Original Sin, I was wrong.

[OzSpen]

Assyrian,

Where does the bible say we inherited Adam's sinful nature?

All people, including children, sin because they are born sinners. From where did this propensity to sin come (let’s call it our sinful nature)? The only human beings who ever sinned without a sinful nature were our first parents, Adam and Eve.

Let’s examine a few Scriptures:

Psalm 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (NIV). Psalm 58:3 further emphasises, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies”. So, the Scripture teaches that all human beings are sinful from conception. But where did this sin come from?

Eph. 2:1-3 gives us a further NT picture:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.

Note the emphasis that we are “by nature” children of wrath. So, by nature we are all sinners who sin and are deserving of God’s wrath. But, from where did this “nature” deserving of wrath come? This sinful nature is what all people inherit at conception (Psalm 51:5).

Romans 5:12-14 clarifies:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
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.

So, from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, there were no written laws from God for people to violate, yet they still died. This is excellent proof that God counted people guilty on the basis of Adam’s sin. There were consequences – death – because of Adam’s sin.

But God counted all human beings as guilty because of Adam’s sin, is seen in Rom. 5:18-19,

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

“Were made” is the aorist indicative verb, kathestatesan, which means that action was completed in the past. When Adam sinned, God regarded all who were descended from Adam as sinners. We were made so because of Adam's sin in the past. And Eph. 2:3 confirms that it happens for human beings “by nature”.

Rom. 5:8 states, “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us”. So, all human beings from the time of Adam forward are regarded as sinners “by nature” (Eph. 2:3). Therefore, we are justified that, from God’s perspective, the whole human race as a unity descended from Adam as the head.

These are the steps:

1. According to Psalm 51:3; 58:3 (see also Gen. 5:3), all human beings have inherited sin. They are sinners by nature from conception.
2. All human beings are sinners by imputation. According to Rom. 5:12-19. Adam’s sin is imputed to all human beings, just as Christ’s righteousness is imputed to all who believe in Christ.
3. All people commit personal sin because they are sinful by nature. Rom. 3:23 confirms this, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.

Oz

 

[Catherineanne]

A person could lead a completely righteous life according to the law, yet still be sinful. This is because sin is not the act, but the purpose of heart.

I disagree. Sin is indeed an act, and malign intent is a sinful act. Having a malignant purpose of heart is sin under the law, therefore there it is incompatible with a righteous life.

A person who truly leads a righteous life is not sinful. He or she retains the potential to sin, but has nothing to repent. Being subject to temptation is not a sin; succumbing to temptation is.

 

[holyrokker]

Assyrian,
All people, including children, sin because they are born sinners. From where did this propensity to sin come (let’s call it our sinful nature)? The only human beings who ever sinned without a sinful nature were our first parents, Adam and Eve.

Let’s examine a few Scriptures:

Psalm 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (NIV). Psalm 58:3 further emphasises, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies”. So, the Scripture teaches that all human beings are sinful from conception. But where did this sin come from?

Yes - We should examine what Scripture says.

Psalm 51:5 is NOT teaching that all of mankind is born in sin.

Psalm 51 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 responsibility for his actions. He is not attempting to pass his sin off on a pre-existing condition.

Also notice the wording of verse 5

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

This is not a doctrinal statement of inherited sin. It doesn't even imply that David himself inherited a sin nature.

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 hybole is "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse".


When I have time later, I'll address your other points.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian,
All people, including children, sin because they are born sinners. From where did this propensity to sin come (let’s call it our sinful nature)? The only human beings who ever sinned without a sinful nature were our first parents, Adam and Eve.

Let’s examine a few Scriptures:

Psalm 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (NIV). Psalm 58:3 further emphasises, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies”. So, the Scripture teaches that all human beings are sinful from conception. But where did this sin come from?

I think Psalm 58 is a very good example of the sort of hyperbole Hebrew writers love. These people were born able to talk? Seriously? No, this is not meant any more literally than Jesus description of the Pharisees swallowing camels. If you read the rest of the psalm, David isn't even describing the whole human race when he talk of the wicked, they are a particular group, the ones who opposed David every step of the way, in contrast to the wicked, we also have 'the righteous' who rejoice at God's vindication verse 10, and the rest of mankind looking on and seeing how God rewards righteousness and judges evil verse 11.

Psalm 58:10 The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 Mankind will say, "Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a God who judges on earth."

Not wild about the NIV translation of Psalm 51:5 Here is how the ESV puts it: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. First thing to point out is that David is talking about himself there, not the whole human race. Of course there is a place for taking the confession of men of God in the bible and applying it to the rest of us too, but you need to be sure it applies first. If you already believe in Original Sin it is easy to think this verse applies to us all, but that is something we need to establish first. So the question is, why would David say such a thing about himself? It could be hyperbole as holyrokker suggests. My take on it is that it ties in with that passage where Samuel anointed David. Remember Samuel invited Jesse and his sons to a sacrifice. But Samuel only brought seven of them, he left David out in the fields with the sheep. Why didn't Jesse do what Samuel said and bring all his sons? Did he have a reason to keep David hidden? It would make sense if David really was conceived in iniquity.

Eph. 2:1-3 gives us a further NT picture:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.​

Note the emphasis that we are “by nature” children of wrath. So, by nature we are all sinners who sin and are deserving of God’s wrath. But, from where did this “nature” deserving of wrath come? This sinful nature is what all people inherit at conception (Psalm 51:5).

Notice how Paul say they were dead in the trespasses and sins in which they used to live (or walk), not that they were dead in a transgression committed thousands of years before they were born. Paul is repeating the biblical teaching that people's own sin bring death. So, what was their nature Paul was talking about? Being dead in the sins they walked in. Paul uses the past tense to describe their nature, because God has changed it, from being dead in trespasses to being alive in Christ. Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ.

Romans 5:12-14 clarifies:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
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.​

So, from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, there were no written laws from God for people to violate, yet they still died. This is excellent proof that God counted people guilty on the basis of Adam’s sin. There were consequences – death – because of Adam’s sin.

Paul is quite actually clear why dead spread to all mankind, he doesn't say it is because Adam sinned, but because they all sinned too verse 12 and so death spread to all men because all sinned. Paul had already explain how Gentiles without the law were held accountable for their actions.
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Death spread to all men, because even though not everyone has the Law of Moses, all have a conscience and have done what they know is wrong, all have sinned.

But God counted all human beings as guilty because of Adam’s sin, is seen in Rom. 5:18-19,

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.​

“Were made” is the aorist indicative verb, kathestatesan, which means that action was completed in the past. When Adam sinned, God regarded all who were descended from Adam as sinners. We were made so because of Adam's sin in the past. And Eph. 2:3 confirms that it happens for human beings “by nature”.

I think the problem here is not the tense of the verb but the verb itself. It does not mean to make you something different like transform you into a frog, that would be the verb poieo. kathistēmi is different it means appoint someone to a roll, declare them to be a steward or a governor, an elder or a high priest. It is not changing the person, but changing their official position. Another meaning if the verb is to drag someone before magistrates. Adam's condemnation as a sinner condemns us too because we do the same thing. Imagine Joe Bloggs is charged with copyright piracy for recording a TV program to watch later. Ridiculous, we all do it, there is nothing wrong with it. But think what it means if Joe is convicted, it makes us copyright pirates too.

Rom. 5:8 states, “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us”. So, all human beings from the time of Adam forward are regarded as sinners “by nature” (Eph. 2:3). Therefore, we are justified that, from God’s perspective, the whole human race as a unity descended from Adam as the head.

I think you are reading too much into that, Paul is talking about Christ's amazing love to die for sinners, not describing how we got that way.

These are the steps:

1. According to Psalm 51:3; 58:3 (see also Gen. 5:3), all human beings have inherited sin. They are sinners by nature from conception.
2. All human beings are sinners by imputation. According to Rom. 5:12-19. Adam’s sin is imputed to all human beings, just as Christ’s righteousness is imputed to all who believe in Christ.
3. All people commit personal sin because they are sinful by nature. Rom. 3:23 confirms this, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.

Oz

Romans 3:23 doesn't say anything about sinning because we are sinful by nature, but states that we fall short of the glory of God because of our own sin.

 

[OzSpen]

holyrokker,

Psalm 51:5 is NOT teaching that all of mankind is born in sin.

Psalm 51 is a song of repentance. David is expressing, with strong language, the anguish of his guilt.

Major commentaries on the Book of Psalms do not agree with you.

W. S. Plummer (Psalms, Banner of Truth Trust, 1867) is a massive 1211 page exegetical and expositional commentary on the Psalms. His comments on Ps 51:5 are:

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity: and in sin did my mother conceive me. That the doctrine of original and universal depravity was taught from the first is clear from Gev. v.3; vi. 5; viii. 21; Job xiv. 4; xv. 14; xxv. 4. That David embraced it is clear from his writings v. 5; Ps lviii. 3. David is not excusing but condemning himself. Ther eis no blot on the character of his father Jesse. By the Holy Ghost he twice informs us of the piety of his mother, Ps. lxxxvi. 16; cxvi. 16. To say that David is here merely publishing the sins of one or both of his parents is trifling with sacred things. Even the Council of Trent, Bellarmine and Boussuet maintain the doctrine of hereditary depravity.... Calvin: "David here refers to original sin with the view of aggravating his guilt, acknowledging that he had not contracted this or that sin for the first time lately, but had been born into the world with the seed of every iniquity" (p. 557).

H. C. Leupold's commentary, Exposition of Psalms (London: Evangelical Press, 1959) provides this insight into Psalm 51:5:

After the total vindication of God there follows a statement of the total indictment of man. Or it may be thought of as explaining to some extend why man does such things as he, the writer, did. Not, indeed, in the sense of minimizing his guilt, or in the sense of claiming for himself a kind of unfortunate determinism which victimized him. The statement, "Lo, I was brought forth in iniquity," is a classic formulation of what we commonly designate as the doctrine of original sin. In effect, it says, How can I or any other man do anything other than sin, seeing that from the very moment of the origin of our life the taint of sin is upon us? Mark, this is not spoken by way of excuse or palliation of his grievous misdeed but by way of a matter of fact explanation.
The same holds true of the parallel statement: "And in sin did my mother conceive me." The writer does not intend to blame his mother for his sinful state. It never entered his mind to express a thought such as: the very act that led to my conception was a sin. The psalmist is rather, merely indicating that he is in that common stream of mankind where all, from the moment of birth, are sinners. Or to reformulate the thought, the writer is bewailing his own sinfulness, not that of his parents. The mother happens to be mentioned instead of the parents because of her obviously more prominent part in the matter of birth. This statement is in line with other classic utterances of the Old Testament such as: Gen. 8:21; Job 14:4; 15:14; 25:4 (pp. 402-403).

In Keil & Delitzsch's exegetical commentary, Commentary on the Old Testament: Psalms (vol. 5; Eerdmans n.d.), Psalm 51:5 is recorded as 51:7 and these are the exegetical comments:

David here confesses his hereditary sin as the root of his actual sin. The declaration moves backwards from his birth to conception, it consequently penetrates even to the most remote point of life's beginning.... The meaning is merely, that his parents were sinful human beings, and that this sinful state (habitus) has operated upon his birth and even his conception, and from this point has passed over to him. What is thereby expressed is not so much any self-exculpation, as on the contrary a self-accusation which glances back to the ultimate ground of natural corruption. He is sinful (lviii. 4, Gen. viii. 21), an unclean one springing from an unclean (Job xiv. 4) flesh born of flesh. That man from his first beginning onwards, and that this beginning itself, is tainted with sin; that the proneness to sin with its guilt and its corruption is propagated from parents to their children.... Therefore the fact of hereditary sin is here more distinctly expressed than in any other passage in the Old Testament (pp. 136-137).

These major commentaries on the Book of Psalms confirm the orthodox doctrine that Psalm 51:5 refers to original sin, inherited from Adam.

Regards, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Assyrian,

I have provided quotes from major commentaries to confirm that Psalm 51:5 refers to original sin. I'll let you take a read.

Romans 5:12 is very clear:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man.

Ephesians 2:3 is clear on the depth to which that affected all of us:

we were by nature deserving of wrath.

Why don't you want to acknowledge the doctrine of original/inherited sin from Adam?

You wrote:

Not wild about the NIV translation of Psalm 51:5 Here is how the ESV puts it: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. First thing to point out is that David is talking about himself there, not the whole human race.

I provided a much broader exposition than Ps. 51:5. Why have you ignored the other passages that I used including Eph. 2:3,

we were by nature deserving of wrath?

Oz

 

[holyrokker]

holyrokker,

Major commentaries on the Book of Psalms do not agree with you.

W. S. Plummer (Psalms, Banner of Truth Trust, 1867) is a massive 1211 page exegetical and expositional commentary on the Psalms. His comments on Ps 51:5 are:

H. C. Leupold's commentary, Exposition of Psalms (London: Evangelical Press, 1959) provides this insight into Psalm 51:5:

In Keil & Delitzsch's exegetical commentary, Commentary on the Old Testament: Psalms (vol. 5; Eerdmans n.d.), Psalm 51:5 is recorded as 51:7 and these are the exegetical comments:

These major commentaries on the Book of Psalms confirm the orthodox doctrine that Psalm 51:5 refers to original sin, inherited from Adam.

Regards, Oz

These commentaries "confirm" a presupposed doctrine.

None of them explain how the doctrine is derived from the text. Rather they use assumptive language to infer the doctrine.

 

[OzSpen]

holyrokker

These commentaries "confirm" a presupposed doctrine.

None of them explain how the doctrine is derived from the text. Rather they use assumptive language to infer the doctrine.

All of these commentators, Plummer, Leupold, Keil & Delitzsch are Hebrew exegetes. They have provided exegesis of Psalm 51:5 and you don't like what they say, so you brush it off as "presupposed doctrine".

Could it ever have entered your thinking that your teaching is "presupposed doctrine"?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Assyrian,

Of Rom. 5:19 you wrote:

I think the problem here is not the tense of the verb but the verb itself. It does not mean to make you something different like transform you into a frog, that would be the verb poieo. kathistēmi is different it means appoint someone to a roll, declare them to be a steward or a governor, an elder or a high priest. It is not changing the person, but changing their official position. Another meaning if the verb is to drag someone before magistrates. Adam's condemnation as a sinner condemns us too because we do the same thing. Imagine Joe Bloggs is charged with copyright piracy for recording a TV program to watch later. Ridiculous, we all do it, there is nothing wrong with it. But think what it means if Joe is convicted, it makes us copyright pirates too.

These Greek exegetes conclude differently to you.

Romans 5:19 uses the first aorist, passive indicative of the verb, kathistēmi, which Greek scholar, Dr. A. T. Robertson, states is an "old verb, to set down, to render, to constitute" (Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 4, p. 360).

Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon gives the meaning of kathistēmi in relation to Rom. 5:19 as "make, cause (someone to become something)…passive, be made, become" (p. 391).

In Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, kathistēmi has the 'basic sense "to set down," "to put in place," and when applied to Rom. 5:19, he states that it is 'theologically the most important verse'. 'This does not imply that the forensic element is absent' and 'show that in Paul poiein and ginesthai do not necessarily bear an effective sense; is evident at v. 18. They may have an affective. The context decides' (vol. 3, p. 445).


Oz

 

[holyrokker]

That the doctrine of original and universal depravity was taught from the first is clear from Gev. v.3; vi. 5; viii. 21; Job xiv. 4; xv. 14; xxv. 4. That David embraced it is clear from his writings v. 5; Ps lviii. 3

This is assumptive. None of the references clearly states the supposition. This commentator begins with the assumption of the doctrine, and places the inference on the passage in Ps 51.
That is not exegetical commentary.

 

[holyrokker]

Charles Hodge disagreed with the earlier mentioned scholars:

"kathistemi never, in the New Testament, means to make, in the sense of effecting, or causing a person or thing, to be in its character or nature other than it was before. kathistenai tina hamartolon does not mean to make one sinful, but to set him down as such, to regard or appoint him to be of that class."

Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886, 1980), p. 173.
​

 

[OzSpen]

holyrokker,

This is assumptive. None of the references clearly states the supposition. This commentator begins with the assumption of the doctrine, and places the inference on the passage in Ps 51.
That is not exegetical commentary.

This again demonstrates how your presuppositions are being imposed on Plummer's commentary. Plummer referred to Ps. 5:5; 58:3. You have not demonstrated from your post that you have shown knowledge of Plummer's commentary on Ps. 5:5; 58:3.

Based on what you have stated, I cannot believe that you are able to come to Plummer's commentary and hear what he has stated. Your presuppositions are clouding your conclusions.

If this is how you approach the Scripture and a substantial commentary, I will not engage with you further.

Oz

 

[holyrokker]

holyrokker,

This again demonstrates how your presuppositions are being imposed on Plummer's commentary. Plummer referred to Ps. 5:5; 58:3. You have not demonstrated from your post that you have shown knowledge of Plummer's commentary on Ps. 5:5; 58:3.

Based on what you have stated, I cannot believe that you are able to come to Plummer's commentary and hear what he has stated. Your presuppositions are clouding your conclusions.

Yes, he "referred" to Ps 5:5 and Ps 58:3, but he didn't make a case (from what you quoted above) from these passages for the doctrine. He stated

That the doctrine of original and universal depravity was taught from the first is clear from Gev. v.3; vi. 5; viii. 21; Job xiv. 4; xv. 14; xxv. 4. That David embraced it is clear from his writings v. 5; Ps lviii. 3.

How is the doctrine "clear"? There is no case made in his statement that demonstrates his assumption.

If this is how you approach the Scripture and a substantial commentary, I will not engage with you further.

I'm simply asking for the case to be made, not assumed.

 

[OzSpen]

holyrokker,

Charles Hodge disagreed with the earlier mentioned scholars:

"kathistemi never, in the New Testament, means to make, in the sense of effecting, or causing a person or thing, to be in its character or nature other than it was before. kathistenai tina hamartolon does not mean to make one sinful, but to set him down as such, to regard or appoint him to be of that class."

Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886, 1980), p. 173.
​

You cannot use this passage to assert that Charles Hodge did not believe in the orthodox doctrine of original sin. In his Systematic Theology (vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1979 reprint) he states of Psalm 51:5,

The Psalmist also directly asserts this doctrine [original sin] when he says (Ps. li. 5), "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." In the preceding verses he had confessed his actual sins; he here humbles himself still more completely before God by acknowledging his innate, hereditary depravity; a depravity which he did not regard as a mere weakness, or inclination to evil, but which he pronounces iniquity and sin. To this inherent, hereditary corruption he refers in the subsequent parts of the Psalm as his chief burden from which he most earnestly desired to be delivered (pp. 241-242).

Douglas Moo in his commentary on Romans (New International Commentary of the New Testament: The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans 1996) acknowledges that of the verb "were made" of Rom. 5:19

Debate surrounds the exact meaning of the verb Paul uses here. Some argue that it means nothing more than "make." But this translation misses the forensic flavor of the word. It often means "appoint," and probably refers here to the fact that people are "inaugurated into" the state of sin/righteousness [at this point Moo gives the footnote that "the verb is kathistemi. In the NT, it means 'bring, conduct' (Acts 17:15), "appoint" (seven times in the Gospels; four times in Acts; three times in Hebrews; Tit. 1:5) or "make," "constitute" (Jas. 3:6; 4:4; 2 Pet. 1:8). On the legal connotations of the verb, see MM. Some commentators (e.g. Zahn; Hodge; Shedd) may go too far in stressing the forensic force of the word to the neglect of the actual state of affairs iit seems always to suggest]. Paul is insisting that people were really "made" sinners through Adam's act of disobedience just as they are relly "made righteous" through Christ's obedience. This "making righteous," however, must be interpreted in the light of Paul's typical forensic categories. To be "righteous" does not mean to be morally upright,, but to be judged acquitted, cleared of all charges, in the heavenly judgment (p. 345).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I'm simply asking for the case to be made, not assumed.

However, you seem to be awfully resistant to this doctrine of original sin. I've been trying to make the exegetical case for this orthodox doctrine.

Why are you opposing it?

Oz

 

[holyrokker]

holyrokker,

You cannot use this passage to assert that Charles Hodge did not believe in the orthodox doctrine of original sin. In his Systematic Theology (vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1979 reprint) he states of Psalm 51:5,

I know what Hodge taught on the topic. I cited him on this particular topic because you claimed some other "authority" to "prove" the point that we are "made" sinners (according to Romans 5:19).

You stated

These Greek exegetes conclude differently to you.

It was a poor attempt on my part to demonstrate that your argumentum ad verecundiam falls short of making your case.

you seem to be awfully resistant to this doctrine of original sin. I've been trying to make the exegetical case for this orthodox doctrine.

I'm not merely "resistant" to the doctrine; I find it contrary to the teaching of Scripture regarding sin, contrary to God's character, contrary to logic.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not merely "resistant" to the doctrine; I find it contrary to the teaching of Scripture regarding sin, contrary to God's character, contrary to logic.

The orthodox teaching on original sin is no more contrary to humanistic logic than:

• God's creation ex nihilo;
• The vicarious atonement of the death of the sinless Jesus Christ;
• Jesus Christ's propitiation for the sins of the world, and
• The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

That's why we need divine revelation and God has given it to us in the Scriptures.

Oz

 

[Assyrian]

holyrokker,

Major commentaries on the Book of Psalms do not agree with you.

W. S. Plummer (Psalms, Banner of Truth Trust, 1867) is a massive 1211 page exegetical and expositional commentary on the Psalms. His comments on Ps 51:5 are:

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity: and in sin did my mother conceive me. That the doctrine of original and universal depravity was taught from the first is clear from Gev. v.3; vi. 5; viii. 21; Job xiv. 4; xv. 14; xxv. 4. That David embraced it is clear from his writings v. 5; Ps lviii. 3. David is not excusing but condemning himself. Ther eis no blot on the character of his father Jesse. By the Holy Ghost he twice informs us of the piety of his mother, Ps. lxxxvi. 16; cxvi. 16. To say that David is here merely publishing the sins of one or both of his parents is trifling with sacred things. Even the Council of Trent, Bellarmine and Boussuet maintain the doctrine of hereditary depravity.... Calvin: "David here refers to original sin with the view of aggravating his guilt, acknowledging that he had not contracted this or that sin for the first time lately, but had been born into the world with the seed of every iniquity" (p. 557).​

H. C. Leupold's commentary, Exposition of Psalms (London: Evangelical Press, 1959) provides this insight into Psalm 51:5:

After the total vindication of God there follows a statement of the total indictment of man. Or it may be thought of as explaining to some extend why man does such things as he, the writer, did. Not, indeed, in the sense of minimizing his guilt, or in the sense of claiming for himself a kind of unfortunate determinism which victimized him. The statement, "Lo, I was brought forth in iniquity," is a classic formulation of what we commonly designate as the doctrine of original sin. In effect, it says, How can I or any other man do anything other than sin, seeing that from the very moment of the origin of our life the taint of sin is upon us? Mark, this is not spoken by way of excuse or palliation of his grievous misdeed but by way of a matter of fact explanation.
The same holds true of the parallel statement: "And in sin did my mother conceive me." The writer does not intend to blame his mother for his sinful state. It never entered his mind to express a thought such as: the very act that led to my conception was a sin. The psalmist is rather, merely indicating that he is in that common stream of mankind where all, from the moment of birth, are sinners. Or to reformulate the thought, the writer is bewailing his own sinfulness, not that of his parents. The mother happens to be mentioned instead of the parents because of her obviously more prominent part in the matter of birth. This statement is in line with other classic utterances of the Old Testament such as: Gen. 8:21; Job 14:4; 15:14; 25:4 (pp. 402-403).​

Interesting that both Plumber and Leupold seem to recognise the obvious meaning of the text, that David is talking about the sin involved in his own conception and try to argue against it. Plumber reacts with indignation that anyone would suggest such a thing we are 'trifling with sacred things'. As if scripture ever had qualms about pointing out the shortcomings of the people of God. His argument against the interpretation is particularly weak that David's mother is called the Lord's maidservant, David was called the Lord's servant, even a man after God's own heart, doesn't man he didn't commit adultery. Plumber's main argument seems to be other passages teach Original Sin, that is what it must mean here. But it isn't so much an exegesis of what the passage actually says but trying to explain it in terms of a his preexisting doctrine. Leupold simply states that David wasn't blaming his mother for his sinful state, which I think is true, David isn't shifting the blame, he is saying he is just as bad as his parents. But in the end Leupold doesn't really say anything to argue against the plain meaning, he simply explains the passage in terms of a doctrine he gets elsewhere.

It is interesting that both writers seem to be struggling with the idea David is trying to shift the blame, I would not have got that from the passage at all. It does seem to be baggage that the doctrine of Original Sin brings with it, if we are corrupt because of Adam, then our inability to keep from sin is Adam's fault too.

In Keil & Delitzsch's exegetical commentary, Commentary on the Old Testament: Psalms (vol. 5; Eerdmans n.d.), Psalm 51:5 is recorded as 51:7 and these are the exegetical comments:

David here confesses his hereditary sin as the root of his actual sin. The declaration moves backwards from his birth to conception, it consequently penetrates even to the most remote point of life's beginning.... The meaning is merely, that his parents were sinful human beings, and that this sinful state (habitus) has operated upon his birth and even his conception, and from this point has passed over to him. What is thereby expressed is not so much any self-exculpation, as on the contrary a self-accusation which glances back to the ultimate ground of natural corruption. He is sinful (lviii. 4, Gen. viii. 21), an unclean one springing from an unclean (Job xiv. 4) flesh born of flesh. That man from his first beginning onwards, and that this beginning itself, is tainted with sin; that the proneness to sin with its guilt and its corruption is propagated from parents to their children.... Therefore the fact of hereditary sin is here more distinctly expressed than in any other passage in the Old Testament (pp. 136-137).​

These major commentaries on the Book of Psalms confirm the orthodox doctrine that Psalm 51:5 refers to original sin, inherited from Adam.

Regards, Oz

What is really interesting is a bit you left out in your ellipsis, where Delitzsch explains the reasoning behind his exegesis.

The choice of the verb decides the question whether by עון and חטא is meant the guilt and sin of the child or of the parents. יחם (to burn with desire) has reference to that, in coition, which partakes of the animal, and may well awaken modest sensibilities in man, without עיון and חטא on that account characterizing birth and conception itself as sin; The meaning is merely, that his parents were sinful human beings, and that this sinful state (habitus) has operated upon his birth and even his conception, and from this point has passed over to him.​

Delitzsch seems embarrassed by the intensity of the lust described by David's "in sin did my mother conceive me", but he answered his earlier question, whose guilt and sin is being described, the child or the parents, well clearly the burning desire was his mother's. Delitzsch then rightly rejects the Medieval church attitude that all sex is sin and goes on to try to explain it in terms of Original Sin. But he misses the obvious implication, it isn't that all conception is sin, but it was when David's mother conceived him. Which explain the intensity of the description, if he was simply saying Original Sin is handed down from parent to child, the burning desire of sexual intercourse is not the issue. It is if that act of lust was the sin David was talking about.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian,

I have provided quotes from major commentaries to confirm that Psalm 51:5 refers to original sin. I'll let you take a read.

ok

Romans 5:12 is very clear:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man.​

But Paul doesn't say sin spread to the whole human race because of Adam, instead he finishes the verse death spread to all men because all sinned. The problem is our own sin. We share the death Adam brought into the world because we sin too.

Ephesians 2:3 is clear on the depth to which that affected all of us:

we were by nature deserving of wrath.​

I looked at that in post 24

Why don't you want to acknowledge the doctrine of original/inherited sin from Adam?

Because I do not see it anywhere in scripture.

You wrote:

I provided a much broader exposition than Ps. 51:5. Why have you ignored the other passages that I used including Eph. 2:3,
Oz

I think you must have missed it

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian,

Of Rom. 5:19 you wrote:

These Greek exegetes conclude differently to you.

Romans 5:19 uses the first aorist, passive indicative of the verb, kathistēmi, which Greek scholar, Dr. A. T. Robertson, states is an "old verb, to set down, to render, to constitute" (Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 4, p. 360).

Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon gives the meaning of kathistēmi in relation to Rom. 5:19 as "make, cause (someone to become something)…passive, be made, become" (p. 391).

The copy of A&G I looked at described its use in Rom 5:19 as "in possible legal sense".

In Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, kathistēmi has the 'basic sense "to set down," "to put in place," and when applied to Rom. 5:19, he states that it is 'theologically the most important verse'. 'This does not imply that the forensic element is absent' and 'show that in Paul poiein and ginesthai do not necessarily bear an effective sense; is evident at v. 18. They may have an affective. The context decides' (vol. 3, p. 445).

Oz

It is interesting how Kittel say the context decides the meaning, but then he tells us the context is forensic,
"This does not imply that the forensic element is absent"
"In R. 5 the forensic element is evident at v. 18 (κατάκριµα—δικαίωσι&#962."
"Here, however, the emphasis is on the judicial sentence of God, which on the basis of the act of the head determines the destiny of all."

It is about God's judgment that we are sinners, not saying we were transformed into sinners.