What Constitutes a Depraved Nature?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia, meet Alfred Edersheim, one of the foremost recognized scholars of Jewish antiquity, writings, life, practices, and doctrines. :wavey:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia, meet Hugo Grotius. :wavey:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia, If I stepped out on a broken limb as you obviously have, I would bail as well. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: Everyone who reads the Hebrew translates this as David saying he was born a sinner.

HP: Who knows the full implications that Marcia has in mind by her comments. One could take her remark to insinuate, if you don’t understand the original Hebrew you simply have no right to the truth……..or one could take it as her saying the truth is in reality best understood by those with in firm control of the Hebrew language…. Or many other notions for that matter. Regardless of her true reasons for sharing this bit of false conjecture, God may have somewhat to say on the issue.


1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Lu 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

It is obvious from these passages that some of those wisest or most prudent, including those in the greatest command of the original languages Scripture was penned in, God is more than able to give understanding and truth to those that seek the truth and seek Him with all their heart, even thou they might be considered as mere ‘babes’ in comparison with the knowledge and understanding of others. That in no wise downplays the understanding of those that have a command of the Hebrew or the GK or any other language the originals were penned in, but simply that the truth of passages is not withheld necessarily upon the fact of the command of those languages.

It matters not in reality if there is not a man alive that can read the Hebrew, God is still able to communicate His Word and the meanings thereof to those that diligently seek Him and His truth.

Prov 2: My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
7 He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.
8 He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints.
9 Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path.
10 ¶ When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul;
11 Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee:

 

[trustitl]

No embarrassment at all. In fact I will repeat the first part of it for you. I trust you will answer.

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

How do you get David confessing his sin out of this verse?

By the way, just because you don't like a man, or care for his theology, (i.e., Spurgeon), doesn't mean you can't try and refute the Biblical points that he makes. It was a very good commentary on the verse.

C'mon DHK. You ask for context and then when I give it you say look at the verse. Even Marcia sees that Psalm 51 is about David confessing HIS sin. I will let you and Mr. Spurgeon think that verse 5 is about inherited sin, but you would have to admit that it is in the context of David confessing his sin like Marcia says.

Ps 51 is David confessing HIS (emphasis mine)sin, but he also states that he was born a sinner.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Spurgeon: “Those who will may cry it up, but he is most blessed who in his own soul has learned to
lament his lost estate.”

HP: How is one ‘most blessed’ that could 'lament' a state of necessity such as original sin implies??? Even if he could what 'blessing' could be derived from such lamenting? Wherever did he conjure up such a notion? What benefit is lamenting? Does Scripture say, ‘if ye lament ye shall be blessed?" I must have missed that verse. Maybe DHK can clear this up for the list being the one that posted this quote.

 

[DHK]

Marcia, meet Hugo Grotius. :wavey:

HP
Meet Keil and Deilitzch, two esteemed Hebrew scholars of the OT

Psa 51:5-6
David here confesses his hereditary sin as the root of his actual sin. The declaration moves backwards from his birth to conception, it consequently penetrates even to the most remote point of life's beginning. חֹולָֽלְתִּי stands instead of נֹולָֽדְתִּי, perhaps (although elsewhere, i.e., in Psa_90:2, the idea of painfulness is kept entirely in the background) with reference to the decree, “with pain shalt thou bring forth children,” Gen_3:16 (Kurtz); instead of הָֽרְתָה אֹתִי, with still more definite reference to that which precedes conception, the expression is יֶֽחֱמַתְנִי (for יֵֽחֲמַתְנִי, following the same interchange of vowel as in Gen_30:39; Jdg_5:28). The choice of the verb decides the question whether by עָוֹן and חֵטְא is meant the guilt and sin of the child or of the parents. יִחַם (to burn with desire) has reference to that, in coition, which partakes of the animal, and may well awaken modest sensibilities in man, without עיון and חטא on that account characterizing birth and conception itself as sin; the meaning is merely, that his parents were sinful human begins, and that this sinful state (habitus) has operated upon his birth and even his conception, and from this point has passed over to him. What is thereby expressed is not so much any self-exculpation, as on the contrary a self-accusation which glances back to the ultimate ground of natural corruption. He is sinful מִלֵּדָה וּמֵהֵרָיֹון (Psa_58:4; Gen_8:21), is טָמֵא מִטָּמֵא, an unclean one springing from an unclean (Job_14:4), flesh born of flesh. That man from his first beginning onwards, and that this beginning itself, is stained with sin; that the proneness to sin with its guilt and its corruption is propagated from parents to their children; and that consequently in the single actual sin the sin-pervaded nature of man, inasmuch as he allows himself to be determined by it and himself resolves in accordance with it, become outwardly manifest-therefore the fact of hereditary sin is here more distinctly expressed than in any other passage in the Old Testament, since the Old Testament conception, according to its special character, which always fastens upon the phenomenal, outward side rather than penetrates to the secret roots of a matter, is directed almost entirely to the outward manifestation only of sin, and leaves its natural foundation, its issue in relation to primeval history, and its demonic background undisclosed. The הֵן in Psa_51:7 is followed by a correlative second הֵן in Psa_51:8 (cf. Isa_55:4., Isa_54:15.). Geier correctly says: Orat ut sibi in peccatis concepto veraque cordis probitate carenti penitiorem ac mysticam largiri velit sapientiam, cujus medio liberetur a peccati tum reatu tum dominio. אֱמֶת is the nature and life of man as conformed to the nature and will of God (cf. ἀλήθεια, Eph_4:21). חָכְמָה, wisdom which is most intimately acquainted with (eindringlich weiss) such nature and life and the way to attain it. God delights in and desires truth בַטֻּחֹות. The Beth of this word is not a radical letter here as it is in Job_12:6, but the preposition. The reins utpote adipe obducti, here and in Job_38:36, according to the Targum, Jerome, and Parchon, are called טֻחֹות (Psychol. S. 269; tr. p. 317). Truth in the reins (cf. Psa_40:9, God's law in visceribus meis) is an upright nature in man's deepest inward parts; and in fact, since the reins are accounted as the seat of the tenderest feelings, in man's inmost experience and perception, in his most secret life both of conscience and of mind (Psa_16:7). In the parallel member סָתֻם denotes the hidden inward part of man. Out of the confession, that according to the will of God truth ought to dwell and rule in man even in his reins, comes the wish, that God would impart to him (i.e., teach him and make his own), - who, as being born and conceived in sin, is commended to God's mercy, - that wisdom in the hidden part of his mind which is the way to such truth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Spurgeon: It is a wicked wresting of Scripture to deny that original sin and natural depravity are here taught.

HP: Boy did I ever let this one slip past me! :sleep:

Do you suppose that Spurgeon was a closet Catholic DHK? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: HP, Meet Keil and Deilitzch, two esteemed Hebrew scholars of the OT

HP: Fine Scholars indeed, but they certainly let the presupposition of original sin cloud their better judgment on this one. Nothing out of the ordinary orthodox pattern though. Orthodoxy!

They sound like they are giving a dissertation on original sin. Were they by chance Catholics as well?

 

[DHK]

C'mon DHK. You ask for context and then when I give it you say look at the verse. Even Marcia sees that Psalm 51 is about David confessing HIS sin. I will let you and Mr. Spurgeon think that verse 5 is about inherited sin, but you would have to admit that it is in the context of David confessing his sin like Marcia says.

I never denied that Psalm 51 was about David confessing or repenting of His sin. It is a Psalm of repentance. We were discussing verse five. One cannot get confession of sin out of verse five. It is there that David speaks of his being born in sin which refers to his sin nature; his depravity.

 

[DHK]

HP: Fine Scholars indeed, but they certainly let the presupposition of original sin cloud their better judgment on this one. Nothing out of the ordinary orthodox pattern though. Orthodoxy!

No, that is your assumption, and yours alone.
They go straight to the Hebrew as you can see for yourself. Truth be told these two men, though they be scholars, are not conservative. They are liberals. They have no need to believe in "original sin". They probably would prefer to believe the opposite. If you were to look at their commentaries on the Pentateuch you would see that they believe in the JEDP theory--believing that the Books of Moses were written by many more authors than Moses. They are liberals, nevertheless Hebrew scholars in their own right.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pr 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

Be reminded that you have to love me to get to heaven DHK. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: No, that is your assumption, and yours alone.

HP: Far from it DHK. I am by no means alone. I am in good company for certain. God told me I am. :thumbsup: :godisgood:

 

[trustitl]

I never denied that Psalm 51 was about David confessing or repenting of His sin. It is a Psalm of repentance. We were discussing verse five. One cannot get confession of sin out of verse five. It is there that David speaks of his being born in sin which refers to his sin nature; his depravity.

You may have not denied it, but you will not admit that the context is not a discussion about Adam, the source of total depravity. You make the jump from David confessing his sin to his sinful nature being the reason he sinned.

I say David is confessing his sin and addresses the sinful world he was born into. This is a common theme for David in his Psalms. He often talks about sin surrounding him. I never once have read David speak about Adam or sin entering the world through Adam.

It appears we are going no where and that nobody else is interested in this anymore. Unless others join in, I will let you and HP :BangHead: alone.

I have summarized my position below:

1. We are born estranged from God.
2. We are born into a world full of the effects of sin.
3. We are born needing a savior due to the curse on all of creation.
4. We born into sinful, corruptible flesh that will overwhelm us with temptation. We inevitably will be overtaken by sin. For all have ...
5. We can be saved from our sin and its just penalty as well as the power of sin by Christs atoning blood.
6. This salvation is ours because God mercifully imputes it to us when when we put our faith in Christ alone.
7. After salvation we are new creatures, alive unto God, and no longer under the dominion of sin. Eternal life is a present reality for those in Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: 1. We are born estranged from God.

HP: All we like sheep have GONE astray, not were born estranged.

TrustitL: 3. We are born needing a savior due to the curse on all of creation.

HP: Why do any need a Savior until they sin and become guilty before God?

TrustitL: 4. We born into sinful, corruptible flesh that will overwhelm us with temptation. We inevitably will be overtaken by sin. For all have ...

HP: I am having a hard time understanding your sentiments from your summary. Are you saying now that flesh is sinful and that from birth? That is not what the Scripture states that you start to quote. It says that we are sinners, because ‘all have sinned’ not that all are born in sinful or corruptible flesh as you here seem to imply.

 

[trustitl]

When I responded to DHK's words I was saying that we are born in a relationship different from being "alive unto God". That was all I was referring to. It is similar to the prodigal son who, when he was estranged from his father, the father referred to as his son who was dead. The son was not only physically removed from his father, but his heart was as well for he had chosen to live apart from him.

As I said numerous times on this thread all of creation needs a savior. We are born in corruptible flesh.

I Cor. 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

John 3:5 ..."Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Romans 8:22 "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also"

Not quite sure what you didn't understand in the last statement you quoted but I will try to be clearer.

"For all have sinned" says nothing more than everybody has sinned. My 7 year old can see that. When I say we will inevitably will sin I mean that we all will give into temptation and "earn" the title sinner. As Jesus pointed out "The mind is willing, but the flesh is weak".

Paul said it this way: "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." Romans 7:22-23

Flesh is sinful and that from birth. It cannot mean in the sense of guilt for Christ came in it as well. It merely is in the sense that it is not Godly. Jesus was tempted in the flesh like you and I are. His flesh lusted. That is why Satan tempted him with carnal desires. He did not give in to it but rather said "not my will but thine be done."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: As I said numerous times on this thread all of creation needs a savior. We are born in corruptible flesh…….
Flesh is sinful and that from birth. It cannot mean in the sense of guilt for Christ came in it as well. It merely is in the sense that it is not Godly. Jesus was tempted in the flesh like you and I are. His flesh lusted. That is why Satan tempted him with carnal desires. He did not give in to it but rather said "not my will but thine be done."

HP: There are two specific types of corruption. One physical and the other moral. When Scripture speaks of "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” it is not speaking about sin, but rather the mere fact that human flesh in and of itself is not eternal in nature, but rather is finite and subject to decay and as such cannot inherit eternity. I do not believe that has anything directly to do with sin, nor can it, for flesh and blood are not the moral part of man. Sin is at its core a moral term that depicts rebellion against a known commandment of God by the will of man. If something is sinful it is blameworthy. Can we blame the flesh for being created as it is, and that of necessity? If not, neither is it moral and as such cannot be classified as sinful. Sin is the willful transgression of a known commandment of God. Sin is the transgression of the law. Flesh in and of itself cannot transgress the law, for the law governs over the will of man and the intents that it forms, not the flesh itself.

I believe I know your heart in this matter, but when we use the word sinful, in relationship to that which is not moral in and of itself, we confuse the listener as to what constitutes sin and what does not. We can use the term ‘sinful flesh’ if in fact we are speaking in broad terms of moral men in general being sinful, but that is not referencing the flesh they are born with at all, but rather is speaking to the sins they have committed in the flesh, and as such have became, not born as, sinful men. They corporately are spoken of as sinners, and as such comprise what in common parlance is denoted as sinful flesh, i.e., corporate men being sinful in total.

I try not and confuse the temptation to sin, a proclivity to sin, an occasion to sin as sin itself. Sin is again the moral act of the will in yielding to the temptation, not the temptation. The sensibilities serve not as sin, but as influences to sin. The flesh we are born with is depraved, i.e., it draws men, it influences the will, it serves as a temptation to sin, yet again the flesh itself is not sinful. To say that the flesh is sinful is to confound and confuse the sensibilities with that which can properly be predicated only of the will of man as opposed to the flesh of man. Does this make sense to you?

 

[DHK]

You may have not denied it, but you will not admit that the context is not a discussion about Adam, the source of total depravity. You make the jump from David confessing his sin to his sinful nature being the reason he sinned.

I say David is confessing his sin and addresses the sinful world he was born into. This is a common theme for David in his Psalms. He often talks about sin surrounding him. I never once have read David speak about Adam or sin entering the world through Adam.

I asked you before and never got any satisfactory answer:

From verse five alone:
1. Where do you get David confessing his sin? This happens in other verses but not in verse five which is the subject here.
2. From verse five, where does David address the sinful world he was born into?
How do you get that out of verse five.

(Psa 51:5) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me. ("God's Word" Translation)

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

 

[trustitl]

You asked "Why do any need a Savior until they sin and become guilty before God?"

I talked about I Cor. 15 and our corruptible flesh as well as Romans 8 and all of creation. Creation needs a savior and it has not sinned. I wasn't trying guilt, but rather the fact that we need a savior. The topic was not morality.

You don't like the use of the term "sinful flesh" yet Jesus came in it. Jesus' flesh was the same as mine. It didn't make him guilty and it doesn't make me either. It is merely bent toward doing its own thing and most importantly being in charge. Jesus' flesh did not want to get whipped, beaten, and crucified. But he said "not my will (not having to die in the flesh), but thine be done".

You say our flesh is depraved, that "it draws men, it influences the will, it serves as a temptation to sin". I say even Adam's flesh did that before he sinned. That is what Satan appealed to then and is still doing it today. When we yield our members to it we are guilty of sin. Being tempted is by divine design.

I agree that flesh cannot be tempted. Rather, it is the avenue through which we are tempted. Temptation is not a sin nor is it a result of sin.

 

[trustitl]

I asked you before and never got any satisfactory answer:

From verse five alone:
1. Where do you get David confessing his sin? This happens in other verses but not in verse five which is the subject here.
2. From verse five, where does David address the sinful world he was born into?
How do you get that out of verse five.

(Psa 51:5) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me. ("God's Word" Translation)

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

I never said David was confessing his sin in verse 5. I have said all along that the context of Psalm 5i is David confessing HIS sin. Surely you know that. He does not say anything about his mother's sin either. I have not tried to say he did, but then you implied that I was advocating that position.

You contend that David is talking about being born a guilty sinner. That is clearly not in in the verse, but you are convinced of it because you have a doctrine that you see the verse through. I understand that. I disagree, but I understand it.

Using the context of the entire Bible I do not see that we are born guilty sinners. I use that context to conclude that he must either be talking about his mother's sin or the world into which he was "shapen" and "conceived". I do not believe in generational sins so he would not be talking about his mother's sin. Clearly the world is full of iniquity and sin. It would be consistent to see David talk about the sin surrounding him, something he did frequently in other Psalms.