Good, Bad, or In Between: A short survey of the doctrine of man

By Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller

Name that Creed
What is man? All theologies answer this question. Some say man is good; others that man is bad, but most say that there is a mix of good and bad. So we'll play a theological game (you're favorite kind, I know). Below are four statements on the teaching of man and the depth of sin, your job is to guess who said it.

1. Man is responsible for sin because he is endowed with free will; yet he is by nature frail, and the tendency of the mind is to evil: "For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. viii. 21)

2. “By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God.”

3. “[Original sin] is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin-an inclination to evil that is called 'concupiscence.'”

4. "Nor do I absolve my own self of blame: the human soul is certainly prone to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy: but surely my Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

Before we get to the answers, let's point out the difficulty of the game: all the answers are the same! The key word in each answer is 'inclination'. In the first answer: “the tendency of the mind is to evil.” In the second and third: “a nature and an environment inclined toward sin” and “inclined to sin.” And in the last answer: “The human soul is certainly prone to evil.” There is a common theme in all of these teachings, and that is that man is not good, and yet not necessarily evil, but inclined and prone to do evil.

Now for the source of each statement:

1. The Jewish Encyclopedia

2. Baptist Faith and Message (2000)

3. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405

4. The Quran 12.53

Stunned? It is an amazing thing that modern Judaism, the Southern Baptist Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Muslim religion have the same doctrine of man. All of these teach that man is wounded, sick, troubled, but that there is still some degree of freedom and life in the will of man.

I, A Poor, Miserable Sinner
Most people think of themselves as a “pretty good person.” The Scriptures beg to differ. The denial of original sin means that most people live in the delusion of their own freedom, but the Bible teaches that all men are dead in trespasses and sin. How many good people are there? St Paul answers:

It is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.” [Romans 3:10-19, see also Ephesians 2:1ff]

The Scriptures teach with clarity that man is wicked and unholy, and yet (as we have seen above) this teaching that no one is righteous or holy is almost universally denied. But this makes sense. Our sinfulness is so complete that we are blind to our sinful condition.

Imagine a man who falls off a ladder and breaks his ankle. He is broken and he knows it, he cries out for help from someone else. But imagine again that this man breaks his ankle and his back. Now he doesn't feel the pain of his injury, and in fact might not even know that he is hurt. “Give me a hand up, I'll be okay.” So is our fall, we are so badly hurt that we do not even feel the injury; we do not know the depth of our sin.

Martin Luther talked of this trouble, that our sin is so deep that we don't even feel it:
“This hereditary sin is so deep and horrible a corruption of nature that no reason can understand it, but it must be learned and believed from the revelation of Scriptures, Psalm 51:5; Romans 6:12ff; Exodus 33:3; Genesis 3:7ff.” [Smalcald Articles III.I.3]

What Does it Matter?
Most churches teach that our sin is a tendency, not a death. Does this matter? Yes, in fact the Gospel is at stake.

If the article of Justification is the article upon which the church stands or falls, then the article of original sin is the article upon which justification stands or falls. When we know the depth of our sin then we know the height of God's love for us. The law shows us the depths to which we have fallen, our complete inability to love, serve and fear God, our complete lack of freedom, and so our utter dependence on Jesus for freedom, life and salvation.

Our Lutheran Confessions comment on this:
But the knowledge of original sin is necessary. For the magnitude of the grace of Christ cannot be understood and no one can heartily long and have a desire for Christ, for the inexpressibly great treasure of divine favor and grace which the Gospel offers, unless our diseases be recognized. As Christ says Matt. 9, 12; Mark 2, 17: They that are whole need not a physician. The entire righteousness of man is mere hypocrisy and abomination before God, unless we acknowledge that our heart is naturally destitute of love, fear, and confidence in God that we are miserable sinners who are in disgrace with God. [Apology to the Augsburg Confession, II.33-34]

The depth of our sin puts the “alone” in front of grace, in front of faith, in front of Christ. When we know the depth of our sin then we cry out with full voice to God, “Help!” “Lord, have mercy!” And the Biblical doctrine of our original sin gives us the comfort that Jesus has done all to win our salvation. This is the only comfort for sinners. May God grant us this comfort in life and in death.

INJ, Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller

Comments

[Jesus]

Hi Pastor Bryan
Your article is really very very good, and its interesting to read the whole article with out leaving a bit, your game on theology is very attractive to play and I have gone through all the four statements but I didn't get the answer I think those are your own words. I feel great to read this article and I thank you for sharing this.

[Jared]

While I cannot comment on the context of the other three with my experience. I grew up SBC and your comments about them denying the sinfulness of man are misguided at best. The Preach the sinfulness of Man. The do not say that man can be good on his own, it is only through a saving relationship with Christ that man can live a life pleasing to God. While I personally don't think you have to read Romans with a heriditary original sin in mind most of the SBC churches do. Inclined in the SBC is a much stronger word than you have protrayed, the last sentence from the passage you have ripped from its context out of the BFAM I think shows that.
I think that when we look to what the bible says about sin and the nature of man the idea of sin as hereditary is, in some ways, far too small. Sin affected all of creation, this is clear from both the Genesis account and Pauls letters. Also Free will is evident when we come to scriptures. And what do we do with people who are called righteous before the coming of Christ in scriptures? Sin is a reality reigns over the heart of humans before they come to a saving relationship with christ repenting of their sins and receiving the grace that God offers through Christ death on the cross. While you probably won't agree when we look to the bible there is a choice involved in that process...

[Steve Newell]

Jared,

Is man sinful because he sins or does he sin because he is a sinner? The first statement implies that man has the capacity to not to sin. The SBC position (Armenian part of the SBC) is that man does have the capacity to made a decision for Christ in his fallen state. If one has this ability, then one is not dead in their sin, just very sick in their sin.

The latter statement implies that we are by natural sinful and unclean and there is absolute nothing that we can do change this position. Then one takes this position, there is absolutely nothing we can do to change our condition. Salvation is 100% God's doing and we have no part or decision in the process. All we can do is to reject what God has done, we cannot accept it. In Eph 2, Paul states clearly that we are all dead in our sin. It is God who gives us life. We have not part of the process. Even our ability to have faith is a gift of God.

In terms of our salvation, there is no biblical support that we have a "free will" in choosing Christ. A physically dead man cannot make any decisions and a spiritual dead man cannot make a spiritual decision.

[Tim]

Jared,

Nevertheless, those who deny original (hereditary) sin do so chiefly because they suppose God to be restricted to human 'sensibilities' of fairness. "It would not be moral," so they cry, "for God to punish someone who had no free choice in the matter of his own sinfulness." ("What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”" -Romans 9:14-15) In this way they usurp God's Word with the doctrines of men. Nevermind, of course, the words of Saint Paul, "For as by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience the many will be made righteous." -Romans 5:19

Note also how Reformation Christianity clashes with Evangelicalism for the same reason that it clashes with Rome: Sola Gracia. To claim that a bad tree can produce something other than bad fruit (e.g., freely choosing to "accept" the gift of salvation) is to deny sola gracia: Clearly, if we must apprehend the gift of salvation through our own free choice, salvation is partly up to God and partly up to us. However, it is precisely because a bad tree can only produce bad fruit that we must be saved by grace alone through faith alone for the sake of Christ alone. Indeed, salvation is "the free gift which God freely delivers," not the "gift that we must freely chose to accept."

[Randy]

I must say I do not think the first statement in the BF@M implies that man has the capacity to not sin in that the statement is referring to Adam and original sin and not to his posterity. That is the context. On the other hand as a Southern Baptist I have never noticed that phrase "as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation." That certaintly is a Arminian or Pelagian statement and seems to fit in with the Age of Accountability theology that is prominent among Baptists. Thanks Pastor, despite the slight disagreement.

[Preston]

Bryan

First, Jews do not believe in original sin nor do they believe in total depravity as the reformers so. Jews believe man is born morally neutral, but is born with a physically depraved or weakened state. I find it interesting that most Christians believe Judaism is the root of Christian theology, but yet when we come to sin and totally depravity we somehow abort the traditional Jewish concept for that of the reformers. Next, Muslims believe much as the Calvinist believe. Muslims believe in predestination (thus the statement "Alla's will" is the core of their belief in what happens happens not out of man's freewill, but rather is preordained by Allah - see suicide bombers) and total depravity. The verse you quoted is out of context as this pertains to Allah mercy to man and has nothing to do with totally depravity.

First, one needs to understand what sin is. Sin is NOT a thing nor metaphysical (as your alluding to in your post), but sin is a moral choice made by moral agents. It is the willful disobedience to God's known laws. The concept of Original Sin and Totally Depravity is not a Jewish concept but that of Greek and Pagan philosophers. This stems from Augustine's distorted view of sex.

As for the verse you quoted from Romans as your proof text your violating a principle rule of hermeneutics as your taking this verse way out of context - not to mention your bringing a box load of presuppositions here as your looking at scripture through Calvinistic colored glasses. I would suggest you HARMONIZE the verses you quoted from Romans with the whole of scripture! Your bringing a theological construct and then isolating scriptures to prove your point. This is wrong sir and you know it! There are many scriptures that show man has the potential to be righteous and upright before God. Original Sin and Totally Depravity are false because:

1. It makes sin a misfortune and a calamity rather than a crime.

2. It makes the sinner deserve pity and compassion rather than blame for his sins.

3. It excuses the sinner.

4. It makes God responsible for sin - according to Calvinist it is God who "curses" man.

5. It dishonors God. It makes him arbitrary, cruel, and unjust.

6. It causes ministers to wink at and excuse sin.

7. It begets complacency and a low standard of religion among Christians.

8. It is a stumbling-block to the unsaved.

9. It makes Jesus a sinner or it must deny his humanity.

10. It contradicts the Bible.

11. It "adds to" and "takes from" the Bible. God warns against this in Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18, 19.

12. It begets false doctrines and false interpretations of the Scriptures.

13. It is ridiculous, absurd, and unreasonable. It contradicts the necessary and irresistible affirmations of every man's consciousness and reason, which is something that no true doctrine of the Word of God could do.

The post you have written here was to do nothing more than to support Calvin and Luther's view of justification. Let me remind you that neither Luther or Calvin writings are NOT consider God-inspired. They are nothing more than the interpretation of two men - two men whom you place at a level of importance more than the very character of God. Man will be sent to hell because he DID know right from wrong, that's what makes him guilty! Besides, if YOUR totally depraved, how do we not know your writing nothing more than a lie here - as you are unable to write anything righteous and you can not be trusted - right?

[Steve]

Pastor Wolfmueller,

Many of the responses to your article show that the scriptures are correct, and that the old Adam dies hard.

"No one seeks for God." (St. Paul in Romans)

When Jesus says in the Gospel of John, "You do not choose me, I choose you", He must have been kidding us.

Also in John... "You were born not of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,"...John was kidding, right?

Did not Jesus tell Nicodemus that he couldn't be born again on his own, but rather it happened like the wind(the Spirit)that blows...where IT wills? Maybe Jesus was kidding, once again.

What was St. Paul doing when he made his "free will" decision for Christ?

When Paul(Saul) was headed to Damascus to round up Christians and maybe kill a few of them, he was probably kidding. He was really heading up there like we head down the aisle to accept Jesus of our own "free will". I'm just kidding.

You can build great big churches on that little plot of "free will". That's the one piece of ground that sinful man just wills not to give up, because giving up that means giving up control. And we just can't have a God that is completely in control... can we?

[Tim]

Preston,

Thank you for admitting (in points 4, 5, and 13) that your God is trapped within the framework of man's finite (and fallen) conception of sensibility and fairness. I wonder, if God is so sensible, can you explain Romans 9?

Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." (Sounds fair, yes?)

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. (Do you think that's fair?)

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

Evidently Paul's response to the "fairness" argument is "God is God." Therefore, so much for God conforming to human sensibilities. And so much for man's desire or effort. Really, who are you to tell God he is unjust for condemning a bad tree that can only produce bad fruit? You see, as soon as you concede that your God is able to do anything that doesn't square with your definition of fairness, the whole basis for your denial of original sin goes out the window.

Original sin is established clearly by David (who was evidently a Jew), in Psalm 51:5. But Paul (who might have also been a Jew) makes it even clearer in Romans 5. It is interesting how Paul predicates our salvation in Christ upon original sin: Just as sin emanates from the First Adam, so righteousness emanates from the Second. *Just as.*

Verse 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.

Verses 15-16: But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

Ergo, if the many were *not* made sinners by the disobedience of the one man, they will *not* be made righteous by the obedience of the one man. Funny how that works.

You claim that man has the potential to be righteous before God. (Ask Jesus (another Jew) if a bad tree has the potential to produce good fruit.) Perhaps you are thinking of the potential referred to by the prophet Isaiah (who was, coincidentally, a Jew). "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags." -Isaiah 64:6

I am amazed at point 9: "It makes Jesus a sinner or it must deny his humanity." Surely you know that the entire purpose of the virgin birth was to circumvent original sin, which is passed through the man? (See circumcision.) Jesus is fully God and fully man. And because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by a "husband's will," he was born without sin. Whereas the virgin birth has no real meaning within the scope of free moral agency.

Most of your other points are not with mentioning, as you perhaps forget that the First Adam *was* a free moral agent, who freely chose to sin. The little ditty explains it well: "In Adam's fall, we sinned all." Adam's choice to become a slave to sin and an enemy of God *was* our choice. Through Adam, we received death. But through Christ, we receive life.

[Preston]

Bryan,

Bryan,
First let me address several issues here. First every scripture you have presented have been grossly quoted out of context. For example, the issue of Romans 9 needs to be viewed in its proper CONTEXT by which Paul is addressing. Paul is addressing JEWS not the depravity of all humanity! He is addressing the Jews because the Jews thought they were righteous because they had a concept (much like the Calvinist I might add) that they were something "special" solely based off of who they were and not based off the conditions of their heart (faith). Jews had a distorted concept of national "Election" and thought that alone made them God's "chosen people" (Hmmm...this is beginning to sound all too familiar).

For example take 9:6-7
Rom 9:6-7 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to naught. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: (7) neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

The verse you misquoted Rom 9:13 "Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated". Is not all showing God to be arbitrary, but rather he is speaking in a way that only a Jew would understand. "Have I hated" - This does not mean any positive hatred; but that he had preferred Jacob, and had withheld from Esau those privileges and blessings which he had conferred on the posterity of Jacob. This is explained in Mal_1:3,” And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness;” compare Jer_49:17-18; Eze_35:6. It was common among the Hebrews to use the terms “love” and “hatred” in this comparative sense, where the former implied strong positive attachment, and the latter, not positive hatred, but merely a less love, or the withholding of the expressions of affection. Again, Bryan - CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!

Romans 9 can be summed up by the last two verses whereby Paul states:
Rom 9:30-33 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith: (31) but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. (32) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling; (33) even as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence: And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame.

The issue Paul is addressing is telling the Jews it is by FAITH that makes one righteous not following the law or through works or into what family you were born, but rather through a change of heart!

As for the Psalms 51 reference I would add the following. 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. Let me explain, David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail)See (1CHR 2:13-16 13)....and the father of David's half-sisters was not Jesse, but Nahash (See 2 Sam 17:25) Nahash, the father of Zeruiah and Abigal, David's half-sisters, was an Ammonite king (See 1 Sam 11:1, 12:12,

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)

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. Again Bryan, CONTEXT, CONTEXT CONTEXT!

Finally, let me address what I feel is the worst accusation you have laid against the character of God. Because of your distorted doctrine, you accuse me that "that (my) God is trapped within the framework of man's finite (and fallen) conception of sensibility and fairness." Let me ask you this then, we see God from the beginning of scripture trying to establish a relationship with mankind, God is trying to restore man back to his unfallen condition so that he can fellowship with us. Real relationship requires communication. God has communicated who He is through the Holy Scriptures. But God has not only communicated to us through his Word, but has given us an even more vivid example of who he is through his Son, Jesus. Jesus is God in human form, God the bodily. If ever there was a greater example of God COMMUNICATING who He is, it was through his glorious Son Jesus! So when Jesus says "WHEN YOU SEE ME YOU SEE THE FATHER!" You would have us believe that we are unable to understand anything of God? That we are unable to understand Justice, Love, Righteousness, Mercy, and Compassion??? What nonsense!

Even Jesus shows us that the wicked know these things; Mat 7:9-11 Or what man is there of you, who, if his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone; (10) or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him a serpent? (11) If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Furthermore, Jesus taught in a method whereby he uses parables. Why? Because Jesus was appealing to mans sensibilities, fairness and right reason (SEE NATURAL LAW). God has locked us up in a world of reality. A world whereby we operate in a world of reason and logic. So what you’re saying is God has intentionally locked us up in a world whereby we are unable to understand what He is trying to tell us because our definitions are somehow different than His. You’re laying a claim that God is an ineffective communicator? That God being all powerful being is unable to properly communicate to his very creation? How foolish! When God speaks to man he speaks in a way that we CAN understand. I realize Calvinist think God is speaking in a form of "baby-talk" as John Calvin would put it, but this is neither in scripture nor is it reasonable. Sadly, Bryan it seems you think God is in the business of frustrating not only himself, but he is into frustrating his creation. I will leave you with a quote from Leonard Ravenhill:

"By overstating the sovereignty of God and blundering on in an atmosphere of stagnant dispensationalism, you safeguard your spiritual bankruptcy, all the while Hell fills."

[Tim]

Preston,

Clearly you have payed very little attention to what I wrote. I am not Pastor Wolfmueller. I have also not quoted anything "grossly out of context" (or even slightly out of context). And I am a Lutheran, not a Calvinist.

I didn't use Romans 9 as a "proof-text" for original sin and/or total depravity. Rather, Romans 9 utterly demolishes the idea that God is constrained to follow human sensibilities of fairness. (Honestly, though, that should be obvious from common sense.) Indeed: God's ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts higher than our thoughts. You, a fallen and finite man, are in absolutely no position to ever call God "unjust" or "unfair," regardless of whether or not the doctrine of original sin/total depravity is correct. Man cannot judge God. I.e., you are in no position to claim that original sin makes God responsible for sin, dishonors God, and/or makes God arbitrary, cruel, and unjust. As I said before, this should be obvious from common sense: God often *condescends* to our level, but he is not *limited* to our level. So much for the cornerstone of the "free moral agent" heresy.

Next, it is no surprise that after making much noise over the context of Romans 9 (which I thoroughly rely upon), you completely ignore the context of Psalm 51:5, reiterating the contextually ridiculous idea that David is impugning the character of his mother. (I confess, however, that your reasoning is highly entertaining!) Pay close attention to the entire psalm. David is lamenting his sin of adultery with Bathsheba. He is speaking entirely of his own sin and sinfulness, in a way which defies superficiality. Rather, sin is much deeper than that. He asks to be "washed thoroughly." He asks to be "purged." He asks that God give him a "clean heart." The psalm is entirely about David and David's sin--except for one randomly tossed-in verse talking about the sin of David's mother. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I suggest you take a page out of David's book and acknowledge that you were sinful since conception.

Next, your reaction to my assertion that you have trapped God within the box of finite, fallen human reason is interesting, but succeeds in completely sidestepping the issue. Obviously, God has revealed his Word to us for the purpose of communicating his plan of salvation through Christ, the Word Made Flesh. And it is equally obvious that we, through the work of the Holy Spirit, are able to at least get the jist of what God is trying to tell us.

However, I wonder if you would claim that *all* of Scripture is plain and obvious and thoroughly understood by you. Would you be so arrogant to claim that? But if you aren't, then what comes of your ability to judge God? If you can't even completely understand the Book, how can you possibly feel you are able to judge the Author? Dear me, He might have said something you didn't quite understand. And your evaluation of him would be flawed, accordingly.

Now, allow me to clearly reiterate how you have offended my...er...sensibilities. In short, you claim that the doctrine of original sin turns God into a moral monster. However, implicit in this statement is that you are capable of judging God. You have a moral compass known as the conscience, and upon the basis of that you claim that if original sin is true, then God is no longer pointing north. Well then! In the first place this is ridiculous because it assumes that you, a finite creation, are capable of measuring an infinite creator. It fails at the most basic level. Secondly, even proponents of "free moral agency" admit that man is somehow "tainted" or "inclined" to sin. In other words, you admit that your moral compass is faulty. So you are trying to judge an infinite and holy God using a finite moral compass which doesn't even point north anyway. Hmm.

Imagine a scientist trying to trying to determine the volume of water in the ocean...using only a common measuring cup. A measuring cup that is known to have incorrect markings. And a hole in it. Hmm.

The fact that God has obviously CONDESCENDED to *come down* to our level of understanding hardly means that *all* of God's activities can be understood. God has revealed enough for salvation (and perhaps a little more), but he has left most things concealed to us. This doesn't mean God is an ineffective communicator, it means that he is God. Indeed, God has communicated what he *intended* to communicate very effectively.

Incidentally, one of the things he intended to communicate is the doctrine of original sin, which forces man to give up entirely on himself and rely wholly on God. Reconsider Romans 5:19. "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."

If you were *not* made a sinner by the disobedience of the one man (Adam), you will *not* be made righteous by the obedience of the One Man (Christ).

[NewWill]

What many people miss is that God gave us sovereignty over ourselves, and the power of creation:

The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." Genesis 2:16-17

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. Genesis 2:19

The concept of “original sin” refers to our brokenness. Once Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, in disobedience to God, our roots revealed that man is broken in some way. Combine that brokenness with the knowledge of evil, and you have a creature not fit for Eden, as clearly demonstrated in Genesis 4. Why was man not fit for Eden? Here it is:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" Genesis 3:22

So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis 3:24

“…for in the day that you eat from it [the tree of knowledge] you will surely die." Genesis 2: 17

The fruits of the tree of life must be like the living water Jesus talked about (John 4). Given our sinful nature, the best way we can redeem ourselves in the sight of God is to accept Jesus Christ. In our redeemed state we can receive everlasting life; that which was intended for us in the beginning, and that which is the only thing we did not receive of God’s creations (the tree of life).

I must add that fate is not conditional upon anything: freewill can exist in fate.

[lc]

Psalm 119 has several examples of the Jewish perspective of man's hopeless sinful nature. The plainest verses are when David asks God to intercede for what David himself could not do, to not sin. David could not make himself righteous through the law, because he couldn't keep himself perfect in the law. Verses 129 thru 136 : Thy testimonies are wonderful : therefore doth my soul keep them. The entrance of thy words giveth light : it giveth understanding to the simple. I opened my mouth, and panted : for I longed for thy commandments. Look thou upon me, as thou usest to do unto those that love thy name. ORDER MY STEPS IN THY WORD : AND LET NOT ANY INIQUITY HAVE DOMINION OVER ME. DELIVER ME FROM THE OPRESSION OF MAN : SO I WILL KEEP THY PRECEPTS. Make thy face to shine upon thy servant : and teach me thy statues. Rivers of water run down mine eyes, because they keep not thy law. David cries because the Jews keep not the law. however, a few verses back he asks God to not let iniquity have dominion over him. The law was written on David's heart, AND he knew his flesh was hopeless to sin without God, to order his steps, which David prayed for God to do many, many times. I think David's life is the greatest example that we cannot choose to be righteous, or make a choice to accept God. I think the life of David and those in his life are the best examples that we only have the ability to reject God. And if we biblically fear God and love Him that created us, we will be saved through the wonderful saving grace of our Lord Christ Jesus.

[Kelly]

Crikey, nothing like a person screaming "CONTEXT!" to annoy me in the midst of a theological discussion, as though they are the only people on the planet to have ever heard of the notion of reading things in context. People of just about all church bodies do this and it drives me nuts. Some individuals certainly do read and quote things out of context and are blatantly guilty of bad theology-- call them on it! But that attitude I can't stand is the smug pulling of the "context" card. I've even heard people pull that card when they have no other argument. "I know I don't believe what you do, but I can't remember or explain just why, so I'll assume that you've read the passage out of context." Arg.

I have to admit I don't understand this statement from a couple posts up: "Given our sinful nature, the best way we can redeem ourselves in the sight of God is to accept Jesus Christ." That sounds like a tidy way of describing just how "accepting Jesus" is used to replace God's work of redemption, revealing it to be a work that we think we do to redeem ourselves. The sinful, unconverted heart does not accept Jesus. This is precisely the problem. Jesus' death on the cross delivered to us is what saves us, not our good moral choices or decision-making abilities.

There also seems to be confusion regarding those who are declared righteous before the coming of Christ, as though this proves that the Old Testament saints were saved by their own good works and choices. By no means! Surely we learn from Paul's writings that they were saved by faith in Christ, just as we are!

[lc]

Our standard, to prove suggested truths, is Scripture. And both pastor Wolfmueller and Kelly are in line with what Scripture tells us, for the points they made. We cannot turn ourselves to God, we can only turn away from Him after He has called us. And because I've always heard "accept Jesus as your Saviour" , I opened my Strong's concordance, and looked at every entry for accept, acceptable, acceptably, acceptance, acceptation,accepted,acceptest, accepteth and accepting. Each entry that had something to with us making a descion, was an interaction only between us. Each entry between God and us was God accepting or not accepting us. Not one entry tells us that we accept God or Jesus. Words and context make a truth clear or distort a truth into a lie. I hear many things, but no matter how many degrees someone has nor how deep their theological background, they can never outsmart or give a deeper understanding of our God, Lord and Saviour, than the Bible that God Himself promised and gave us. If any person's words disagree with Scripture, then it is that person that is unacceptable to speak, as if they had understanding of spiritual things. We all have been wrong in our understanding, many times in our christian walk. The difference we make in our sometimes flawed understanding, is based on whether we untwist our flawed notions with Scripture or we twist Scripture to fit our flawed notions to imagine them fact. And in hopes to turn a brother or sister back to truth, is to use Scripture as our undisputable last word. If they refuse Scripture as the final word, then what could any of us possibly say to convince them? RW,Olsteen,Myers,Hinn,Schuler, Crouch,etc...all have the same access to Scripture as we do. Many like Chris, have tried to use Scripture to correct them. They will not listen. I suspect their higher calling is power and greed and fame. So to point out their error is to warn others not to follow them. (for posters who wonder why Chris and others "waste" their time picking on "good men").