Re: Apologists and other salesmen

John Misasi (
Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:18:53 -0500 (EST)

George Murphy wrote:

> OT sacrifices are for sins but there is nothing at all to
>suggest that they were understood to be for an inherited sinful
>condition. The writer of Ps.51 (David according to the non-canonical
>superscription) says "I've been a sinner all my life." If we want to we
>can, from a Christian perspective, go on to speak of that in terms of
>original sin, but the psalmist does not do that.

I am not saying that the idea as we know it today as quote, unquote
"original sin" is the same term used, but the idea must have been present
in Jewish culture of being born with sin, otherwise there would have been
no need to repent of sins as John the Baptist preached or the idea stated
by Paul in Romans 3:23. We can argue whether or not it is us reading
original sin into the OT, but what of Paul. I guess we should agree to
disagree on whether it can be found in the OT.

> The point at issue is not whether the doctrine of original sin
>is true. I believe it is - though it needs to be thought through
>carefully in light of human evolution. The question is whether or not
>it can be found clearly in the OT alone. It can't. That should be no
>surprise - the same is true for the Trinity.

You assume my standpoint on human evolution. My statements are in no
regard meant to be a validation or invalidation of human evolution. The
statement I was and still am arguing is that at all times, when debating
whether a passage is meant to be read in one way or another, we must
examine its place in the context of scripture as a whole. That is, if we
note that in other parts of scripture (that we take as being historical),
a referring to a previous section we think may be fictional (i.e.
non-factual) as though it was fact, we cannot judge the section as
fictional. By doing so we may invalidate another section. My ultimate
concern is that we remember the inerrency of scripture. We cannot do as
Thomas Jefferson did and cut out sections we don

> Gen.3 need not be accurate history in order for the doctrine of
>original sin to be correct. Conversely, accepting it as literal history
>- as I think Pelagius did - does not force one to accept the doctrine.

You may be right, but we must always tread carefully (see comments
above). Also, Who is Pelagius???? (seriously) I have no idea who he is
and what he has to do with this discussion I am making my own argument,
it may be similar to this fellows, but I have never heard of him.

John Misasi

Center For Advanced Biotechnology at BU Home Page