What Constitutes a Depraved Nature?

[DHK]

No, they are a part of God's creation.

Gen. 3: 6 "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

Eve had these desires before sin entered the world.

This means nothing, except that she was human. How could she not have a desire to choose good from evil, when God specifically gave her a command not to eat of that fruit. She examined it, and decided that it was good, good enough to eat. God made her with a mind to reason things out--not a robot to bow down and worship automatically. She was made in the image and likeness of God, which includes the ability to reason, make choices, decide for oneself.

Lucifer also made similar choices while still in heaven, and he was an angel. Are you going to hold Eve to a higher standard than a human, Eve? That would seem to be absurd! Also, one third of all the angels followed Lucifer in his rebellion. Lucifer's sin was pride. In his pride he rebelled against God, thinking that he could be god.

Adam and Eve were born without sin natures.
Lucifer and the angels were born without sin natures.
Jesus was born without a sin nature.
The only one to overcome sin, though tempted in all points such as we, was Christ.

Sin, through Adam, has been passed down from generation to generation. David taught it. Paul taught it. And many other of the prophets. You have yet to adequately explain Psalm 51:5; 58:3

 

[DHK]

Curious to know if everybody else agrees with DHK on this one?

If so reconcile it with the following:

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15

Anybody dare agree with my take on this?

Is there a difficulty? Or don't you believe he was the sinless Son of God.
He was a perfect man who overcame every temptation, and trial that came his way. He was tempted just like we were. But we sin. He didn't. That is the meaning of the verse. He was completely sinless. Always.

 

[trustitl]

Just in case you are just checking in look back at posts 137-140. The last two posts bumped them back a page. I would be curious to hear from others.

 

[Marcia]

Curious to know if everybody else agrees with DHK on this one?

If so reconcile it with the following:

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15

Anybody dare agree with my take on this?

Jesus came in real human flesh but did not have a sin nature. However, we are told he was tempted. He resisted and did not sin. He knows what temptation is like.

It's an in-house debate (and one we've had the on the BB) as to whether Jesus could have sinned or not. This debate will never be resolved this side of heaven. I am not getting into it again, that's for sure.

 

[trustitl]

Jesus came in real human flesh but did not have a sin nature. However, we are told he was tempted. He resisted and did not sin. He knows what temptation is like.

It's an in-house debate (and one we've had the on the BB) as to whether Jesus could have sinned or not. This debate will never be resolved this side of heaven. I am not getting into it again, that's for sure.

Marcia says Jesus came in real human flesh so she does not agree with DHK who says Jesus came in some other form than us.

Christ did not come in sinful flesh, as you previously said. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh as Paul says. Likeness is not the "same as" sinful flesh. It is the appearance of. He did not have sinful flesh. He had something similar.

She and I have a savior who understands exactly what we have gone through. DHK is dancing around scripture to support his doctrine.

 

[trustitl]

You quote James out of its context, just as Catholics and other religions who believe in a works-based religion quote James 2 out of context. The cults love to use James because they do not understand the context of the book. James is writing about "practical Christian living." That is the theme of his book, not theological doctrine such as Paul was writing in the book of Romans.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
--David admits he was born with a sin nature. But David acknowledged that he had a sin nature, not a wicked mother. What a ludicrous thought to think!

I us a NT book written to believers and it is cult like because James is not a theological book?

You use OT poetry written by a man pouring out his heart out to God over HIS sinful acts and it is sound. Hmmm.

How have you concluded that I am works based?

 

[BD17]

Marcia says Jesus came in real human flesh so she does not agree with DHK who says Jesus came in some other form than us.


She and I have a savior who understands exactly what we have gone through. DHK is dancing around scripture to support his doctrine.

Christ is not from mans seed trusitl, which is where the sin nature comes from, He was born of a virgin, without the seed of man, so that he would not have the same sin nature that those born from man have. It is all through scripture your reading is contorted and out of context, you throw out verses one by one and take them out of the chapter as a whole and book as a whole. That is why you misunderstand Romans, because you tkae single verses away from the chapter and the chapter away from the book.

 

[trustitl]

Christ is not from mans seed trusitl, which is where the sin nature comes from, He was born of a virgin, without the seed of man, so that he would not have the same sin nature that those born from man have. It is all through scripture your reading is contorted and out of context, you throw out verses one by one and take them out of the chapter as a whole and book as a whole. That is why you misunderstand Romans, because you tkae single verses away from the chapter and the chapter away from the book.

If you will look back you will notice that I have not really been throwing out verses as you just claimed. Most of the verses brought up here have been by those opposing me and are actually doing what you are claiming I have done. You do not seem bothered by that.

My position all along is that the context of Romans 6-8, Romans in general, and more broadly the whole gospel supports sin being acts rather than a condition. The attempts to refute this have been exactly what you have just said about me. The sinful nature notion is a doctrinal position based on taking the word flesh and turning it into something other than flesh. To do so requires strong support.

You and others have not been able to solidly show that my position is wrong. I understand the disagreement but do not think your side has given ample evidence to support your position. We should take bible words literally unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I do not think this thread has done that but has based its position on a premise and gone from their.

To say that Jesus is not from man's seed and proves he does not have a sinful nature is a huge stretch. If sperm were the only influence on male offspring I could see where you would attempt using this non-biblical argument, but it isn't and ads nothing to the discussion.

 

[BD17]

If you will look back you will notice that I have not really been throwing out verses as you just claimed. Most of the verses brought up here have been by those opposing me and are actually doing what you are claiming I have done. You do not seem bothered by that.

My position all along is that the context of Romans 6-8, Romans in general, and more broadly the whole gospel supports sin being acts rather than a condition. The attempts to refute this have been exactly what you have just said about me. The sinful nature notion is a doctrinal position based on taking the word flesh and turning it into something other than flesh. To do so requires strong support.

You and others have not been able to solidly show that my position is wrong. I understand the disagreement but do not think your side has given ample evidence to support your position. We should take bible words literally unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I do not think this thread has done that but has based its position on a premise and gone from their.

To say that Jesus is not from man's seed and proves he does not have a sinful nature is a huge stretch. If sperm were the only influence on male offspring I could see where you would attempt using this non-biblical argument, but it isn't and ads nothing to the discussion.

On the contrary we have given you ample evidence that you pass off as poetry of the old testament, do you not take the Old with the New? You can't have the NT without the OT. Romans 2 is all about our depravity and Romans 6 calls us slaves, do you know why Paul uses slaves? Can a slave free himself? No he his bound by his master which is sin.

You have done nothing to support that your view of sin being acts except to take a verse from James which is out of context of the whole book.

You cannot pick and choose what you want words to man if you do then dead means we are dead, not a figure of speech for our condition. That being from Romans. Obiously we are not dead or we would not be having this discussion.

 

[DHK]

I us a NT book written to believers and it is cult like because James is not a theological book?

You use OT poetry written by a man pouring out his heart out to God over HIS sinful acts and it is sound. Hmmm.

How have you concluded that I am works based?

I gave the context of James.
You have still given no explanation nor exposition of Psalm 51:5 or Psalm 58:3. That is a big chunk of Scripture to throw out of your Bible--150 chapters, actually each one an entity in itself. You have no reason not to consider these Psalms.
We all await with baited breath.

 

[DHK]

I us a NT book written to believers and it is cult like because James is not a theological book?

You use OT poetry written by a man pouring out his heart out to God over HIS sinful acts and it is sound. Hmmm.

How have you concluded that I am works based?

You mis-read my post. I did not say YOU were works-based. How people jump to conclusions when they don't read carefully!!
I said cults (or are you assuming you are one), use this book to show that religion is works based. Unless you include yourself in "cults" I did not say that you are works-based.

I explained carefully how the book of James is a book about practical Christian living. That is its theme. It is not a theological treatise such as Romans. Therein lies the big difference between the two books. That is why you get the theology of man having a sin nature from the Book of Romans, where Paul teaches the theology of salvation all throughout the book, wherein James is teaching a practical outworking of your Christian life--what to do with it once you are already saved. There is a different purpose in each book. If you don't realize that, then how can you rightly divide the word of truth?

 

[trustitl]

Romans 6 calls us slaves, do you know why Paul uses slaves? Can a slave free himself? No he his bound by his master which is sin.

Here is a very important reason for this discussion. You and others are advocating that sin is a condition or some intangible nature that controls us and that wages of sin is being cursed with a sinful nature which has no cure.

The OT and NT deal with death as the death my children think of, that is physical death.

Gen. 3:19 God cursed Adam by saying he would return to the dust. That is a way of saying physical death.

Isaiah 25:8 "He will swallow up death in victory" We know this is speaking of physical death because of how Paul refers to it in I Cor. 15.

I Cor. 15:55 "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law."

I Tim 1:10 "But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:"

If a sinful nature is our problem how does crucifixion take care of it. Paul in Romans makes it clear that physical death was the penalty and the Christ paid it on our behalf. How could Christs physical death be a substitute for our spiritual death?

DHK does not want to let me use the following verse in this discussion:

James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. "

James makes it clear that sin begins with his own lusts which clearly exist in the flesh. This is why we need to be crucified with Christ.

We were baptized into Jesus' physical death and take part in his physical resurrection for a purpose. This purpose is the result stated in Romans 6:6-7 "that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin."

Now you can see why those advocating the sinful nature teach that we are still slaves to sin. They have not dealt with its source.

Where does sin reign? Rom. 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

That is why it needed to be crucified with Christ.

Here again Paul explains how we can be free from the works of the flesh listed in Galatians 5.

Gal. 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

 

[DHK]

DHK does not want to let me use the following verse in this discussion:

James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. "

James makes it clear that sin begins with his own lusts which clearly exist in the flesh. This is why we need to be crucified with Christ.

DHK doesn't want you to take Scripture out of context.

DHK is still waiting for your explanation of Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3.

Why does trustiti have such a great reluctance in explaining these verses?

 

[trustitl]

DHK doesn't want you to take Scripture out of context.

DHK is still waiting for your explanation of Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3.

Why does trustiti have such a great reluctance in explaining these verses?

Thank you for your concern regarding context. Please show it equally to all.

BTW the name I go by here is TRUSTITL: a take on Trust In The Lord and based on my favorite verse, Proverbs 3:5-6. You and others often misspell it.

I have no reluctance in discussing these verses.
Below are the verses in question. I included the GWT to show how modern translations impose their own ideas into the text. I do like reading the GWT and often email it to people who are unfamiliar with the Bible but it is full of poor interpretations.

Psalm 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

Psalm 58:3 "[Even] inside the womb wicked people are strangers [to God]. From their birth liars go astray." GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)


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

Psalm 51:5 "Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me." GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

I will address 58:3 first. Clearly he is not talking about original sin or some form of depravity imposed on humanity. The sin is after birth and deals with speaking, something a newborn is incapable of. Furthermore, being estranged is not a form of guilt. An estranged child is not in a relationship with their parent. I believe this is a good description of how we are born. Because of this we inevitably fulfill the lusts of their flesh and become guilty before God. The point at which one is guilty of sin is debatable and not the focus of this discussion. If it were I would admit to not having the answer.

Regarding 51:5 the sin is clearly not attributed to David. His conception was in a fallen world full of iniquity and sin. The preposition could either be relating to his mother or the world in which his mother conceived him. This verse could be used to support some form of corruption that effected David, such as semi-Pelianism, but not guilt as is taught by many.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I explained carefully how the book of James is a book about practical Christian living. That is its theme. It is not a theological treatise such as Romans.

HP: You have absolutely no right to make such a comment. Scripture is at direct antipodes with your comment. “2Ti 3:16 ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I believe I posted this summary of one of the texts that DHK seems so adamant that it is support of the notion of one being born in sin, totally morally depraved, born with a sinful nature or original sin, what ever one desires to term the doctrine as. I summarized the passage in light of what I believe is a good set of rules for biblical interpretation used and developed by men of God of the past.

1.) Different passages must be so interpreted, if they can be, as not to contradict each other.
(2.) Language is to be interpreted according to the subject matter of discourse.
(3.) Respect is always to be had to the general scope and design of the speaker or writer with attention to historical/cultural influences.
(4.) Texts that are consistent with either theory, prove neither.
(5.) Language is to be so interpreted, if it can be, as not to conflict with sound philosophy, matters of fact, the nature of things, or immutable justice.

Psalms 51:5 It would indeed appear to me that this is a Psalm of personal penitence. Having committed a sexual sin with Bathsheba, David showed true remorse for his actions. He acknowledges his sin and then enters into verse five(5) states this: “ 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Many believe this establishes a sinful nature or original sin, but does it?

The plain rendering of this verse places guilt on David’s mother for conceiving him in sin. He could have said, my mother conceived me in an act of sin, or I was formed as an act of sin by my mother, either one would be within the confines of a reasonable rendition of this text. The question arises, why would David be speaking of the sin of his mother if the context is his own guilt? I believe a reasonable response to this question is simply that David was expressing the fact that from his very conception, sin was at work influences and setting an example that would in fact lend influence and example for hi to follow and direct his own personal acts of sin by. I see David pouring out his heart by saying, certainly it is I alone that has done this wicked sin, yet I know that the sins of others have had a strong influence upon my life, even in my conception. While he focuses upon his own sin and guilt, in verse five he points not to the ‘cause’ of his sin, but rather to sinful examples and influences upon him buy the acts of his very mother that indeed influenced his life and subsequent choices and actions.

Who has not done this in their own life? Is it uncommon for one to recognize themselves as the sole ‘cause’ of their sin, yet still recognize and relate sinful influences that precipitated their demise?

In conclusion, this passage does not have to be an either or. It does not have to be David either expressing the guilt of his mother or his own personal guilt. He can be expressing both in the context of his own personal guilt as the sole ‘cause’ of his sin. I think it is totally reasonable to focus on ones own personal responsibility in sin while bearing mention to influences that have aided in ones demise. This in no way necessitates a change in the clear overall context of the passage from the sin of David’s personal guilt and sin from focusing on his own sinful choices and subsequent actions. Again, it does not change the focus of ones personal guilt as the ‘cause’ to simply mention influences that had an effect upon ones choices for which they recognize they are personally responsible.

 

[DHK]

HP: You have absolutely no right to make such a comment. Scripture is at direct antipodes with your comment. “2Ti 3:16 ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Foolishness!
That is akin to saying that the Bible declares "There is no God!"
And it does! It is found in Psalm 14:1.
That is the logic you are using.
You say: You have absolutely no right to make such a comment that the Bible says "There is no God," for Scripture is at direct antipodes with this comment. "2Ti 3:16..blah, blah, blah....

Whereas I said Scripture must be taken in its context. Without context you can make the Bible say anything you want.

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Does context make a difference? Yes or no?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here is the other passage DHK seems to hear a response concerning.
Ps 58:1 ¶ <<To the chief Musician, Altaschith, Michtam of David.>> Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?
2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 ¶ Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
9 Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath.
10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

HP: DHK, would you be so kind as to tell us where in the world the righteous spoken of come from in this chapter, and why David would have desired his own teeth to be smashed in his mouth as an infant, and why he would have desired that he would have ‘passed away’ in a miscarriage due to the ‘original sin’ or sinful nature of himself as an infant? If all are born with a sinful nature or in original sin, and this passage is supporting that notion, where are the righteous hailing from that are rejoicing at the just desserts of every child ever born including themselves as God is called upon to smash their teeth in their mouths and destroy them??? Are we being careful and serious with the Word of God?

DHK, you owe this chapter a deeper study than that which you so far have given it. Tell us again that this chapter supports the notion of original sin or a sinful nature from birth. Show us one writing anywhere from any true Jew that holds to or held to any such Augustinian notion such as a sinful nature or original sin that you seem bent on injecting into Scripture at will. The Jews, one of whom authored this passage, had absolutely no place in their theology for any such notion as a sinful nature known as original sin. The author of that notion was none other than Augustine. They, i.e., the Jews, simply did not learn any such notion from God or their fathers. David was no exception. There is not the slightest shred of evidence in this Psalm that would substantiate total moral depravity from birth, a sinful nature from birth or original sin from birth. That is an Augustinian notion not a biblical notion.


Possibly you might have another passage you believe proves or supports your beliefs? I would be glad to look at it and give you a direct response.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Does context make a difference? Yes or no?

HP: We shall see when we hear your response to the posts on the two passages you wanted a direct response to, especially, but not limited to, Psalms 58.:thumbsup: :wavey:

 

[DHK]

The plain rendering of this verse places guilt on David’s mother for conceiving him in sin.

The problem with this interpretation is that it is unbiblical.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

What evidence do you have that David's mother was guilty of anything for conceiving David. She was blessed of God for doing so.