Kevin DeYoung points to a series of posts by Emerging Church leader Tony Jones in which Tony makes the statement: “I have come to reject the notion of Original Sin. I consider it neither biblically, philosophically, nor scientifically tenable.” [emphasis in original]
Kevin then quotes from the Epilogue of a book he is finishing including this timely paragraph here:
More important than the record of history is the testimony of Scripture. And it’s hard to see how the doctrine of inherited and total depravity is not taught in the pages of Scripture. No one is righteous (Rom. 3:10). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). The human heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9). The natural man is dead in trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1). By nature, we pass our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating on another (Titus 3:3). We are inclined toward evil (Gen. 6:5), conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity (Psalm 51:5). All of us like sheep have gone astray (Isa. 53:6). Even our righteous deeds are as filthy rages before the Lord (Isa. 64:6). We are by nature not just morally tainted, but children of wrath, deserving of God’s punishment, even before we actually sin in our flesh (Eph. 2:3). Even on the best of days, we are divided, doing what we don’t want to do and failing to do what we know is right (Rom. 7:18-19). Because of the Fall, we are hard-wired toward evil. We sinned in Adam and died through his trespass, inheriting his guilt and a corrupt nature (Rom. 5:12-20).
Tony Jones’ rejection of original sin is not a rejection of Augustine. It is a rejection of the Bible’s teaching.
things like this are why I keep Brett Kunkle’s doctrinal refutation of the Emerging Church linked in my sidebar to the right.
Just a little hint. If someone is calling the heretic Pelagius a “Saint”, that is your clue that you need to walk away post haste.
Bkingr,
There’s a huge difference between “inclined toward evil” that you quoted above and blackened and deader than dead. Maybe not in Calvinism, but Biblically, there’s a huge difference.
Paul in Romans 3 is drawing from Psalm 14, one written by David, which states, “The Lord looks down from heaven on the human race to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
One would think in reading Psalm 14 alone that the words stand alone. No one does good.
Yet four Psalms later, in Psalm 18, David says, “The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord; I am not guilty of turning from my God. All his laws are before me; I have not turned away from his decrees. I have been blameless before him, and have kept myself from sin.”
Same author. Is David confused? Or in both Psalms, is David using black/white imagery (“no one does good” and “”I am not guilty”) to make the rhetorical point that this sinful inclination is powerful yet God calls for our obedience? Viewed in this light, we can read Psalm 14 (and then Romans 3) with fresh eyes, where God is looking down to see if any will have the courage to stand up and be obedient. He laments that humans, by and large, have turned away, but David proclaims in Psalm 18 that God rewards those who pursue righteousness.
Kevin also uses rebellion (not total depravity) language in quoting Jeremiah 17 (deceitful, desperately sick), Titus 3 (hating on another), and Romans 5 (corrupt nature). The Bible uses extreme imagery both ways; to celebrate human righteousness (obedience) and decry human rebellion (depravity). There’s no easy way to clean this up, as much as the system of Calvin would like to do so. Let the Bible speak for itself.
Nathan Myers
Pingback: original sin, part 2 « Interstitial
you would think from this that Paul’s quote of Romans 3:10 was the main thing that Kevin DeYoung cited. It wasn’t.
Assume for a minute that it was. What is your refutation? That Paul was relying on David. David said something else somewhere else and therefore Paul didn’t mean it the way it sounds, and that some of the other verses that Kevin cited were simply “extreme imagery” to “decry human rebellion.”
And then you have the nerve/temerity/audacity/hutzpah/guts to tell me that I should let the Bible speak for itself. Just wow.
Ok, I will. Here is the “extreme imagery” supporting the idea that humans are born into sin and bear the sin nature by nature:
and here is the “extreme imagery” that says that apart from Christ we are all DEAD in our sins (not some kind of “mostly dead” or “a bit sluggish.”)
Do you get that? the Bible, speaking for itself, says plainly that we were all dead and caught up in sin by our nature. that we were naturally objects of God’s wrath. That God then made us alive in Him, by His glorious grace. God through the sacrifice of His son, Jesus, made a way for us to be rescued from our sinful nature. That is why Romans 6 is such good news. We have been made alive and are no longer enslaved to our natural sinful nature. We now have a true choice to reject the opportunity to offer our members up as instruments of unrighteousness for the first time. For the first time, we have the opportunity to offer ourselves up as servants to righteousness.
That news wouldn’t be so good if there were no such thing as original sin. That would mean that Pelagius was correct and that any person can decide on their own to pursue God. That concept just won’t fly if you let the words above from the Bible “speak for themselves.” It only works if you explain away what Paul told the Ephesian church in chapter 2:1-10.
Pingback: Emerging Church: RIP? « Interstitial