Oh no, not that far at all. And in no way, shape or form would I even argue we could be good. Jesus Christ died because the Law set no one free. Rather it is a rejection of the concept of total depravity, which Calvin latched on to. We are sinful, no doubt, but even the pagan can do good.
Based on Reformed theology, here's the distinction:
**Total Depravity** traditionally means: "the fall was so serious that it affects the whole person. The fallenness that captures and grips our human nature affects our bodies; that's why we become ill and die." But critically, "Total depravity is not utter depravity. We are not as wicked as we possibly could be."
**RC Sproul's "Radical Corruption"** was his preferred term because it better captures what the doctrine actually teaches: "The effect of this corruption reaches our minds, our hearts, our souls, our bodies - indeed, the whole person. This is what lies behind the word total in 'total depravity.'" And "Radical corruption points to the core sinfulness of our hearts."
The key insight is that "total" doesn't mean we're as bad as we could possibly be, but that sin affects every aspect of our being - there's no "clean" part of us untouched by the fall.
Now here's where the conversation gets interesting: even if we accept "radical corruption" as accurate (humans are broken in every aspect), that's still different from Augustine's doctrine that we inherit Adam's **guilt**. You can be radically corrupted by the fall without being legally condemned for Adam's specific sin.
The Eastern Orthodox would actually agree with much of "radical corruption" - they just wouldn't agree that this corruption makes us **guilty** from birth. There's a difference between being broken and being condemned.
Are we discussing human nature being corrupted, or are we discussing inherited legal guilt? Because those are actually two different questions.
Pelagius was actually condemned largely because of Augustine's influence. So if Augustine's interpretations were problematic, maybe the condemnation of Pelagius deserves another look too.
I think Augustine is in question across the board.
Romans 11 gives us a crystal-clear warning:
“Do not boast against the branches… remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.” (Romans 11:18, NKJV)
The apostle Paul pleads with Gentile believers not to grow arrogant toward Israel, reminding us that the Church is grafted into the root, not severed from it.
Yet Augustine argued for a clean separation between the Church and Israel. By doing so, he contradicted the very Scripture that tells us to remain humble and dependent on the root. His philosophy elevated system over text, and the consequences still echo.
When you sever the Church from Israel, you not only despise the root—you distort the fruit. Doctrines like “total depravity” may sound airtight in logic, but they are born from a tree cut off from its biblical foundation.
The truth? Man is sinful, yes. But even pagans can show goodness (cf. Luke 6:33). The Law never set us free—Christ did. And He did so not by erasing Israel but by fulfilling the promises given through her.
If the root is mishandled, the fruit will be bitter. The Church must not repeat Augustine’s error.
Agree completely on this issue but do not think he was therefore wrong on all issues. I think much good was done by Luther and Calvin but they blew it as well on the Jewish issue. All men make mistakes.
But we are talking interpretation, so it goes beyond. I think that the question answers itself, but do you want a Greek Platonist interpretation of the Scriptures or someone who looks to Scripture to interpret Scripture?
The Reformers sought to reform the Roman theology, which was a step in the right direction. In my humble opinion, they should have gone back to the Word. If we believe in Sola Scriptura why are we looking to Augustine?
They did go back to the word for the most part. That’s where the term sola scriptura came from.
I don’t think it wrong to read the church fathers like we read the literature of any other man. We can disagree with them when they contradict scripture just like you are doing and that is laudable.
Let's look at what Psalm 51:5 actually says in the original Hebrew.
The Hebrew word translated as "iniquity" is **עון** (avon), and "sin" is **חטא** (chata). But here's the key - this is Hebrew poetry, and Hebrew poetry uses parallelism and metaphor extensively.
David isn't making a theological statement about universal human nature - he's using hyperbolic language to express the depth of his own guilt over his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah. He's essentially saying "I've been a sinner from day one" - it's poetic exaggeration to emphasize how thoroughly he feels he's failed.
Also, the phrase "in sin my mother conceived me" doesn't mean his mother sinned in conceiving him or that conception itself is sinful. In Hebrew thought, it's more likely expressing that he was born into a world already broken by sin, or that his sinful tendencies were evident from birth.
If this verse really taught original guilt, then why don't we see this doctrine clearly taught anywhere else in Hebrew scripture? The Hebrew Bible consistently teaches individual responsibility (see Ezekiel 18:20: "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").
Psalm 51:5 is Hebrew poetry expressing personal guilt, not systematic theology about universal guilt. If we're going to build doctrine on poetic hyperbole, we have bigger interpretive problems than just Augustine!"
**On Psalm 58:3:** You're absolutely right - this is similar Hebrew poetry. But notice the text itself answers the question: "**the wicked** are estranged from the womb." The psalmist is specifically talking about wicked people, not making a universal statement about all humanity. Hebrew poetry often uses this kind of categorical language about different types of people.
**On Romans 3:9-18:** Paul is indeed speaking universally about human sinfulness, but look carefully at what he's actually saying. He quotes Hebrew verses to prove that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23) - meaning everyone commits sin, not that everyone is born guilty of Adam's sin. That's a crucial difference.
Paul's argument is that both Jews and Gentiles are equally in need of God's righteousness because both groups sin. But nowhere does he say we inherit Adam's guilt. In fact, in Romans 5:12, the Greek suggests each person sins individually.
**The Hebrew context matters:** The Hebrew Scriptures consistently teach individual moral responsibility. When they speak of universal human tendency toward sin, it's about our nature being corrupted, not about inheriting legal guilt for someone else's actions.
I appreciate your thoughtful engagement! The question isn't whether humans universally sin (we do), but whether we're born legally guilty for Adam's specific transgression. The Hebrew and Greek texts seem to support the former but not necessarily the latter.
I said above we are born “Maybe not guilty until we sin but no free will not to sin.”
It gets tricky because Romans 5 says…
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Romans 5:14, NASB)
So, “not sinned in the likeness of Adam”
Yet, Paul goes on to say…
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (Romans 5:18, NASB)
“one transgression” sounds like one sin.
Combine this train of thought with Ephesians…
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. (Ephesians 2:3,
NASB)
It seems to me that though possibly not guilty at birth, by an inherent sinful nature we have no choice not to sin.
The whole original sin debate hinges on the Greek phrase **"eph ho pantes hemarton"** (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον) in Romans 5:12.
The crux of the matter lies in the last clause of the verse, "eph ho pantes hemarton" which is usually translated "because all [men] sinned" (RSV, NAS, NIV). But the phrase "epi ho" translated "because" in most, if not all, English translations at the end of Romans 5:12 is misleading. The phrase, he argued, should be translated "upon which".
Here's the difference:
- Augustine's interpretation (via Jerome's mistranslation): "**in whom** all sinned" (making Adam the agent)
- Most modern translations: "**because** all sinned" (individual responsibility)
- Some Greek scholars: "**upon which** all sinned" (death as the foundation)
There are several translation and interpretive issues that make this passage a shaky support indeed for the concept of imputed guilt &/or an inherited sin nature, i.e. the doctrine of Original Sin... the Greek text is vague with several conclusions possible.
Actually, the Greek phrase 'eph ho pantes hemarton' is far more ambiguous than Augustine's doctrine suggests. Even Greek scholars today debate whether it means 'because,' 'upon which,' or something else entirely. Building centuries of guilt-based theology on what Greek experts call 'vague with several conclusions possible' seems... premature."
The Eastern Orthodox Church has maintained a completely different understanding for centuries. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Irenei of London & Western Europe says: "We are born spotless. There is no human ever..." who carries Adam's guilt from birth.
The differences between the doctrine of Ancestral Sin-as understood in the church of the first two centuries and the present-day Orthodox Church-and the doctrine of Original Sin-developed by Augustine and his heirs in the Western Christian traditions are profound. The Orthodox teach "ancestral sin" - that we inherit Adam's mortality and tendency toward sin, but not his guilt. We're not born condemned.
What's fascinating is that Orthodox doctrine on human nature has never been formally condemned by the Western church, nor has the Eastern church condemned the Augustinian doctrine of original sin - they've just quietly maintained a completely different understanding for over 1,500 years.
The Orthodox have always read those same Greek texts differently, seeing death and corruption as Adam's inheritance to us, but not legal guilt. They never accepted Augustine's interpretation that made infants guilty before they'd done anything wrong.
This means there's been an entire branch of Christianity - representing hundreds of millions of believers throughout history - who never bought into the idea that you were born carrying someone else's sin. They've always taught that you come into the world "spotless," with a broken nature that needs healing, but not with inherited guilt that needs pardoning.
My head-spinning makes even more sense now - Augustine's interpretation wasn't universal, even among Christians!
You are getting a little to close to Pelagianism I think.
We are born in sin. Maybe not guilty until we sin but no free will not to sin.
Oh no, not that far at all. And in no way, shape or form would I even argue we could be good. Jesus Christ died because the Law set no one free. Rather it is a rejection of the concept of total depravity, which Calvin latched on to. We are sinful, no doubt, but even the pagan can do good.
What is your definition of total depravity?
RC Sproul rephrased it as radical corruption.
Based on Reformed theology, here's the distinction:
**Total Depravity** traditionally means: "the fall was so serious that it affects the whole person. The fallenness that captures and grips our human nature affects our bodies; that's why we become ill and die." But critically, "Total depravity is not utter depravity. We are not as wicked as we possibly could be."
**RC Sproul's "Radical Corruption"** was his preferred term because it better captures what the doctrine actually teaches: "The effect of this corruption reaches our minds, our hearts, our souls, our bodies - indeed, the whole person. This is what lies behind the word total in 'total depravity.'" And "Radical corruption points to the core sinfulness of our hearts."
The key insight is that "total" doesn't mean we're as bad as we could possibly be, but that sin affects every aspect of our being - there's no "clean" part of us untouched by the fall.
Now here's where the conversation gets interesting: even if we accept "radical corruption" as accurate (humans are broken in every aspect), that's still different from Augustine's doctrine that we inherit Adam's **guilt**. You can be radically corrupted by the fall without being legally condemned for Adam's specific sin.
The Eastern Orthodox would actually agree with much of "radical corruption" - they just wouldn't agree that this corruption makes us **guilty** from birth. There's a difference between being broken and being condemned.
Are we discussing human nature being corrupted, or are we discussing inherited legal guilt? Because those are actually two different questions.
Thank God for Thomas Aquinas. lol
I like RC Sproul’s definition better than Tulips total depravity. We are not all Hitlers.
See my other comment on the word guilty in the other thread.
I am not enough of a theologian to give an answer, yet😉
I plan to investigate. Fun stuff.
Pelagius was actually condemned largely because of Augustine's influence. So if Augustine's interpretations were problematic, maybe the condemnation of Pelagius deserves another look too.
Fair enough. But I have no doubt Augustine was right on this issue.
I will do some rereading to remind myself of exactly why.
One verse that comes to mind is…
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (Psalms 51:5, NASB)
I think Augustine is in question across the board.
Romans 11 gives us a crystal-clear warning:
“Do not boast against the branches… remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.” (Romans 11:18, NKJV)
The apostle Paul pleads with Gentile believers not to grow arrogant toward Israel, reminding us that the Church is grafted into the root, not severed from it.
Yet Augustine argued for a clean separation between the Church and Israel. By doing so, he contradicted the very Scripture that tells us to remain humble and dependent on the root. His philosophy elevated system over text, and the consequences still echo.
When you sever the Church from Israel, you not only despise the root—you distort the fruit. Doctrines like “total depravity” may sound airtight in logic, but they are born from a tree cut off from its biblical foundation.
The truth? Man is sinful, yes. But even pagans can show goodness (cf. Luke 6:33). The Law never set us free—Christ did. And He did so not by erasing Israel but by fulfilling the promises given through her.
If the root is mishandled, the fruit will be bitter. The Church must not repeat Augustine’s error.
Stay grafted. Stay humble. Stay biblical.
—Robert Rousseau
Agree completely on this issue but do not think he was therefore wrong on all issues. I think much good was done by Luther and Calvin but they blew it as well on the Jewish issue. All men make mistakes.
As you say, Scripture alone my friend.
But we are talking interpretation, so it goes beyond. I think that the question answers itself, but do you want a Greek Platonist interpretation of the Scriptures or someone who looks to Scripture to interpret Scripture?
The Reformers sought to reform the Roman theology, which was a step in the right direction. In my humble opinion, they should have gone back to the Word. If we believe in Sola Scriptura why are we looking to Augustine?
They did go back to the word for the most part. That’s where the term sola scriptura came from.
I don’t think it wrong to read the church fathers like we read the literature of any other man. We can disagree with them when they contradict scripture just like you are doing and that is laudable.
Good for you.
Let's look at what Psalm 51:5 actually says in the original Hebrew.
The Hebrew word translated as "iniquity" is **עון** (avon), and "sin" is **חטא** (chata). But here's the key - this is Hebrew poetry, and Hebrew poetry uses parallelism and metaphor extensively.
David isn't making a theological statement about universal human nature - he's using hyperbolic language to express the depth of his own guilt over his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah. He's essentially saying "I've been a sinner from day one" - it's poetic exaggeration to emphasize how thoroughly he feels he's failed.
Also, the phrase "in sin my mother conceived me" doesn't mean his mother sinned in conceiving him or that conception itself is sinful. In Hebrew thought, it's more likely expressing that he was born into a world already broken by sin, or that his sinful tendencies were evident from birth.
If this verse really taught original guilt, then why don't we see this doctrine clearly taught anywhere else in Hebrew scripture? The Hebrew Bible consistently teaches individual responsibility (see Ezekiel 18:20: "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").
Psalm 51:5 is Hebrew poetry expressing personal guilt, not systematic theology about universal guilt. If we're going to build doctrine on poetic hyperbole, we have bigger interpretive problems than just Augustine!"
Interesting.
The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth. (Psalms 58:3, NASB)
My guess is that you would consider this verse similar to the one above.
Is the writer only speaking of the wicked?
In Romans 3:9-18, Paul seems to be speaking universally when he repeatedly says all are sinners or none are righteous.
And he used many Hebrew verses to make his point.
I am looking forward to your thoughts and kind engagement.
**On Psalm 58:3:** You're absolutely right - this is similar Hebrew poetry. But notice the text itself answers the question: "**the wicked** are estranged from the womb." The psalmist is specifically talking about wicked people, not making a universal statement about all humanity. Hebrew poetry often uses this kind of categorical language about different types of people.
**On Romans 3:9-18:** Paul is indeed speaking universally about human sinfulness, but look carefully at what he's actually saying. He quotes Hebrew verses to prove that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23) - meaning everyone commits sin, not that everyone is born guilty of Adam's sin. That's a crucial difference.
Paul's argument is that both Jews and Gentiles are equally in need of God's righteousness because both groups sin. But nowhere does he say we inherit Adam's guilt. In fact, in Romans 5:12, the Greek suggests each person sins individually.
**The Hebrew context matters:** The Hebrew Scriptures consistently teach individual moral responsibility. When they speak of universal human tendency toward sin, it's about our nature being corrupted, not about inheriting legal guilt for someone else's actions.
I appreciate your thoughtful engagement! The question isn't whether humans universally sin (we do), but whether we're born legally guilty for Adam's specific transgression. The Hebrew and Greek texts seem to support the former but not necessarily the latter.
I said above we are born “Maybe not guilty until we sin but no free will not to sin.”
It gets tricky because Romans 5 says…
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Romans 5:14, NASB)
So, “not sinned in the likeness of Adam”
Yet, Paul goes on to say…
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (Romans 5:18, NASB)
“one transgression” sounds like one sin.
Combine this train of thought with Ephesians…
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. (Ephesians 2:3,
NASB)
It seems to me that though possibly not guilty at birth, by an inherent sinful nature we have no choice not to sin.
Make sense?
Here's something for consideration.
The whole original sin debate hinges on the Greek phrase **"eph ho pantes hemarton"** (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον) in Romans 5:12.
The crux of the matter lies in the last clause of the verse, "eph ho pantes hemarton" which is usually translated "because all [men] sinned" (RSV, NAS, NIV). But the phrase "epi ho" translated "because" in most, if not all, English translations at the end of Romans 5:12 is misleading. The phrase, he argued, should be translated "upon which".
Here's the difference:
- Augustine's interpretation (via Jerome's mistranslation): "**in whom** all sinned" (making Adam the agent)
- Most modern translations: "**because** all sinned" (individual responsibility)
- Some Greek scholars: "**upon which** all sinned" (death as the foundation)
There are several translation and interpretive issues that make this passage a shaky support indeed for the concept of imputed guilt &/or an inherited sin nature, i.e. the doctrine of Original Sin... the Greek text is vague with several conclusions possible.
Actually, the Greek phrase 'eph ho pantes hemarton' is far more ambiguous than Augustine's doctrine suggests. Even Greek scholars today debate whether it means 'because,' 'upon which,' or something else entirely. Building centuries of guilt-based theology on what Greek experts call 'vague with several conclusions possible' seems... premature."
The Eastern Orthodox Church has maintained a completely different understanding for centuries. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Irenei of London & Western Europe says: "We are born spotless. There is no human ever..." who carries Adam's guilt from birth.
The differences between the doctrine of Ancestral Sin-as understood in the church of the first two centuries and the present-day Orthodox Church-and the doctrine of Original Sin-developed by Augustine and his heirs in the Western Christian traditions are profound. The Orthodox teach "ancestral sin" - that we inherit Adam's mortality and tendency toward sin, but not his guilt. We're not born condemned.
What's fascinating is that Orthodox doctrine on human nature has never been formally condemned by the Western church, nor has the Eastern church condemned the Augustinian doctrine of original sin - they've just quietly maintained a completely different understanding for over 1,500 years.
The Orthodox have always read those same Greek texts differently, seeing death and corruption as Adam's inheritance to us, but not legal guilt. They never accepted Augustine's interpretation that made infants guilty before they'd done anything wrong.
This means there's been an entire branch of Christianity - representing hundreds of millions of believers throughout history - who never bought into the idea that you were born carrying someone else's sin. They've always taught that you come into the world "spotless," with a broken nature that needs healing, but not with inherited guilt that needs pardoning.
My head-spinning makes even more sense now - Augustine's interpretation wasn't universal, even among Christians!
And the Orthodox were stabbed in the back by Rome.