Texts That Do NOT Support Original Sin

[grahame]

The writer had to mean that the first thing the wicked did when it came to know good or evil from the womb, is to choose evil. Anything other than that is going beyond the pail into a never never land.

Are you saying then that the righteous as soon as they came forth from the womb and to know good and evil was to choose righteousness? Is that what you did brother Bob? Is that why you came to a knowledge of Christ? Because as soon as you were born you knew how to do good and so chose Christ? Or was it that God in his grace revealed Christ to you and so brought you to a conviction of sin?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Grahame: But then again I think the words in this text need to be understood and answered. What does it actually mean to say that "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born."
I think that since you brought up the verse that it is much more up to you to prove that they only go astray at the age of accountability and not as soon as they are born.
Amuch more pertinent question, rather than saying that it cannot mean what it says. Is rather to say why do they go astray as soon as they are born?

HP: First, let the reader know that it was our friend and moderator, DHK that brought this verse into question, not I or anyone else on this list.

Grahame: Amuch more pertinent question, rather than saying that it cannot mean what it says. Is rather to say why do they go astray as soon as they are born?

HP: The far more pertinent question you need to ask is why did David only associate such wickedness from birth to the 'wicked' and in no way insinuates or implies it applies to the righteous spoken of in the later part of the text? Are only the wicked estranged from the womb?

Man Oh man, does this verse play into the hands of predestination of the wicked and predestination of the saved! Predestination of the wicked! That’s what this verse is all about. Necessitated deterministic fatalism!

 

[Brother Bob]

Are you saying then that the righteous as soon as they came forth from the womb and to know good and evil was to choose righteousness? Is that what you did brother Bob? Is that why you came to a knowledge of Christ? Because as soon as you were born you knew how to do good and so chose Christ? Or was it that God in his grace revealed Christ to you and so brought you to a conviction of sin?

Isa 7:16For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

When I came to the age of accountability to know good and evil and the Spirit taught me that I was already a sinner because I then became responsible for all that I had done. I did not come to an age and then go out in sin, I came to an age and was shown I was a sinner and that I need to choose good or evil if I didn't want to go to a devil's hell. Before I came to that age, I was not held responsible for the things I did wrong.

You added the "as soon" to my statement. You accused me of not reading all your post, so go back and read all my post.

Here is what I said:
The writer had to mean that the first thing the wicked did when it came to know good or evil from the womb, is to choose evil. Anything other than that is going beyond the pail into a never never land.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Grahame: What we should be asking is, why has the psalmist chosen those particular words to describe the wicked?" What does he mean?

HP: I would agree wholeheartedly. Due to the fact that only the wicked are estranged for the womb as opposed to the righteous, as fairly represented by this text, it cannot be seen as to establish any universal dogma of constitutional moral depravity.

Just as those holding to original sin seem to do so, from my perspective hold to the Augustinian dogma of OS ‘from the womb,’ it cannot be assumed that I mean they are born with predetermined notions of original sin. What I am trying to portray is that it does indeed appear ‘AS IF THOUGH’ this was the case due to the fact of their ability from a young age to mimic the influences of the teachers and influences around them.

Just as the wicked more than not have came from a line of wicked families, and it appears to David that it is ‘as if though’ it is generated as a direct result of their births into families and communities such as they are raised in, it could indeed be stated in a poetic fashion that the are indeed estranged from the womb. It could not be more clear to me that David is using a figure of speech to indicate that within the boundaries of those he sees as ‘wicked,’ that it would appear to him (IN A SINCE, or IT MIGHT APPEAR ‘AS IF THOUGH’) they are all born so even from the womb. What is hard about accepting that as a reasonable interpretation of the text?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Man Oh man, does this verse play into the hands of predestination of the wicked and predestination of the saved! Predestination of the wicked! That’s what this verse is all about. Necessitated deterministic fatalism!

HP: This is what is so frustrating to me. Even when the Calvinist unfairly causes a text to walk on all four legs to support their notions, and in all fairness it is simply wrong to do so, they still end up as the default winners of the text!

That can’t be good!:tear:

 

[Claudia_T]

To be honest, I guess Im just not getting what all the fuss is about.

Everyone is born with the sinful human nature. And so a baby isnt born holy of course or naturally tending to do good.

Whether he can talk or not or actually do evil or not (which of course a baby cannot) ... whats the difference? He is born with the sinful nature.

I guess Im not understanding what this "moral depravity" thing really means

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Claudia: Whether he can talk or not or actually do evil or not (which of course a baby cannot) ... whats the difference? He is born with the sinful nature.

HP: What does being born with a sinful nature mean to you? Does it mean that one is born in such a state as to eliminate the possibility of making a benevolent choice as opposed to a selfish one? Does it mean that there was absolutely no possibility that from first light of moral agency such a one could choose to obey God and by doing so earn God’s favor and at least during that time period be a candidate for eternal life with God? Remember, I am speaking in the realm of ‘possibilities,’ and am not calling into question the Scriptural fact that all have sinned and all need to come to repentance.

I am asking this due to the fact that if it is an impossibility, remorse and repentance would be impossible for man. It is absurd to believe one can show remorse of repent for something he had absolutely no choice in determining. One could only point their finger at the Creator for creating them as they are. If such a scenerio is a true representation of the facts, fatalistic determinism rules.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Claudia: Whether he can talk or not or actually do evil or not (which of course a baby cannot) ... whats the difference? He is born with the sinful nature.

HP: The church is full of false ideas concerning sin, and its remedy. We cannot decide among ourselves what is our obligation before God, whether in reality we have anything to repent of or if sin is really nothing more than the necessitated results of being born, much like being born with blue eyes, chubby cheeks, or blond hair. Try repenting of those necessitated characteristics.

If the Church is ever to see a revival of religion again, it is going to have to start thinking right about these issues again.

 

[Claudia_T]

I am asking this due to the fact that if it is an impossibility, remorse and repentance would be impossible for man. It is absurd to believe one can show remorse of repent for something he had absolutely no choice in determining. One could only point their finger at the Creator for creating them as they are. If such a scenerio is a true representation of the facts, fatalistic determinism rules.

Yeah and you'd have to just sprinkle a little holy water over someone to make things "okay" again like the Catholics do

 

[Claudia_T]

HP: What does being born with a sinful nature mean to you? Does it mean that one is born in such a state as to eliminate the possibility of making a benevolent choice as opposed to a selfish one?

Claudia: No because each person is given the Holy Spirit.


HP: Does it mean that there was absolutely no possibility that from first light of moral agency such a one could choose to obey God and by doing so earn God’s favor and at least during that time period be a candidate for eternal life with God?

Claudia: I guess the idea is supposed to be that because you are so depraved that you cant choose to do anything right. You cant even choose to accept God. So I suppose their idea is that God just sorta forces you around everywhere?

 

[Claudia_T]

HP: The church is full of false ideas concerning sin, and its remedy. We cannot decide among ourselves what is our obligation before God, whether in reality we have anything to repent of or if sin is really nothing more than the necessitated results of being born, much like being born with blue eyes, chubby cheeks, or blond hair. Try repenting of those necessitated characteristics.

If the Church is ever to see a revival of religion again, it is going to have to start thinking right about these issues again.

well I think the church would have a revival if they realized this:

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
4: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

If Jesus was sent here and given our sinful human nature to start with yet was without sin... first off, that means children who cant make decisions cant sin. Because Jesus didnt.

Secondly, if Jesus with all our propensities toward sin was able to overcome sin by faith, then so can we.

But the Catholics want Original Sin because that gives you a different Jesus. And if you have a different Jesus then you have a different us... an us who cant overcome sin and so you have to have sacraments... an outward "put on" thing rather than an inward change.

Claudia

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Claudia: Yeah and you'd have to just sprinkle a little holy water over someone to make things "okay" again like the Catholics do

HP: Let’s don’t be too hard on the Catholics. If we desire to see a change with them it is going to have to start with a change in our own thinking. Both Calvinistic and Arminian circles are guilty of buying into the false notions of Augustine, the father of the doctrine of original sin. The Calvinist have their easy believism, and the Arminians have their eradication of a sinful nature, both of which are an aberration of truth at best.

The Calvinist explains to us that all we have to do is believe, and yet the sin nature continues after salvation and none can obey God with their whole heart, we, as believers, are just invisible to God.

The Arminian clearly recognizes our sincere need to repent as a condition of salvation, yet turns around and preaches that we need to eradicate the OS by a second work of grace, which more often than not is just another attempt to accomplish what the first work should have taken care of.

I believe that both camps are in doctrinal error.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Claudia: Secondly, if Jesus with all our propensities toward sin was able to overcome sin by faith, then so can we.

HP: Amen Claudia, Preach it!:thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

With all of the false notions of OS abounding, we as a church have had to manufacture all sorts of unscriptural notions about the nature of Christ. We have had to move him away from the humanity God said He was born into, and have created for Him some sort of a third human race in order to provide cover for our false Augustinian notions of universal constitutional moral depravity. He took upon Himself the nature and seed of Abraham, was made like unto His brethren, was born of virgin yet was the physical son of Joseph and as such the rightful descendant of King David.

Yes it matters what we think about the question of OS. It is not about a bunch of useless argumentation, but finding the truth is the bedrock of understanding and motivating us to the gospel message.

What a man believes, he will find himself acting in accordance to. When we are told that we cannot escape the contagion of sin via OS in this life, I need not express to the attentive listener the results of such beliefs. We can see it evidenced everyday in our work-a-day world. Oh God, enlighten our hearts and minds to Your Truth, and motivate our hearts to obedience!

 

[Claudia_T]

Here is an interesting look at two entirely different "packages" and where they lead to...

The person who wrote it is opting for Package number two which of course is the unbiblical one...



"There doesn't seem to be any question that the definition of sin, and the nature of Christ, and perfectionism are a package. I think the contention is quite valid that if a person defines sin primarily in terms of transgression of the law-in legalistic terms and understandings-then he is going to need to have a savior who has struggled with all of his same temptations to transgress the law. In the process one ends up with perfectionism and a behaviorally oriented Christianity.
"Now if you go back to define sin in terms of living a life apart from God -you don't need to have a Savior exactly as you are. In fact, His very difference indicates that He could have lived independently, but He chose to depend on God. I feel that His dependence upon the Father is the essence of Christ's example to us. After all, He did say, 'Without Me, you can do nothing.' Allowing a difference between our nature and Christ's nature prevents us from getting bogged down in perfectionism, because that's not where the issue lies, anyway. Perfection of character must be seen in terms of relationship, not in terms of spelling out ethical and moral options." MV, Insight Magazine

 

[webdog]

Are you saying then that the righteous as soon as they came forth from the womb and to know good and evil was to choose righteousness? Is that what you did brother Bob? Is that why you came to a knowledge of Christ? Because as soon as you were born you knew how to do good and so chose Christ? Or was it that God in his grace revealed Christ to you and so brought you to a conviction of sin?

Since it seems like you are hung up over "from the womb"...what happens to aborted infants only months from coming out of the womb? Is it the oxygen that make men "wicked"? What sin or wickedness has an aborted baby done besides being conceived? Is it justice to punish someone for the sole act of having been conceived?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Claudia: Here is an interesting look at two entirely different "packages" and where they lead to...

HP: It may be interesting but I personally would disagree with the conclusions it expresses. We are beginning to drift even futher away from the OP.

We have looked at least two verse in the OT. Are there any other verses we might look at? I have heard some make mention to some passages in Romans. Would someone like to tell us specifically where they are found and in doing so suggest that they establish the doctrine of OS?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: Since it seems like you are hung up over "from the womb"...what happens to aborted infants only months from coming out of the womb? Is it the oxygen that make men "wicked"? What sin or wickedness has an aborted baby done besides being conceived? Is it justice to punish someone for the sole act of having been conceived?

HP: Good question. Although I am going to take the liberty to answer this question as well for the list, I want Grahame to answer it also.

Many say that we are not punished for our OS, but rather for our actual transgressions. While I welcome this inconsistency with the words, “Oh those blessed inconsistencies!” Yet it still is apparent that there is a contradiction going on. If in fact one sins due to a nature that makes sin unavoidable, the nature is in fact the very cause of why we are punished. Whatever is the cause of sin is the rightful seat of blame. When we shift the cause to an inherited nature, and away from our willfully formed intents of selfishness, we indeed do set up the false conclusion that we are being punished for the way we are born, in spite of lip service to the contrary.

 

[Brother Bob]

I wondered if anyone would pick up on the POINT I made about when we come to know good and do it not its sin and is revealed unto us we are sinners. Or the Law enters and it is revealed unto us we are sinners, not going to be. That we become accountable for all our wrongs. It would fit the scripture about "from the womb" better than anything I have heard.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BB: I wondered if anyone would pick up on the POINT I made about when we come to know good and do it not its sin and is revealed unto us we are sinners. Or the Law enters and it is revealed unto us we are sinners, not going to be. That we become accountable for all our wrongs. It would fit the scripture about "from the womb" better than anything I have heard.

HP: I still believe 'from the womb' is a poetic phrase or figure of sheech. "From ones youth up" is a more commom Biblical term IMO. It would be far more in line with the clear definitions of sin, because sin is at its root a violation of moral law. Reason would attest that such is imposssible for inncocent babies and those not yet, or incapable of, moral agency.

I am still pondering one of the most unusual cases in Scripture, that of the apostle Paul. Your suggested understanding would almost, again I say almost fit, IF he had not clearly stated AFTER his conversion that he had lived in all good conscience until that day. Rats! It matters not what conclusion we arrive at, it appears that there is always an example somewhere that will not fit neatly into our box. :BangHead:

God must desire to keep us humble and searching is all I can say.