Augustine taught that concupiscence was sin. I read that in a Lutheran Theology book, which I don't own and I don't have handy. But from what I recall, Augustine argued that there was no sexual passion in the Garden. They would have reproduced and multiply without sexual desire. He said that it was only after they ate from the tree that their eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked, thus making the way for concupiscence. Now human nature has been changed, since we have this passion that would not have been in the Garden. That is why Julian mockingly said that Augustine thought that in the Garden, Adam and Eve would have reproduced by shaking children out of the trees.
Also, Augustine also taught that when Adam sinned, human nature was changed so that free will was lost. And this loss of free will (change of human nature) was not only the punishment of sin, but that it was sin itself.
'Human nature sinned differently when it still had the freedom to abstain from sin, from what is does not since that freedom is lost, when it needs the aid of a liberator. That was only sin; this is also the punishment of sin.' Augustine, V. 28.
"There is a necessary sin, from which man has not the freedom to refrain, which is not only sin, but is the punishment of sin." VI. 59.
These are some questions Calvinists seem to have a hard time with:
If homosexuality is not human nature, then there is at least one sin that is not human nature. And if one sin is not human nature, it would be absurd to say that human nature was sinful. Because it wouldn't make any sense to say that sin is contrary to a sinful nature.
What I meant by taking it "literally" was that if we take it for what it is actually saying, it is saying that David's mother conceived David in sin. Study the sentence structure. David's mother is the subject and David is the object. David's mother (subject) conceived (verb) David (object) in sin. So according to this sentence, David's mother was in some sort of sin when she conceived David.
And in regards to being "shapen in iniquity" this does not mean David inherited original sin. It means that David was born in sin, not that sin was born in him. I was born in Connecticut, but Connecticut was not born in me. David was shapen in sin, but sin was not shapen in him.
There is no iniquity involved in a virgin man and a virgin women getting married, having sex, and conceiving a child. There is no iniquity involved in this type of conception. Only conceptions that involve some type of fornication or adultery involve iniquity.
Jesus was not born of a virgin because reproduction between two human beings is somehow sinful. There is nothing sinful about a man and a women having children. This is an institution of God. This is a design and plan of God. And therefore it is not sinful.
Neither was Jesus born of a virgin because sin is transmitted through a males semen. Certainly Mary had a father, and if sin was transmitted through semen, then Mary would have inherited original sin also. Besides, sin is not a substance that can be looked upon through a microscope. Sin is a choice.
Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign unto the people (Isa. 7:14), and simply because God was His father. It would be pure conjecture and speculation to tie the virgin birth to the doctrine of original sin.
David was in no ways "passing the buck" by saying, "Well, I was born a sinner. I can't help it. I was born this way." That type of excuse has no place in true repentance. Yet, if the original sin advocates are right, that is precisely what David was doing. But if David was repenting, why would he then give an excuse for his sin? He simply wouldn't.
But it is very common for sinners to reflect upon the family that they have come from when they are under conviction and are converted to Christ. I remember clearly when I was under conviction, and repenting of my sin, that I reflected back upon my own family. I realized how my family tree was full of adulterers and drunkards. And I had turned out just like them.
This seems to be what David was doing. David was mourning and repenting of his sins, and in this process, he was even reflecting back upon the sins of his own family. David was basically saying, "I am a sinner that comes from a sinful family."
There is a Gnostic interpretation of Romans 7: the flesh is sinful, the flesh makes us sin, we cannot help it, we cannot avoid it, we will sin against our free will. That is the Gnostic interpretation of Romans 7.
But the Biblical understanding is that Romans 7 is Paul's narrative of a sinner under conviction of the law. Then the accusation is made, that the law causes sin. So Paul argues that the law working upon the mind is not the cause of sin, but that the sinners own heart is the cause of sin. That which the sinner "would not" was what his convicted mind condemned. And the "sin that dwelleth in me" was his own wicked heart.
You can read my commentary on Romans 7 here for a fuller explanation:
openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=doctrinaldiscussion&action=display&thread=5787I don't think that terms like "my mother" and "me" can be anymore exclusive. If David wanted to be anymore exclusive, more exclusive words did not exist. And if David meant to include all of mankind, why use such exclusive words? This passage only talks about David and his mother and by no means includes all of mankind.
There is no doubt that there is literal truth communicated in poetic writings. But the language of this passage is still figurative. Children do not literally speak from the womb, neither are children sinners until the age of accountability. But there is no doubt that this Psalm is poetic and exaggerative.
Again, figurative writings will no doubt have literal truth being communicated. My whole point was that the literal truth being communicated is that individuals start to sin at a very early age. This Psalm is no doubt exaggerative, like many Psalms can be.
But you only have two options: Men are sinners from birth, or men are sinners at the age of accountability. Which is really more absurd? To say that we are sinners before we have any moral knowledge, and before we make any moral choices; or to say that we are sinners once we have moral knowledge and we make moral choices? How can a person be a sinner before they even sin?
Any passage of Scripture, whether it is poetic or literal, needs to be interpreted. And that interpretation must be:
1. True to Scripture as a whole
2. True to experience
3. True to reason
Scripture does not contradict scripture. Reality does not contradict reality. And reason is a gift from God. The Scriptures even say, "come, let us reason together".
How can a child "sin" before they have moral knowledge and before they make moral choices? It is an absurd impossible for a child to sin "days or weeks" after being born. It is an absurd impossible because they have no moral knowledge and therefore cannot make any moral choices.
“For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good” (Isa. 7:16);
“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil” (Rom. 9:11);
“Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth” (Jn. 9:41);
“To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (Jas. 4:17).
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil." Romans. 9:11
What is a sinner? Someone who knows right from wrong and chooses to do wrong. How has Adam helped us to become sinners? By eating from the tree of knowledge. Now all of mankind knows right from wrong. And what has mankind done with this knowledge? They have chosen to sin. Therefore, by one man's disobedience (eating from the tree of knowledge) many were made sinners (many have chosen to disobey).
There are two other alternative interpretations, both of which are absurd:
1. God holds us accountable for Adam's sin (Federal Headship Theory)
2. We participated in Adam's sin (organic theory).
Both of these interpretations are contrary to Scripture.
Organic Theory - Romans 9:11 says children in the womb have not yet done anything good and evil. Therefore, we did not participate int he sin of Adam because we were in his loins (his semen). If that were the case, then we also participated in the sins of all our parents. If your grandfather was a drunkard, then you participated in that. So you are not only guilty of Adam's sin, but you are guilty of all the sins of all your ancestors.
Federal Headship Theory - this is contrary to justice, as revealed in Scripture and in reason. Justice requires the death of the soul that sinned, not the soul of anyone else. God explicitly explains His own justice, declaring that the child does not inherit the sin and guilt of the parent Deut. 24:16,2 Kng. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Jer. 31:29-30, Eze. 18:2-4, Eze. 18:19-20.
Sinners are accountable for their own sin alone: Deut. 24:16, 2 Kng. 14:6, 2 Chron. 25:4, Eze. 18:2-4, Eze. 18:19-20, Matt. 16:27, 2 Cor. 5:10, 2 Cor. 11:15, 1 Pet. 1:17, Rev. 22:12
You are setting up a straw-man. I never said that Adam didn't change anything. I said that Adam has eaten from the knowledge of good and evil, we inherit this knowledge, and with this knowledge we have chosen to be sinners.
Christ, by making an atonement for our sins, has now made it possible for us to be righteous. Knowledge of the cross can bring us to repentance and obedience. Adam brought knowledge that resulted in our disobedience, Christ has brought knowledge that resulted in obedience. The disobedience of Adam resulted in all men being put in the position of sinners. But the obedience of Christ has resulted in all men being in the position where they can be reconciled. The effects of Adam are universal, and the effects of Christ are universal. But they are both conditional. We become sinners when we choose to sin, and we are converted when we choose to repent and believe.
Physical death is the consequence of Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:22; 1 Cor. 15:21-22)
Spiritual death (no relationship, spiritual separation) is the consequence of our own sin (Isa. 59:2; Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12; 7:9; Col. 2:13)
And eternal death, hell fire, is the eternal punishment of our own personal sins (Matt. 2:46; 2 Thes. 1:9; 2 Pet. 2:9; Jude 1:7; Rev. 21:8)
When Adam sinned, God removed him from the tree of life. Man needed to eat from the tree of life continually in order to continually live. That is why the tree of life was in the Garden in the first place. But when Adam sinned, God removed man fro the tree of life, and in consequence of being born outside of the Garden, all men die.
Infants physically die. But infants are morally innocent. But infants die as the victims of Adam's sin. They are not criminals who are guilty of Adam's sin.
Animals also die, but they are sinless.
Jesus also died, but he was sinless.
Again,
Physical death is the consequence of Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:22; 1 Cor. 15:21-22)
Spiritual death (no relationship, spiritual separation) is the consequence of our own sin (Isa. 59:2; Lk. 15:24; Rom. 5:12; 7:9; Col. 2:13)
And eternal death, hell fire, is the eternal punishment of our own personal sins (Matt. 2:46; 2 Thes. 1:9; 2 Pet. 2:9; Jude 1:7; Rev. 21:8).
Sin is a choice to transgress known law. Sin is not a substance, sin is a choice. Human nature is not sinful, human choices are sinful. Sin is transgression of known law.
“If man is in fault for his [supposed] sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is, but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers – of our intellect, our sensibilities, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original sin… since there is no law against nature, nature cannot be a transgression… man’s nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all.” Charles Finney (Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 78-79, published by Truth in Heart)
This verse is talking about men who are "accustomed" to do evil. They have persisted in sin for a long period of time. Now it is unlikely that they will change, because they are so "accustomed" to it. The writer equates their custom (habit) with the nature of a leopard. This clearly shows how a person can become so accustomed to do evil, that the Bible uses terms of nature to describe their habit.
Paul said, "my manner of life from my youth". It says nothing about his constitution. It is talking about his "manner of life" from early in life.
The natural man is contrasted with the spiritual man. The former chooses to live after the lusts of his flesh, the latter chooses to obey the truth of the Spirit. Choice is involved in both. "natural man" simply means a person who lives to gratify his flesh, that is his reason for living, his purpose of life.
This passage is talking about the way that we "walked", about our "disobedience". It is talking about a previous habit, custom, lifestyle, or manner of life.
Read it again. If "by nature" means "by birth" then Paul said that Jews are not born sinners. Paul would be saying that only Gentiles are born sinners.
"We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles."
What Paul was talking about was their manner of life, their custom, which they were born into. The Jewish culture and the Gentile culture were different. The Gentile culture was sinful, the Jewish culture was religious.
Paul explains his own meaning when he says in the previous verse "livest after the manner". He is clearly talking about a manner of life, not the state of your constitution at birth.
Yes the word "phusis" is used in Both Eph. 2:3 and also 2 Pet. 1:4. But this is talking about the way that we use our constitution. Clearly Eph. 2:2 is talking about how a person uses their constitution. Sinners use their God-given constitution for sin. But Christians, like God, use their constitution to promote the highest well-being of all. Sinners use their constitution for selfishness, but Christians use their constitution benevolently like God uses his benevolently.
"The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is, but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers – of our intellect, our sensibilities, and our will.” Charles Finney (Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 78-79, published by Truth in Heart)
Innocent babies die as victims of Adam sin, since Adam was removed from the Garden where the tree of life was.
Suppose a man is fired from his job. He losses his income. Now the entire family suffers, including his innocent children. Are the children being punished by the Employer who fired the father? No. They are simply suffering consequences as innocent victims.
Infant children are morally innocent (2 Kng. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 13:26-27; Matt. 18:3) and have not yet “done anything” morally “good or evil” (Rom. 9:11) until the age of accountability, which is the age of reason, when they know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16), and choose to do wrong (Jas. 4:17).
You are holding to the Organic theory that I talked about earlier, that we participated in Adam's sin because we were his semen (in his loins):
Organic Theory - Romans 9:11 says children in the womb have not yet done anything good and evil. Therefore, we did not participate int he sin of Adam because we were in his loins (his semen). If that were the case, then we also participated in the sins of all our parents. If your grandfather was a drunkard, then you participated in that. So you are not only guilty of Adam's sin, but you are guilty of all the sins of all your ancestors.
But let me ask you. Were YOU really in the loins of Adam? Literally? If you are talking about Adam's semen, wasn't it more or less Cain, Abel, and Seth that were in his loins, and not you?
And if you believe that you are guilty of Adam's sin, because you were supposedly his semen, are you also guilty of all your ancestors sins? Is there no proper distinction between persons?
I have read "A Historical Presentation of Augustinianism & Pelagianism from Original Sources" by Dr. Wiggers.
The Reformation was simply a revival of Augustinianism.
The devil, through the influence of lies, brought man to the place of choosing to disobey.
God, through the influence of truth, brought men to the place of choosing obedience.
Influence, not causation, is how both God and the devil operates with moral beings. Man is not a machine to be controlled, he is a moral being who can be influenced, either by truth or by lies.
Man is brought to repentance by the moral influence of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit presents the truth of Christ to man's mind, and this truth influences his will to a place of submission and obedience. Hence the importance of preaching the Gospel. God has ends and God has means.
Christ is our Savior because He is our substitute. The law required the eternal punishment of the guilty. But Christ, the innocent, has suffered and died on a cross, providing an alternative to our punishment. Now God can set aside our punishment (mercy, forgiveness, remission) without weakening or dishonoring His law throughout the universe. God can forgive mankind without encouraging the rest of His moral kingdom to disobey His law.
"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works" Ps. 139:13-14
This passage does talk about the womb. And this passage says that David was wonderfully and marvelously made. "I am....wonderfully made". What was wonderful? How David was formed in the womb was wonderful.
According to this passage:
1. God forms us in the womb
2. The human nature God forms is wonderful
3. The human nature God forms us marvelous
To deny that God forms us in the womb is Deism. Deism says God simply got the ball rolling in the beginning, but then stepped back and let things take it's own course. But Theism says that God is active in His creation and sustains it with His hands. God actively and personally forms us in the womb.
A mother cannot form a child in the womb. Only God can form a child in the womb. I have never seen a mother knit a child together with her sowing machine.
God is the author of our nature, God forms us in the womb: Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 95:6; 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:9-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3