Is everyone born evil?

[holyrokker]

Ephesians 2:2 (ESV)
2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—

Ephesians 2:3 (ESV)
3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Romans 5:13-14
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Here Paul points out that from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, people did no have God's written laws. Their sins were "not counted" (as infractions of the law), they still died. Them dying is proof that God counted people guilty on the basis of Adam's sin.


Romans 5:18-19
18 So then as through one transgression [a]there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Ephesians 2:3
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, [a]indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Several passages lifted out of context. This appears to be more along the lines of creating a dogma, and searching for verses that might be misinterpreted or misapplied in order to "prove" a point.

How about we discuss these passages contextually?

 

[holyrokker]

What about this verse?

Psalm 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

Good verse. Notice that the wicked go astray. It doesn't say that anyone is born wicked. To go astray means to move in a particular direction away from an original course.

What is the original course from which the wicked go astray?

Of course, it's a good idea to find out the context of that verse. What is the topic of Psalm 58? What was the reason it was written?

It also helps to understand the literary style. It's Hebrew poetry. Is that important in understanding the text?

 

[tangled]

Good verse. Notice that the wicked go astray. It doesn't say that anyone is born wicked. To go astray means to move in a particular direction away from an original course.

What is the original course from which the wicked go astray?

Hm...When I read "wayward from the womb," I read "evil from inside of the womb" or "born wayward..." Hm...

 

[holyrokker]

Hm...When I read "wayward from the womb," I read "evil from inside of the womb" or "born wayward..." Hm...

Hmm. "...from the womb they are wayward and speak lies." So they are born speaking?

Is "from the womb" the same as "in the womb"?

Is this poetic terminology, since it's written in a poetic style? Can we interpret poetic imagery in a "literal" sense?

 

[holyrokker]

I have no problem stating there can be sin without act, I was pointing out when making this statement, that someone born in isolation for example, with no outside influences, should be able to live a sinless life and require no salvation.

I understand your point here. I actually do agree that we don't need to be "taught" to sin.

This hasn't and can't happen because of original sin.

I agree that, except for Jesus, this hasn't happened and can't; but not because of "original sin". There's a better, biblical explanation.

What did Jesus mean when He said,"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."?

 

[tangled]

Hmm. "...from the womb they are wayward and speak lies." So they are born speaking?

That's what the verse says to me.
Words are not the only way to communicate/"speak."

Is "from the womb" the same as "in the womb"?

"The baby kicked from the womb" // "The baby kicked in the womb."
To me: yes.

Is this poetic terminology, since it's written in a poetic style? Can we interpret poetic imagery in a "literal" sense?

The verse, to me, coincides with:
Proverbs 16:4 The LORD works out everything for his own ends--even the wicked for a day of disaster.

 

[holyrokker]

That's what the verse says to me.
Words are not the only way to communicate/"speak."

But the verse doesn't say "from the womb they are wayward and communicate lies"
If you want to apply a strict, literal interpretation on the passage, you can't exchange "speak" with "communicate". They aren't they same thing. Speaking is one of several forms of communication.

"Speak" is much more specific in meaning than "communicate".
Babies communicate, but they don't speak.

 

[holyrokker]

"The baby kicked from the womb" // "The baby kicked in the womb."
To me: yes.

Hmm... "from" the womb actually means to be brought forth from
whereas "in" the womb indicates a location: inside of

So they aren't the same in meaning.

Again, if you want a literal interpretation to fit your doctrine, you need to keep things literal.

 

[tangled]

But the verse doesn't say "from the womb they are wayward and communicate lies"
If you want to apply a strict, literal interpretation on the passage, you can't exchange "speak" with "communicate". They aren't they same thing. Speaking is one of several forms of communication.

"Speak" is much more specific in meaning than "communicate".
Babies communicate, but they don't speak.

apparently, some people "speak" with their feet. proverbs 16:3.

 

[tangled]

Hmm... "from" the womb actually means to be brought forth from
whereas "in" the womb indicates a location: inside of

So they aren't the same in meaning.

Again, if you want a literal interpretation to fit your doctrine, you need to keep things literal.

You're allowed to believe what you want to believe.
I stand the psalms verse coinciding with proverbs 16:4...

 

[holyrokker]

You're allowed to believe what you want to believe.
I stand that the psalms verse coincides with proverbs 16:4

Most people do make up whatever they choose to believe. But we don't have the freedom to just believe anything we want, and claim that it is biblical.

By the way, Proverbs 16:3 mentions additional forms of communication: none of which are forms of speaking

You say that you "stand the psalms verse coincides with proverbs 16:4" but on what basis do you make that claim, and how are they related?

You are correct in noticing a corrolation: they both refer to the "wicked".

 

[tangled]

But we don't have the freedom to just believe anything we want, and claim that it is biblical.

I agree...

Proverbs 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

"allowed" is different than "freedom..."

By the way, Proverbs 16:3 mentions additional forms of communication: none of which are forms of speaking

k...

You say that you "stand the psalms verse coincides with proverbs 16:4" but on what basis do you make that claim, and how are they related

On the basis that they are and they're related because they are. I've already explained it...

 

[holyrokker]

On the basis that they are and they're related because they are. I've already explained it...

I guess I missed that.

 

[tangled]

everything will be alright...

 

[rogueapologist]

Above, you claimed a person isn't born in union with God, here you claim why would a person need salvation if they were never separated?

I never claimed that a person isn't born in union with God. I was merely asking a question about the why the "default" of being born without sin is being born in union with God.

If someone was born sinless it would be something within their ability to never be separated from God (sin).

That doesn't make any sense. If Adam had never falled, would it have been upon his merits that he persisted in union with God? Obviously not.

Someone could keep themselves in unity with God hence never needing a savior this means Christ's salvation is only a secondary act following peoples inability to live in God's laws, not a necessity for every human from birth.

Again, you have no basis for claiming this. You assume a false dichotomy of "grace" vs. "effort" without even trying to define the propriety of them in this discussion.

You have yet to produce any evidence for your view.

Well, then I am in good company with you

The only reason we need a savior is because the outside influence of the world will force us to "depart from good?" what a limited understanding of redemption.

Well, you think it's limited because of your skewed thinking, but this is the message of the Gospel. Christ came to return humanity to knowledge of God whereby they might be reconciled to God (this is the message from Genesis to Revelation, and is the story of the Church ever since). If you disagree, that's fine, but you are outside the stream of historical Christian thinking.

"Sinfulness is rebelión against God, and it is unrightousness. Sinfulness is what forces each of us to deserve the judgment of a righteous God who can't defy His own Character. Every person alive deserves his judgement there is none righteous, not none before they commit departure from good, but none.

Romans 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

For all of this, you have yet to show that "all of the unrighteous" are that way because of their biological inheritance. There are sufficient other explanations for how all humans rebel against God without having to assume the spurious notion of the biological heritability of sinfulness.

This is a blatant straw-man, first Christ never had any biological offspring.

This has nothing to do with the issue. If we assume that Adam was not an historical figure, but rather a literary figurehead, we still need an answer. Because your position rests exclusively on biological heredity, a scenario in which Adam is not a real figure dismantles your case without firing a shot. A more robust theology should be able to withstand such a suggestion, and mine is perfectly capable of doing so.

Second, The father is just, Christ atoning for us on the cross was the only way for us to be redeemed from our fallen state. God can't defy his own righteousness, he needs payment for our sin, Christ was the only one who could make that payment.

This is not a necessary conclusion. God's justice proceeds from the very acts of God; therefore, God is justified perfectly in doing whatever God is pleased to do. If God "demands" payment for sins, God is just. And if God "let's everything go," God is equally just.

Moreover, you are placing the problem of atonement in the wrong place. Humans don't need atonement because God needs to buy himself off, or find a way of being angry about human sin. The problem of atonement is not God. The problem of atonement is that humanity is broken, is disconnected from God, and is enslaved cyclically to the powers of sin and death. Humanity needs a rescue, and it is this rescue which God has provided in the person and work of Christ, who has crushed the powers of sin and death and has led the way to a new life in the renewal of the knowledge and image of God within humanity.

 

[Bouke285]

Several passages lifted out of context. This appears to be more along the lines of creating a dogma, and searching for verses that might be misinterpreted or misapplied in order to "prove" a point.

How about we discuss these passages contextually?

Alright, you asked so here we go:

Ephesians 2 (ESV)
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins. 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—

Subject: To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus
I quoted this verse to illustrate that one, before trusting in Christ, is dead in sin. Notice this was written to the faithful in Christ, describing how they were before becoming faithful in Christ.

Ephesians 2:3 (ESV)
3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

This verse, written to the same group as that above, shows us that by nature we are children of wrath, even as the rest (unbelieving). At what point do we not have our sinful nature? in the womb?

Romans 5:13-14
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Here Paul points out that from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, people did no have God's written laws. Their sins were "not counted" (as infractions of the law), they still died. Them dying is proof that God counted people guilty on the basis of Adam's sin. I don't see how you claim this was lifted from context as I explain the context. Unless you forgot to remove this passage from your quote. Or just assumed we would know which verses you were claiming to be lifted from context.

There is a difference between exegeses and ignoring context. Exegeses is interpreting the multi-thousand year old scripture to the truth it contains today. APplying that truth to an issue it directly, or indirectly illuminates. If we aren't allowed to practice exegesis, there is no purpose in studying scripture.

Romans 5:18-19
18 So then as through one transgression [a]there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Romans 5:6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

This means that Christ didn't die for infants, or for the unborn. Following your theology, one must exclude those who haven't sinned from the grace of Christ. How do you explain this?

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men(anthropos i.e. human), because all sinned-- 15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one [Adam] the many [humanity] died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

By the transgression of the one man the many died. At what point in ones life are they included in "the many"? After they sin? then how was it that by the transgressions of one they died if it was by their own transgressions? Indirectly through the fallen world, which directly seeded from Adam's sin?

How do you answer these questions?

If you claim I have bad hermeneutic, please enlighten me. That's definitely not something I want as part of my theology.

 

[Bouke285]

I never claimed that a person isn't born in union with God. I was merely asking a question about the why the "default" of being born without sin is being born in union with God.

Sin is death which is separation from God, what else could the default be? A suspended state of being justified, but at the same time imminent threat of becoming unjustified before God?

That doesn't make any sense. If Adam had never falled, would it have been upon his merits that he persisted in union with God? Obviously not.

If Adam had never fallen it would have been because of lack of external influence. He wouldn't have desired to sin.

Again, you have no basis for claiming this. You assume a false dichotomy of "grace" vs. "effort" without even trying to define the propriety of them in this discussion.

Grace love that stoops.

Effort trying to earn love.

False dichotomy? Salvation is not in us, so no man can boast. Nothing in us can justify us, nothing we do can earn us right standing before God.

Well, then I am in good company with you

You have yet to quote scripture, even scripture out of context is better than none. At least it gives us something to work with.

Well, you think it's limited because of your skewed thinking, but this is the message of the Gospel. Christ came to return humanity to knowledge of God whereby they might be reconciled to God (this is the message from Genesis to Revelation, and is the story of the Church ever since). If you disagree, that's fine, but you are outside the stream of historical Christian thinking.

I challenge this claim. Go read the history of the doctrine of original sin. Many of the early Church fathers articulated this belief. Of course you are going to have those on both sides of the issue, but it was so present in Church history that Roman Catholicism still holds to it today.

For all of this, you have yet to show that "all of the unrighteous" are that way because of their biological inheritance. There are sufficient other explanations for how all humans rebel against God without having to assume the spurious notion of the biological heritability of sinfulness.

It isn't only biological, it is all humanity shared in the sin of Adam and all of humanity is responsible in that sin.

This has nothing to do with the issue. If we assume that Adam was not an historical figure, but rather a literary figurehead, we still need an answer. Because your position rests exclusively on biological heredity, a scenario in which Adam is not a real figure dismantles your case without firing a shot. A more robust theology should be able to withstand such a suggestion, and mine is perfectly capable of doing so.

If the fall of Adam is an objective truth we have no need to give an answer based on some hypothetical literary figurehead. If you assume Adam wasn't a historical figure you have a liberal view of scripture and there is no point in discussing this issue.

This is not a necessary conclusion. God's justice proceeds from the very acts of God; therefore, God is justified perfectly in doing whatever God is pleased to do. If God "demands" payment for sins, God is just. And if God "let's everything go," God is equally just.

God is righteous. God can't forsake his character. God CANNOT forgive with no means or basis for forgiveness. He can only forgive when he has payment for the transgression. Otherwise, he would be forsaking his very nature. Otherwise he had no reason to send His Son to be sacrificed to satisfy his just judgement.

Moreover, you are placing the problem of atonement in the wrong place. Humans don't need atonement because God needs to buy himself off, or find a way of being angry about human sin. The problem of atonement is not God. The problem of atonement is that humanity is broken, is disconnected from God, and is enslaved cyclically to the powers of sin and death. Humanity needs a rescue, and it is this rescue which God has provided in the person and work of Christ, who has crushed the powers of sin and death and has led the way to a new life in the renewal of the knowledge and image of God within humanity.

A rescue from who? Sin has no conscious power. Who condemns the sinful to Hell? It isn't atonement to the natural order that God created. It is atonement to God the Father. It is appeasing his righteousness. The death of Christ-incarnat was the ONLY way for our salvation to take place. Illustrated in the garden when Jesus said if there is another way take this cup from me. Would not the Father have answered the cry of his beloved Son if there were another way?

 

[rogueapologist]

If Adam had never fallen it would have been because of lack of external influence. He wouldn't have desired to sin.

Ok, so what would the difference be for someone today if they do not biologically inherit sin? Why would their salvation be by their own effort?

I challenge this claim. Go read the history of the doctrine of original sin. Many of the early Church fathers articulated this belief. Of course you are going to have those on both sides of the issue, but it was so present in Church history that Roman Catholicism still holds to it today.

You misquoted me. My statement about the "stream of historical Christian thinking" was not about the doctrine of original sin (I understand perfectly that this is a theological point going very far back in Christian history). My statement was in regards to my articulation of "redemption" (which you call limited) and its deep correlation to thinking across the centuries.

It isn't only biological, it is all humanity shared in the sin of Adam and all of humanity is responsible in that sin.

So what else is it, then?

If we assume Adam wasn't a historical figure you have a liberal view of scripture and there is no point in discussing this issue.

Why? That seems to be a very narrow-minded perspective. Why is a "non-liberal" (however that is defined...by you, I suppose...) worth discussing?

God is righteous. God can't forsake his character. God CANNOT forgive with no means or basis for forgiveness. He can only forgive when he has payment for the transgression.

Prove this philosophically. God is perfectly free to do whatever God pleases. Moreover, that which is commensurate with God's character is not--as you are suggesting--OUTSIDE of God, but rather is defined precisely by that which God does. So again, if God forgives freely without "payment" (however this is defined), God is perfectly just is doing so. If God demands a payment that is unpayable, God is equally just. In either scenario, God is perfectly just, for divine "justice" is not a standard to which God must aspire, but is rather defined precisely on the basis of what it is that God is and what it is that God does.

Otherwise, he would be forsaking his very nature.

God cannot forsake the divine nature, for whatever God does is precisely what the divine nature is! There is no conceivable act which could possibly bring about this end, for the very reality of God doing X would indicate that X is precisely commensurate with the divine nature. So this tactic will not work; it's a clever canard, but philosophically vacuous.

Otherwise he had no reason to send His Son to be sacrificed to satisfy his just judgement.

Agreed. So obviously, this was not the reason that God sent Christ, and the Scriptures describe perfectly that this, in fact, is the case. Christ came not to fix something in God that would enable God to forgive humanity; rather, Christ's coming to rescue humanity from sin and death signals PRECISELY that God has already forgiven. God's perfect and total forgiveness of humanity precedes the rescue, and is in fact the impetus for the same.

A rescue from who?

Hebrews 2:14-15. Christ came to rescue humanity from the powers of sin and death.

It is atonement to God the Father. It is appeasing his righteousness.

This is nonsense. God doesn't need to be appeased! Christ didn't come to buy off a childish, spiteful God. Christ came because God wanted to restore humanity to communion with God, to rescue humanity from the chains of the power of sin and death.

Would not the Father have answered the cry of his beloved Son if there were another way?

In your vision of God, I hardly see why God would care about the cries of his beloved Son. If this God is so childish and spiteful that he must be bought off in order to be compelled--yes, compelled!--to forgive...well, I can hardly imagine a more terrible monster.

 

[Bouke285]

Ok, so what would the difference be for someone today if they do not biologically inherit sin? Why would their salvation be by their own effort?



You misquoted me. My statement about the "stream of historical Christian thinking" was not about the doctrine of original sin (I understand perfectly that this is a theological point going very far back in Christian history). My statement was in regards to my articulation of "redemption" (which you call limited) and its deep correlation to thinking across the centuries.



So what else is it, then?



Why? That seems to be a very narrow-minded perspective. Why is a "non-liberal" (however that is defined...by you, I suppose...) worth discussing?



Prove this philosophically. God is perfectly free to do whatever God pleases. Moreover, that which is commensurate with God's character is not--as you are suggesting--OUTSIDE of God, but rather is defined precisely by that which God does. So again, if God forgives freely without "payment" (however this is defined), God is perfectly just is doing so. If God demands a payment that is unpayable, God is equally just. In either scenario, God is perfectly just, for divine "justice" is not a standard to which God must aspire, but is rather defined precisely on the basis of what it is that God is and what it is that God does.



God cannot forsake the divine nature, for whatever God does is precisely what the divine nature is! There is no conceivable act which could possibly bring about this end, for the very reality of God doing X would indicate that X is precisely commensurate with the divine nature. So this tactic will not work; it's a clever canard, but philosophically vacuous.



Agreed. So obviously, this was not the reason that God sent Christ, and the Scriptures describe perfectly that this, in fact, is the case. Christ came not to fix something in God that would enable God to forgive humanity; rather, Christ's coming to rescue humanity from sin and death signals PRECISELY that God has already forgiven. God's perfect and total forgiveness of humanity precedes the rescue, and is in fact the impetus for the same.



Hebrews 2:14-15. Christ came to rescue humanity from the powers of sin and death.



This is nonsense. God doesn't need to be appeased! Christ didn't come to buy off a childish, spiteful God. Christ came because God wanted to restore humanity to communion with God, to rescue humanity from the chains of the power of sin and death.



In your vision of God, I hardly see why God would care about the cries of his beloved Son. If this God is so childish and spiteful that he must be bought off in order to be compelled--yes, compelled!--to forgive...well, I can hardly imagine a more terrible monster.

God can't change. God can't lie. God can't go against his eternal nature, he doesn't author it as he moves within our time stream. In his eternal nature he is righteous. In our state we deserve nothing but judgement. Childish? Would you call a judge handing out a just sentence for proven commitment of a wrong doing childish? How much more are our iniquities.

Your theology places a stumbling block in God's way. Sin, something with tangible power against God, not as an act of our disobedience. Your view is very similar if not directly derived from the "Ransom from Satan" soteriology.

Hebrews 2: 14-15 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

He had to be made like His brethren in ALL things. This is why He, and only He, is qualified to be our redeemer. He doesn't save us from sin, but he saves us from judgement for that sin. Sin has no power over God, it is only by His ETERNAL nature that he requires payment for our sin. Only in Christ-incarnate could that payment be made. Not to the natural order of sin, but to Him who justly judges our sin. Him who you would call childish. The scripture you summarized, and I quoted is referring to freedom from fear of sin. We are no longer bound by the fear that sin will bring death, but we are now to live joyfully in His grace.

 

[rogueapologist]

God can't change. God can't lie.

True, but these are somewhat tautalogical concepts. God can't lie, not because God is incapable of lying, but because that which God says/does is de facto truth.

Childish? Would you call a judge handing out a just sentence for proven commitment of a wrong doing childish? How much more are our iniquities.

What is childish is a version of God in which God is incapable of forgiving humanity without first being pacified by an arbitrary gift of atonement. If God is truly God, then God is perfectly free and capable to do as God pleases without particular requisites first being satisfied. In your vision, God is enslaved to something which is fundamentally external to God, and is impotent to act as God would please without these external dependencies first being satisfied.

Or, on a worse level, God is simply unwilling. If so, we do not have a vision of God in which forgiveness is offered as a gift of love, but is rather ripped rather forcefully from the hands of a God who is otherwise unwilling to forgive.

Your theology places a stumbling block in God's way.

To the contrary, my theology lets God be God, free to be and act as that which God is. Yours is the theology that binds God, rendering the divine impotent to act apart from the arbitrary requirements you create.

Sin, something with tangible power against God, not as an act of our disobedience. Your view is very similar if not directly derived from the "Ransom from Satan" soteriology.

Actually, mine is more of a Christus Victor model, but I'd take the ransom theory any day over modern inventions of Protestant thinking.

It is only by His ETERNAL nature that he requires payment for our sin.

If this is so, I'm fine with that. However, the only requirement is based in divine pleasure, not something to which God is bound. If God requires payment for sin, it is only because God desires payment, not because God "must" have it. So if God desires payment for sin, that's fine...I find it hard to reconcile, however, with the idea that God concomitantly desires to forgive our sins. If the latter were so, why would God also desire the punishment of the same?