Texts That Do NOT Support Original Sin

[Brother Bob]

When Adam sinned he brought two deaths upon himself. He brought the natural death of which the scripture says, it was

appointed unto man once to die and after death the judgement. Adam also brought the spiritual death upon himself which

leads to the second death and before the Great White Throne, but did not bring this spiritual death upon all mankind.

We are born according to scripture with the appointment of death upon us and begin to die the day we are born naturally.

Spiritually we are alive but were made subject to vanity the same as Adam and when we know vanity we sin but not as infants

for we have no knowledge of sin. When we come to know vanity and sin we then die spiritually and are in need of a Saviour to

escape the second death. The creature is made subject to vanity then we go on "not willingly but by reason of Him (God)

subjected the same in Hope. (Jesus Christ).

If we die after we have sinned and never repent we also will stand before the Great White Throne which is the second death

of which we brought upon ourselves by our own sins. There is only one way to escape the second death and that is through

being born again by the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BB: When Adam sinned he brought two deaths upon himself…...

HP: What do you think concerning the context of the two passages mentioned so far? Psalms 51:5 and Psalms 58:3 Do they establish by direct implication of their contexts alone, any notion of universal constitutional moral depravity as OS proponents more often than not imply?

 

[Brother Bob]

HP: What do you think concerning the context of the two passages mentioned so far? Psalms 51:5 and Psalms 58:3 Do they establish by direct implication of their contexts alone, any notion of universal constitutional moral depravity as OS proponents more often than not imply?

I have often wondered when he said in sin was he born whose sin was he speaking of. I know everyone believes the sin of the one being born, but could it have been he was born in sin of the mother?

and in sin did my mother conceive me. It says in sin he was conceived.

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Well we know of an assureity that they were not lying as soon as they were born. They indeed did begin to go forward for to go backward would be to return to the womb. To be able to be estranged they would have to be big enough to move out on their own. We have to use common sense it seems to me. I have 3 children of my own and I think I know something about an infant being able to be wicked or not. I think the writer was speaking about the wicked and how they went from the womb which had to be when they were on their own or the mother would of had to help them be wicked. Sound like the RCC looking for a reason to baptize the infants to me.

estranged means to leave a place of "love", while that could mean the womb, it also could be leaving home as I did many many years ago as a young boy with a paper box of clothes on my back, heading north. Or it could mean to begin to venture off on ones own and get into things call "sin".

 

[DQuixote]

Psalm 58:3 is one of the scriptures cited in support of the T in TULIP. The T is described as Total depravity, inability, unwillingness, and Total reliance and dependence. "Total" would seem to define the understanding that some have that 58:3 describes original sin. The many bible translations of Psalm 53 seem to support that notion. They all read essentially the same. However, when one reads the commentaries, the "out" offered is that because children are born to wicked parents, who acquired their wicked behavior while growing up, they (children) grow up learning to be wicked. They develop the sin nature. That does not support the idea of original sin.

One wonders: Does it make any difference how 58:3 is interpreted? It obviously must be compared to other scriptures. Faithful exegesis demands it. In the final analysis, sin is sin. The first understanding apparently indicates that an infant who dies is counted among the condemned. The second understanding apparently indicates, no, the infant has to grow up to some point where he or she recognizes sin as ultimately condeming, unless one repents.

Is 58:3, standing alone, important to our understanding? Does it offer clarity to our understanding? I would say no, standing alone.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DQ: Is 58:3, standing alone, important to our understanding? Does it offer clarity to our understanding? I would say no, standing alone.

HP: I take it that your position then would be that this verse, standing alone, does not support the issue of OS as some would claim. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Claudia_T]

Jesus sat a child upon His lap and said ye must become like this little child.
Children are naturally "unaffected" and they tend to be very open and honest actually. Very innocent. That was why Jesus said such a thing.

It is only because of wicked parents, teachers, associates, and the coldness of the world that they become jaded.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BB: It says in sin he was conceived.

HP: That is exactly how it reads. I hope we can get into the supportive evidence of this in time or on another thread.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Claudia: It is only because of wicked parents, teachers, associates, and the coldness of the world that they become jaded.

HP: Physical depravity also plays a very large role in influencing one to selfishness and more often that not lies at the very heart of influencing one to sin.

 

[Claudia_T]

HP: Physical depravity also plays a very large role in influencing one to selfishness and more often that not lies at the very heart of influencing one to sin.

right but we also have the Holy Spirit, the Bible says even the heathen hear the Spirit and their consciences tell them right from wrong. apparently children must listen to the spirit... and less as the world makes them grow cold... otherwise Jesus wouldnt of said we must become like children

so to be honest, I really do not see what physical depravity has to do with anything... it is a drawback for sure.

thats interesting though, since children have the Spirit I wonder why 12 is the biblical age of accountability


furthermore how could Jesus have NO SIN if He was born with the sinful nature, He was a child Himself at one time

Rom:8:3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Claudia: right but we also have the Holy Spirit, the Bible says even the heathen hear the Spirit and their consciences tell them right from wrong

HP: I am guilty of digressing from the OP, but you make an excellent point. If in fact the proclivity or influence to sin becomes so strong that it would be impossible to do anything other than to follow those impulses, one would cease to be a moral agent and could not be justly held accountable for their actions. Such an individual would be a fit candidate for a mental institution, but not a prison or jail.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DQ: Does it make any difference how 58:3 is interpreted?

HP: Yes. It matters how we interpret any and every verse. We are first to read them in the context they are written without the interjection of presuppositions that may not be applicable to the text. Sure we are to harmonize Scripture. Just the same, care must be given to the scope and intent of the writer in each passage individually regardless.

 

[BobRyan]

For once, I completely agree. :thumbs:

Now and then that does happen!:jesus:

It also happens on the Evolution vs Creation threads and happens on some of the RCC threads and Sola Scriptura threads. I don't consider us to have "nothing but differences".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: This particular text establishes no such thing. David is speaking about a group of wicked as opposed to a group of righteous in this chapter. There is not the slightest indication whatsoever of any general principles of the entire human race in this Psalm

Is it your view that the wicked are simply BORN that way and the saints are BORN saints??

If so - who makes that arbitrary selection of the infants?



In Ps 58 David notes the ways actively CHOSEN by the wicked and then simply points out that the wicked are BORN in sin as are we all. But infants do not CHOOSE anything - not even sin.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: BR, What a lucky man you are indeed. After getting a D- on your report card you still receive kudo’s at the same time.:laugh:

True -

But I still say that when you ask if Ps 58 is supporting "OS" you have to allow for the actual origin and definition of OS -- step #1 define terms.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[grahame]

Jesus sat a child upon His lap and said ye must become like this little child.
Children are naturally "unaffected" and they tend to be very open and honest actually. Very innocent. That was why Jesus said such a thing.

It is only because of wicked parents, teachers, associates, and the coldness of the world that they become jaded.

Hi claudia,
I think the main lesson that Jesus was teaching his disciples in that verse was that we should come to him with a meak and teachable attitude. I could be wrong, but I don't think his primary lesson there was that the child was necessarily innocent of sin.

 

[Brother Bob]

Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ he conquered over death hell and the grave. Just because the child is not condemned to hell it is condemned to grave, death and still takes the blood to conquer over death and the grave, to overcome the sin of Adam.

No, I believe the child is already covered by the blood. God so loved the "world", that He gave His only begotten Son.

God had more knowledge that there were children among the mix than we do and knows how to take care of them who have not sinned.

Mat 19:14But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

It does not say they must repent to become a part of the Kingdom of Heaven but that they are already a part of the Kingdom of Heaven. How do you add sin to that?

 

[grahame]

I agree with Pilgrim, in that we must interpret texts according to the contexts in which they are written. Otherwise they are not really any good as proof texts for any doctrines that we may hold. For those doctrines we must go directly to those verses that actually teach them. Otherwise we can make the Bible teach anything that we want. Some of the cults do this. It is known as "knight jump interpretation".

However, concerning the doctrine of original sin, I have a pholosophical question to ask. I know, I know. It is going against what Pilgrim wants. But having looked at the posts so far I think the question on psalm 58:3 has really gone as far as it can go in my estimation and we will all have to agree to disagree on some aspects of it.

But here is the philosophical question:
If the effects of original sin do not exist. In other words if man is not physically, spiritually and morally fallen. Why then are there no sinless people in the world today? If man is born perfect and sinless, is it realistic to think that a person can learn righteousness?
Let me put it another way. If a baby dies just after it is born, does that baby need Christ in order to enter heaven. For if he was born sinless and just learns sin from his/her parents as he/she grows up. Then is that baby counted righteous before God and immediately goes to heaven because he/she is good?

 

[Claudia_T]

But here is the philosophical question:
If the effects of original sin do not exist. In other words if man is not physically, spiritually and morally fallen. Why then are there no sinless people in the world today? If man is born perfect and sinless, is it realistic to think that a person can learn righteousness?
Let me put it another way. If a baby dies just after it is born, does that baby need Christ in order to enter heaven. For if he was born sinless and just learns sin from his/her parents as he/she grows up. Then is that baby counted righteous before God and immediately goes to heaven because he is good?

Jms:4:17: Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

thats my opinion...babies are unaware and not held accountable

 

[Brother Bob]

If children are in sin, you tell me why there are not scriptures for them to repent.
There are no scriptures that are written to them.

There are no epistles written to cover little children in sin.

The Bible and the scriptures are to adults. There happens to be a reason for that. God gave the scriptures to full grown trees and not bushes

1Cr 15:22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Jesus taught us that we would die because of the sin of Adam.


Hbr 9:27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Can't find where it was appointed unto men twice to die.

I can find who will be in the second death and don't see any little children or infants.

Rev 21:8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Grahame: But here is the philosophical question:

HP: Just because the one who started this thread digresses at will is no indication that any one else can. :smilewinkgrin:

I am short on time this morning, but I will address your question and the others the Lord willing this afternoon or evening. Have a blessed Lord’s Day!