Are we born with a sin nature?

[iLOVE]

Get it right.

The 'fear' of God is the beginning of wisdom.

'Fear' here means respect and awe and has nothing to do with your own psychological dependence.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

New International Version (NIV)

13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

 

[savedbygrace57]

The elect are born out of Adam with a sin nature, but they are born again out of Christ, the Word of God, without a Sin Nature, with a Nature that does not and cannot sin 1 Pet 1: 23

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

That born again one does not and cannot sin 1 Jn 3:9

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

 

[childeye]

The elect are born out of Adam with a sin nature, but they are born again out of Christ, the Word of God, without a Sin Nature, with a Nature that does not and cannot sin 1 Pet 1: 23

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

That born again one does not and cannot sin 1 Jn 3:9

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Big Amen.

 

[ezra]

I think it is time for you to due some bible research on your own...it will help you to grow.

your claim in age is not there i have studied it out... Isiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. UNLESS you can back up your claim with scripture ..you are posting false teaching......

 

[BornAgain]

The elect are born out of Adam with a sin nature, but they are born again out of Christ, the Word of God, without a Sin Nature, with a Nature that does not and cannot sin 1 Pet 1: 23

Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God., "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin," of the King James Version, has given place to the American Standard rendering, "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin," and here, as often elsewhere, the Standard rendering is the preferable one, though it, too, as we shall later see, does not fully and adequately convey the meaning of the text.

Correctly translated, the scriptures never refer to a "birth of God." It is absurd to predicate the act of birth of a masculine personality exclusively. We are not from this to infer that the reference here, or in the numerous other instances where the phrase occurs, signifies an embryonic or prenatal state.

Obviously, here and in 2:29 and 5:18, the reference is to children of God. While the context establishes the fact that children of God are "begotten of God" rather than "born of God."

Whosoever is begotten of God "doeth no sin."

But why does the one begotten of God refrain from habitual and persistent indulgence in sin? Because his seed remains in him and he cannot sin. Whose seed? God's. What is God's seed? The word of God: "The seed is the word of God." Luke 8:11. In whom does this seed abide or remain? In the child of God. What does the word "abide" signify? That the word of God has made its home, as it were, in the heart of the one begotten.

Is this a scriptural concept? "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom" Col 3:16, which we translate more clearly, "May the word which Christ speaks to you have in your hearts in all its fullness its home." What is the result of such? The child of God cannot sin.

Does this mean that it is impossible for a child of God, under any circumstances, to commit a single act of sin? No. The phrase "Doeth no sin" does not adequately convey the meaning of the original text. Here, as in 3:6.

What reasons have we for concluding that it was not the intention of the apostle to teach that it is impossible for a child of God to commit a single act of sin? (1) Such a conclusion is in conflict with 1 John 1:7-9 1 John 2:1, and many other passages in the scriptures. (2) The words "he cannot sin" cannot be correctly construed to mean that one cannot commit a single act of sin after being begotten of God. Why is it alleged that such a conclusion is in conflict with what the apostle taught elsewhere? Because he affirmed, in the references cited, that children do sin, and he moreover revealed the conditions on which they may be forgiven.

Why is it thought that the phrase "he cannot sin" may not be correctly interpreted to mean that it is impossible for a child of God to commit a single act of sin? Why cannot he continue to live such a life? The seed, which is the word of God, and which is in him, forbids it. How did David recognize and apply the principle taught here? "Thy word have I laid up in my heart, that I might not sin against thee." Psalm 119:11. How did Jesus resist the seductions of Satan? By relying on the same power.

Pretent one is tempted to steal. Then we remember that the Word says, "Thou shalt not steal." As long as this remains in the heart and governs the life, one cannot steal. "It is written" is as effective in resisting the blandishments of Satan today as it was when the Lord utilized it on the mount of temptation. Why, then, cannot one thus begotten persist in sin? (1) The seed (the word of God), which forbids it, is in him, controls his life, and directs his energies. (2) A life of sin is inconsistent with the spiritual parentage of the one thus begotten.

But does this mean that it is never possible for one possessed of this nature to sin? No. All, through weakness, error, ignorance, and inadvertence, occasionally sin; but children of God do not work sin as a life principle, for its author—Satan—they have repudiated and his nature abandoned.

Paul and John are in strict harmony in their teaching on the difference between such occasional lapses into sin and a life wholly devoted to it. The former wrote, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that we should no longer be in bondage to sin." Rom 6:1-6.

We are no longer to continue in sin, for (a) we have died (separated ourselves) from the practice thereof; (b) we have risen from the baptismal grave to walk a new life; (c) the body of sin has been done away; (d) we have been delivered from the bondage of sin. The careful distinction which the inspired writers make between a life of continuous and habitual sin and the infrequent deviations of children of God who, while they ever reach upward toward a nobler life, now and then falter through weakness or error, may be seen by a comparison between Rom 6:1, "Shall we continue in sin"

Properly interpreted, neither 1 John 3:9 or any other scripture countenances the view that it is impossible for a child of God to live above sin in this life; and theories to this end, whether drawn from this passage or some other, are clearly erroneous.

Gospel Advocate Commentaries

 

[smaller]

The epistle of Peter was written well into the second century and has little to do with what Jesus taught.

too funny.

You know full well that fearing God is taught cover to cover.

Even Jesus had that fear.

What R U thinkin?

As it pertains to this thread God never had any intentions of leaving any of us in a wet compilation of dust, so sin was inserted therein to 'bump us all off' eventually in the flesh.

The destroyer seems to do that job pretty well.

s

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Hi Ernest T. Bass,

Romans 5:12-14

New King James Version (NKJV)

Death in Adam, Life in Christ

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.


Here Paul explains that death passed to everyone "over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam." That tells me the sin nature passed to all the children of Adam and Eve; sinners by nature just as Osgiliath said.

Hi,

"even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression"--if sin was something everyone inherited from Adam then everyone would be guilty of the exact same sin as Adam committed. But people have sinned sins that were different from Adam, not after the likeness of Adam. So people are sinners for they have chosen to sin thier own sins and not inherited any sin from Adam. One commentary aptly puts it "Since these people died as a result of their own sin and it wasn't like Adam's, then they surely didn't die from Adam's sin. The distinction between theirs and Adam's would be non-existent if they had died because of Adam's sin. People die because of their own sins. (Colossians 2:13; Eph. 2:1)"

Because men sin, we prove that we have the sin nature. Just look at our children. We didn't teach them to be selfish. They are selfish by nature.

- Davies

Suposedly a sinful nature is what one is born with. There is not indication from the bible children are born sinners. John said sin is transgression of the law and there is no law the newly conceived/newly born are able to transgress...."(For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,..." Rom 9:11. So children are born innocent and are not sinners until they commit sin and are not righteous until they do righteousness. Isa 7:15-16 children must learn the difference between right and wrong so they are not born knowing right and wrong and are as Jacob and Esau have done neither good or evil.

 

[smaller]

Suposedly a sinful nature is what one is born with. There is not indication from the bible children are born sinners.

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

s

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Respectfully, sin is a fault in mankind, but does not mean man is to be blamed. And when it comes to a defiled conscience, we are talking about blame. The option to disbelieve God came through the devil, not God and not Adam. This raises the question of whether Adam could have intentionally even thought to distrust God. Moreover, Adam was forced to consider the veracity of the claim from Eve, while not wanting to think whether He should distrust Eve. That dilemna was forced upon his innocence by circumstances beyond his control. Sure Adam chose wrong, easily said in hindsight. But that does not mean I would have done otherwise given the same circumstances. Certainly humility will not be gained by believing I would have or even could have chose better.

So what does it say when we hold others accountable for their sins if indeed sin cannot be helped? It says we ourselves freely chose to sin in a wanton defiance of God. Hence those who believe this are saying God is not trustworthy enough to be worthy to obey. This says more about their blindness than it does about God and shows how easily men can be decieved as Adam was. We are fooled into thinking sin is freedom. But those who know sin can't be helped but is slavery, seek mercy and have mercy in a pure contriteness and humility. That's why the cross shows mercy as the hope of our salvation. So this also means that those who believe people can't help being sinners also therefore believe that God was always trustworthy and Adam was just too ignorant to make the right call. Otherwise they must conclude Adam intentionally chose to distrust God. So is it possiible to have fault but be excused? After all, we are all made of corruptible flesh, just like Adam. We see this exact same Truth spelled out on a cross when God partakes of being made flesh through suffering and says forgive them, for they know not what they do.




God's punishment is Love for our sakes. Even my dog needs to learn to not pee in the house but he is not to blame for being a dog, nor should God be blamed that he made the dog lower than Himself. That is the mind of the devil which plays both sides against the middle. Which is why Satan wants us to conclude it must be someone's fault, either God's or man"s. Besides, God partook of the worst part of man's sin because of His love for us. It's not like He hasn't shared in our plight when he took our sins upon Himself. It may appear that if you didn't choose to be born a sinner God should not find fault. But what about the fault of ignorance, and what if all sin is based on ignorant carnal reasoning? It does not imply blame which is why God has forbearance with us and is longsuffering.

Sin would not be a fault of mankind if God created man sinners then sin would be a fault of God. Did God create Adam a sinner where all he could do was sin or did God create Adam with free choice and Adam of his own will chose to sin? Adam of his own will chose to sin so people are sinners for they choose to sin and not created sinners. THere would be no free will involved if God created Adam a sinner.

You posted "God's punishment is Love for our sakes."

I do not agree for there is no love at all in forcing one to sin then punishing them for the sin they were forced to commit. There is no love if a parents force their child to disobey just so they can punish them. There is a world of difference between man being created to be sinner against his will and man be a sinner of his own fault, own choosing.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Psalm 51:5

New International Version (NIV)

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

The NIV worngly and horribly translated this verse. The bible does not teach men are born sinners so the NIV tried to make it teach such by making changes.

Psa 51;5 KJV "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

When David said 'in sin did my mother concieve me' he may have been talking about his mother's sin.

I think David is saying he was concieved into a world or environemnt of sin and in time David learn right from wrong and committed sin himself.

Similar language is found in Acts 2:8 "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"

Does this mean they were (a) born speaking that tongue or does it mean (b) they were born into an environment where that tongue was speoken and they in time learned that tongue themselves? It would be (b). LIkewise David was born into an environment of sin and in time David learned right and wrong and sinned himself.




https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/276-original-sin-and-a-misapplied-passage

“Original Sin” and a Misapplied Passage

By Wayne Jackson

The doctrine of original sin—the notion that one is born into this world hereditarily totally depraved—is widely believed in the religious world.
For example, the Augsburg Confession of Faith (1530), Lutheranism’s creed, asserted:

[A]ll men, born according to nature, are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without confidence towards God and with concupiscence, and that this original disease or flaw is truly a sin, bringing condemnation and also eternal death to those who are not reborn through baptism and the Holy Spirit (Article II).
​

This, of course, explains the practice of infant baptism as advocated by numerous sects.
Likely, the passage that is commonly appealed to in an attempt to justify the concept of original sin is Psalm 51:5.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.
​

Does this verse provide a basis for the doctrine of original sin? Assuredly, it does not. But let us carefully study the matter.


Preliminary Principles

First of all, it needs to be initially recognized that this passage is Hebrew poetry. And Hebrew poetry abounds with bold and imaginative figures of speech; it is frequently characterized by a freedom which departs from customary forms of expression. It is, therefore, a mistake of great magnitude to extract statements from poetical literature and thus employ them as a foundation for doctrinal schemes.

This is precisely the error of the materialists (Watchtower Witnesses, Armstrongites, etc.) who dip into Old Testament poetical books, like Psalms and Job, for their doctrines of soul-sleeping and the annihilation of the wicked.

Secondly, one of the primary rules of Biblical interpretation suggests: “The language of Scripture may be regarded as figurative, if the literal interpretation will cause one passage to contradict another” (Dungan n.d., 196).

There are numerous Bible verses, in plain, literal language, that affirm the innocency of infants, and Psalm 51:5 must not be arrayed against these. Consider the following:

(1) Scripture plainly teaches that sin is not inherited. “[T]he son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Ezekiel 18:20); every person is responsible for his own conduct (Romans 14:12).

(2) Human sinfulness commences in that period of one’s life that is characterized as youth (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 3:25).

(3) A child must reach a certain level of maturity before he is able to choose between evil and good (Isaiah 7:15, 16).

(4) The qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (Matthew 18:3; 19:14) and for those already in the church (1 Corinthians 14:20). Surely the Lord was not suggesting that we emulate little, totally corrupt sinners!

(5) The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; rather, it is given by God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9). Hence, at birth it must be as pure as the source from whence it comes.

Clearly, babies are not born in sin.


Psalm 51:5 Analyzed

Having shown what Psalm 51: 5 cannot mean, we now turn to some possible views of the passage that do not violate portions of Scripture found elsewhere.

(1) Since Psalm 51 is one of David’s penitent psalms revealing the anguish resulting from his adulterous conduct with Bathsheba, some have felt that verse five contains words that are figuratively put into the mouth of the child conceived by that illicit union (2 Samuel 11:5), thus acknowledging the sinfulness of that relationship. The sinfulness is therefore attributed to the parent and not the child.

T. W. Brents commented:

Whatever may be the meaning of this passage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. ‘In sin did my mother conceive me:’ that is, she acted wickedly when I was conceived. Were the wife to say, ‘In drunkenness my husband beat me,’or the child that ‘in anger my father whipped me,’ surely no one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child (1957, 133, 134).
​

(2) Others have suggested that David alludes to an incident in his ancestral lineage, an adulterous affair (Genesis 38), whereby he was considered ceremonially defiled because he was of the tenth generation of that unlawful intercourse (Deuteronomy 23:2). This is probably a rather remote possibility.

(3) Most likely, however, Psalm 51:5 merely refers to the fact that David was born into a sinful environment. We all are conceived in and brought forth into a sinful world. But we do not actually sin until we arrive at a stage of spiritual responsibility.

Perhaps David also, by the use of dramatic language, alludes to the fact that sin had characterized his whole life, relatively speaking.

In a similarly poetic section, for example, Job, in denying that he had neglected his benevolent responsibilities, affirmed that he had cared for the orphan and the widow from his mother’s womb! Surely, no one believes that on day one of Job’s existence that he was out ministering to the needy! In fact, the Hebrew parallelism of this verse (Job 31:18), clearly indicates that the word “womb” is used in the sense of youth.


A Concluding Problem

Those who employ Psalm 51:5 to buttress the doctrine that sin is inherited from one’s mother are faced with a serious problem. Jesus was both conceived by and brought forth from a human mother (Luke 1:31). If original sin is inherited from one’s mother, Christ had it. If, however, someone should suggest that depravity is received only from the father, Psalm 51:5 cannot be used to prove it, for it mentions only the mother!

The truth of the matter is, the doctrine of original sin is not Biblical. It had its origin in the writings of the so-called “church fathers” in the post-apostolic era. Such men as Tertullian (160-220) and Cyprian (200-258) first formulated the doctrine and it was later popularized by Augustine and John Calvin.
Those who accept the plain testimony of the sacred Scriptures will reject this error.




Sources/Footnotes

• Brents, T. W. 1957. The Gospel Plan of Salvation. Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate.
• Dungan, D. R. n.d. Hermeneutics. Cincinnati, OH: Standard.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

s

It says they "go astray" and not "born astray".


https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/793-does-psalm-58-teach-original-sin

Does Psalm 58 Teach “Original Sin”?

By Wayne Jackson

“I’ve just discovered your web site and all the wonderful Christian articles there. I’m pleased with what I’ve read, and I appreciate the fact that you are willing to address and discuss some biblical issues that are difficult. I have read your article Original Sin and a Misapplied Passage. I used to think that God considered all babies innocent, and I had heard about ‘the age of accountability.’ But after learning more about the Bible, I have changed my conclusion on that. It definitely is a very hard thing to think about. Have you read Psalm 58:3ff? It seems to say that babies are seen by God as sinners. Can you explain this passage?”
​

We appreciate this sincere question. We are quite familiar with Psalm 58. Verses 3-6 read as follows:

“The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: They are like the deaf adder that stops up her ear, who listens not to the voice of charmers, charming ever so wisely. Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: Break out the great teeth of the young lions, O Jehovah.”
​

The first thing that the careful Bible student must observe is the fact that this text is a part of that body of Old Testament literature that is highly poetic in nature, and as such, is punctuated with graphic figures of speech.

These four verses contain several vivid figures, e.g., the hyperbole, the simile, and metonymy. Hyperbole is an exaggeration for emphasis’ sake; simile is a comparison between two objects by the use of “like” or “as,” etc., and metonymy involves the substitution of one name for another in order to stress an important truth.

One of the most significant sources of erroneous views about the Bible is the failure to discern the difference between the literal and the figurative expressions of Scripture. And that is precisely the problem in reading this text, and concluding that it provides substance for the doctrine of “original sin” or “hereditary total depravity,” i.e., the notion that infants are born in sin. Our response to this question, therefore, involves an understanding of several important principles of interpretation.

First, the Bible teaches — in unambiguous prose — that moral responsibility for sin comes in the “youth” of one’s life, and not at the point of one’s conception, or birth (see Gen. 8:21; Isa. 7:16, etc.). For a more detailed discussion of this point, we refer the reader to our companion article on Original Sin and a Misapplied Passage. Passages such as Psalm 51:5; 58:3ff, which are highly figurative in composition, must be brought into harmony with the literal language of prose – not the reverse.

Second, when one presses the language of these two Psalms, in order to extract the dogma of “original sin,” he encounters some insuperable difficulties. Consider the following points.


A contradiction

If the language of Psalm 51:5 and 58:3-6 is to be pressed literally, then one encounters a contradiction between the two texts. Psalm 51:5 would teach that the child is a sinner from the moment of his conception, whereas Psalm 58:3 would suggest that the infant does not “go astray” until he is born — nine months later. Which is it – if the text is strictly literal?


Going astray

The fact that the sinner is said to “go astray” (Psa. 58:3), rather than being “born astray,” reveals the individual’s personal culpability, rather than Adam’s responsibility (as in the “original sin” theory). Compare Isaiah’s declaration: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way” (Isa. 53:6). No one is considered “sinful” on account of the sins of someone else (Ezek. 18:20).


An impossibility

A literal interpretation of Psalm 58:3 involves an impossibility. It has the infant “speaking” lies as soon as it is born, which every parent knows is not the reality. It is the case, however, that we often figuratively (using hyperbole) refer to the language that one has spoken most of his life as the tongue of his “birth” (cf. Acts 2:8).

Similarly, the fact that these “estranged” people are said to have “teeth” at the point of birth (v. 6) is further evidence that the sacred writer is not speaking of a literal, newborn child. Can anyone cite a case of where a day-old child has told a lie?


Kill the baby?

If the text of Psalm 58:3ff is to be pressed literally, these little ones who are “speaking lies” must have their teeth broken (v. 6). And since they are compared to poisonous snakes, the implication is that they should be killed so that their venom will not be deadly to others. Can the reader not see the gross error in pressing this language into a literal mold?


Lions or people?

If the language of Psalm 58:3-6 is literal, one must conclude that the divine writer was not dealing with human beings at all, but with “lions” — and, in fact, lions that spoke lies (v. 6). What is this: an example of figurative language, or some kind of Walt Disney production?

One of the cardinal rules of Bible interpretation is that one must never force a scriptural statement into a situation wherein an absurdity is affirmed. Such certainly would be the case, however, if the “original sin” interpretation of this passage is maintained.

The meaning of the text, then, is simply this. When the panorama of one’s life is viewed as a whole, relatively early in life each rational person begins to move away from God into a sinful state of spiritual rebellion. He utters things contrary to the will of God – his speech being a commentary on the disposition of his heart (cf. Mk. 7:21). He does not listen and respond to the voice of the Lord. Such conduct, therefore, if pursed continuously, is worthy of punishment.

As one writer observes, these enemies of the Lord “are so evil, it seems as if they had been born to it (cf. Ps. 51:5). This is literally impossible, and those who use this verse to argue for infant depravity surely miss the author’s point” (Ash 1980, 198).

It is not the case that one goes astray and speaks lies from his mother’s womb in a literal sense, any more than it was a reality that Job was caring for orphans and widows from his mother’s womb (Job 31:18). Why is the Psalms passage considered to be literal, while the Job text is acknowledged to be figurative?

It is interesting to observe that Albert Barnes, the renowned Presbyterian commentator who believed in the dogma of “original sin,” conceded that this doctrine could not be sustained from this passage by itself. He said this text spoke of the fact that men “develop a wicked character” fairly “early” in life. He acknowledged that the concept of “original sin” would have to be found elsewhere in Scripture before this context could be said to lend any support to the idea (1980, 138).

Note: Barnes’ view of “original sin” was somewhat confusing. He once wrote: “The notion of imputing sin, is an invention of modern times …. Neither the facts, not any proper inferences from the facts, affirm that I am, in either case, personally responsible for what another man did before I had an existence” (1830, 7; emphasis original).

The reality is — the doctrine of “original sin” is not found in Psalm 58, or elsewhere in the Bible.







Sources/Footnotes

• Ash, Anthony and Clyde Miller. 1980. Psalms. Austin, Texas: Sweet.
• Barnes, Albert. 1980. Notes on the Psalms. Vol. 2. London, England: Blackie & Son.
• Barnes, Albert. 1830. Sermon. February 8, 1829. Morris-Town, New Jersey: Jacob Mann.

 

[for_his_glory]

If man was born with a sinful nature then man is not responsible for his own sins, God would be responsible. That would have God causing men to be born with a sinful nature then God punishing men for the way God made them to be.

I never said in my OP that we were born with a sin nature. You need to re-read the first paragraph I wrote.

 

[childeye]

Sin would not be a fault of mankind if God created
man sinners then sin would be a fault of God.

I understand what you are saying. But I don't think you are understanding me. So let me put it this way. I don't believe man was created a sinner but was innocent and without any knowledge of good or evil. Mankind thus including Eve was corrupted by believing a lie proposed by Satan. Satan subtly suggested that God was protecting His place as God by denying knowledge. In the big picture however, God has foreseen all of this and therefore events are happening as He allows, for the purpose of defeating all slander about Him. So it is right to say there is no fault in God for making men corruptible since He uses it to glorify Himself.

Did God create Adam a sinner where all he could do was sin or did God create

Adam with free choice and Adam of his own will chose to sin? Adam of
his own will chose to sin so people are sinners for they choose to sin and not
created sinners. THere would be no free will involved if God created Adam
a sinner.

In none of my posts have I said God created man a sinner. Man was made corruptible, but this thread is asking if man is born with a sin nature. Those are two different scenarios. Mankind was lied to without any knowledge of what a lie is. I would think the fact a choice was made out of ignorance does in fact mitigate the culpability of the person to some degree. However I fail to see a good answer for Adam when asked why he distrusted God, while if asked why Adam trusted God, he could at least answer, because He gave me life. Unless of course Adam believes God gave him life to simply use him as a slave to do work God did not Himself want to do. This then would be in conflict with the idea that God made Mankind for companionship. That is why righteousness is not through free choice as I see it but rather through faith or trust in God's intentions and His Character.

I do not agree for there is no love at all in forcing one to sin then
punishing them for the sin they were forced to commit. There is no love if a
parents force their child to disobey just so they can punish them. There is a
world of difference between man being created to be sinner against his will and
man be a sinner of his own fault, own choosing.

You're right, but since God didn't create man a sinner, all of this is somewhat off target. The fact that man is naive or gullible is made apparrant in scripture. The word deceived, lame and blind is used over and over pertaining to man's will. The question should then arise, was Satan made a sinner since he is called the father of sin? For what it's worth, I wish you would consider that sin is the product of pride and ignorance rather than a free choice.

 

[Grazer]

But sin is a product of choice, Adam and Eve chose to disobey God

 

[stovebolts]

But sin is a product of choice, Adam and Eve chose to disobey God

According to the Bible, Eve was deceived and Adam sinned in defiance to God's will. But you are correct, each disobeyed God.

 

[farouk]

Some say we are sinful by nature. Others say we are sinful by choice.

Actually I think there is plenty of Biblical evidence that it is both by nature and by choice.

 

[for_his_glory]

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

s

Let's take this verse for what it is really saying and underline the word from and underline as soon as this verse mean after we are born we become wicked speaking lies.

 

[farouk]

'...dead in trespasses and sins...' (Ephesians 2).

 

[childeye]

iLOVE:

Well, exactly.

We can't try to force a holy God into excusing indwelling sin, merely because arguments driven by secularism might suggest that God is bound to respect the so called 'rights' of his rebellious creatures. We need God's wondrous grace, not 'rights'.

"All of grace, yes, grace surpassing, such a portion to bestow,
But the love, all knowledge passing, grace has taught us now to know.
Love that bore the stripes and sorrow, love that suffered on the tree,
Love that shares the bright tomorrow, with the loved ones, you and me."

I like some of the sentiments expressed here, but the term secularism in describing the argument to excuse indwelling sin does not seem accurate since the secular mind does not consider God respectfully. Not only that, but Jesus was in fact excusing sin which is in the flesh. His description of the sick needing a doctor does not imply he is merely patronizing the sinner by being gracious. Jesus really means what he says. The Pharisees who crucified the Christ were the ones who were against excusing or mitigating culpability for sin. This goes to say that Christ was speaking forgiveness for a good and solid moral reason. He was not about accusing people also for a good moral reason. As we see in scripture, the term accuser belongs to the devil. Christ is our advocate. Sometimes I wonder who's side people are really on as they call themselves christian.

 

[smaller]

It says they "go astray" and not "born astray".

It says exactly what it says.

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Does Psalm 58 Teach “Original Sin�

By Wayne Jackson

“I’ve just discovered your web site and all the wonderful Christian articles there. I’m pleased with what I’ve read, and I appreciate the fact that you are willing to address and discuss some biblical issues that are difficult. I have read your article Original Sin and a Misapplied Passage. I used to think that God considered all babies innocent, and I had heard about ‘the age of accountability.’ But after learning more about the Bible, I have changed my conclusion on that. It definitely is a very hard thing to think about. Have you read Psalm 58:3ff? It seems to say that babies are seen by God as sinners. Can you explain this passage?â€
​

We appreciate this sincere question. We are quite familiar with Psalm 58. Verses 3-6 read as follows:

“The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: They are like the deaf adder that stops up her ear, who listens not to the voice of charmers, charming ever so wisely. Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: Break out the great teeth of the young lions, O Jehovah.â€
​

The first thing that the careful Bible student must observe is the fact that this text is a part of that body of Old Testament literature that is highly poetic in nature, and as such, is punctuated with graphic figures of speech.

Yes, first of all DO NOT BELIEVE the OLD TESTAMENT!

Highly poetic. lol

Let's NOT believe it because "I SAY" it's only poetic?

How much would we like to pick and choose to eliminate on that basis?

Defense #1 to DENY that Word, deny that Word?

next:

These four verses contain several vivid figures, e.g., the hyperbole, the simile, and metonymy. Hyperbole is an exaggeration for emphasis’ sake; simile is a comparison between two objects by the use of “like†or “as,†etc., and metonymy involves the substitution of one name for another in order to stress an important truth.

#2, deny that Word on the basis of allegory?

Denial by any measure is? Uh, yeah, denial.

First, the Bible teaches — in unambiguous prose — that moral responsibility for sin comes in the “youth†of one’s life, and not at the point of one’s conception, or birth (see Gen. 8:21; Isa. 7:16, etc.). For a more detailed discussion of this point, we refer the reader to our companion article on Original Sin and a Misapplied Passage. Passages such as Psalm 51:5; 58:3ff, which are highly figurative in composition, must be brought into harmony with the literal language of prose – not the reverse.

Yes, now that we have totally convinced you to DENY THAT WORD, let US NOW insert our own doctrinal shilling.

If the language of Psalm 51:5 and 58:3-6 is to be pressed literally, then one encounters a contradiction between the two texts. Psalm 51:5 would teach that the child is a sinner from the moment of his conception, whereas Psalm 58:3 would suggest that the infant does not “go astray†until he is born — nine months later. Which is it – if the text is strictly literal?

It says the wicked are estranged from the womb and go astray as soon as they are born. Trying to make that some other point is, well, pointless.

Just because one might not understand 'how' that is a fact doesn't mean it's NOT a fact.

The fact that the sinner is said to “go astray†(Psa. 58:3), rather than being “born astray,†reveals the individual’s personal culpability, rather than Adam’s responsibility (as in the “original sin†theory). Compare Isaiah’s declaration: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way†(Isa. 53:6). No one is considered “sinful†on account of the sins of someone else (Ezek. 18:20).

However they do it, the point remains.

The only 'obvious' matter in play is that your common tater doesn't care one whit for the statement as it is contrary to his OWN INSERTIONS.

The balance of the critique would just be more of the same.

Deny ANY WORD that does not fit or compute with our 'doctrinal shill.' You must buy an alternative story that we sell RATHER THAN a very simple and straightforward statement from the text.

Paul did not provide any 'exceptions' to infants in this statement:

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

footnoted by doctrinal shills to add: except for infants and young adults under the age of 19 or 20.

There is a reason there are no exceptions given. IF children are sinless, then THEIR DEATHS basically guarantee their salvation and that is a very dangerous understanding to put in place. Many a religious zealot sitting under such nonsense has killed their children before they arrive at the 'crucial moment' where they may transition from SAVED as an innocent child to a 95% chance of being eternally damned upon being responsible for their SIN decisions.

It's a dangerous teaching.

s