I can't believe there is any doubt about Man's depravity.
satans primary enterprise is within the church, and we can see that manifesting in this hodgepodge of conversations.
Upvote
0
How do you prove man is sinful by nature?
- Thread starter JimSager
- Start date
satans primary enterprise is within the church, and we can see that manifesting in this hodgepodge of conversations.
- Jul 6, 2004
- 25,285
- 2,868
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I can't believe there is any doubt about Man's depravity.
None of the Apostolic Churches teach total depravity of man.
Forgive me...
Upvote
0
T
Thekla
Guest
If mankind is totally depraved, then what is meant by "it was good" (re:creation) and which Biblical passages identify a different creation (ie, nature) as being created "not good" ?
Upvote
0
- Apr 28, 2007
- 8,660
- 174
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The easiest way is just to look at world history and judge for yourself whether mankind is inherently fallen by nature. History itself speaks again and again of man's greed, depravity, and bloodlust.
Upvote
0
T
Thekla
Guest
We do sin, but that does not mean our created nature can be described as "totally depraved"; totally depraved is inconsistent with God saying of His creation, that it is "good". And, as we are created in His image, inasmuch as this image is part of our nature, if our nature is "totally depraved", then we reflect in this our Creator.
So, our true nature is not "totally depraved"; this does not mean that we are yet perfected, that we do not sin. It does mean that our sinning is not of God's doing.
So, our true nature is not "totally depraved"; this does not mean that we are yet perfected, that we do not sin. It does mean that our sinning is not of God's doing.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
holyrokker
Contributor
- Sep 4, 2004
- 9,390
- 1,750
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The doctrine can't be proven from Scripture.
It must be presumed true, then select passages must be taken out of context, and then they must be patched together to "prove" the doctrine.
There is only one verse in the entire Bible that comes close to making such a statement: Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
However, Psalm 51 is not making a doctrinal statement of inherited sin that applies to all of humanity.
It is a song of repentance. David is expressing, with strong language, the anguish of his guilt.
Notice the personal pronouns used:
blot out my transgressions
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
cleanse me from my sin
For I know my transgressions
my sin is ever before me
Against you, you only, have I sinned
It is obvious that David is accepting full personal responsibility for his actions. He is not attempting to pass his sin off on a preexisting condition.
Also notice the wording of verse 5
David is utilizing "hyperbole" - a standard poetic practice of exaggerating a statement. The purpose is to express intense emotions, or to make a strong empression upon the reader, and should not be taken literally.
A common American hyperbole is "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse".
David again uses this technique in verse 7:
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Surely David isn't creating a doctrine of cleansing from sin in this statement.
Neither is he making a doctrinal statement of inherited sin nature.
Additionally, 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 also be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that Job and all other men will go back into their mother's womb: "Naked I came from my mothers womb, and naked shall I return there."
Neither Psalm 51:5 nor Job 1:21 should be understood literally. Both texts are figurative expressions. The same rules of interpretation that would permit Psalm 51:5 to teach that little babies are born sinners, if they were also applied to Job 1:21 (or if they were applied to many other passages from the Bible), would permit every kind of perverted and absurd interpretation of the Word of God.
To claim that Psalm 51:5 supports the doctrine of original sin (born sinful, inherited sin nature, etc.) is applying a meaning to the text that it doesn't teach.
It must be presumed true, then select passages must be taken out of context, and then they must be patched together to "prove" the doctrine.
There is only one verse in the entire Bible that comes close to making such a statement: Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
However, Psalm 51 is not making a doctrinal statement of inherited sin that applies to all of humanity.
It is a song of repentance. David is expressing, with strong language, the anguish of his guilt.
Notice the personal pronouns used:
blot out my transgressions
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
cleanse me from my sin
For I know my transgressions
my sin is ever before me
Against you, you only, have I sinned
It is obvious that David is accepting full personal responsibility for his actions. He is not attempting to pass his sin off on a preexisting condition.
Also notice the wording of verse 5
David is utilizing "hyperbole" - a standard poetic practice of exaggerating a statement. The purpose is to express intense emotions, or to make a strong empression upon the reader, and should not be taken literally.
A common American hyperbole is "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse".
David again uses this technique in verse 7:
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Surely David isn't creating a doctrine of cleansing from sin in this statement.
Neither is he making a doctrinal statement of inherited sin nature.
Additionally, 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 also be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that Job and all other men will go back into their mother's womb: "Naked I came from my mothers womb, and naked shall I return there."
Neither Psalm 51:5 nor Job 1:21 should be understood literally. Both texts are figurative expressions. The same rules of interpretation that would permit Psalm 51:5 to teach that little babies are born sinners, if they were also applied to Job 1:21 (or if they were applied to many other passages from the Bible), would permit every kind of perverted and absurd interpretation of the Word of God.
To claim that Psalm 51:5 supports the doctrine of original sin (born sinful, inherited sin nature, etc.) is applying a meaning to the text that it doesn't teach.
Upvote
0
T
Thekla
Guest
How does your interpretation of this verse accord with the testimony of God (re:creation, that creation was good) and the fact that we are created in the image of God ?
Upvote
0
holyrokker
Contributor
- Sep 4, 2004
- 9,390
- 1,750
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
But where does Scripture say that the nature of man changed and became inherently sinful "post-fall"?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jul 6, 2004
- 25,285
- 2,868
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
sin = "to miss the target of perfection"
As if we were aiming an arrow at a target.
Forgive me...
As if we were aiming an arrow at a target.
Forgive me...
Upvote
0
Jeffwhosoever
Faithful Servant & Seminary Student
Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Angels Team
Site Supporter
- Sep 21, 2009
- 28,133
- 3,878
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
1 John 1:8
"If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth."
Romans 3:23
"For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard."
"If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth."
Romans 3:23
"For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard."
Upvote
0
T
Thekla
Guest
We do sin, but is this a matter of choice or a matter of nature (if nature, then it is ineluctable that we will sin and we have no choice in the matter) ?
Of course we all fall short of God - He is uncreated and we are creatures (created). But we were created in the image of God; if for us it is ineluctable to sin, then what of the image of God in us ? If we are created to ineluctably sin, then how is creation "good" ?
Upvote
0
- Apr 5, 2007
- 140,192
- 25,222
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
Creations no longer good. That is why we need a Savior.
God also created this world, and it was good. But we've seen the devastating effects of hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. I wouldn't classify those as good.
Eventually, we will be made perfect. That is to say that we will no longer be able to sin because we will no longer have a desire to sin. And that will be because we will have a new nature.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
T
Thekla
Guest
We need a saviour, indeed !
He Who heals, restores.
Creation does not serve a fallen master -- our fallenness is the origin of the present state of the natural world. Even on a small scale, this can be seen as pollution, and the results of pollution are easier to see.
In Christ we will be restored; our nature is uncovered, restored, healed - not changed.
Upvote
0
