Fundamentals 2: virgin birth

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

It says he was brought forth IN iniquity, not WITH iniquity...And the second part of that verse is speaking of HOW his mother conceived him...You see it the way someone TAUGHT you...Not the way it actually is...

David was in the middle of confessing his own sins to God. He did not bring a supposed sin of his mother into that confession. David realized that he was a sinner at birth.

I realize that people who hold to either a liberal theology or to a neo-orthodox theology are likely to not believe in original sin, but it is what the Bible teaches and it is the view held by orthodox theology.

[Jerwade]

Originally Posted by Mike555

David was in the middle of confessing his own sins to God. He did not bring a supposed sin of his mother into that confession. David realized that he was a sinner at birth.

What do you remember before the age of one or two?

I realize that people who hold to either a liberal theology or to a neo-orthodox theology are likely to not believe in original sin, but it is what the Bible teaches and it is the view held by orthodox theology.

Man cannot comprehend the existence of their own errors, when too deeply immersed in them.

Orthodox Fundamentalism, deviated from the truth; and has been lost, ever since
It's called being delusional, or having a false and unrealistic belief or opinion.

In other words, it's not fact.

[georgeinbandonoregon]

well (and assuming I'm not completely misunderstanding the conversation), "original sin"/"original guilt" is one of the basic tenets of most traditional western theology including the Catholic church (which is why infant baptism is especially important to Catholics)---if nothing else this (supposedly) explains the inherent propensity for all of us at times to do the wrong thing (=sin). the virgin birth dogma is not so much a way for Jesus to "escape" being born into Adam's and human nature's sin but to show that He is indeed the Son of God NOT dependent on all the normal things that accompany becoming human--born from a human woman as a human being BUT also having the divine nature perfectly combined in one person---"a man like us in all things BUT sin". certainly difficult for the human mind to comprehend but another part of the mystery and miracle of the "incarnation"---God coming into this world as man for our salvation to liberate us from the effects of that original sin.

the Eastern Orthodox apparently have a slightly different concept believing that instead of "guilt" all human nature has been adversely "wounded" but not completely deprived of ability to serve God---best to check out the Wikipedia listing on "original sin" though because the "differences" are subtle and they certainly do not deny that mankind absolutely needs a divine savior (Jesus) and that infant baptism is critically important part of achieving that. humble apologies to any our Orthodox brethren if I have completely messed up on their theology!!!!

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Mike555

David was in the middle of confessing his own sins to God. He did not bring a supposed sin of his mother into that confession. David realized that he was a sinner at birth.

I realize that people who hold to either a liberal theology or to a neo-orthodox theology are likely to not believe in original sin, but it is what the Bible teaches and it is the view held by orthodox theology.

Misunderstood, mistranslated, misapplied and oversimplified --again.

Consider other verses in the poetic literature that describe a very different side of human nature. This same King David, again addressing God, writes: "Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God" (Psa. 22:9,10; cf. 71:5,6). Similarly, the godly Job proclaims that he has taken care of orphans and widows "from my birth" (Job 31:17,18). These verses are rightly understood as poetic exaggerations. No one cites them to prove a doctrine of "original holiness" or "original righteousness." Why, then, should Psalm 51:5 and 58:3 be cited to prove "original sin"?


What do these poetic verses convey? Doubtless they express the wonderful heights to which their authors' souls soared, on the one hand, and the tragic depths to which they experienced sin, on the other. In each case they used the strongest possible language to express the joy, or the despair, of their innermost being. When delighting in the law of the Lord, the inspired poets felt as if they had been righteous from birth; but when grieving over the tragedy of sin, they felt as if they, or their enemies, had always been sinful, even from birth. But these types of poetic expression fall far short of proving that each person is born bearing the guilt for Adam's first sin.

Romans 5:12-21
More germane to our question is Romans 5:12-21, where Paul traces sin and death to Adam's original transgression. This is also the primary passage on which the doctrine of "original sin" was built. Augustine and his contemporaries relied on the Latin version of Romans 5:12, which states that "By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for in him all men sinned." However, as we will see below, "in him" is far from an accurate translation of the Greek.

Corporate Sin?
Far from identifying all humanity with Adam at this point, Paul goes to great lengths to distinguish between the two. He writes of "one man" and "all men" (v. 12); "the many" and "the one man" (v. 15); "one man's sin," "the one man," "that one man," and "all men" (vv. 16-18); and "the one man" and "the many" (v. 19). As commentator James D.G. Dunn writes:

What comes to expression here is not some concept of "corporate personality" or
cosmic Man or theology of Adam as Everyman. However much Paul wants to stress the universality of the effects of Adam's sin (vv 13-14, 18-19), the fact remains that he begins with (v 12) and maintains throughout (vv 15-19) a distinction between the "one" and "all"/"the many." The link between the "one" and the "all" is not explained, but the distinction is clear: the "one" is not the "all," and the "all" are not simply subsumed with the "one."

In addition, verse 14 of this passage is fatal to the Augustinian reading. There Paul clearly writes of "those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam" (NIV). This fact flies in the face of the doctrine that all Adam's descendants committed his sin, either seminally or legally. Paul clearly writes here that some did not sin after the fashion of Adam.

That there was "an original sin" is clear. Paul clearly writes that "sin entered the world through one man" (v. 12). But that this sin was passed to Adam's descendants is not supported in this passage. Why, then, do all of Adam's descendants fall under judgment and condemnation as a result of his sin (vv. 16,18)? Is humankind nevertheless saddled with the guilt for Adam's sin, even though we have not committed it?

Conditional Guilt?
Some Arminians argue, on the basis of verse 18, that the condemnation is conditional upon our choosing to follow the pattern of Adam. The argument runs something like this. In the second half of verse 18, Paul writes that "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men" (NIV, emphasis mine). Unless he was a "universalist," Paul did not actually mean that all people will be saved; he meant rather that all people "in Christ" will be saved. All who have freely chosen to accept Christ are justified because of his one action. Thus, the first half of the verse must bear a similarly restricted meaning: "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (NIV), that is, all who have chosen the sinful way of Adam rather than the righteous way of Christ. Thus the condemnation is conditional on our free choice to follow Adam.

However, this reading is highly unlikely. True, not all are born again "in Christ." However, the reverse is not true. All people live and die "in Adam" (1 Cor. 15:22). Not all people are "born again" spiritually, but all people are born physically. The two ideas are not strictly parallel. Paul's point remains: All humanity stands under condemnation because Adam sinned. Worse, in the next verse, verse 19, Paul writes that "through the disobedience of the one the many were made sinners."

Imputed Sin?
The question is: How? Is the sin of Adam "imputed," as it were, to our spiritual "account" before God? That also is unlikely. Sin is not an abstract property to be "imputed" from one person to another (cf. Ezek. 18:20). On the contrary, the Scriptures very clearly define sin as lawlessness: "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4, NIV, emphasis mine). Commenting on Romans 5:19, Joseph A. Fitzmeyer writes:
The vb. hemarton should not be understood as "have sinned collectively" or as "have sinned in Adam," because they would be additions to Paul's text. The vb. refers to personal, actual sins of individual human beings, as Pauline usage elsewhere suggests (2:12; 3:23; 5:14,16; 1 Cor. 6:18; 7:28, 36; 8:12; 15:34), as the context demands (vv 16, 20), and as Greek Fathers understood it.

That Adam's disobedience "made" his descendants into "sinners" is clear. However, the verse does not in the least explain how or in what way this happened. The explanation must be found elsewhere. Most likely, the solution hinges on 5:12 and the meaning of "death.

Original Sin?