I want to address this, considering we've already hashed over the other portions of this post at varying times....


Why is it okay to say that babies die physically because of what Adam did, yet refute the rest? Through no fault of their own, they died because Adam fell in the Garden. So, that shows you...and me...that Adam's guilt carried over to all mankind, no? Please expound.

BTW, I'm really enjoying this civil discussion...

 

[DHK]

Sure, everyone has ups and downs. But that is not the issue, the issue is whether Psa 51:5 is teaching Original Sin or not, and I do not believe that it is. It is David in his humiliation and shame declaring himself to be guilty of committing a very serious sin. He is indeed admitting he is a worm, a dog, a thing of shame. But that is not the same thing as saying all men are born guilty of Adam's sin. It doesn't say that at all.

I asked a simple question. It was even a "yes or nor" question. And you can't answer. I never gave an exposition of this verse.
David is looking back (in time) to the time of his (birth, conception, womb, etc.). It is a psalm of repentance. I am not arguing about his mother, her guilt or innocence, etc. I state that this is a psalm of repentance and David in deep contrition and sorrow makes this statement. Come this far Winman. Do you agree that this is a psalm of repentance: yes or no.

Psalm 139 refutes that men are born wicked sinners. David is saying that he was formed and made by God, and that he is fearfully and wonderfully made, that all of God's works are marvelous. Being made a horrible sinner would not be considered wonderful by anyone. And unlike Psalm 51, Psalm 139 is actually addressing how men are made in their mother's womb, and David says he is fearfully and wonderfully made. Game over in my book.

Psalm 139 refutes nothing.
It was another yes or no question, and you failed once again. Psalm 51 was a psalm of repentance, written at a different time under different circumstances. No doubt these two psalms were written years apart from each other. His adultery occurred earlier on.
According to Gill Psalm 139 was written near the end of his life:
According to the Syriac title of the psalm, the occasion of it was Shimei, the son of Gera, reproaching and cursing him as a bloody man, 2Sa 16:5.

The Psalm is a psalm of praise. It is a Hebrew hymn of the omniscience and omnipresence of Jehovah in which he also includes thoughts of the amazing creation of his own body. His thoughts are directed toward God. He is glorifying God even as he mentions his own body.
Do you not believe a man can praise the Lord for the body God has given him? Yes or no? Have you ever thanked God for your health? for the Lord preserving your life? etc. Yes or no?
These are two different topics.

Besides that, David would be blaming God, because it was God who made him. I do not believe God can make anything that is evil or sinful.

Totally irrelevant. We assume by this statement that you believe that it is totally impossible for all Calvinists to praise God because they have sinful natures. Is this correct?

I think you have just heard that Psalm 51:5 is teaching Original Sin all your life, and you just believed what folks told you without putting any serious thought into it. You are not the only one, millions of Christians believe what they are told without questioning it. Most Christians don't even really study their Bible, they rely on preachers to tell them what the scriptures say, and if the seminaries tell the preachers that Psa 51:5 is teaching OS, they pass it along.

Though I believe Psalm 51:5 can be used to teach the depravity of man, I did not use this verse in this thread to do that. You simply assumed that. I referred to the verse as an example. But you will read only what you want to read or hear only what you want to hear, not what is actually written or said.

But no one in the early church interpreted this scripture to teach OS until Augustine came along. He introduced MUCH error into the church that still remains unto today, because folks refuse to study or think, and just believe what they are told.

Are you sure about that?
Here is what the Early Church Fathers believed before Augustine came along:

Before Augustine the anthropology of the church was exceedingly crude and indefinite. There was a general agreement as to the apostasy and the moral accountability of man, the terrible curse of sin, and the necessity of redeeming grace; but not as to the extent of native corruption, and the relation of human freedom to divine grace in the work of regeneration and conversion. The Greek, and particularly the Alexandrian fathers, in opposition to the dualism and fatalism of the Gnostic systems, which made evil a necessity of nature, laid great stress upon human freedom, and upon the indispensable cooperation of this freedom with divine grace; while the Latin fathers, especially Tertullian and Cyprian, Hilary and Ambrose, guided rather by their practical experience than by speculative principles, emphasized the hereditary sin and hereditary guilt of man, and the sovereignty of God’s grace, without, however, denying freedom and individual accountability.1703 The Greek church adhered to her undeveloped synergism,1704 which coordinates the human will and divine grace as factors in the work of conversion; the Latin church, under the influence of Augustine, advanced to the system of a divine, monergism,1705 which gives God all the glory, and makes freedom itself a result of grace; while Pelagianism, on the contrary, represented the principle of a human monergism, which ascribes the chief merit of conversion to man, and reduces grace to a mere external auxiliary. After Augustine’s death, however the intermediate system of Semi-Pelagianism, akin to the Greek synergism, became prevalent in the West.

The bolded portion reflects the beliefs of those fathers that lived before Augustine.
This is from Schaff.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.xii.xxx.html?highlight=anthropology#highlight

 

[Winman]

I asked a simple question. It was even a "yes or nor" question. And you can't answer. I never gave an exposition of this verse.
David is looking back (in time) to the time of his (birth, conception, womb, etc.). It is a psalm of repentance. I am not arguing about his mother, her guilt or innocence, etc. I state that this is a psalm of repentance and David in deep contrition and sorrow makes this statement. Come this far Winman. Do you agree that this is a psalm of repentance: yes or no.

Yes.

Psalm 139 refutes nothing.
It was another yes or no question, and you failed once again. Psalm 51 was a psalm of repentance, written at a different time under different circumstances. No doubt these two psalms were written years apart from each other. His adultery occurred earlier on.
According to Gill Psalm 139 was written near the end of his life:
According to the Syriac title of the psalm, the occasion of it was Shimei, the son of Gera, reproaching and cursing him as a bloody man, 2Sa 16:5.

The Psalm is a psalm of praise. It is a Hebrew hymn of the omniscience and omnipresence of Jehovah in which he also includes thoughts of the amazing creation of his own body. His thoughts are directed toward God. He is glorifying God even as he mentions his own body.
Do you not believe a man can praise the Lord for the body God has given him? Yes or no? Have you ever thanked God for your health? for the Lord preserving your life? etc. Yes or no?
These are two different topics.

Yes.

Totally irrelevant. We assume by this statement that you believe that it is totally impossible for all Calvinists to praise God because they have sinful natures. Is this correct?

I really do not have a clue what you are saying here.

Though I believe Psalm 51:5 can be used to teach the depravity of man, I did not use this verse in this thread to do that. You simply assumed that. I referred to the verse as an example. But you will read only what you want to read or hear only what you want to hear, not what is actually written or said.

Then why mention it if it does not support your view? You believe men are born with a sinful nature, and this is your scripture to support that view. You have used it before in other threads.

Are you sure about that?
Here is what the Early Church Fathers believed before Augustine came along:

The bolded portion reflects the beliefs of those fathers that lived before Augustine.
This is from Schaff.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.xii.xxx.html?highlight=anthropology#highlight

Oh, there were some ECF who suggested OS, I have read that Tertullian especially leaned this way, but it was never an official position of the church until Augustine came along, and no one had used scripture to support this view until Augustine. Augustine especially stressed Romans 5:12 which he interpreted from a KNOWN FLAWED Latin text which said "in whom all have sinned" which Augustine assumed was Adam. This is an historical fact known by scholars. But Augustine also cherry picked other scripture to support his view including 1 Cor 15:22, Psa 51:5, and Psa 58:3. This is when these verses came to be used as proof texts for Original Sin. No one had suggested this scripture supported any sort of inherited depravity before that.

Professor MacGorman who taught at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (He taught Greek and New Testament) for over 56 years also wrote of this;

“No passage in this letter is more difficult to understand than Romans 5:12-21. No passage has suffered a greater distortion at the hands of its interpreters.”

“To these difficulties in the passage itself, translators and interpreters have added their own misunderstandings of Paul's meaning. The following items will provide examples of what is intended by this statement:

1. The Vulgate, a fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible, wrongly translated the last clause of Romans 5:12. Where the Greek text has, "Because all men sinned," the Vulgate rendered, "In whom all sinned." Adam was regarded as the unnamed antecedent of "in whom."

2. Upon the basis of this translation error in the Vulgate, Augustine (a.d. 354-430) developed his doctrine of original sin. He taught that all men were seminally present in the loins of Adam when he sinned. Thus he held that the whole human race sinned in Adam's sin. By virtue of our physical descent from Adam, we inherit his guilt. We are born guilty of original sin, according to Augustine. …

3. In the seventeenth century Johann Cocceius proposed a different theory of original sin. He taught that God entered into a covenant with Adam as the federal head of the human race. If Adam obeyed God, all mankind would receive eternal life; but if he disobeyed, all would be condemned to corruption and death. Since Adam sinned, God imputed his sin to all his descendants. This has been called the Federal Theory of Original Sin or the Theory of Condemnation by Covenant. It has influenced greatly the churches of the Reformed tradition. However, there is not one shred of evidence in the Bible that God ever entered into such a covenant with Adam. The theory was born in Europe, not Eden.

4. Many interpreters of Romans 5:12-21 have tended to ignore both its general and immediate context in the letter. In Romans 1:18 to 3:20 Paul set forth his doctrine of sin. Here he showed how all men, Gentiles and Jews alike, have become guilty, because all men have sinned (3:9, 19, 23). Human guilt derives from human sin; it is not inherited. Men are guilty because they have sinned, not because they were born.”

“No interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 that obscures or refutes the plain teaching of Romans 1:18 to 3:20 can be correct. Is it not interesting that Paul managed to demonstrate the guiltiness of all men in this earlier passage without any reference to Adam?”

Dr. MacGorman makes a HUGE point in #4. Until the 5th chapter of Romans, Paul repeatedly points out how sinful all men everywhere are for their own personal sin and never once mentions Adam. Folks who interpret Romans 5 to be teaching Original Sin completely overlook this important fact.

A good example is Romans 2:12-15 which shows why men from Adam to Moses who did not have a written law died, because they broke the law written on their hearts and conscience, not because they were born "in Adam".

Rom 2:12 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; )

This is what Paul was saying in Romans 5:13-14, those men who lived from Adam to Moses, but HAD NOT sinned after the similitude of Adam DIED, proving there was sin in the world. But sin is not imputed when there is no law. So where was the law that caused these men to die? It was that law written on their hearts and conscience. If Original Sin were true, these men without law would have been dead long before they matured and understood right from wrong as all men do. Paul does not so much as even mention Adam here.

Paul was not teaching Original Sin in Rom 5:13-14 because he spoke ONLY of men from Adam to Moses. He said men from Adam to Moses DID NOT commit Adam's sin!

So, Augustine was the one who made Original Sin the official doctrine of the church, and it has fallen into much more serious error because of this error. This is why they taught Baptismal Regeneration, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, and on and on and on... No other false doctrine has caused so much confusion, misinterpretation of scripture, and torment for Christians than this false doctrine. The millions of parents who have lost a baby or young child who suffered because of Augustine, believing their baby could be screaming in hell, not for any wrong they had done, but because Adam had sinned for all mankind. Horrendous. It is nothing but ignorant medieval superstition without a shred of scripture to support it.

 

[Winman]

I want to address this, considering we've already hashed over the other portions of this post at varying times....

Why is it okay to say that babies die physically because of what Adam did, yet refute the rest? Through no fault of their own, they died because Adam fell in the Garden. So, that shows you...and me...that Adam's guilt carried over to all mankind, no? Please expound.

BTW, I'm really enjoying this civil discussion...

Because we are told directly that men will return to the dust from which they were taken.

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

The curse is why babies that have not committed sin die, as well as animals who cannot sin. Even non-living things wind down, wear out, and fade away because of the curse.

Is there even one word in the curse that says from henceforth men will be sinners with a propensity to sin, and this sinful nature will be passed down to Adam's descendants? NO, not a word.

Nevertheless, how did God cause ALL MEN to physically die because of Adam's sin? By chasing man out of the garden and preventing him from eating of the tree of life. Even though men were now willing sinners, they could have eaten of the tree of life which would have countered this curse and lived forever physically!

Gen 3:22 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.

The result of eating the forbidden fruit was now man had KNOWLEDGE. This knowledge made man accountable, and that is why men spiritually die. But knowing good from evil is not evil, God himself has this knowledge, and God is not evil.

But what causes all men to physically die was that God drove man out of the garden and prevented him from eating of the tree of life. Sin in a sense does not cause physical death, because Adam and Eve (and all men) could have still lived forever, even though they would spiritually die the moment they sinned. It was being driven out of the garden and kept from the tree of life that causes men to physically die.

I believe if man had been allowed to eat the tree of life, that even though he was a sinner he would have been in perfect physical health, and babies would not die in the womb or shortly after birth. There would be no disease or birth defects. We would be perfectly healthy sinners that could live forever as long as we eat the tree of life that heals.

Even in the New Jerusalem the leaves of the tree of life are for healing, so even in heaven we will need to be physically healed it seems.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: