quote:

---

The OV thinks the Bible is expressing a real truth about God's mind when He says in Gen. 6 that "He was sorry that he had made man."

---

quote:

---

Can you, as an Open Theist, concede that is is possible that perhaps your choices to eat or think certain thoughts are not truly free; that your perception that you have a choice in such matters is just illusory; that your genetics, culture, upbringing, age, etc. are not just influencing factors with respect to these actions, but are in fact determining factors?

---

quote:

---

I just don't see how you can know, simply based on your experiencing a choice as a choice [emphasis Starkman's], that you were truly free to do so? Say I ask you what you would like to eat for dinner tonight. Of course, the possible options you have to choose from are numerous. But ultimately, say you choose steak. Why? Perhaps because you are protein deficient; you saw an Outback commercial on TV that made your mouth water; you've been on a diet and you haven't had steak in along time, etc.

---

quote:

---

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

---

quote:

---

A Perspective on Psalm 51:5
http://www.biblical-theology.com/originalsin/ps51_5.htm

by William P. Murray, Jr.

Are men born sinners? A commonly abused 'proof' text is Psalm 51:5. Although I cannot claim the following as a result of my own scholarship or research, the information is a culmination from many sources over the years, and, I feel, the best explanation of this particular text that I have come across.

Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." KJV

This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10 ). TWOT, #623, 1:270.

The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at, or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the `circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within himself. (The NIV's version of this verse is an INTERPRETATION, not a translation: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.")

• David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail).....:
  

1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”

• ....and the father of David's half-sisters was not Jesse, but Nahash:

2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.”

• Nahash, the father of Zeruiah and Abigal, David's half-sisters, was an Ammonite king:

1Sam 11:1 “Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.”

1Sam 12:12 “And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.”

David's father was Jesse, not Nahash. Zeruiah and Abigal were David's half-sisters through his mother's previous marriage to Nahash. This would also help explain why Nahash showed kindness to David, perhaps out of respect for David's mother, Nahash’s former wife and the mother of two of Nahash's children.

2Sam 10:2 “Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.”

David's mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse, the first wife being the mother of David's half-brothers. Jesse’s first wife's standing before the 'righteousness of the law', (her not having been married to, or the concubine of, a heathen king, as was David’s mother), would have been superior to that of David's mother, and explains why David's half-brothers, Jesse's other sons, would have felt they were superior to David, and why he would be accused of being prideful, for thinking he was as good as them....

1Sam 17:28-30 28 “And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle. 29 And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause? 30 And he turned from him toward another, and spake after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.”

...and why David was not considered, by his father Jesse, as `true' a son as his half-brothers. Samuel had called Jesse and his sons, and thus expected `all' his sons, to the sacrifice (1Sam 16:5,11). Jesse, having been told to bring `his sons' by a prophet of the Lord everyone feared (1Sam 16:4), was confident he had obeyed the prophet, even knowing he did not bring David....

1Sam 16:11 “And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.”

....which would be consistent with God's sometimes choosing that which men esteemed as worthless (the `least') to be the greatest: (Gideon- Jud 6:15; King Saul- 1Sam 9:21; Jesus- Mt 2:6, Lk 9:48)

David's mother was apparently a Jewish woman, because `no Ammonite shall enter the congregation of the Lord to the 10th generation’ (Deu 23:3), and yet in PS 86:16 and PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's relationship with the Lord. David's mother was, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered `defiled' by her previous relationship to an Ammonite.

Nu 25:1,2; De 7:3,4; 1ki 11:2-4, Ezr 9:2; Ne 13:23,25; 2Co 6:14-17



This page may be copied and distributed freely as long as it is not altered.

---

quote:

---

John:

Regarding an "age of acoutability", I know this idea is more palatable than the alterantive but how can you claim we are born innocent?

Psalm 51:5

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

---

A better translation:
Isaiah 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

This version leaves out the translator's theological presupposition.

The only moral agents present at David's conception were his biological mother and his biological father. While in sin they conceived him. Are you saying David sinned when he was conceived? How? What wrong choice did he make? Point it out, please.

quote:

---

Psalm 58:3

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; those who speak lies go astray from birth."

---

Have you heard a new born speaking lies? Please tell us more about it. Maybe the poetical books aren't the best place to develop theology.

I believe we are all born innocent and morally neutral. How else can God have commanded us to follow the law and live, or disobey the law and die? Cruel humour?

Sin is a VERB. It doesn't say "for all are sinners and fallen short of the glory of God", it says "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".

How can Jesus be our high priest and claim to have been tempted JUST LIKE US if he was born "sinless" and we were born "sinners"???? How?
Either he was born a sinner JUST LIKE us OR we were born innocent and morally neutral JUST LIKE him. His temptations were real and not shams.



Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Edited by - Laika on 06/15/2003 4:57:39 PM

quote:

---

anewbeginning

Please point me to a commentary that DOES NOT indicate that Psalm 51:5 is a reference to original sin.

---

quote:

---

anewbeginning

Please point me to a commentary that DOES NOT indicate that Psalm 51:5 is a reference to original sin.

---

quote:

---

John:

Regarding an "age of acoutability", I know this idea is more palatable than the alterantive but how can you claim we are born innocent?

Psalm 51:5

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

Psalm 58:3

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; those who speak lies go astray from birth."

---

quote:

---

Laika:

Please point me to a commentary that DOES NOT indicate that Psalm 51:5 is a reference to original sin.

---

I don't read commentaries much. How much do you want the ideas of others to influence your reading of scripture?

Again, I ask, who were the moral agents present at David's conception? Was David there? What sin did he commit during his own conception? Was the egg part of him sinning or the sperm part of him sinning? "In sin did my mother", ever consider the "mother" part of this verse? When Samuel came to Jesse for a replacement for Saul, and asked that ALL Jesse's sons be brought out, why was David left out?

quote:

---

Do you deny original sin? I know of no openness author who does. It would be evangelical suicide. This is PELAGIANISM!

---

What's "Pelagianism"? I guess I don't read enough commentaries to know what I'm supposed to believe. Yes, I deny that sin is inherited. Sin is an action against God. It is not a genetic trait that you can inherit. You can be born to bad parents, in a bad environment, with physical genetic defects and even some mental defects but God doesn't handicap you by imputing sinful actions to you before you can even start "acting".

quote:

---

Your either/or regarding Jesus does not follow. Please explain your reasons why EITHER we're sinless at birth OR He was a sinner.

---

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

How can He claim to have been tempted "as we are"? Either He was born a sinner like you claim we are, or we are born sinless like you claim He was. If we sin because we're sinners from birth, then He couldn't sin, being sinless from birth. He became like us in all respects. Do you believe Jesus could have sinned?

Why did God become a man? To experience what we experience? Then why do you think He was born sinless when you also think we are born sinners?

quote:

---

Original sin is a cornerstone of CHISTianity, remove it and you remove the need for Christ, we should be able to do it on our own.

---

Original sin is a cornerstone of Calvinism. The only verses I've seen used to support it are Psalms 51:5 and 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, because all sinned."

1. The Latin vulgate added "in Adam" after "all sinned" so it said "all sinned in Adam". But no modern translations have that as it was an incorrect addtion.
2. It doesn't say sin spread to all men, it says sin entered the world (became available).
3. Death is what spread to all men, why? Because all sinned. That's what sin is, a VERB. It's an action against God.

Paul compares and contrasts sin/Adam to salvation/Jesus. Through Jesus, salvation enters the world (and is available). Salvation doesn't automatically spread to all, it has to be chosen.

A common argument I hear from non-believers is this, if God makes us sinners with no input from us, then it's up to God to save us without any input from us. It's logical, how would a Calvinist respond?




Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

quote:

---

A Perspective on Psalm 51:5
http://www.biblical-theology.com/originalsin/ps51_5.htm

by William P. Murray, Jr.

---

Thanks POW! I was looking for that.

Come on in, the water's fine.




Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

quote:

---

For the record - it is fine to deny original sin if that's what you believe. But that is not Christianity- original sin is a tenet of the Christian faith, from Roman Catholicism to Arminianism to Calvinism and everything in between. Certainly along the way there were Charles Finneys who denied it - but he was not really a theologian - more of an evangelist - and at any rate the official position of the Christian faith accepts original sin.
I don't feel the need to quote verses trying to support this position - when there are myriad theological books out there explaining the doctrine and why it is a tenet of Christianity.

---

If what you're saying is true, then:

1. There were no real Christians before Augustine copied this idea from the Manicheans.

and

2. None of the historic Eastern branches of Christianity are real Christians organizations, as none of them accept Augustine's ideas on this.

As to Finney, it should also be further added that he simply clarified and reiterated what was known of as New School Calvinism, a MAJOR group of Christian theologians beginning in the early 1800s. Albert Barnes, who wrote a commentary on the whole Bible that is still in print, denied the Augustinian notion of original sin. Several others in the New School wing of Calvinism denied the Augustinian invention of Original Sin. The idea that God condemns a person to hell for something that they inherited from Adam would present God as an impossible tyrant. Any and all true sense of morality is violated by such a concept. Ezekiel 18 specifically contradicts the idea that anyone but one's own self is responsible for one's sins.

It really seems funny to be being condemned as not a Christian by a universalist.

RD, if you don't think Finney was a theologian, you obviously have never read his writings. A 1000+ page Systematic Theology, plus thousands of other sermons, lectures, and articles. He was also a lawyer; I really think you would find his writings interesting. Perhaps his biggest emphasis was on the Moral Law of God and how this differed from the Physical Law of God (i.e., gravity, inertia, etc.).

Finney's entire written works can be found at the following website:

http://www.gospeltruth.net





"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net


Edited by - John Earp on 06/16/2003 12:09:33 PM

Edited by - John Earp on 06/16/2003 12:30:36 PM