Posted on 09/14/2002 11:27:48 AM PDT by Itsfreewill
My friend and I stood looking down at his tiny newborn baby, lying contentedly in his crib. "Of course," said my friend, "our little Tommy is a sinner."
These words were a continuation of the doctrine my friend had taught earlier in his Sunday school class: a doctrine that is accepted as orthodoxy almost universally in our churches, the doctrine that all of humanity sinned in Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit, that Adam's sin, its guilt, and its curse were imputed to all his descendants, and that all of his descendants are now born with an Adamic sin nature which makes sin unavoidable and makes us "by nature the children of wrath."
What makes this incredible doctrine believable is the fact that there are verses in the Bible which seem to teach it. Psalm 51:5 comes immediately to the mind of the Christian who has been taught to believe in the doctrine of original sin: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." This settles it for the Christian. If the Bible says we were "shapen in iniquity" and "conceived in sin," then it has to be so.
And the above text would teach that men are born sinners if it were meant to be taken literally. But the language of this text is not literal, it is figurative. Both context and reality demand a figurative interpretation of this text.
For example, let's compare Psalm 51:5 with Job 1:21, which says: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." If Psalm 51:5 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that David and all other men are born sinners, then Job 1:21 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that Job and all other men will some day go back into their mother's womb.
Neither Psalm 51:5 nor Job 1:21 is to be understood literally. They are both figurative expressions. Both context and our knowledge of reality demand a figurative interpretation of these two texts.
David uses figurative language throughout his Psalms. In fact, in the 51st Psalm, verses five, seven, and eight are all figurative expressions. So if verse five can be made to teach that men are born sinners, then verse seven can be made to teach that hyssop cleanses us from sin when it says, "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean." Also, verse eight can be made to teach the doctrine that God breaks the Christian's bones when he sins, and that his broken bones rejoice when he is forgiven "Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice." Another of David's Psalms, Psalm 58:3, can be made to teach the astonishing doctrine that babies speak from the very moment they are born: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."
But who would seriously teach from this last text that babies actually do speak as soon as they are born? None of these passages is meant to be understood in a literal sense. They are all figurative expressions. If they were understood literally, they would all teach what we know to be contrary to reality; for reality teaches us that bones don't rejoice, hyssop doesn't purge sin, babies don't speak as soon as they leave the womb, and an unborn child is not morally depraved.
The same rules of interpretation that would permit Psalm 51:5 to teach that babies are born sinners, would, if applied to these passages (or if applied to many other passages in the Bible), allow for every kind of perversion and wild interpretation of God's Word. Look again at the words of Job 1:21: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither." Did Job, by these words, mean to teach that he and all other men would some day go back into their mother's womb? We know that such a meaning is absurd. But it is just as reasonable to give to Job 1:21 the nonsensical meaning that Job and all other men will some day go back into their mother's womb, as it is to give to Psalm 51:5 the nonsensical meaning that David and all other men are born sinners. David was not teaching in this passage that he was born a sinner. He instead was confessing to God the awful guilt and sinfulness of his heart, and he cried out to God in strong language the language of figure and symbol to express that awful guilt and sinfulness.
But if David intended to affirm that he was literally "shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin," then he affirmed absolute nonsense, and he charged his Creator with making him a sinner; for David knew that God was his Maker:
Thy hands have made me and fashioned me. Psalm 119:73
You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body, and knit them together in my mother's womb. Psalm 139:13 (Living Bible)
Know ye that the Lord he is God: It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves. Psalm 100:3
Are we to understand from these passages that God fashions men into sinners in their mother's womb? No, we know that God does not create sinners. Yet, upon the supposition that Psalm 51:5 teaches that men are born sinners, these texts could teach nothing else. Who cannot see that the doctrine that men are born sinners charges God with creating sinners? It represents man as being formed a sinner in his mother's womb, when the Bible clearly teaches that God forms man in his mother's womb. It represents man as coming into this world a sinner, when the Bible clearly teaches that God creates all men. It may be objected that God created only Adam and Eve, and that the rest of mankind descended from them by natural generation. But this objection does not relieve the doctrine of an inherited sin nature of its slander and libel of the character of God. For if man has a sinful nature at birth, who is it who established the laws of procreation under which he would be born with that nature? God, of course. There is no escaping the logical inference that is implicit in the doctrine of an inherited sin nature. It is a blasphemous and slanderous libel on the character of God.
But one might as well reject the Bible out of hand, if he does not want to recognize that God is the Creator of all men. For the fact that God is the Creator of all men is one of the clearest truths taught in the Bible.
Thy hands have made me and fashioned me. Psalm 119:73
Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Psalm 139:13, 14
Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb? Job 31:15
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee. Jer. 1:5
Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us? Mal. 2:10
Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth. Eccl. 12:1
Know ye that the Lord he is God; it is he that hath made us and not we ourselves. Psalm 100:3
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth...for it repenteth me that I have made them. Gen. 6:7
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen. 1:26,27
Ye are gods; and all of you are the children of the most High. Psalm 82:6
For in the image of God made he man. Gen. 9:6
Man is the image and glory of God. I Cor. 11:7
Men are made after the similitude of God. James 3:9
The Lord formeth the spirit of man within him. Zech. 12:1
The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Job 33:4
He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. Acts 17:25
We are the offspring of God. Acts 17:29
I am the root and the offspring of David. Rev. 22:16
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. Eccl. 7:29
This last text not only declares that God has created man, but it also affirms that God created man upright. If man is created upright, he cannot be born a sinner; and if he is born a sinner, he cannot be created upright. Either one or the other may be true, but they cannot both be true for the two are contradictories.
But when God says he "created us in his image, and gave us life and breath and all things," are we to understand that he created us as sinners? When he says, "We are his offspring," are we to understand that his offspring are born sinners? When Jesus said, "I am the root and the offspring of David," are we to understand that David sprang forth from the root Christ Jesus with a sinful nature? Or, are we to understand that Jesus, as the offspring of David, was born with a sinful nature? The very fact that Jesus was a man, descended from Adam, and born with a human nature as we are, shows that men are not born with a sinful nature. I John 4:3, II John 7, Heb. 2:14, Heb. 2:16-18, Heb. 4:15, Rom. 1:3, Matt. 1:1, Luke 3:38.
The doctrine of original sin is false: it slanders and libels the character of God, it shocks man's god-given consciousness of justice, and it flies in the face of the plainest teachings of God's holy Word. The doctrine of original sin is not a Bible doctrine. It is a grotesque myth that contradicts the Bible on almost every page. But because good Christians can quote texts from the Bible to "prove" the doctrine of original sin, they are convinced it is true. But good Christians have rejected truth and clung to error in the name of the Bible before.
For instance, Galileo and Copernicus brought to the church the truth that the earth was not the center of the universe, that the sun did not go around the earth but that the earth went around the sun and that the earth rotated on its axis, giving the illusion that the sun was going around the earth.
We all know this to be true now, but did all good Christians believe it then? No, both John Calvin and Martin Luther clung, along with the church, to the error that the earth was the center of the universe, that the sun went around the earth and that the earth stood still.
"Martin Luther called Copernicus 'an upstart astrologer' and a 'fool who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy.' Calvin thundered: 'Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit? Do not the Scriptures say that Joshua commanded the sun and not the earth to stand still? That the sun runs from one end of the heavens to the other?'"
Both Calvin and Luther were good, well-meaning men, but they still clung to their false views because they could quote Scripture texts to support them. Likewise, there are good, well-meaning Christians today who also erroneously cling to the doctrine of original sin because they can quote texts from the Bible to "prove" it.
It is these texts, that have been taken out of context and misinterpreted to support this false doctrine, that we will examine in the next chapter.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Psalm 58:3
And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Eph. 2:3
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one. Job 14:4
What is man that he should be clean, and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Job 15:14
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned...Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Rom. 5:12, 18, 19
Hank if man is born sinless he does not need grace to abound ..or even exist ...man can do it on his own..after all he is just like God
I am still waiting for the name of a man born in the last 2000 that made a decision never to sin and lived the law PERFECTLY..
(I am curious how you would interpret this last verse.)
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1 John, chapter 5
"10": He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
"11": And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
"12": He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
"13": These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
"14": And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
"15": And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
Righteousness is not a product. Question is meaningless.
I do not know why I bother answering your questions. You evidently to not bother reading my answers.
You evidently missed this:
Phil. 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.
But let me add this:
1 Pet. 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.
1 Thess. 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Phil. 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
All that I do is with the power and ability God has given me. If God enables me to obey, and moves me to obey, and I obey, what do you call that?
If you are not actively seeking to obey God with all your heart, you are sinning. You are not to sit back and wait for God to do something in you, you are to obey whatever He has revealed to you. "But what if I try to do it in my own strength?" I often hear.
What strength would that be, that is "your own." 1 Cor. 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
Man's problem is not that he does not have the ability to do what God requires. God will always provide whatever is required, and if men to not repent it is not because they are unable to, but because they stubbornly refuse to.
Hank
That's easy.
First of all, there is my mother and my wife. Neither one of them ever did anything wrong. I know this, because they told me so themselves, and you know, mother's and wives never lie. Just ask them.
Then there is every child until they reach the age when they understand the difference between right and wrong. I know, you will probably think I'm blind, but it is almost impossible for me to attribute sin to anything little girls do, but, even for them, about thirteen or fourteen, they suddenly seem know, not only the difference between right and wrong, but everything.
I think this answer is at least as serious as the question.
Hank
Also, Hank, I found something in a book I have, last night. The Orthodox Church, (Ware) says that Augustine originated the "double procession" theory and which was the forerunner of the filioque.
See also this, and this.
"The doctrine of double procession cannot be understood when considered apart from Augustine's thought. Augustine, without knowing it, may have set off this controversy which ultimately led to the split between the eastern and western churches. A commentator on Photius believed that every crisis and change in thought in the western church could be traced back to Augustine. In his treatise, De Trinitate, he drew upon Scripture and logic to argue in favour of double procession. According to Augustine, the procession of the Holy Spirit was as true from the Son as it was from the Father. Primordially, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, who then gave the Son the ability to produce the Holy Spirit." ( from the second site).
If you want to see lots more, just do a google search for "double procession Augustine".
"The church draws its stance from a vision of the human "person" built around scriptures and patristic teaching.
The Orthodox doctrine of the human person begins with the Genesis affirmation that every human being is created "in the image and likeness of God." However the term "image" is defined, it implies that people are not isolated but members of a community. And the primary and primordial community is that of the church.
The ultimate model for this community is God himself: the eternal life-in-communion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
"Be perfect," Jesus instructs his followers, "as your heavenly Father is perfect." That perfection, in God's terms, is expressed as self-sacrificing love, offered as a free gift, particularly to his people.
In order for us to reflect God's perfection, we cannot avoid engaging in an ongoing struggle against the tendencies of our darker side, what the ascetic tradition calls the "passions."
Accordingly, many teachers of the faith make a distinction between "image" and "likeness." They define "likeness" as the goal of that struggle. Just as every human being is created in the divine "image," every one is called to assume the divine "likeness." The image refers to our nature. The likeness, on the other hand, constitutes the goal toward which each of us is called to strive."
I tell you, the church fathers prior to Augustine believed and taught this, a less sombre and more loving view of God. You have been infected by the heresies of Augustine, imho. Though I love you all the same.:-)
I am off to work now. Later..
Now wait a minute you do not think the seed was corrupted. You were born as perfect as jesus
Of course you hae a scripitual citation for the age of reason . I await your scriptures
You can "blow off" my question as silly Hank ..BUT it is a real quandery for you..IF the fall had no spiritual impact on future generations surely ONE man could have chosen NEVER to sin..just one Hank ..give me a name...After all you were born as perfect as jesus
What seed? What are you talking about?
Hank
1 Pet. 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Now what corruptible SEED do you suppose Peter is talking about?
The fall Hank, the seed of Adam
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
IF the fall had no spiritual impact on future generations surely ONE man could have chosen NEVER to sin.
Well, actually one did? One with a nature exactly like all other men?
I have already adequately answered this. Your argument is not logically correct, and defies experience.
I think you did not read my posts carefully, so I will repeat what I formally said. You will notice, if you do read it carefully, I never said the fall had no affect on the future, or that human nature was not changed. I only deny that sin can be ascribed to nature. Its an absurdity. Sin is transgression of the law, period.
Adam and Eve, and all the angels were created sinless, and Adam and Eve, and probably 1/3 of the angels sinned.
After the fall, man became "physcially" depraved, mortal, and subject to disease and easily inflamed desires in a world also under the curse. If man could not keep from sinning when in perfect health, in paradise, walking daily with God, why do you suppose he would be able to keep from sinning in the imperfect state he now finds himself in. Your assumption is completely baseless.
(Remember, temptation is not sin. After the fall, temptation became much greater than before. and Jesus sufferred that same temptation, proving that a man could resist it if he chose to. However, Jesus is the only man who ever did resist it, and the only one that ever will choose to do so.)
Hank
Did he have a nature JUST like all other men? I assume then you do not believe he had a divine nature..perhaps like you the product of sexual intercourse between mary and....????
After all if he is EXACTLY like YOU He did not a divine nature..you too COULD have lived sinless had YOU chosen to right?
Let me ask you this Hank...IF every man has a choice not to sin...who other than Jesus Christ has lived the law perfectly?..If eveyman has the choice not to sin and was not spiritually corrupt looking just like his father adam..why did God need to make a plan for salvation before the foundation of the earth? Every man had EXACTLY the same opportunity to live perfectly that Adam did...no need for a savior to make righteousness possible is there? Everyman is his own potential savior...
So hank I am still waiting for that one man in 2000 that has kept the law perfectly...surely one man must have been able to maintain his inborn righteousness..
I did not say he was exactly like you. I said his human nature was exactly like all other human nature, because that is exactly what the Bible teaches.
Jesus was all man and all God. Any other view is considered heresy. Do you disagree with that?
Now, speaking for the moment about his human nature, that was exactly the same as any other human being's nature. If it was not, he was not ALL man.
All Calvinists are very close to holding the heresy that says Jesus was not really a man. But the Bible makes it clear that as a man, he had exactly the same nature we have.
Heb 2:10-18 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Consider:
"For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one..." All one what? Why, one nature, of course, as is explained.
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." The same what? Why, the same flesh and blood with the same nature, because if it had a different nature, it would not be the same flesh and blood.
"he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. See, he's talking about nature here and plainly states that nature is the nature inherited from the SEED OF ABRAHAM. (Oh, yeah, almost forgot, you believe that seed is corrupt, I mean, sinfully. Can't be, else Jesus would not have inherited it.
"in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." That's in ALL things, including their nature. Of course if it did not include their nature, He would only have made like his brethren in "some" things. That's what you believe, huh, Mom?
Rom. 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh
Phil. 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.
Here are two very interesting verses. They say Jesus was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," and "in the likeness of men." Now you might want to get out of admitting the Bible teaches Jesus had the same kind of "sinful flesh" all other men have by claiming it says Jesus flesh was only "like" sinful flesh, but not really sinful flesh because is says "in the likeness of." If you do that, however, you are also going to have to say Jesus was only "like" a man, but not really a man because it says, "in the likeness of men." But of course you won't do that, because you know Jesus was a man and had exactly the same kind of nature all men have.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Jas 1:14-15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
First, something about the word "lust." The word means "desire" and nothing more. It is the very same word used in Luke 22:15, "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer, and could have rightly been translated, "... with lust I have lusted to eat this passover with you...."
With that understanding, we can see James is describing how all men are tempted. It begins with desire, not sinful or evil desire, but perfectly natural God-given desiress like the desire for food, or beauty, or comfort. Now these are the source of temptation, but not always, and even when they are, they are not sin.
The God-given natural desires for food, for beauty, and for knowledge Adam and Eve freely indulged and enjoyed in all the blessings of paradise, nevertheless those same desires became the source of temptation when their object was the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Was there anything evil about the desires? Of course not. Then how could indulging them be sin? Because indulging them required disobedience. The temptation consisted entirely of this, there was a desired object, there was the knowledge that the object was forbidden (and therefore it would be wrong to fulfill that desire), and they had the ability to choose. It was temptation because to not sin they had to choose what they knew was right against what they desired and wanted.
James explains that this is always how temptation works. Nothing has changed. All desires spring from our natures. (We only here refer to the natural passions, not "intellectual" desire based on values and goals. In themselves, these can never alone be the source of temptation, that is, if there is no accompanying desire in the "feeling" sense.)
When the object of those perfectly natural God-given desires are those things which one may rightly enjoy, fulfilling them is not sin, and is in fact their purpose. When the object of those same natural desires is for something forbidden, fulfilling the very same desire becomes sin. It is not the desire that makes it sin, but the object, and the fact that it is forbidden. (Sexual desire within marraige and outside of marraige is a typical example. The very same desire fulfilled within marraige is blessed, outside of marraige is sin.)
It is necessary to make this clear if we are to understand that Jesus was tempted in every way exactly the same as we are. If there is anything about our nature that makes temptation greater or different than it was before the fall, Jesus' nature must also have had this same difference, else he would not have been tempted, "in all points," and "like as we are." Since all desires spring from our natures, and all temptation is the result of desire, and Jesus was tempted in exactly the same way we are (or the whole thing is only a sham), He had to have the same kind of nature we have.
Finally we must examine this verse:
Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.
I usually refrain from saying this, because it is so painfully obvious, I am embarrased to have to point it out. But, I think it is needed here.
This passage is frequently used to show that man has a sinful nature based on the idea that death is the result of sin, and since death is the result of Adam's sin, and death has passed on to all men (we are mortal), than sin must have passed on to all men as well, in what is called the "sinful nature."
On the basis of this view, every human death is proof of the sinful nature that man was born with. (I have actually seen this statement made.) Now, the obvious and absolute refutation of this is the fact that JESUS DIED.
To die, Jesus, had to have the same kind of nature we have, that is, not sinful, but mortal.
Before responding, please prayfully consider the Scriptures included here carefully.
Hank
I am really interested in what you had in mind here.
Hank
My understanding of the nature of God is not exactly Trinitarian, in any of the calssical senses. This one sentence I thought was interesting in the midst of a discussion about the Holy Spirit "flowing" from either the Father or the Son:
He [Holy Spirit] is coeternal and coequal with the Father and the Son
Which I would say is all that is needed. I do not use the words "persons" or "Trinity" to describe the nature of God. Though I believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are distinct, and that each is God, eternal, and is a "person" in the sense of being a conscious volition being. I believe these because all are clearly taught in Scripture. Almost everything else written about the nature of God, in this vain, by Theologians and others, I believe, is conjecture that has only added confusion to our understanding of God.
(RnMomof7 calls me a rebel. Actually, I'm a servant.)
Hank
Individual Retribution
18:1 The word of the Lord came to me:
18:2 “What do you mean by quoting this proverb concerning the land of Israel, “‘The fathers eat sour grapes And the children’s teeth are dull?’
18:3 “As I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will not use this proverb in Israel any more!
18:4 All lives are mine—the life of the father and the life of the son. The one who sins will die.
18:5 “If a man is righteous, and carries out justice and righteousness—
18:6 if he does not eat pagan sacrifices on the mountains and does not petition the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife, does not approach a woman to have sexual relations with her while she is having her period,
18:7 does not oppress anyone, but gives the debtor back his pledge, does not commit robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and clothes the naked,
18:8 does not lend at usury nor take interest, but refrains from wrongdoing, carries out true justice between men,
18:9 obeys my statutes and guards my judgments so as to deal faithfully—that man is righteous; he will certainly live, declares the Sovereign Lord.
18:10 “If such a man has a violent son who sheds blood, and does any of these things to a fellow Israelite,
18:11 (though the father did not do any of them), who ate pagan sacrifices on the mountains, defiled his neighbor’s wife,
18:12 oppressed the poor and the needy, committed robbery, did not give back a pledge, petitioned the idols, performed abominable acts,
18:13 loaned money at usury and took interest, will he live? He will not! Because he has done all these abominable deeds he will certainly die—he will bear the responsibility for his own death.
18:14 “But if he in turn has a son who observed all the sins of his father that he committed; and when he saw them he did not do likewise—
18:15 he did not eat pagan sacrifices on the mountains, did not petition the idols of the house of Israel, did not defile his neighbor’s wife,
18:16 did not oppress nor take a pledge, did not commit robbery, gave his food to the hungry, and clothed the naked,
18:17 refrained from iniquity, did not take usury and interest, carried out my laws and obeyed my decrees—he will not die because of his father’s iniquity; he will surely live.
18:18 As for the father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what was not good among his people, he will die for his iniquity.
18:19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not suffer his father’s punishment?’ When the son carries out justice and righteousness, and guards all my decrees and does them, he will certainly live.
18:20 The person who sins will die. A son will not suffer his father’s punishment, and the father will not suffer his son’s punishment; the righteousness of the righteous person will be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be his own.
18:21 “But if the wicked man turns from all the sin he has committed and keeps all my statutes and carries out justice and righteousness, he will certainly live; he will not die.
18:22 None of the transgressions he has committed will be remembered against him; because of the righteousness he has done, he will live.
18:23 Do I delight in the death of the wicked, declares the Sovereign Lord, and not prefer that he turn from his wicked conduct and live?
18:24 “But if the righteous man turns from his righteousness and practices iniquity according to all the abominable practices the wicked carry out, will he live? All the righteous things he has done will not be remembered; because of the treachery he has committed and the sin he has committed, he will die.
18:25 “Yet you say, ‘The Lord’s conduct is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my conduct not just? Is it not your conduct that is not just?
18:26 When a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he will die for it; because of the iniquity he committed he will die.
18:27 When a wicked man turns from the wickedness he has done and carries out justice and righteousness, he will preserve his life.
18:28 Because he considered and turned from all the transgressions he had done; he will certainly live, he will not die.
18:29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The Lord’s conduct is not just.’ Is my conduct not just, O house of Israel? Is it not your conduct that is not just?
18:30 “Therefore I will judge each person according to his conduct, O house of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and turn from all your transgressions; then iniquity will not be a stumbling block for you.
18:31 Get rid of all your transgressions you have committed and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?
18:32 For I take no delight in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!
Reading this gives a bible based to see that the Lord is not indifferent to his children nor cursed them before birth! As witness in 18:32 For I take no delight in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!
For in this chaper one witness FREEWILL, CHARITY, WORKS, RESPONDSIBILITY FOR ONE OWN SINS AND NOT OF THE FATHERS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.