SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Original Sin

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
jeremyhulsey
Member



Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


 Re:

Ron,

I really enjoyed reading your posts on this subject. I have a question though.

It is probably one of the obvious ones that would arise. If, by nature, I am a sinner and I act according to my nature, then why am I guilty if I have not violated my nature?

I agree with what you have said. I am just curious as to how I would articulate an answer to that question if and when it were posed to me.

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2003/10/12 22:27Profile
aphill777
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 24
Wisconsin

 Re:

If man is a sinner by virtue of an inherited nature. How is it then that Jesus did not have such a nature. Look at Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he took not on the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

It is true that man becomes a sinner and therefore developes a sinful nature, "all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way" Isaiah 53:6 Could this not be more plain. It would a perversion to say that this is saying we were all "born astray" and "already turned" to our own way?

Again I ask where in the Bible does it say that sin is anything but a choice?


_________________
Tony Phillips

 2003/10/13 12:36Profile
todd
Member



Joined: 2003/5/12
Posts: 573
California

 Re:

The stickiest verse for me at this point is Psalm 51:5 which states:
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."

Does anyone have some insight into this verse? It is likely not as simple as it seems or those opposed to the doctrine would have no argument. What do they say?

Who was David's mother? Could she have been in sin when she conceived and brought him forth?

 2003/10/13 21:51Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 Re:



Psalms 51:5 [i](Taken from: Spurgeon's Treasury of David Commentary on Psalms)[/i]
“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity.” He is thunderstruck at the discovery of his inbred sin, and proceeds to set it forth. This was not intended to justify himself, but it rather meant to complete the confession. It is as if he said, not only have I sinned this once, but I am in my very nature a sinner. The fountain of my life is polluted as well as its streams. My birth-tendencies are out of the square of equity; I naturally lean to forbidden things. Mine is a constitutional disease, rendering my very person obnoxious to thy wrath. “And in sin did my mother conceive me.” He goes back to the earliest moment of his being, not to traduce his mother, but to acknowledge the deep tap-roots of his sin. It is a wicked wresting of Scripture to deny that original sin and natural depravity are here taught. Surely men who cavil at this doctrine have need to be taught of the Holy Spirit what be the first principles of the faith. David's mother was the Lord's handmaid, he was born in chaste wedlock, of a good father, and he was himself “the man after God's own heart;” and yet his nature was as fallen as that of any other son of Adam, and there only needed the occasion for the manifesting of that sad fact. In our shaping we were put out of shape, and when we were conceived our nature conceived sin. Alas, for poor humanity! Those who will may cry it up, but he is most blessed who in his own soul has learned to lament its lost estate.

Psalms 51:5 [i](taken from: Adam Clarkes Commentary)[/i]
I believe David to speak here of what is commonly called original sin; the propensity to evil which every man brings into the world with him, and which is the fruitful source whence all transgression proceeds. The word חוללתי cholalti, which we translate shaped, means more properly, I was brought forth from the womb; and יחמתני yechemathni rather signifies made me warm, alluding to the whole process of the formation of the fetus in utero, the formative heat which is necessary to develope the parts of all embryo animals; to incubate the ova in the female, after having been impregnated by the male; and to bring the whole into such a state of maturity and perfection as to render it capable of subsisting and growing up by aliment received from without. “As my parts were developed in the womb, the sinful principle diffused itself through the whole, so that body and mind grew up in a state of corruption and moral imperfection.”

Psalms 51:5 [i](taken from: Barnes Commentary)[/i]
And in sin did my mother conceive me - Margin, as in Hebrew, “warm me.” This language simply traces his sin back to the time when he began to exist. The previous expression traced it to “his birth;” this expression goes back to the very beginning of “life;” when there were the first indications of life. The idea is, “as soon as I began to exist I was a sinner; or, I had then a propensity to sin - a propensity, the sad proof and result of which is that enormous act of guilt which I have committed.”


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2003/10/13 22:03Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:


This is a long posting; my apologies. I usually try to restrain the ‘preacher’ in these notes but sometimes he just gets lose!

Quote: If man is a sinner by virtue of an inherited nature. How is it then that Jesus did not have such a nature. Look at Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he took not on the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

I think we come to the very borders of revelation here. It is holy ground and time again to quote one of my favourite snippets of scripture “we know in part…”. However, let’s take a look. The Bible is extremely precise in the way it states some of these issues. E.g. Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: the phrase used is ‘the likeness of sinful flesh’. If it had said ‘the likeness of flesh’ it would have supported the ancient heresy of Docetism. If it had said that God sent his Son ‘in sinful flesh’ the scripture could no longer refer to Him as the uniquely ‘holy one’.

Jesus was the Word made flesh. He became authentically human in all attributes. A definition of attributes is ‘characteristics without which it would no longer be authentic’. If any of God’s attributes were removed He would no longer be God; the supporters of ‘Open Theology’ need to consider this with regard to omniscience. My question then is what is ‘human’? Is ‘original sin’ an essential characteristic of man without which he would no longer be man? Not at all. What is man? Psalm 8 gives an answer to that we has no reference to Sin or sins. If fact, mankind became less than God’s definition when it sinned. Here’s God’s definition ‘Let us make man in our own image’. (He has never changed His mind on this!) Have you noticed that Jesus is called the Second Man in 1 Cor 15. There have only ever been 2 men who fulfilled the original criteria, Adam and Christ. All those in between, and after, fail to qualify.

The incarnation brought into the world a perfect man. Hallelujah. C S Lewis uses a phrase to describe ‘man’ as we have seen him. “we have spent all our lives among shadows and broken images”. In Christ we see man as God intended him to be. He identified with all that man had become ‘yet without sin’. So He knew weariness and hunger and pain, but as Paul says ‘He knew no sin’.

He referred to His death on the cross as a Baptism. (Luke 12:50, Mark 10:38) This is a key revelation and, it seems to me, sorely neglected in our theology. Biblically, baptism is always linked to death and effects a union. It is important to understand that the consistent testimony of scripture is that ‘death’ was not something that happened to Christ. It was something to accomplish or fulfil. (Luke 9:31) That cross-baptism united Him with ‘the death’ into which our race lives. He was made to be sin for us. “for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor 5:21) It was the prospect of this event which broke His heart in Gethsemene. If the prospect was so unbearable what of its consummation?

He used the most amazing symbols to describe His death. He likened His death to a snake on a pole. (John 3:14). In Adam’s transgression a deadly venom passed into our race. Now He must become one with what the race became and take in down into death with Him. In that moment He forfeited the relationship of Son to Father and could only pray ‘My God’; the only time in His recorded life that He did not say ‘Father’. (More food for thought here for the Oneness members of our forum family) The testimony of Jesus is captured in Psalm 22 and includes the statement “I am a worm and no man”. Isaiah 52:14 says “his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men” RSV.
I dare not try to explain what I read but I know that in solitary darkness, with none to witness the scene, He cried ‘it is completed’. It is because He broke Sin’s stranglehold that we can now know ‘freedom from Sin’.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/10/14 13:49Profile
aphill777
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 24
Wisconsin

 Re:

Psalm 51:5 was written by David after the death of Uriah the Hittite which was David's cause.

When the Lord revealed this horrible sin of David through the prophet, David was struck with extreme guilt. He then penned this Psalm and in his grief was admitting that he had sinned from his earliest recollection. He used a statement of extreme to illustrate his own frustration with himself. Just like when we make a mistake we may say "I am such a dummy" or "I always do this". In no way was David developing a doctrine of Original or "constitutional" sin.

Of course, no where in this verse is it said that the human race is "shapen in iniquity". David uses personal pronouns here only. Therefore the extent of this "constitutional" depravity ended with himself.

Another reasonable view of this text is that David was conceived out of wedlock. In fact when Samual the prophet came looking for the new King for Israel, David was overlooked by his father for some reason. The culture of the day did NOT prohibit youth from being King, many of Egypt's rulers were but children when they came to power. Nonetheless, David was seen as not being eligible for Kingship, seems our Lord Jesus was of the same reputation??

Again I remind you that the Jewish theologins never, to this day, beleived such a doctrine even in light of Psalm 51:5

Tony Phillips


_________________
Tony Phillips

 2003/10/14 13:57Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: Psalm 51

For myself I have never considered Psalm 51 as primary evidence for 'original sin'. This is an intensely personal psalm where David acknowledges full responsibility for the man he is. As such I conclude that the reference to his conception is really a metaphoric way of expressing the extremity of his sin. I think the speculation that David was illegitimate is unnecessary.
My own understanding of 'original sin' is that we are contaminated as a direct result of Adam's disobedience, which is why I don't call it hereditary sin. I think the idea of sin percolating down the generations is not particularly scriptural. In Rom 5:12 all the verbs are in the Aorist tense which signifies an action complete in itself at a point in time. These verbs point to a fixed time when 'sin entered', 'death spread' 'all sinned'. The use of 'outOs' translated 'so' in the AV is also significant; it implies consequence not a subsequent event. To try to simplify all that Rom 5:12 is recording a single event when 'sin entered' 'death spread', and 'all sinned'. This event can be timed exactly, it was when 'one man disobeyed'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/10/18 16:19Profile
openairboy
Member



Joined: 2003/9/22
Posts: 85


 Psalm 51 and original sin

I fully hold to the doctrine of original sin, but I don't think Psalm 51 is there for this doctrine. What is the purpose of the Psalm(s)? It is poetry and song and this Psalm is believed to be describing David's repentance after his adulty with Bathsheba. Take some of your favorite poems, songs, or any other communicative means along these lines and look at their words. What do they seek to accomplish? Yes, they are expressing truth, but usually in heigtened language. For example, in the song "Lemon Tree" the author describes his love as "a girl so sweet that when she smiled the stars rose in the sky, we past that summer lost in love beneath the lemon tree, the music of her laughter, hid her fathers words from me..." Now, if we are "literalists" here these words make no sense, but when we allow them to be poetic we understand their content. So poetry, etc., captures your thinking, but usually in a heightened expression. David here is expressing the depths of his sin. No matter where he looks he finds sin. He isn't arguing for original sin, but repenting.

FWIW

 2003/10/18 21:18Profile
openairboy
Member



Joined: 2003/9/22
Posts: 85


 Re:

"Again I ask where in the Bible does it say that sin is anything but a choice?"

I think it is part of the thematic whole of Scripture. For example, when Jesus speaks of good and bad trees. We recognize a tree by its fruit. We recognize the fruit of "the flesh" and the fruit of "the Spirit", both are consistent with the nature of the two. I think this proves that "sin" is more than merely wrong choices, although it isn't less than that. This is a key point, because many, especially individualistic Americans, have a self-determining view of themselves and the world. A little bit of effort and we can do whatever we want, but this is a far cry of the Bible's teaching.

Practically, if we reject original sin (imputation of Adam's sin), then we have to reject received righteousness (imputation of Christ's righteousness). The minute we reject Christ's righteousness, I think we begin to stray from the Gospel. Suddenly Adam was just a bad example and redemption becomes following Christ's example.

This may start to stray from the topic, but all of this is tied into an understanding of the covenant. God always deals with His people through representation. This doesn't sound good to democratic Christianity in America, but is true to Hebrew thought, I believe.

 2003/10/18 21:31Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: imputed or imparted

quote: Practically, if we reject original sin (imputation of Adam's sin), then we have to reject received righteousness (imputation of Christ's righteousness). The minute we reject Christ's righteousness, I think we begin to stray from the Gospel. Suddenly Adam was just a bad example and redemption becomes following Christ's example.
I have problems with the concept of Adam's sin being imputed. That would create 'alien sin' and 'alien guilt'. My understanding of 'guilt' is that it is blameworthiness. Does God hold me guilty for Adam's sin? I think not, but Adam's condemnation has touched me because I was in Adam when he disobeyed. (for the judgment was by one to condemnation Rom 5:16)

I would regard Adam's sin, not as imputed, but as imparted. It was not 'reckoned' to all men but 'spread' to all men. God's solution to this is to take me 'out of Adam' and put me 'into Christ'. In Adam I was a 'sinner'; in Christ I am a 'saint'.
I think we are touching some important issues here. What do you understand by the phrase 'our old man' in Rom 6:6? According to the revelation 'our old man was co-crucified with' Christ.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/10/19 10:34Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy