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
When the Hebrews were in the dessert and were afraid to go in and take the Promise Land after the scouts came back with their report, God punished all the people 20 yrs and over. No one 20 or over would be allowed in the Promised Land, so they had to wait till all those died off before going in.
Does this seem to anyone else maybe that there is a some point that God holds some accountable and some not because they may not be capable of understanding the situation completely thus it would be unfair to judge them the same.
Becky
You don't know what you ask. Next to Paul, it would not be an overstatement to say, probably no one man has had such influence on "Christian" doctrine, especially in the West, than Augustine. (He is not so venerated in the Eastern churches.)
First, let me say, what I have to say is not against Roman Catholics, because they feel very strongly about St. Augustine, and almost every major doctrine of the Roman Catholic church was originally formulated by him. Since I strongly disagree with those teachings, my views will not be complementary of them. But, they are my views.
Whereas Pual's influence on doctrine was all positive, I consider all of Augustine's influence negative. That does not mean I believe everything he taught was incorrect or heresy (although much is), because much of what he teaches agrees with Paul. It is where he goes beyond the clear teaching of Scripture and adds doctrines not taught there at all, that his influence is bad.
He is called Saint Augustine of Hippo (North Africa), and lived from AD354-430. He was converted to Christianity at the age of thirty-two. Previously he was a pagan, a student of variouos philosophies, particularly Neo-platonism, and until his conversion was a follower of the Manichees, a doctrine that taught that matter was comprise partly of evil and partly of good. It was from these teachings that Augustine derived the idea that evil or good could be ascribed to a "substance" or "nature." His doctrine of the sinful nature is a syncretistic amalgam of Biblical teaching about sin and Manicheean paganism.
Those doctrines which may be directly attributed to Augustine, but not found in Scripture, include, the sinful nature, original sin, the atonement as "payment for sin," (which is not the same as substitutionary bearing of the penalty of sin), the dual nature of Christians (having both a sinful and Spriritual nature), limited atonement, predestination by decree (although he did not use those words), and more. He also believed and taught the efficacy of relics, shrines, and statues, called Mary the mother of God (although the immaculate conception and ascension were added later), the efficacy of child baptism, the actual presence of God (Jesus) in the Eucharist, and more.
Those doctrines which Augustine taught we consider strictly Roman Catholic were repudiated by Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers. However, everything else that Augustine taught was brought into Christine doctrine wholesale. Some were aware of the difficulties, such as Wesley, but they too, accepted most of the doctrines introduced by Augustine, with modifications.
As you might have guessed, Augustine is a rather significant person in religion and history and most protestants have never even heard of him. His two most well known works are his Confessions and The City of God If you read, they are difficult but extremely interesting. If you read them both you will have done something few others have done.
Here are a couple of links that present fair representations of Augustine, I think. There are millions of links to endless resources. Many, of course, are Roman Catholic. In some ways these are the best, because they are the most thorough.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine.html
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/augustin.htm
http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/WNAAugustine.html (Scroll donwn for some interesting notes).
(If this is not clear, I'm quite sick today and may not be completely cogent.)
Hank
I don't know what, "God literally charges our sin to Jesus," means. Unless you mean what I meant by His bearing our sins on the Cross. Scripture please.
"Jesus ... bears the legal penalty [for our sin]"
that is correct.
Hank are you or anyone righteous enough (apart from any imputed righteousness) to meet God's standard?
First of all, the expression, "righteous enough," is without meaning. One is either rightious or not, there are no degrees. (There are degrees of guilt, and degrees of honor, etc., but not of righteousness. If you are not altogether righteous, you are not righteous at all. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." )
Now, what do you mean by "imputed righteousness?" Do you mean God says I am righteous, even though I am not? Or do you mean that God says I am righteous (which is all impute means), because I have been forgiven my sin and reconciled to God?
Hank
Thank you! Just a bug, but has sure left me out-of-it. Glad no one can catch it from me over the Internet.
Hank
Wasn't it also Augustine who said the Holy Spirit descended from The Son, a major cause of dissent between us and the RC church, ie, the filioque?
Isn't it true that to require faith for salvation has a distinctly legalistic frame to it? And especially since none of us has perfect faith, I always wondered about things like how much faith or how strong our faith must be at the time of death - if these things influence your doctrine.
Faith is a gift from God..so those that believe onto salvation do so at the experess will and action of God..is that "legalism."...nope legalism is believing if you are good enough and keep enough of the rules you can work your way into heaven...Keep the rules ..keep the rules
To believe that you can make a silk purse out of a sows ear is more likely than to believe that man wants to do anything more than sin
Ahhh you say men love god..they go to church and try to keep the commandments...
To that I say they are trying to make their own gods and their own rules and God hates that ...He says it is filthy menstral rags ...bloody ..but not the right blood..
Man can do NOTHING that pleases God except repent and believe..and even then it is His grace that leads you to repentance
The problem with refusing the doctrine of Original sin (accepted by almost all Chrisitanity) you can not see your self as a sinner..a man without thirst does not seek living waters!
I do not know how Augustine's teaching would have influenced this. He certainly wrote against the Arian heresy, but he could not have been part of the Second Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in A.D. 381, since he was not himself converted to Christianity until A. D. 386. It was that council that added the words:
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets."
St. Augustine died in A.D. 430, and it was not until A.D. 587, the local council of Toledo (Spain) added Filioque (and Son) to the Creed, thus:
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified."
I cannot say Augustine's writing and teaching did not contribute to this, but I do not know that they did.
Hank
"(accepted by almost all Chrisitanity)" That alone should make you very suspicious of the doctrine. With rare exception, what most people believe is usually untrue.
It is actually the doctrine of original sin that makes you unable to see yourself as the sinner you really are. A sinner is one, acting against his own nature and best interest, still chooses to rebel against God. Oh, how terribly guilty we know we are when we know there is no excuse for choices except our own chosen wickedness, and has nothing to do with the way we were born. That's the excuse of the homosexuals, provided by Christians that teach men are sinners because they were born that way.
Hank
No hank if it was against his nature he would have to work at it..he does not he loves his sin..
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
(not even a new born...no exceptions Hank!)
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
It is against his nature to seek God..He is seeking after his interests and pleasure
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Your self effort are filthy rags hank
Here is how the God of creation sees our "nature Hank
Rom 3:13 Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness:
Rom 3:15 Their feet [are] swift to shed blood:
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery [are] in their ways:
Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Untill you gasp at the sight of your sin you do not recognize it Hank..it is intellectual till it drives you to gasp and fall to your knees
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
There is that pesky ALL again Hank..NO childhood exemptions
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Where is YOUR boasting Hank?
How do you get that from my post?
What do you suppose this means: "Sins are not things, they do not have weight. What Jesus bore was the penalty of the sins we should have borne, and would have borne, except that, "in due time, Christ died for" us. (The ref. is Romans 5:6, of course.)
You are perfectly able to keep the law perfectly
You tell me:
2 Cor. 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work.
Phil. 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
Please tell me what God has failed to provide that you would need to completely obey Him.
Hank
That was writen to the saved Hank...it was about the grace of God enabling the saved to perserve ...it was not about law keeping .Every good work is not perfect law keeping Hank
Tell me ...who in the last 2000 years has kept the law perfectly? If man is sinless at birth ...surely ONE man must have ?? Who???
You know Hank if you live by the sword you die by the sword..If you choose to be judged by your ability to keep the law God will oblige ya..and you will fail every time
Thanks for the interesting link, it was a nice overview of some differences between the Eastern and Western traditions.
Here, I think we strongly disagree. I am what might be called a hyper-protestant. For me, the Protestant reformation was only partial, and all of protestant Christianity continues to embrace a great deal of Roman Catholic doctrine introduced by Augustine. My protestation is against everything Augustine introduced into Christian doctrine, not just some of the doctrines the Roman Catholics now embrace.
Among the false teachings I believe are almost universally embraced by all those who call themselves Christian is a wrong idea about the meaning of faith.
Without exception, the word faith always implies believing or accepting as true some proposition for which there is no material or rational evidence, or even one that is contrary to reason or evidence. This meaning is identical with superstition.
I do not think this is what the Bible teaches faith is. Always the word faith is associated with three ideas, knowledge (understanding), "faithfulness," and dependence (trust). I think the last two ideas are usually understood by all religions that use the word faith, for they simply mean one will trust or depend on what they truly believe, and if they truly believe they will be faithful to those beliefs, even in the face of doubt or difficulty.
It is the first aspect of faith that I believe is most misunderstood. It regards the source of our beliefs.
I sometimes say, God has promised to open the eyes of our understanding, not the throats of our credulity. Of course I am referring to, "the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, (Eph 1:18) and "ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." (Mat 23:24)
Jesus is referring to the huge body of doctrine the Pharisees taught. Here was Jesus, teaching the simple truth that what God required, was a new heart, a complete transformation, and these rulers of Israel could not understand it. If you had asked them how they could believe all their obtuse doctrines, they would have said, "by faith." That's why Jesus called them blind. Isn't that just what Christians teach faith is today? "It's not believing what you can see, it's believing what you cannot see," by which they mean what they cannot understand by reason, and, therefore just "swallow."
But that is not what faith is at all. The Bible says "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." (1 Jo 5:20)
Sometimes Hebrews 11:1 is given as a definition of faith (which it really isn't) but we ought to look at it.
Heb. 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Here I am only interested in the last part. Notice, it does not say, faith is believing without being able to see any evidence, it says, faith is the evidence upon which we believe in what cannot be seen.
Certainly, the "unseen" here refers to spiritual things, but spiritual things are not the only things we cannot see and yet believe in. When my wife says, "Honey, would go to the store and get some milk?" she says this believing a great many things she cannot see. She cannot see the milk in the store, she cannot even see the store. But a long chain of experience and reason convinces her, without even thinking about it, that the store is there and so is the milk. She believes in what she cannot see.
But, what is the evidence? Is it "just accepting" it as true, without understanding why it is true. No, that would be superstition. The evidence is reason, based on all her previous experience and knowledge. It is the best conclusion she is capable of with all she knows and is able to think. That is FAITH.
And this is the Bible meaning of faith. Not credulity, but embracing the truth that one's bast God-given ability to reason and think enables them to understand, on the best evidence available, then being completely faithful to that truth in the face of all temptation to evade or ignore it, and trusting wholly and completely in that truth.
............
There is much more, obviously, but you see, I believe there can never be a conflict between reason and faith, and that any belief that does not have a rational basis is mere superstition, and sadly, I believe the most superstitious of all the Christian churches are those in the Eastern tradition.
Hank
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.