Verses Misused to teach Original Sin

[DHK]

O.K....
I don't know if Winman's view of what David is implying there is true or not, but it doesn't have to be. He didn't pull that out of thin air. It's a view commonly espoused by Jewish scholars, be they right or wrong, that verse is insufficient to teach "Original Sin". If it is to be taken a LITERALLY true in all of it's details, then the rest of the Psalm should be taken the same way.

First, "Jewish scholars" are not saved. Therefore with what "light" do they interpret the Scriptures?" Jesus said their father was the devil, the father of liars (John 8:44). Not a very good source is it? The Jewish scholars commenting in the Talmud, since the death of Christ, write deliberately to deny the deity of Christ and denigrate his Person. But you still trust their scholarship?

It has nothing to do with "Freudian Philosophy". I don't even know why you would say that. However, your understanding would accomplish precisely the thing you fear the most....
Blaming his BIRTH instead of his willful choices.

There is honesty in hermeneutics. Winman has been devoid of it in reference to this psalm. "The blame my mother for my sin philosophy" was unknown until the 20th century. Where did it come from? Freud and Humanistic thinking. That is what popularized this warped kind of philosophy.
However, David, in this psalm of repentance took full responsible of his own sin. He never blamed his mother at all. To infer that he did is outlandish, ridiculous, and leads one that he has been brainwashed by the public school system for too long. He is reading into the text that which is not there.
It doesn't even matter what I believe. What he believes concerning verse 5 is not there. What he believes concerning David and his family is not in the Bible. What he believes about David's "psychological makeup" is not in the Bible. This is Freudian philosophy, guess work, based on a public school education and not any Biblical exegesis. Good Bible exegesis would tell a completely different story of David.

Jewish scholars mostly.
They may be correct, or they may not be.....
But it doesn't come from Freud??

Where does the "blame your parents," blame your environment," blame anything but yourself" philosophy come from? It is recent. It is 20th century. It is not Biblical. This is Winman's take on Psalm 51:5. The Psalm is a Psalm of repentance, not one of blaming my mother for my sin. That is one of the most abhorrent interpretations ever put in writing.
If Jewish scholars believe that then understand that they are unsaved.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--They don't speak according to the law and to the testimony.

Yes, everyone agrees:
But that doesn't mean it teaches "Original Sin"

I didn't address Original Sin.
I only addressed the absurd interpretation of Winman.

Agreed. So what?

If you agree that it is talking about David's sin and his alone, how can you agree with Winman, that it is speaking of his mother's sin? There is a contradiction here.

Is it "Evil humanistic Philosophy"? or Freudian psycho-analysis? It's an historical assertion, and it doesn't shift the blame FROM David to anyone other than himself.
You don't like it, and that's fine but, I can't imagine what either humanism or Freudianism has to do with it.

Winman's comments are in harmony with what Freud and Humanism teach whether or not he got them directly from those sources. It is an evil interpretation.

 

[Van]

A brief word about consistency. If a person is in Adam, i.e. not in Christ, they are separated from God, spiritually dead. So when they are conceived in iniquity, they spiritually die.

So in Adam, we are in the realm of darkness, separated from God. Since everyone suffers the consequence of Adam's sin, we are made sinners, conceived in iniquity. We are by nature children of wrath.

Finally, why "the many" does not teach universalism, or require an inconsistent treatment of scripture. The many refers to everyone in Adam in the first case, the many refers to everyone in Christ in the second case. Two different groups whose similarity is they are "in one realm or the other." What those who deny original sin do is conflate the two groups and claim universalism.

 

[DHK]

Oh no? Well, here is a Jewish site all about David's mother. I am not saying I agree with this site, I am just showing that there was and IS controversy surrounding David's mother.

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/Nitzevet-Mother-of-David.htm

And as for David being an outcast in his own family;

So, I am just making this stuff up? :laugh:

David was not an outcast from his family. Use the Bible not sources written by people with an agenda.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, as the idiom says.
The same author says this:

Yishai was a man of such greatness that the Talmud (Shabbat 55b) observes that “Yishai was one of only four righteous individuals who died solely due to the instigation of the serpent”—i.e., only because death was decreed upon the human race when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge at the serpent’s instigation, not due to any sin or flaw of his own

She believes in Original Sin. So why don't you. If you are going to use that article for your other points, then why not for original sin as well. Be consistent. You are not.

Who is this person?

Chana Weisberg is the editor of TheJewishWoman.org. She lectures internationally on issues relating to women, relationships, meaning, self-esteem and the Jewish soul. She is the author of five popular books.
About the artist: Sarah Kranz has been illustrating magazines, webzines and books (including five children’s books) since graduating from the Istituto Europeo di Design, Milan, in 1996. Her clients have included The New York Times and Money Marketing Magazine of London.

She has not intention writing about the "Biblical David." Her audience is for women, and she is writing for the self-esteem of women especially Jews. She is very biased. Much of what she writes she cannot possibly know; it is pure fiction. Much of what she writes is not only unbiblical, it is anti-biblical.

During Ruth’s lifetime, many individuals were doubtful about the legitimacy of her marriage to Boaz. The Torah specifically forbids an Israelite to marry a Moabite convert, since this is the nation that cruelly refused the Jewish people passage through their land, or food and drink to purchase, when they wandered in the desert after being freed from Egypt.

The Bible specifically blesses the marriage of Boaz and Ruth.
All questions to such a statement as this should be stopped with the statement:
Ruth 4:9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.
11 And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:

It was a civil union or marriage performed in the sight of all the city, at the city gate, and ALL the city gave their blessing to this marriage.
The woman has an agenda. The site is flawed. It does not tell the truth. It is horrendously anti-biblical.
Why would you turn to the site of an unsaved individual who attacks the Bible for your source of information??

 

[JamesL]

Y

A brief word about consistency. If a person is in Adam, i.e. not in Christ, they are separated from God, spiritually dead. So when they are conceived in iniquity, they spiritually die.

So in Adam, we are in the realm of darkness, separated from God. Since everyone suffers the consequence of Adam's sin, we are made sinners, conceived in iniquity. We are by nature children of wrath.

Finally, why "the many" does not teach universalism, or require an inconsistent treatment of scripture. The many refers to everyone in Adam in the first case, the many refers to everyone in Christ in the second case. Two different groups whose similarity is they are "in one realm or the other." What those who deny original sin do is conflate the two groups and claim universalism.

You may not be aware, but you've blended words from 1Cor 15 and Rom 5. "In Adam" is used only once, squarely in the context of physical death in Adam, while "In Christ" in 1Cor 15 is specifically referring to physical resurrection.

You rightly associate it with "the many" of Romans 5, where the many, meaning "all", die physically because of Adam, while "the many", meaning all, are made right because of the resurrection of Christ.

You need to back up to the beginning of Romans 5, where Paul says "having been" justified by His death, we will be saved by His life.

What life? Before He died on a cross, or His life AFTER He rose?

Considering that Paul ends chapter 4 with Christ's resurrection, it is only reasonable that he is still speaking of the resurrection only a dozen verses later.

You erroneously claimed earlier that born again is only spirit, not flesh. That is a great fallacy, then you compound that error by twisting a strictly physical passage into a spiritual death.

Get past your preconceived notions about what it means to be saved, made righteous, justified, etc

Jesus died for body and spirit, not just spirit only. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom, you must be born again - body and spirit, or water and spirit, as Jesus told Nicodemus

 

[Inspector Javert]

First, "Jewish scholars" are not saved. Therefore with what "light" do they interpret the Scriptures?" Jesus said their father was the devil, the father of liars (John 8:44).

Well, the Orthodox scholars aren't, but the Messianic ones are, and some Messianic sources make the same claims.
It's an historical perspective, not a Theological one. Even unsaved people can have insight into the lineage of their own kings.

Not a very good source is it?

For Theology, not very...
For an historical perspective on Psalms they've been studying for thousands of years, sometimes, yes.

The Jewish scholars commenting in the Talmud, since the death of Christ, write deliberately to deny the deity of Christ and denigrate his Person.

Yes, but these aren't necessarily Talmudic scholars.

But you still trust their scholarship?

On certain topics, no, on others, yes.
Of course, I don't believe Psalm 51:5 is sufficient to prove Original Sin either way, which is why I didn't bother to make Winman's argument in my O.P. It doesn't matter whether those particular scholars are right or wrong.

There is honesty in hermeneutics. Winman has been devoid of it in reference to this psalm.

The historical background may or may not be mistaken....I know only this, you appear not to have even investigated the claim itself. It's not as though you know who David's mother is, or whether you have studied to find out if there isn't possibly MORE to the background of David's life which might add perspective to why he said what he said.
Winman's view doesn't particularly change the hermeneutic of that Psalm at all. The historical background for David's mentioning his mother MAY be true, and Original Sin could ALSO be true at the same time....
I don't discount it merely because I fear it breaks down my beloved doctrine of Original Sin....it doesn't. I get the feeling you believe that if what Winman suggests is true, then the doctrine of Original Sin fails....
It doesn't have to, so there's no reason I.M.O. to dig in your heels on this.

"The blame my mother for my sin philosophy"

Neither YOUR view, nor Winman's must necessarily "blame anyone" for sin....either way it's an issue of whether you choose to make an excuse for yourself.
You appear to be stuck in arguments from consequence.

was unknown until the 20th century.

"Original Sin" was unkown to Hebrew Theology and still is.

Where did it come from? Freud and Humanistic thinking. That is what popularized this warped kind of philosophy.

O.K....
You can worry about the Freud thing all you want. He's irrelevant, but o.k.

However, David, in this psalm of repentance took full responsible of his own sin. He never blamed his mother at all.

Winman's view doesn't "blame" his mother.

That's where you are misguided:
Theoretically, your view of "Original Sin" COULD be used to blame his mother, or God, if you wanted....

Winman's view places NO blame on his mother, since, he doesn't believe he inherited guilt.
It puzzles me that you don't see that this "BLAME GAME" can work both ways, since it can, I don't think it's valuable to play it.

To infer that he did is outlandish, ridiculous, and leads one that he has been brainwashed by the public school system for too long. He is reading into the text that which is not there.

He isn't inferring that David blames his mother...
You are taking Winman's statements, and inferring FROM THEM that it necessarily places blame on his mother instead of himself..
Winman will never make the claim that his mother is at fault for David's sin....

BOTH of you know the blame rests squarely upon David's shoulders, period.

I don't see how you can't get past it.

It doesn't even matter what I believe. What he believes concerning verse 5 is not there. What he believes concerning David and his family is not in the Bible.

Placing Scriptures into their known historical contexts to shed light on them is common practice and you know that, and you do it all the time. We all do, it's valuable to do so....
All Winman is doing is suggesting possible historical background to David's meaning, and, again, it doesn't HAVE to alter the hermeneutic at all...you seem to think it HAS to, but it doesn't.

What he believes about David's "psychological makeup" is not in the Bible.

Have you ever heard people take Saul's history and his known evil Spirits and make some conjectures about is possibly Psychological make-up in order to shed some light on his (obvious) craziness?
There's nothing wrong with doing that unless you take it as Biblical instead of realizing that it is conjecture.

This is Freudian philosophy, guess work, based on a public school education and not any Biblical exegesis.

Why do you insist is "Freudian"? Why not Behavioral Psychology based on Skinner or Jungian Philosophy....
Why Freud?
I think you say "Freudian" only because he is a boogeyman to us. I fail to see the connection.

Good Bible exegesis would tell a completely different story of David.

Good Bible exegesis tells us NOTHING about who David's mother is....so how do you know??

Where does the "blame your parents," blame your environment," blame anything but yourself" philosophy come from?

No one is blaming anybody, you simply seem to think that Winman's background MUST NECESSARILY do so.

Your Theology blames your birth and inherited traits so, why can't everybody play that game?

Winman doesn't believe that David inherited a nature which REQUIRES him to sin, you do...

So, how then, does Winman's suggestion blame anyone other than himself? That dog just don't hunt.

It is recent. It is 20th century. It is not Biblical. This is Winman's take on Psalm 51:5. The Psalm is a Psalm of repentance, not one of blaming my mother for my sin. That is one of the most abhorrent interpretations ever put in writing.

Winman doesn't blame his mother, so, you are tilting at windmills.

If you agree that it is talking about David's sin and his alone, how can you agree with Winman, that it is speaking of his mother's sin? There is a contradiction here.

Lemme put it this way...
If David is broken about his sin, and he has a mother who is tainted with sin, it provides David with a view of HIMSELF and WHO he is which is un-becoming and tainted....
After all, if he is indeed the son of a tainted woman, it simply gives him a sense of self-loathing.
Arguably...
David was full of intense self-loathing when he wrote that Psalm. Both your view that he inherited guilt and sin, and Winman's suggestion that his mother was tainted give David grounds for self-loathing....BOTH are inextricably related to their birth and their ancestors one way or the other.....
That doesn't shift blame.

It is an evil interpretation.

It's simply added historical background information which doesn't necessarily effect how you understand the thrust of the Psalm.

What Winman says can be true, and your view of Original Sin, or your understanding of that Psalm doesn't have to change either way.

 

[DHK]

Well, the Orthodox scholars aren't, but the Messianic ones are, and some Messianic sources make the same claims.
It's an historical perspective, not a Theological one. Even unsaved people can have insight into the lineage of their own kings.

The only link provided thus far is what I term an "anti-Christ" link--a woman who doesn't believe the Bible, and has an anti-Biblical agenda. That is Winman's "proof;" or "scholarship." What does he have for evidence? Zip, nada. His imagination.

For Theology, not very...
For an historical perspective on Psalms they've been studying for thousands of years, sometimes, yes.

His source was anti-biblical and anti-christ. In fact it was "anti-historical" making up "facts" as it went along. It contradicted real facts that were in the Bible. The facts of the story of Ruth, verified in the Bible, were contradicted in his link, by this anti-christ woman. There was nothing good to be obtained by that link if anyone cared to read it.

Yes, but these aren't necessarily Talmudic scholars.

True, they could be worse, as shown above.

On certain topics, no, on others, yes.
Of course, I don't believe Psalm 51:5 is sufficient to prove Original Sin either way, which is why I didn't bother to make Winman's argument in my O.P. It doesn't matter whether those particular scholars are right or wrong.

That particular person, IMO, wasn't a scholar at all. She wasn't a person to be trusted. Who is she? He site claims:
Chana Weisberg is the editor of TheJewishWoman.org. She lectures internationally on issues relating to women, relationships, meaning, self-esteem and the Jewish soul. She is the author of five popular books.
--She is an editor of a magazine and author of five books.
What kind of books does she write? How about: "Divine Whispers," stories that speak to the soul. Hardly anything that is scholarly. It is a collection of stories.
Winman has nothing. The woman writes fiction. She also writes about relationships among women. Does this qualify her as a scholar on the OT? Is this the kind of scholarship you also recommend?

The historical background may or may not be mistaken....I know only this, you appear not to have even investigated the claim itself.

I have. His sources are illegitimate. What scripture he gives is irrelevant.
The question is: What does the Bible say? This is what Winman ignores.

It's not as though you know who David's mother is, or whether you have studied to find out if there isn't possibly MORE to the background of David's life which might add perspective to why he said what he said.

We know much of David's family life. We know much that Winman ignores. We know that Winman draws unwarranted conclusions that don't come from the Bible at all.
We also know that the source that Winman uses a method that Winman condemns others for. She takes Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm, and a very figurative psalm, and then interprets it literally to ascertain the mental state of David. From this psalm she concludes:

This psalm describes the life of a poor, despised and lowly individual, who lacks even a single friend to comfort him. It is the voice of a tormented soul who has experienced untold humiliation and disgrace. Through no apparent cause of his own, he is surrounded by enemies who wish to cut him down; even his own brothers are strangers to him, ravaging and reviling him.

--The viewpoint of an unsaved individual attacking the "Biblical David."
The viewpoint of one who doesn't understand the Messianic psalms, nor the figurative language used.

Winman's view doesn't particularly change the hermeneutic of that Psalm at all. The historical background for David's mentioning his mother MAY be true, and Original Sin could ALSO be true at the same time....
I don't discount it merely because I fear it breaks down my beloved doctrine of Original Sin....it doesn't.

It is not simply the viewpoint of whether or not David had another that was his mother. It is everything that is psychoanalyzed into the passage because of that. State the fact. But then to wend a fairytale around it that isn't in the Bible is ridiculous.

I get the feeling you believe that if what Winman suggests is true, then the doctrine of Original Sin fails....
It doesn't have to, so there's no reason I.M.O. to dig in your heels on this.

Of course it won't. His hermeneutics are under the microscope here.
David was despised and rejected by his family, blah, blah, blah.
Where did that come from? Winman 3:2? No Biblical evidence whatsoever.
Winman's view of this verse:
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
--"in sin did my mother conceive me" is that his mother was sinning when he was conceived. That is preposterous! He is blaming sin on his mother. The context is his sin not his mother's sin! Even if he had a different mother, he would not be blaming his mother for sin! It is out of order for David to bring up such a thing in a psalm of repentance and sorrow. The interpretation--pointing to the sin of his mother--is absurd!! Sure, put the blame on your mother just as Freud and his contemporaries would do!
That is why I mention him. Our society has been conditioned by modern psychology to blame anyone but themselves for their sin. They fail to take responsibility. And that is what Winman advocates here.

Neither YOUR view, nor Winman's must necessarily "blame anyone" for sin....either way it's an issue of whether you choose to make an excuse for yourself.
You appear to be stuck in arguments from consequence.

Winman's argument is basically "It is my mother's fault" says David.
"in sin did my mother conceive me." My mother sinned conceiving me. Therefore I am like this and committed these sins. But we know that is not the meaning of this verse. It is only what he would like it to mean in order to defend his theology. It is the blame game.
But David was remorseful and repentant about HIS OWN sin.

"Original Sin" was unkown to Hebrew Theology and still is.

Not according to Winman's own source.

Winman's view doesn't "blame" his mother.

His interpretation of Psa.51:5 has David blaming his mother for his sin.

That's where you are misguided:
Theoretically, your view of "Original Sin" COULD be used to blame his mother, or God, if you wanted....

NO. And furthermore I have said little to nothing about my view in this thread of OS, only confining my remarks to Winman's hermeneutical integrity.

Winman's view places NO blame on his mother, since, he doesn't believe he inherited guilt.
It puzzles me that you don't see that this "BLAME GAME" can work both ways, since it can, I don't think it's valuable to play it.

"In sin did my mother conceive me." Because my mother sin, it is her fault. That is his basic position--a blame my mother for this situation that I am in.

 

[DHK]

He isn't inferring that David blames his mother...
You are taking Winman's statements, and inferring FROM THEM that it necessarily places blame on his mother instead of himself..
Winman will never make the claim that his mother is at fault for David's sin....

I have read many of his posts and have been utterly shocked by the way he attacks David's integrity and how he attacks David as an individual, a man, a person fit to be a king. It is truly shocking!

BOTH of you know the blame rests squarely upon David's shoulders, period.

I know that. That is not Winman's interpretation of Psa.51:5. He has David blaming his mother.

Placing Scriptures into their known historical contexts to shed light on them is common practice and you know that, and you do it all the time. We all do, it's valuable to do so....
All Winman is doing is suggesting possible historical background to David's meaning, and, again, it doesn't HAVE to alter the hermeneutic at all...you seem to think it HAS to, but it doesn't.

Of course he has. He calls his mother's integrity into question, and from there he launches into a tirade against David. He calls him an outcast from his family, though Scripture says that opposite. He says that he has an inferiority complex, even though he was the only one to go up against Goliath. Everything he says about David contradicts what the Bible says about David. Why? Because of his psychoanalysis gained from secular sources. Ignoring what the Bible says about David, Winman paints him as "the black sheep" which is false. From there he goes down a trail of lies.

Have you ever heard people take Saul's history and his known evil Spirits and make some conjectures about is possibly Psychological make-up in order to shed some light on his (obvious) craziness?
There's nothing wrong with doing that unless you take it as Biblical instead of realizing that it is conjecture.

Now if you read the ADD thread and take Saul's history and use it as your basis for people's schizophrenia you are doing what Winman is doing. It is wrong. That is not what the Bible is teaching. Saul didn't have schizophrenia. He was bothered by a demon which the Lord allowed. The Lord used David, a Spirit-filled individual, to cast the demon out through the Godly music which he played. Winman's defense rests on carnal psychological warfare rather than spiritual and biblical.

Why do you insist is "Freudian"? Why not Behavioral Psychology based on Skinner or Jungian Philosophy....
Why Freud?
I think you say "Freudian" only because he is a boogeyman to us. I fail to see the connection.

Yes, they are all in the same camp, aren't they. It was Freud that was one of the most popular.

Good Bible exegesis tells us NOTHING about who David's mother is....so how do you know??

Good bible exegesis tells us much about David's home life. He was loved as a son. He was not neglected. He was not "the black sheep," as accused. When Samuel appeared David was quite some distance away, "tending the sheep." There was an age difference to be sure. His brothers, all older, were considered "men," while David, was still "a youth," (a teen-ager), and therefore not called before Samuel. Those two reasons put together are the reasons why he did not appear.
Jesse even gave those reasons to Samuel. He is young, tending the sheep. That is what he said. Is it difficult to believe the Bible, and rather to blame David's mother instead??
In deference, Samuel insisted on David being called as well.
Remember what Samuel said (in rebuke), "God sees not as man sees. For man looks on the flesh; God looks on the heart." Jesse (as well as all of Israel) chose after the flesh. Saul was head and shoulders above everyone in Israel ("a real man"). David, just a "youth," not even the age of a "real man," like his brothers. Therefore his "ungodly" brothers despised him. Especially at this time when they understood that Samuel had come for a special purpose of anointing a future king. They were envious now that David had been called to his presence as well. They knew that David was a godly person; they were not.
God looks on the heart. David was chosen. God chose a man after his own heart. Remember that.
Winman's accusation would be that God is an oucast; God is not loved; God has no friend; God is a tormented soul; etc., etc. His hermeneutic is horrible.

No one is blaming anybody, you simply seem to think that Winman's background MUST NECESSARILY do so.

If I can't blame the public school system who can I blame. :laugh:

Your Theology blames your birth and inherited traits so, why can't everybody play that game?

It is not a game. His attack on OS; his continued study of anti-OS sites, has led him to a an unbiblical theology mostly sponsored by unsaved individuals that have nothing better to do than attack the Bible in general. This has already been demonstrated.

Winman doesn't believe that David inherited a nature which REQUIRES him to sin, you do...

The doctrine of the depravity of man is a doctrine denied by Winman and yet held to by orthodox Christianity for more than 2,000 years. That puts him outside of orthodox Christianity. If I were him, I would be concerned about that. I am not a Calvinist, but I do believe in the depravity of man.

Winman doesn't blame his mother, so, you are tilting at windmills.

But he does.

Lemme put it this way...
If David is broken about his sin, and he has a mother who is tainted with sin, it provides David with a view of HIMSELF and WHO he is which is un-becoming and tainted....
After all, if he is indeed the son of a tainted woman, it simply gives him a sense of self-loathing.
Arguably...
David was full of intense self-loathing when he wrote that Psalm. Both your view that he inherited guilt and sin, and Winman's suggestion that his mother was tainted give David grounds for self-loathing....BOTH are inextricably related to their birth and their ancestors one way or the other.....
That doesn't shift blame.

"In sin did my mother conceive me." David is pointing to the very depths of his OWN soul; his OWN sinful condition--yes, even from conception onward.
It doesn't matter who his mother was. That fact is irrelevant. I am sure that whoever it was, he would have loved her. He didn't play favorites. Remember, David had many wives himself. The wife that he committed adultery with was the wife that went on to become the queen--Bathsheba, and the mother of Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived apart from Christ.
It is the interpretation of the verse that is at stake. He is not blaming the sin of his mother. He was not conceived in sin, or it was not a sin that he was conceived. His conception was not sinful. That is not the teaching of the verse. You can't get that from the verse. If you teach that it is error.
It is a psalm of repentance; David's repentance. He is not pointing out the sins of others, only the admission of his own sin; his own sinfulness, period!

 

[webdog]

James 1:15 lays out original sin step by step. The end.

 

[Van]

Y

You may not be aware, but you've blended words from 1Cor 15 and Rom 5. "In Adam" is used only once, squarely in the context of physical death in Adam, while "In Christ" in 1Cor 15 is specifically referring to physical resurrection.

You rightly associate it with "the many" of Romans 5, where the many, meaning "all", die physically because of Adam, while "the many", meaning all, are made right because of the resurrection of Christ.

You need to back up to the beginning of Romans 5, where Paul says "having been" justified by His death, we will be saved by His life.

What life? Before He died on a cross, or His life AFTER He rose?

Considering that Paul ends chapter 4 with Christ's resurrection, it is only reasonable that he is still speaking of the resurrection only a dozen verses later.

You erroneously claimed earlier that born again is only spirit, not flesh. That is a great fallacy, then you compound that error by twisting a strictly physical passage into a spiritual death.

Get past your preconceived notions about what it means to be saved, made righteous, justified, etc

Jesus died for body and spirit, not just spirit only. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom, you must be born again - body and spirit, or water and spirit, as Jesus told Nicodemus

I am aware that those in Adam die and those in Christ are made live. You can deny it, but that is straight from scripture.

Is "in Adam" referring to physical death, spiritual death or both? The answer is both. We who belong to Christ have been made spiritually alive, united with Christ. We are no longer in Adam.

Everyone, except Christ, is the many who die because of the consequences of Adam's sin. We are conceived spiritually dead, separated from God.

What life? Good question!! In Him is life, and therefore when we are transferred into Him spiritually, we are saved. Made alive. Made holy and blameless and perfect. Justified. Glorified.

It is not a fallacy to say we have been past tense, born anew. Thus, to be born anew refers at least in part, to spiritual rebirth.

One of us needs to get past our preconceived notions.

No one said or suggested Jesus only died to bring about our spiritual rebirth. Those who have been born anew spiritually will be resurrected at Christ's second coming in glorified physical bodies. Please stop misrepresenting my view.

At the end of the day, Original Sin refers to the consequences God imposed upon mankind because of Adam's sin. God subjected mankind to futility. God caused the many to be made sinners, conceived in iniquity, and therefore separated spiritually from God, thus spiritually dead. God caused the spiritual corruption that occurred when Adam and Eve's eyes were opened to spread to all mankind spiritually. We are as conceived, by nature children of wrath. And who saves us from this wretched condition? Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[Winman]

DHK falsely accuses me of blaming David's mother. For what?

Just exactly what I am blaming David's mother for? I am not blaming her for David having a sin nature, because I do not believe we are born with a sin nature.

All I am saying is that David MAY have felt very ashamed of himself because of his birth. It is not known exactly what happened at David's birth, but scripture tells us David had two sisters whose father was Nahash the Ammonite. If that is so, then David's Jewish mother had relations with a non-Jew which was strictly forbidden by God's law.

There is some reason that David was treated poorly by his father Jesse. When Samuel called to see Jesse's sons, all of Jesse's sons were brought to the feast EXCEPT David, who was left tending the sheep. Twice Samuel asked to see Jesse's sons, and twice Jesse neglected to show David. This implies that David was not favored by his father for some reason. Only after Samuel insisted was David brought forth, and of course David was chosen as king.

I am not blaming David's mother for his sin with Bathsheba, all I am doing is suggesting an alternative explanation for vs. 5 where David says he was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did his mother conceive him. This verse is absolutely describing his mother, not David. It may be that David felt he was born of a "polluted" woman, or perhaps he was conceived out of wedlock, scholars are not sure, but there is some reason David's family was ashamed of him. This is what I believe David is expressing in Psa 51:5.

But I am not blaming David's mother for Original Sin, I do not believe in Original Sin. I am not blaming her for David's sin nature, I do not believe we are born with a sin nature.

It is DHK that believes David received a sin nature from his father Jesse. It is DHK that believes God cursed Adam so that the sin nature would be passed down through the father. It is DHK's view that blames God for David's sin nature that compelled him to sin. DHK believes a person MUST sin because they are born with a sin nature. And he believes all men receive this sin nature as a result of God's curse on Adam. That is blaming God for sin plain and simple whether he admits it or not. The logical conclusion of his view is that God is the author of sin. He doesn't get that, but it is absolutely true whether he understands it or not.

 

[Winman]

At the end of the day, Original Sin refers to the consequences God imposed upon mankind because of Adam's sin. God subjected mankind to futility. God caused the many to be made sinners, conceived in iniquity, and therefore separated spiritually from God, thus spiritually dead. God caused the spiritual corruption that occurred when Adam and Eve's eyes were opened to spread to all mankind spiritually. We are as conceived, by nature children of wrath. And who saves us from this wretched condition? Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

There it is, plain as day. Van believes God cursed Adam so that all of his descendants would be born with a corrupt sin nature that causes them to sin. This is making God the author of sin. Period.

DHK believes the same thing, but he is not aware of it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There it is, plain as day. Van believes God cursed Adam so that all of his descendants would be born with a corrupt sin nature that causes them to sin.

So do a lot of us, including Non-Cals like me.

This is making God the author of sin. Period.

Adam made the choice, not God. Adam is the reason we have a sin nature. God made our nature pure, Adam corrupted it by 1) failing to counsel his wife, and 2) disobeying the direct command not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Period.

If God laid down the commandment and Adam broke it, who's responsible? If by Adam breaking it, we bear Adam's image (Genesis 5:4), then how is sin not imputed?

 

[Winman]

So do a lot of us, including Non-Cals like me.Adam made the choice, not God. Adam is the reason we have a sin nature. God made our nature pure, Adam corrupted it by 1) failing to counsel his wife, and 2) disobeying the direct command not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Period.

If God laid down the commandment and Adam broke it, who's responsible? If by Adam breaking it, we bear Adam's image (Genesis 5:4), then how is sin not imputed?

God told Adam and Eve that in the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would surely die. And they did die spiritually the moment they sinned. However, they were forgiven when they trusted God, the coats of skins representing the righteousness imputed to all who believe.

But nowhere did God curse Adam's nature. He cursed the ground and his body and said he would return to the dust. God did not say one word about receiving a sin nature, and this nature being passed down, that is a pure invention of man.

If you believe God cursed man so that man would have a sin nature that caused him to sin, then you believe God is the author of sin. You should become a hyper-Calvinist, because in fact, you already are one.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Hi D.H.K:

One way or another, you and Winman are obviously not talking:
Here are some things you accuse Winman of believing or advocating:

They fail to take responsibility. And that is what Winman advocates here.

Winman's argument is basically "It is my mother's fault"

His interpretation of Psa.51:5 has David blaming his mother for his sin.

"In sin did my mother conceive me." Because my mother sin, it is her fault. That is his basic position--a blame my mother for this situation that I am in.

This is what Winman ACTUALLY advocates:

Just exactly what I am blaming David's mother for? I am not blaming her for David having a sin nature, because I do not believe we are born with a sin nature.

But I am not blaming David's mother for Original Sin,

I am not blaming David's mother for his sin with Bathsheba, all I am doing is suggesting an alternative explanation for vs. 5 where David says he was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did his mother conceive him.

Neither of the two of you are even communicating if this occurs.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Yes, they are all in the same camp, aren't they. It was Freud that was one of the most popular.

Really?
Freud, Jung, and Skinner were "all in the same camp???"

They couldn't have disagreed more most of the time. If it's a particular "Philosophy" which is ingrained....it was probably more Jung's doing than Freud. He's the one Bill Moyers loves to quote so much.

It was probably Jung's Philosophy which agrees with men like James Joyce and other's who's Philosophy has so shaped modern thinking...
Freud was small potatoes at best, not in HIS day....but most people (even the most godless) take him with a grain of salt.

Could T.N.D. possibly weigh in on this assertion?

 

[DHK]

DHK falsely accuses me of blaming David's mother. For what?

For not reading and studying your Bible and giving it the proper sense.

Just exactly what I am blaming David's mother for? I am not blaming her for David having a sin nature, because I do not believe we are born with a sin nature.

You can answer that for yourself. Why are you asking us?

All I am saying is that David MAY have felt very ashamed of himself because of his birth. It is not known exactly what happened at David's birth, but scripture tells us David had two sisters whose father was Nahash the Ammonite. If that is so, then David's Jewish mother had relations with a non-Jew which was strictly forbidden by God's law.

If, as you say, "it is not known," then why all the ungodly speculation?

There is some reason that David was treated poorly by his father Jesse. When Samuel called to see Jesse's sons, all of Jesse's sons were brought to the feast EXCEPT David, who was left tending the sheep. Twice Samuel asked to see Jesse's sons, and twice Jesse neglected to show David. This implies that David was not favored by his father for some reason. Only after Samuel insisted was David brought forth, and of course David was chosen as king.

First, David was not treated poorly by his father. Give evidence.
David wasn't called because: 1. he was tending the sheep (some distance away), and 2. He was much younger than the others. He was a "youth." There is no "maltreatment" here.
Your account of the story is wrong.
1 Samuel 16:4 And Samuel did that which the LORD spake, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, Comest thou peaceably?
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.
--Samuel did as the Lord commanded. All the elders appeared including Jesse and his sons. They all came (except David)

1 Samuel 16:9 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.
--Verse 11 is the first specific request for David to come, and after that David is called for. David was not there because he was not the same age as his brothers--the age of a man, and because he was tending sheep. And that is exactly what Jesse said:
"There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep."
--Are you inferring he is lying?

1 Samuel 16:12 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.
(ISV) So he sent and brought him. He had a dark, healthy complexion, with beautiful eyes, and he was handsome. The LORD said, "Get up and anoint him, for this is the one."
--There is no implication anywhere in Scripture that Jesse neglected his son, David. That is wild speculation on your part.

I am not blaming David's mother for his sin with Bathsheba, all I am doing is suggesting an alternative explanation for vs. 5 where David says he was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did his mother conceive him. This verse is absolutely describing his mother, not David. It may be that David felt he was born of a "polluted" woman, or perhaps he was conceived out of wedlock, scholars are not sure, but there is some reason David's family was ashamed of him. This is what I believe David is expressing in Psa 51:5.

The psalm is a psalm of repentance not one of blame.
The verse is not describing his mother. You are wrong. David gives no suggestion that he was born of a polluted woman; to suggest such is ridiculous. Where do you read this garbage? Nowhere in Scripture do we read his family is ashamed of him. His brothers were envious of him. Look at their reaction when he came down to give them food. David was the one to rebuke them for not fighting the giant. I fear you have a different Bible than I.
It is a psalm of repentance, David repenting for his own sin. Nowhere does he mention the sin of any other person including that of his mother, whomever she may be. Such a thought is just absurd. He looks down into the innermost depths of his own soul and is abhorred of his own sinfulness--as far back as he can see or even as he knows.

But I am not blaming David's mother for Original Sin, I do not believe in Original Sin. I am not blaming her for David's sin nature, I do not believe we are born with a sin nature.

It doesn't matter what you believe. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese for all I care. What matters is "what saith the Lord." And you simply make things up.

It is DHK that believes David received a sin nature from his father Jesse. It is DHK that believes God cursed Adam so that the sin nature would be passed down through the father.

Adam sinned.
The Bible says:
"As by one man's disobedience so many (all) are made sinners."
Take your argument up with God.

It is DHK's view that blames God for David's sin nature that compelled him to sin.

David said: "Against thee and thee alone have I sinned."
David took full responsibility. I have always maintained that.
You say that it was his mother's fault.

DHK believes a person MUST sin because they are born with a sin nature. And he believes all men receive this sin nature as a result of God's curse on Adam.

Did God curse man? Did he curse woman? Did he curse satan? Did he curse the earth? You tell me.

That is blaming God for sin plain and simple whether he admits it or not. The logical conclusion of his view is that God is the author of sin. He doesn't get that, but it is absolutely true whether he understands it or not.

I don't blame God; I believe the record of the Bible; apparently you do not.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

... they were forgiven when they trusted God, the coats of skins representing the righteousness imputed to all who believe.

Forgiveness does not negate consequences.

But nowhere did God curse Adam's nature.

Obviously Genesis 3:16-19 is a judgment, not a blessing, even though God provided the strength for them to accept the judgment. But you're right, it was not a curse from God. The curse was brought upon Adam and the whole race by himself.

Genesis 5, NASB
3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.​

The word "likeness" in the Hebrew is de'muth, meaning "a similitude," and it has as its root damah, meaning "to be like." It isn't in reference to his physical appearance, Win, it is in reference to his spirit. Adam, not God, corrupted the race, though the image of God underlies Adam's image, and is restored when we believe.

I know you won't accept that, but it is biblical truth. I pray you can see that if Adam's sin didn't impute sin to the race, that view, in fact, is the one that implies God cursed man with a sin nature, because if it was not imputed/inherited from Adam, then it had to come from God, since we are created in His image as He created us.

 

[DHK]

God told Adam and Eve that in the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would surely die. And they did die spiritually the moment they sinned. However, they were forgiven when they trusted God, the coats of skins representing the righteousness imputed to all who believe.

But nowhere did God curse Adam's nature. He cursed the ground and his body and said he would return to the dust. God did not say one word about receiving a sin nature, and this nature being passed down, that is a pure invention of man.

If you believe God cursed man so that man would have a sin nature that caused him to sin, then you believe God is the author of sin. You should become a hyper-Calvinist, because in fact, you already are one.

Answer this question:
At creation God said:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
--God created Adam and Eve in his own image.

After the Fall (read curse).
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
--No longer is man made in the likeness of God. Rather Seth was born in the likeness of Adam--in the likeness of his sinful flesh, not of God.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Answer this question:
At creation God said:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
--God created Adam and Eve in his own image.

After the Fall (read curse).
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
--No longer is man made in the likeness of God. Rather Seth was born in the likeness of Adam--in the likeness of his sinful flesh, not of God.

Seems great minds think alike. :thumbsup:

 

[Inspector Javert]

Did God curse man?

NO.

Not one word of Scripture says that.
God cursed the SERPENT, and the GROUND.

Did he curse woman?

NO

Did he curse satan?

Yes

Did he curse the earth?

Yes.

You tell me.

We'll let the Scripture do that:
Gen 3:14
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Serpent.
Gen 3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Ground.

I don't blame God; I believe the record of the Bible; apparently you do not.

The Bible's record doesn't have God cursing Man and Woman....

Hundreds of years of teaching "Original Sin" has God doing that.