Original Sin

Though it is true sin comes to dwell in man, it isn't true it is in infants. There are some verses used by "Faith Only" groups and Catholics that seem to show man is a sinner from birth, and that man is totally depraved. This is questionable because many passages contradict this view.

Also, being a sinner is not the same as being totally depraved. One has no hope of doing good while the other can do both.

I have already shown that total depravity is false.

Rom 2:14  For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 

Rom 2:15  Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 

we see three areas the gentiles fulfilled the law,

by nature

consciounce

thoughts

This before the Gospel was sent to them in Apostolic days. This doesn't mean they hadn't sinned, but they had the ability by nature to fulfill the requirements of the law, which was spiritual.

We also see that the thoughts can be corrupted, but when?

Gen 8:21  And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 

It certainly seems something we grow into vs being born. Perhaps it is close enough to birth that it seems that way to the individual. We can't remember when we weren't sinners. Memory is closely associated with our ability to reason in development terms.

Total depravity isn't true. But what about original sin, where many teach man has a nature that will always lead him to sin at some point. Most teach it is passed through physical intercourse by procreation. Does sin dwell in man at birth, or is it something we grow into? There is only a few verses that hint at sin at birth, the rest are mere assumptions that can be disproven.

Historically the Church Fathers did not use original sin as a term until Origen, who Catholics ultimately rejected on many grounds. Prior to Origen, Tertullian did not see infant baptism removing any inherited sin, and even closer to the apostles, Irenaeus a man taught by Polycarp who was taught by John.

Irenaeus did not see Adam's fall as falling into total depravity, but as disobedience. Thus, Irenaeus in no way taught original sin. Neither did Polycarp.

If they thought original sin was man's foundational need for forgiveness, they likely would have said something.

I find myself aligning with this earlier view much more than the post-Origen Catholic view. Though they try to tie infant baptism as far back as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr there are direct statements from them not supporting it.

Clement of Alexandria saw Adam's fall effecting man by example.

Yet, there were people who later appealed to verses to try to formulate the doctrine. Here are some passages used or often misused. Job is used despite verses showing Job to be righteous.

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

and God agrees

Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Yet people contradict Job 1:1 1:8by claiming Job said he couldn't do good. They use

Job 14:4  Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. (Says nothing of infancy)

Speaking of the rottenness of Job's sores perhaps. Such sores may be considered unclean.

Lev 13:51  And he shall look on the plague on the seventh day: if the plague be spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in a skin, or in any work that is made of skin; the plague is a fretting leprosy; it is unclean. 

 Job was mainly viewing death, and the death that seemed to be upon him, as the body decays from a condition like lepprosy. Not necessarily original sin. The entire passage is about death and resurrection. The clean and unclean can be a reference of man after sinning.

Man becomes unclean at sin, and continues in death, as those under the law became unclean by touching a dead body.

Plus, the living could become clean again, this says no one can make clean again.

Another verse,

Job 15:1  Then answered Eliphaz the Temanite, and said, 

Job 15:14  What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? 

Job 15:15  Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. 

Job 15:16  How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water? 

First, Job had previously accused him of lying.

Second, he denies man can be righteous. This is denying God can forgive. It denies the righteousness of faith leading to a righteous life.

Third, he says man drinketh iniquity, not that he was born in it.

Abel, Noah, Abraham,  Lot etc were all called righteous by inspired men.

2Pe 2:7  and righteous Lot, worn down by the conduct in lasciviousness of the impious, He did rescue, YLT

Eliphaz the Temanite though stating his opinion, was not speaking by inspiration.

We can even break down Psalms,

Psa 14:1  To the Overseer. --By David. A fool hath said in his heart, `God is not;' They have done corruptly, They have done abominable actions, There is not a doer of good. 

Psa 14:2  Jehovah from the heavens Hath looked on the sons of men, To see if there is a wise one--seeking God. 

Psa 14:3  The whole have turned aside, Together they have been filthy: There is not a doer of good, not even one.

Psa 14:4  Have all working iniquity not known? Those consuming my people have eaten bread, Jehovah they have not called. 

Psa 14:5  There they have feared a fear, For God is in the generation of the righteous. 

He is speaking of a generation of athiests who are consuming his people, says nothing about infants, but acknowledges he is in the generation of the righteous. Thus not all men are faithless.

"there is not a doer of good" is speaking of the atheist group, not the righteous group.

Several times God uses the general term sons of men or men, to speak of a smaller group of men.

Psa 4:2  Sons of men! till when is my glory for shame? Ye love a vain thing, ye seek a lie. Selah. 

Psa 4:3  And know ye that Jehovah Hath separated a saintly one to Himself. Jehovah heareth in my calling to Him. 

Sons of men wasn't a look at all mankind, but a group that was disrespectful to the righteous. David had many supporters as did Christ.

How about Paul's statement in Romans many believe refers to all people, as if there was not a God fearing man on earth, yet it seems more to be convicting the Jewish nation, who were in many cases worse than the gentiles. Thus he was looking at a sect of Judaism.

"He concludes both Jew and Gentile under sin.

Rom 3:9  What, then? are we better? not at all! for we did before charge both Jews and Greeks with being all under sin, 

Rom 3:10  according as it hath been written--`There is none righteous, not even one; 

Rom 3:11  There is none who is understanding, there is none who is seeking after God. 

Rom 3:12  All did go out of the way, together they became unprofitable, there is none doing good, there is not even one. 

Throughout all ages there have been some seeking after God, so this should be used in a local sense.

It shows the opposite of original sin. It is addressing what people are doing, not how they were born. An entire generation of Jews became uprofitable. They became unprofitable--not born unprofitable.

There are a couple verses hinting at sin indwelling at birth, but is it hyperbole. Psalms is written in Poetry.

Psa 51:5  For, behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me.

 He had the sin of murder and adultery. Notice the plurals, iniquities and sins, thus not original sin which is singular. As in Acts 2:38, it says remission of sins plural, thus not speaking of original sin singular in that passage either.

There are many explanations proposed for Psalms 51.

1. It is hyperbole expressing the feeling his life is complete sin from birth.

2. Being brought forth into a world of sin. Sin was around him and teaching him from conception.

3. His grandmother Tamar sinned, thus Judah's off spring could not enter the temple until the 10th generation, but David was conceived in the temple during the 9th generation. Thus conceived in sin.

4. It could be a reference to David and Bathsheba's son who passed away.

Psalms 51:5 is different in that it speaks of being conceived in sins, but the entire passage speaks of sins committed and the judgment upon committed sins

Psa 51:4  Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned, And done the evil thing in Thine eyes, So that Thou art righteous in Thy words, Thou art pure in Thy judging.

Plus it asks to renew a right spirit. How do you renew that which was never right?

Psa 51:10  A clean heart prepare for me, O God, And a right spirit renew within me. 

There is no hint that judgment is placed upon him for Adams sin. David is being judged for his murder and adultery.

yet, being conceived in sin may still be speaking of the world around him, his parents and family were sinners of great magnitude.

Plus, by one man sin entered the world, sin has been here since.

2Pe 3:13  Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 

Righteousness dwelling in the earth vs sin. A person born into a righteous environment would see things differently.

Another passage.

Psa 58:3  Sinners have gone astray from the womb: they go astray from the belly: they speak lies. (says gone astray not born, refers to speaking, babies don't speak, refers to a smaller class of men.)

Since this is similar to a statement in Job, we can view it as hyperbole, see Job below. Plus, it is speaking of sinners, all people eventually sin but the term "sinners" is used for the un-remorseful with no inkling to repent.

1Pe 4:18  And if the righteous man is scarcely saved, the ungodly and sinner--where shall he appear? 

Job 31:17  Or have eaten my morsel myself alone, and the fatherless hath not eaten thereof; 

Job 31:18  (For from my youth he was brought up with me, as with a father, and I have guided her from my mother's womb;) 

Job spoke of doing good for the orphan from his mothers womb. Certainly it is hyperbole.

We can also see from Paul that you can be separated from the womb, but not be called until an adult. The end of God's design from birth may not be fulfilled for years. David could be marked out for sin from conception, but not fulfilled until sin occured.

Gal 1:15  But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 

Though separated from birth he was a persecutor till later in life.

Psa 22:9  But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. 

Psa 22:10  I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly. 

Man can be born for both callings. Ask Jesus.

John was filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb.

Samson was a Nazarite from the womb

David though brought forth in iiquity, was covered by God in the womb.