Posted on 09/14/2002 11:27:48 AM PDT by Itsfreewill
My friend and I stood looking down at his tiny newborn baby, lying contentedly in his crib. "Of course," said my friend, "our little Tommy is a sinner."
These words were a continuation of the doctrine my friend had taught earlier in his Sunday school class: a doctrine that is accepted as orthodoxy almost universally in our churches, the doctrine that all of humanity sinned in Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit, that Adam's sin, its guilt, and its curse were imputed to all his descendants, and that all of his descendants are now born with an Adamic sin nature which makes sin unavoidable and makes us "by nature the children of wrath."
What makes this incredible doctrine believable is the fact that there are verses in the Bible which seem to teach it. Psalm 51:5 comes immediately to the mind of the Christian who has been taught to believe in the doctrine of original sin: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." This settles it for the Christian. If the Bible says we were "shapen in iniquity" and "conceived in sin," then it has to be so.
And the above text would teach that men are born sinners if it were meant to be taken literally. But the language of this text is not literal, it is figurative. Both context and reality demand a figurative interpretation of this text.
For example, let's compare Psalm 51:5 with Job 1:21, which says: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." If Psalm 51:5 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that David and all other men are born sinners, then Job 1:21 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that Job and all other men will some day go back into their mother's womb.
Neither Psalm 51:5 nor Job 1:21 is to be understood literally. They are both figurative expressions. Both context and our knowledge of reality demand a figurative interpretation of these two texts.
David uses figurative language throughout his Psalms. In fact, in the 51st Psalm, verses five, seven, and eight are all figurative expressions. So if verse five can be made to teach that men are born sinners, then verse seven can be made to teach that hyssop cleanses us from sin when it says, "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean." Also, verse eight can be made to teach the doctrine that God breaks the Christian's bones when he sins, and that his broken bones rejoice when he is forgiven "Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice." Another of David's Psalms, Psalm 58:3, can be made to teach the astonishing doctrine that babies speak from the very moment they are born: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."
But who would seriously teach from this last text that babies actually do speak as soon as they are born? None of these passages is meant to be understood in a literal sense. They are all figurative expressions. If they were understood literally, they would all teach what we know to be contrary to reality; for reality teaches us that bones don't rejoice, hyssop doesn't purge sin, babies don't speak as soon as they leave the womb, and an unborn child is not morally depraved.
The same rules of interpretation that would permit Psalm 51:5 to teach that babies are born sinners, would, if applied to these passages (or if applied to many other passages in the Bible), allow for every kind of perversion and wild interpretation of God's Word. Look again at the words of Job 1:21: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." Did Job, by these words, mean to teach that he and all other men would some day go back into their mother's womb? We know that such a meaning is absurd. But it is just as reasonable to give to Job 1:21 the nonsensical meaning that Job and all other men will some day go back into their mother's womb, as it is to give to Psalm 51:5 the nonsensical meaning that David and all other men are born sinners. David was not teaching in this passage that he was born a sinner. He instead was confessing to God the awful guilt and sinfulness of his heart, and he cried out to God in strong language the language of figure and symbol to express that awful guilt and sinfulness.
But if David intended to affirm that he was literally "shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin," then he affirmed absolute nonsense, and he charged his Creator with making him a sinner; for David knew that God was his Maker:
Thy hands have made me and fashioned me. Psalm 119:73
You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body, and knit them together in my mother's womb. Psalm 139:13 (Living Bible)
Know ye that the Lord he is God: It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves. Psalm 100:3
Are we to understand from these passages that God fashions men into sinners in their mother's womb? No, we know that God does not create sinners. Yet, upon the supposition that Psalm 51:5 teaches that men are born sinners, these texts could teach nothing else. Who cannot see that the doctrine that men are born sinners charges God with creating sinners? It represents man as being formed a sinner in his mother's womb, when the Bible clearly teaches that God forms man in his mother's womb. It represents man as coming into this world a sinner, when the Bible clearly teaches that God creates all men. It may be objected that God created only Adam and Eve, and that the rest of mankind descended from them by natural generation. But this objection does not relieve the doctrine of an inherited sin nature of its slander and libel of the character of God. For if man has a sinful nature at birth, who is it who established the laws of procreation under which he would be born with that nature? God, of course. There is no escaping the logical inference that is implicit in the doctrine of an inherited sin nature. It is a blasphemous and slanderous libel on the character of God.
But one might as well reject the Bible out of hand, if he does not want to recognize that God is the Creator of all men. For the fact that God is the Creator of all men is one of the clearest truths taught in the Bible.
Thy hands have made me and fashioned me. Psalm 119:73
Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Psalm 139:13, 14
Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb? Job 31:15
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee. Jer. 1:5
Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us? Mal. 2:10
Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth. Eccl. 12:1
Know ye that the Lord he is God; it is he that hath made us and not we ourselves. Psalm 100:3
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth...for it repenteth me that I have made them. Gen. 6:7
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen. 1:26,27
Ye are gods; and all of you are the children of the most High. Psalm 82:6
For in the image of God made he man. Gen. 9:6
Man is the image and glory of God. I Cor. 11:7
Men are made after the similitude of God. James 3:9
The Lord formeth the spirit of man within him. Zech. 12:1
The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Job 33:4
He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. Acts 17:25
We are the offspring of God. Acts 17:29
I am the root and the offspring of David. Rev. 22:16
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. Eccl. 7:29
This last text not only declares that God has created man, but it also affirms that God created man upright. If man is created upright, he cannot be born a sinner; and if he is born a sinner, he cannot be created upright. Either one or the other may be true, but they cannot both be true for the two are contradictories.
But when God says he "created us in his image, and gave us life and breath and all things," are we to understand that he created us as sinners? When he says, "We are his offspring," are we to understand that his offspring are born sinners? When Jesus said, "I am the root and the offspring of David," are we to understand that David sprang forth from the root Christ Jesus with a sinful nature? Or, are we to understand that Jesus, as the offspring of David, was born with a sinful nature? The very fact that Jesus was a man, descended from Adam, and born with a human nature as we are, shows that men are not born with a sinful nature. I John 4:3, II John 7, Heb. 2:14, Heb. 2:16-18, Heb. 4:15, Rom. 1:3, Matt. 1:1, Luke 3:38.
The doctrine of original sin is false: it slanders and libels the character of God, it shocks man's god-given consciousness of justice, and it flies in the face of the plainest teachings of God's holy Word. The doctrine of original sin is not a Bible doctrine. It is a grotesque myth that contradicts the Bible on almost every page. But because good Christians can quote texts from the Bible to "prove" the doctrine of original sin, they are convinced it is true. But good Christians have rejected truth and clung to error in the name of the Bible before.
For instance, Galileo and Copernicus brought to the church the truth that the earth was not the center of the universe, that the sun did not go around the earth but that the earth went around the sun and that the earth rotated on its axis, giving the illusion that the sun was going around the earth.
We all know this to be true now, but did all good Christians believe it then? No, both John Calvin and Martin Luther clung, along with the church, to the error that the earth was the center of the universe, that the sun went around the earth and that the earth stood still.
"Martin Luther called Copernicus 'an upstart astrologer' and a 'fool who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy.' Calvin thundered: 'Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit? Do not the Scriptures say that Joshua commanded the sun and not the earth to stand still? That the sun runs from one end of the heavens to the other?'"
Both Calvin and Luther were good, well-meaning men, but they still clung to their false views because they could quote Scripture texts to support them. Likewise, there are good, well-meaning Christians today who also erroneously cling to the doctrine of original sin because they can quote texts from the Bible to "prove" it.
It is these texts, that have been taken out of context and misinterpreted to support this false doctrine, that we will examine in the next chapter.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Psalm 58:3
And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Eph. 2:3
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one. Job 14:4
What is man that he should be clean, and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Job 15:14
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned...Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5:12, 18, 19
"A son will not suffer his father’s punishment..." is a principle in Scripture:
Deut. 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
2 Chron. 25:4 But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.
Eze. 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
So the Calvinists not only teach that God violates His own principle, but that men bear the iniquity, not just of their father, but of their great, great, great .... grandfather, Adam.
Hank
Adam sinned and ate of the tree of knowledge. Knowledge of good and evil. And that day he died. I think each of us that lives long enough reaches a day when we receive the knowledge of good and evil. And on that day we sin.
* It seems something this important should had been written in the scriptures that Cain and Able were born sinners because of their father Adam sin, why would something that important not be found in the scriptures?
* Would not with of the reasoning of Predestination theory of original sin, also effect the birth of Jesus Christ?
Yes. There are a great many things taught today which have no direct support of Scripture, and many of them are treated as though they were the most important of all doctrines. Obviously, if they were important, God would have thought to make them clear in Scripture.
Would not with of the reasoning of Predestination theory of original sin, also effect the birth of Jesus Christ?
The calvinists, and most other Christians believe Jesus' nature was different from all other men's. Generally the explanation is that he did not inherit the Adamic sinful nature because he did not have a human father. Since he did have a human mother, they make the sinful nature a sex-linked hereditary characteristic, inherited only through males. (They almost never talk about this aspect, however.)
The purpose of my post #96 was in response to posts #67, 73, and 95, which tried to defend the "Jesus had a different nature" doctrine. Obviously, if Jesus had a different nature than we have, he was not human in the same way we are. This is essentially a heresy. See my post #96.
Hank
Wesley
Verse 3. Seth was born in the 130th year of Adam's life, and probably the murder of Abel was not long before. Many other sons and daughters were born to Adam besides Cain and Abel before this; but no notice is taken of them, because an honourable mention must be made of his name only, in whose loins Christ and the church were. But that which is most observable here concerning Seth, is, that Adam begat him in his own likeness after his image - Adam was made in the image of God; but when he was fallen and corrupted, he begat a son in his own image, sinful and defiled, frail and mortal, and miserable like himself; not only a man like himself, consisting of body and soul; but a sinner like himself, guilty and obnoxious, degenerate and corrupt. He was conceived and born in sin, Psalm li, 5. This was Adam's own likeness, the reverse of that Divine likeness in which Adam was made; but having lost it himself he could not convey it to his seed.
Gill
Verse 3. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years,.... The Septuagint version, through mistaken, gives the number two hundred and thirty years: and begat [a son]; not that he had no other children during this time than Cain and Abel; this is only observed to show how old he was when Seth was born, the son here meant; who was begotten in his own likeness, after his image; not in the likeness, and after the image of God, in which Adam was created; for having sinned, he lost that image, at least it was greatly defaced, and he came short of that glory of God, and could not convey it to his posterity; who are, and ever have been conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity; are polluted and unclean, foolish and disobedient; averse to all that is good, and prone to all that is evil: the sinfulness of nature is conveyed by natural generation, but not holiness and grace; that is not of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the flesh, but of God, and produced of his own will, by his mighty power impressing the image of his Son in regeneration on his people; which by beholding his glory they are more and more changed into by the Spirit of God. The Jewish writers understand this in a good sense, of Seth being like to Adam in goodness, when Cain was not: so the Targum of Jonathan,
Matthew Henry
II. The birth of his son Seth, v. 3. He was born in the hundred and thirtieth year of Adam's life; and probably the murder of Abel was not long before. Many other sons and daughters were born to Adam, besides Cain and Abel, before this; but no notice is taken of them, because an honourable mention must be made of his name only in whose loins Christ and the church were. But that which is most observable here concerning Seth is that Adam begat him in his own likeness, after his image. Adam was made in the image of God; but, when he was fallen and corrupt, he begat a son in his own image, sinful and defiled, frail, mortal, and miserable, like himself; not only a man like himself, consisting of body and soul, but a sinner like himself, guilty and obnoxious, degenerate and corrupt. Even the man after God's own heart owns himself conceived and born in sin, Ps. 51:5. This was Adam's own likeness, the reverse of that divine likeness in which Adam was made; but, having lost it himself, he could not convey it to his seed. Note, Grace does not run in the blood, but corruption does. A sinner begets a sinner, but a saint does not beget a saint.
Adam Clarke
And begat a son in his own likeness, after his image] Words nearly the same with those chap. i. 26: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. What this image and likeness of God were, we have already seen, and we may rest assured that the same image and likeness are not meant here. The body of Adam was created provisionally immortal, i.e. while he continued obedient he could not die; but his obedience was voluntary, and his state a probationary one. The soul of Adam was created in the moral image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness. He had now sinned, and consequently had lost his moral resemblance to his Maker; he had also become mortal through his breach of the law. His image and likeness were therefore widely different at this time from what they were before; and his begetting children in this image and likeness plainly implies that they were imperfect like himself, mortal like himself, sinful and corrupt like himself. For it is impossible that he, being impure, fallen from the Divine image, could beget a pure and holy offspring, unless we could suppose it possible that a bitter fountain could send forth sweet waters, or that a cause could produce effects totally dissimilar from itself. What is said here of Seth might have been said of all the other children of Adam, as they were all begotten after his fall; but the sacred writer has thought proper to mark it only in this instance.
Now IFW..When I read that chapter I understood what God was telling us...but a discussion on another forum caused me to see if I was really off base...but as you see famous men of both Arminian and Calvinist theology read it the same way...
So do you RnMomof7, dismiss all of Ezekiel 18?
That God is a just God, who does not hold the son responsible for the sins of the father?
18:30 “Therefore I will judge each person according to his conduct, O house of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and turn from all your transgressions; then iniquity will not be a stumbling block for you.
18:31 Get rid of all your transgressions you have committed and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?
18:32 For I take no delight in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!
************************************************************************ If Adam was created in the image of God, and Adam sons were created in Adam image. Where in scripture does it say Adam no longer is in the image of God? Just because they change from immortal to mortal has nothing to do with image!
RnMomof7 you make quantum leaps!
Since there is not a single verse of Scripture that says man is no longer in God's image, this must be what it means.
Gen 5:3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.
In case you think I'm just guessing, like those who would add to the Scripture to support their sinful nature heresy, here's what the Bible says about man and God's image:
1 Cor 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Jas 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
Again, any 5 year old can understand that, unless of course, they are a Calvinist.
You'll just have to get used to Calvinist's saying things like, "well yes, the verse says that, but that's not what it means." Why, they do that with whole chapters, like Ezekiel 18, and 33.
Hank
Wow!
Able to leap tall doctrines in a single bound!
(Sorry, it just slipped out.)
Itsfreewill, Mom and I disagree on many things, but we serve the same Lord, and both know, whatever we are, it is by the grace of God.
Hank
Your reasoning is illogical because I insist on the word of the Bible you accuse me of not being Christian, you are inconsistent!
If He did not possess this old sin nature, then how would he be able to act as the Perfect Intercessor for man seeking a relationship with a Perfect God? Quite the contrary, insistence upon the essence of Jesus Christ as being different than man, merely develops a long tangled misdirection with ulterior intentions of deception.
Here's another doctrinal question for those who don't believe in an old sin nature.
If you are Christian, why do you sin?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.