The Sin Cloak

7/31/2019 The Sin Cloak

1/55

THE SIN CLOAK

FROM SINSOAKED TO SIN

CLOAKED...OR IS IT SIN

BROKE?By Watchman Dean(Jeffrey D. Dean Sr.)

July 18, 2012

I don't know if you've ever watched Star Trek before, but inevery episode where you see the Klingons or the Romulansthere is always that much expected scene when someoneorders "ENGAGE CLOAK." Suddenly, they show the shiptravelling in the stars and almost like magic it starts to


2/55

shimmer like smoke, then it just vanishes away. The ship isstill there, it's just that it's now invisible, not just to the othership's sensors but to the naked eye as well.

There is a lot of debate among Christians concerning the"blood of Jesus Christ" (a direct reference to him sheddinghis blood on "the cross" when he was crucified). Eventhough Christians cannot agree on the finer points of "theblood" there's one thing upon which they nearlyunanimously agree and that is when you "accept Jesus asyour Lord and Savior (or are converted and confirmed aChristian), suddenly the blood of Jesus "covers" all of your

sins, and just like the Romulan ship in Star Trek, your sinsalmost magically dissipate like smoke and vanish away.Again, just like the Romulan ship in Star Trek, the sin is stillthere, it's just that it is no longer visible. We must examinethis concept in the light of scripture, once we do, it becomesobvious that the "sin cloak" teaching concerning the blood ofJesus Christ is just as much science fiction as is the televisionshow, Star Trek. Perhaps even, one might argue, it's more soscience fiction, because one could foresee a day when we

could indeed travel among the stars and develop atechnology such as this, but once you get to know thePOWER OF GOD, you begin to understand that it is NEVERgoing to be possible to hide ANYTHING from his "nakedeye." No technology or trickery is going to fool God in thisway!

The first question we must, of course ask, is there any

evidence in the words in red (Christ's own words) that lendus to believe that his mission on earth was to provide a"cloak" or "covering" for our sins? In fact, not only is thereno such evidence there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.There are numerous statements made by Christ that show ushe actually came to REMOVE the covering up of sin! For you


3/55

see, attempting to cover up your sins from God is absolutelyNOT a new concept. Adam and Even tried it in the garden ofEden.

Accepted theology within Christianity teaches that Christshed his blood "on the cross" because the animal sacrificeswithin the law could NOT really atone for sin. (Of coursethey are calling Moses, the prophets and God himself liarsbut they hope you won't realize this). They teach that animalsacrifice blood "really" couldn't atone (wash or clean you ofsins). They quote the following verses to prove it.

Hebrews 10:4-64 For it is not possible that the blood ofbulls and of goats should take away sins.

5 Wherefore when he cometh into theworld, he saith, Sacrifice and offeringthou wouldest not, but a body hast thou

prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sinthou hast had no pleasure.

Another thing they hope you won't notice is how verse 6completely contradicts their teachings about the blood ofChrist. They teach that the sole purpose for Christ "coming

to the earth" was to BE a sacrifice, that God desires andDEMANDS a sacrifice for our sins and that animal blood justwasn't "cutting it." It had to be HUMAN blood! Notice verse6 says that God "has no pleasure" in sacrifices at all. Thewriter of Hebrews is quoting the verse from the OldTestament which says "to obey is better than sacrifice." In


4/55

other words God did not desire the sacrifice of Jesus Christ,he would have RATHER man obeyed him!

Theologians interpret verse 4 above by saying that "take

away sins" means "take away the PENALTY of those sins,"(or acquittal as it is called in the Catholic Catechism). Theyare concluding that animal blood REALLY couldn't takeaway the penalty of sin (atone for sin). So Christ was sent to"do it right once and for all." Yet, the writer of Hebrews issaying that animal blood (though it could atone for and washone clean of sin) could never cause "obedience" andobedience is what God was truly looking for. So Christ came

to shed his blood so that we could OBEY (through the gift ofthe Holy Spirit which was given as the result of thebloodshed of Christ). Because it wasn't the sacrifice of ChristGod desired, it was OUR obedience!

The writer of Hebrews would NEVER have said that animalblood cannot ATONE for sin, because he had just got donesaying that it COULD!

Hebrews 9:13-14

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats,and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling theunclean, sanctifieth to the purifying ofthe flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood ofChrist, who through the eternal Spiritoffered himself without spot to God,purge your conscience from dead worksto serve the living God?


5/55

The "quantifying premise" of the writer's statement is that"IF" the blood of bulls and goats COULD sanctify to thepurifying of the flesh then "how much more" can the blood ofChrist sanctify the flesh and not only sanctify but "purge us"

the end result being we "serve the living God." (Obedience).Again the writer is making that claim that Christ's sacrifice isbetter, not because animal sacrifice didn't work, and couldn'tatone. Christ's sacrifice was better because not only did itsanctify and purify but it BRINGS "obedience" (serving God).

Many have taken issue with how I read this. They deny thewriter was validating animal sacrifice as a way of sanctifying

by pointing out he uses the word "IF." Well, they don'trealize that in making this argument they are actually statingthat Christ's sacrifice can't REALLY sanctify either. How so?Well, the writer says "if animal blood can sanctify" thenChrist's blood can "sanctify more." If you say "animal bloodcannot sanctify" then you destroy the writer of Hebrew'sentire premise for he states that Christ's blood ONLYsanctifies IF animal blood indeed sanctifies.

This approach to these verses is immutable and unbreakable.At every turn, when they try to make the scriptures say thatChrist came ONLY to shed his blood to "atone" and "pay" forour sins, they are at the same time NULLIFYING the powerof the blood. (They just don't realize it). For as Paul said tothe Galatians, "for if righteousness comes by the law thenChrist is dead in vain," clearly he tells us that Christ came tobring RIGHTEOUSNESS and OBEDIENCE and if not (if he

only came to sanctify, atone and pay for sin) then he died invain, the reason the sacrifice of Christ is BETTER therefore isnot that it atones (for animal blood does just that) no, thesacrifice of Christ is better because it bringsRIGHTEOUSNESS and the law does not!


6/55

CONCLUSION: Christ shed his blood not just to "washaway" the penalty of your sins and provide a "covering" foryour sins. Christ shed his blood to do what the law couldnever do, MAKE YOU RIGHTEOUS AND HOLY. Because,

through his blood, the Holy Spirit is sent to you and he"purges your body of dead works to serve the living God."

ORIGINAL SIN(NOT REALLY VERY ORIGINAL)

Many Catholics have taken issue with my representation ofALL Christianity as denying that we can stop sinning. That

is because their Priests do NOT openly deny that we can stopsinning and in fact, parts of their Catechisms state that mencan indeed live a life without personal sin (with God's help)through the Holy Spirit. Yet, Catholics do not understandthe role of "original sin" in the Catechism, and how, bycoupling that teaching with the teachings of the "SinlessChrist" (Virgin Birth) and "Immaculate Conception" we havea conundrum in which Catholicism denies it's own teaching

(that men can live without sin).

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

PART ONETHE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO

THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER ONEI BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER


7/55

ARTICLE I"I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY,CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH"

Paragraph 7. The Fall

The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

402All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "Byone man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were madesinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death

through sin, and so death spread to all men because all mensinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin anddeath with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as oneman's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man'sact of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for allmen."290

421 Christians believe that "the world has been established

and kept in being by the Creator's love; has fallen into slaveryto sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen tobreak the power of the evil one. . ."

Notice the dileberate mistranslation of the verse quoted in402. Here is the text as it is written (in all acceptedversions).

Romans 5:18-19

18 Therefore as by the offence of onejudgment came upon all men tocondemnation; even so by therighteousness of one the free gift came


8/55

upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience

many were made sinners, so by theobedience of one shall many be maderighteous.

First, the Catechism reverses the order in which these twoverses appear, quoting verse 19 FIRST, (and changing thetext at the same time having it say "all men" rather than"many") then it quotes verse 18. This might seem incidentaland hardly worth mentioning, but it is not, for it was done by

design. By inverting the ORDER of the two verses theytogether become a MUCH MORE powerful defense of the"original sin" the Catechism is attempting to prove. Alsointeresting to note is that where verse 18 says "by therighteousness of one" the "free gift" (salvation) came upon allmen until "justification of life."

The Catechism changes the phraseology of verse 19, "shall

many be made righteous." This is done by quoting the firsthalf of verse 19 FIRST, lopping off the final part which says"so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous"then inserting the entire body of verse 18 so that it APPEARSto completely support the Catechism! What trickery.

The original phrase in verse 19 "many shall be maderighteous" is changed to "all men are acquitted and given lifeagain." Directly quoting the Catechism "many are maderighteous" is taken away and REPLACED by "leads toacquittal and life for all men." "Made righteous" (inreference to men) is therefore redifined as "acquittal" and"justification of life," in this way "made righteous" in verse 19is redefined to be a reference to the CROSS.So, the significance of the Catechism on this subject, by their


9/55

handling of Romans 5: 18-19 is quite clear. By the Catechismit wasn't Christ's "obedience" (example of a man living asinless life) that will cause "many men" to be maderighteous, instead they have it to read "by the obedience of

one came acquittal and justification of life." "Many shall bemade righteous" in verse 19 being replaced by "acquittal" and"justification" from verse 18 (which is, to them at least, aclear reference to the crucifixion of Christ).

We also see the Catechism changing the TEXT in verse 19,where it reads "for as by one man's disobedience MANY weremade sinners" the Catechism outright LIES and says "not

many" but "all men." This shows the blatancy with whichthey rewrite the HOLY text to suit them. We do know alsothat the Catechism changes the phrase "by the obedience ofone" in verse 19 to the phrase "one man's act ofrighteousness" (they do this by LOPPING OFF the tail end ofverse 19, quoting it first, following it with an indirect quotefrom Romans 5: 12), THEN concluding it with verse 18.They not only rewrite text, they cut pieces out and splicethem in where they don't belong and then rearrange the

order of verses, anything they can do to make the Biblesupport their Catechism. It's quite despicable when you lookat it. By so doing, they have sought to completely change themeaning of the text. How so? In the text, the phrase "by theobedience of one" is NOT necessarily of a "single act ofobedience," (verse 19) but that part is lopped off and the

phrase from verse 18 "by the righteousness ofone " is inserted in its place.

The Catechism also make reference to Romans 5:12 (butdoes not directly quote it) by saying "sin came into the

world through one man and death through sin, andso death spread to all men because all men sinned."Yet, by so doing they "shoot themselves in the foot" because


10/55

Romans 5: 12 states CLEARLY that death spread to "all men"NOT by some mysterious unexplainable "curse" or "imputedsin" but death spread from Adam according to the author"because ALL MEN sinned." The Catechism is insinuating

that because Adam sinned "all men" also sinned. It morethan implies a direct causual relationship between originalsin and personal sin (although modern Catholics and eventhis very Catechism itself deny such a claim). It canCLEARLY be seen within the writings of the Catechism.

Romans 5:12

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin enteredinto the world, and death by sin; and sodeath passed upon all men, for that allhave sinned:

The only real mystery I see here is how the developers of theCatechism (and indeed the creators of the accepted originalsin doctrine at the council of Trent) could read Romans 5: 12

and NOT see how it completely destroys their claim thatthere is a "mysterious sin curse" that passes to the rest ofmankind because Adam sinned and brings about death of thesoul of all of mankind! The author of Romans leaves nodoubt, saying, "death passed upon all men because all mensinned," (not because there's some mystery curse).

ANOTHER FALSE PREMISE

USED TO TRANSLATE TEXTWhat we see done by the Catechism is the same slight ofhand used throughout the scriptures by the Catechism. Thephrase "by the obedience of one shall many be maderighteous" (in verse 19 which the Catechism removed) isspeaking, not of a single act of obedience, but is referring to


11/55

the TOTAL OBEDIENCE of Christ, his life of sinlessperfection and obedience to the Father, for without this wedo not have SALVATION. Had Christ sinned at any point inhis lifetime, or disobeyed God at all, he could not have been

Messiah, and could not have died for the sins of mankind.Common sense dictates that a sinner cannot die to atone forthe sins of others, it must be a Lamb "without spot orblemish." Therefore, the writer states clearly that it was byChrist's LIFE of obedience by which "many shall be maderighteous."

The Catechism infuses a false premise into the verse in order

to translate it to be a reference to a SINGLE ACT ofobedience (namely the Cross of Christ). (Through inversionof verse order, removal of key statements within a verse,infusion of partial quotes from 5: 12 and finally concludingwith a reference to Christ's crucifixion) they then REPLACEa reference to Christ's righteous life being passed by exampleto make "many" righteous with the "justification of life"found in verse 18. They do this by making the first part say"one man's single act of disobedience." This of course is the

claim of the Catechism, that by Adam's one sin in the gardenall of the sins of mankind were "mysteriously" and"magically" imputed to the entire human race, so when theyquote Romans 5: 18-19 of course it's going to defend theirposition, for they rewrite it to MAKE it defend their position,and why not, at the time the Catechism was established onlythe PRIESTS of the Catholic church could read the text forthemselves so who's going to know that they changed it's

meaning?

Notice the subtle difference between the scripture actuallysays and what the Catechism has it to say.

ACTUAL TRANSLITERAL INTERPRETATION


12/55

(Author's notes in bold and red)

18. For as by the offense (singular offense)

of one man, judgment was over all men tocondemn them (should they sin after theexample of Adam, reference the contextof Romans 5: 12 for defense); Even so bythe righteousness (the righteous life ofChrist which qualified him to commit theultimate selfless act of obedience namelycrucifixion) of one , the free gift(salvationby grace) came to all men for justification oflife. (Their lives are now justified becausetheir lives are righteous and holy).19. For as by one man's disobedience(meaning ALL of Adam's disobedience)many were made sinners (by Adam's lifetimeexample in front of his children in other

words), so by the obedience of one (Christ'slifetime example of sinless perfection)shall many be made righteous.

Verse 18 indeed states that by ONE man's SINGLE act ofdisobedience the sentence of "death" for sin hung over ALLof mankind (for how just would God have been to pass asentence of death on Adam for committing ONE sin but then

not hold the rest of Adam's offspring up to the samestandard)? Then verse 18 states that in the same way asAdam's single act of sin brought the law and judgment uponall men, the righteousness of Christ (an obedient life, evenunto the death of crucifixion) brought the FREE GIFT ofSALVATION BY GRACE, which comes to bring all men's


13/55

lives into a state of "justification." Yet, IF verse 18, WERE toread that by a single sin of one man ALL of mankind iscondemned to death, that would be unconscionable for aloving and just God. It says no such thing. Furthermore, by

lopping off the end section of verse 19 and then quoting itfirst, the Catechism reduces verse 19 to a simple redunantreiteration of what they claim verse 18 already established.Why would the apostle repeat himself?

Verse 19 is not saying "ALL MEN" are "condemned" byAdam's sin (as the Catechism deceptively conveys). Verse 19says "many were made sinners" as the result of one man's

disobedience! That is because the LAW was pronounced,and the penalty of death, and (according to Romans 15: 2)death then passed to all men (because all men sinned likeAdam). The law, therefore brings death to them that sin andit has NOTHING at all to do with a pronouncement of deathupon all men because Adam sinned! Death was pronouncedbecause of Adam's sin, yes, but more importantly BECAUSEIT WAS THE LAW. This explains why MODERN preachersare now blaming the law for "causing sin." If Adam can be

blamed for causing the sin of mankind, then CERTAILY thelaw can likewise be blamed, for all 3, THE LAW, SIN, andDEATH stem from Adam's first transgression and because ofthis they now blame Adam for the sins of all of mankind.(Poor Adam I say). Furthermore, by their own judgment oforiginal sin, they have pronounced in every document theyare now found GUILTY of all the sins of THEIR CHILDREN!I am wagering they never counted on that! Indeed, if Adam

is responsible for causing ALL of us to sin, then we are just asresponsible as Adam for the sins of OUR progeny!

In no wise can you make verse 19 a statement that becauseAdam sinned it made ALL OF MANKIND SINNERS! In fact,you can't make verse 18 say this either. Yet the Catechism


14/55

has shown one thing. If you lop off half of verse 19, put itFIRST, throw in Romans 5:12, then finish with verse 18 youcan certainly MAKE the scriptures LOOK like they teach"original sin." In reality verse 18 first speaks of how by one

man's sin death passed to all other men (who sinned like he),then it says in the same way one man's righteousness led tothe "free gift" of salvation and reconciliation of man to God(justification of life). Then, in verse 19 it compares how, justas the disobedience of one man led "many to sin" (by theexample of Adam) even so Christ's lifetime of obediencewhich culminated in the crucifixion shall "make manyrighteous." Again, as with the sin of Adam, not "all men" are

made righteous, just "many."

We know how sin gets passed down from generation togeneration, it's no mystery at all how this happens. Parentssin in front of their children (and sometimes against them)and their children are TAUGHT to be sinners (by example).This is a commonly known fact that children learn from theirparents and does NOT have to be proved scripturally. If theCatechism wants to establish a "mystery" sin nature,

whereby the propensity to sin (what the Catechism calls"consupiscence") is genetically or otherwise mysteriouslypassed from parent to child, this is not self evident amonghumans, they must PROVE this scripturally. We know thatAdam had more than ONE sin, for we do know that Adamwas a sinner (the scripture testifying that Adam and Eve bothsinned). Knowing what we know about human beings, theydon't just sin once in their life and then stop. Humans sin

and sin and sin again. So, we know that Adam had MANYsins, not just one sin. The context of Romans 5: 18-19 says"through one man's diobedience" and we have no reason tobelieve it's talking about the one sin in the garden of Edenhere when it says "one man's disobedience," if the Catechismwants us to believe that it IS talking about only one sin


15/55

committed by one man causing all other men to sin, theymust prove this scripturally and Romans 5: 18-19 doesn'teven come close to meeting that test.

CATECHISM'S INTERPRETATION(Catholic direct and IMPLIED translations in boldand red)

19 "(first half) By one man's disobediencemany(that is, all men) were made sinners..."(add Romans 5: 12 "sin came into the

world through one man and deaththrough sin, and so death spread to allmen because all men sinned."289 thenLOP OFF the final statement in verse 19which says "many" shall be maderighteous).

18 Therefore as by offence of one (Then

because of one man's SINGLE trespass)judgment came upon all men to condemnation;(one man's sin led to condemnation for allmen), so by the righteousness of one (oneman's act of righteousness) the free gift(salvation by grace) came upon all men untojustification of life . (The cross brings

"acquittal" and "justifies" restoring the"life" of all mankind unto reconciliation,even though they be born and unjustsinners).

The Catechism establishes a false, unproved premise (that


16/55

the propensity to sin was mysteriously passed down fromAdam to all of mankind) THEN they USE this premise tointerpret Romans 5: 18-19. If you read the text WITHOUTthis false premise (without the preconceived notion of

"original sin") and if you read it IN ORDER as written,without large chunks of the text removed, and without othertexts inserted, you will find the text does not support theteaching. It is only supported by the text if you BELIEVE theteaching before you read the text. This is how the Catechismof the Catholic church handles ALL scripture. Instead ofexamining the scripture first, determining what it says, thenestablishing doctrine, they establish the doctrine then find

verses that seem to support it, when read a "certain way."They will even REWRITE the verses (as they have done herein Romans 5: 18-19).

Look at verse 18 of Romans 5. Catholics might argue that theCONTEXT of this text was not Adam's MANY sins (nor was itChrist's sinless life) and in the case of verse 18 they areONLY PARTIALLY right; because verse 18 does not say "thesingle act of righteousness of one" it actually says "the

righteousness of one" and can be PLURAL. Certainly weknow that it references "the free gift" which is a directreference to the crucifixion of Christ for our salvation, yetwas the crucifixion a "single act of righteousness" or was itmore the CULMINATION and RESULT of a LIFETIME ofrighteous obedience to the Father?

INTERIM SUMMARY:

The Catechism quotes verse 19 and rewrites it so that it saysalmost the exact same thing as verse 18. Catholics point tothe statement "Therefore as by the offence of one judgmentcame upon all men to condemnation," and conclude "allmen are implicated in Adam's sin,"and so it wouldseem, as long as you quote the first part of verse 19 FIRST,


17/55

add to it a section of Romans 5:12, then finish with verse 18!They then have the audacity to pass this offf as scripturalsupport for the original sin teaching which dictates thatbecause Adam sinned ONCE, original sin passed to all men

and thereby spiritual death. Then, verse 18 reads, "by therighteousness of one is the free gift" came upon all men.They can argue that this is not talking about Christ's manyacts of righteousness and sinless life (and again, pertainingto verse 18 they would be only partially accurate). I am surethe Catholic would point out that verse 18 is talking aboutthe "grace" that comes only by the cross (the free gift). Thus,they could say that the context establishes that the latter

statements in verse 19 are references, not to the EXAMPLESset by Adam and by Christ, but rather the one single decidingACTIONS each of them took. In fact that is what theCatechism puts forth. "The Apostle contrasts theuniversality of sin and death with the universalityof salvation in Christ" Thus, they make Adam sinning inthe garden, which leads to condemnation of all men and adeath sentence upon all men (for what ADAM did) and thatis contrasted by Christ's death on the cross which leads to

life, acquittal, and justification available to all men(especially them that believe).

This would be excellent apologetics. I am tempted to believeit myself if it weren't for the fact that the above argumentsare all based, again, on the PRECONCEIVED notion of"original sin." If you approach verse 18 WITHOUT theteachings (as if they had not yet been proved) you will see

that verse 18 doesn't support the original sin idea any betterthan verse 19 does. Verse 18 does not say "because of oneoffence by one man" all men have been judged andcondemned. (That is how the Catechism is translating thetext). It says that by "the offense" (could either be singularor plural). You might think this is semantics but it is


18/55

certainly not. There is a very different meaning of thephrases "by offence of one" and "because of one singleoffence committed by one man."

According to the Catechism, it only took ONE sin commitedby ONE MAN and God judged and condemned the ENTIREHUMAN RACE, sentencing them all to DEATH because ofwhat their father and mother did before they were even born!Does this sound like a "just God?" Of course it doesn't butthat is what original sin teaches. Verses 18 and especiallyverse 19 do NOT say this without having a preconceivedbelief in the notion.

Even though verse 18 says that by the offense of ONE man(not necessarily offenses plural but also not necessarily"singular" either) condemnation and death came to "allmen" (who might sin in like fashion), it does not mean whatthe Catechism then concludes, that there is a "sin nature" a"sin curse" that is mysteriously passed down to us. Verse 19reads, "by the disobedience of one MANY are made sinners,it does not say "all men became sinners." When men repeat

Adam's sin, they are then sinners and subject to the samejudgment as Adam was. This is clearly describingPERSONAL SIN and not some "mysterious curse" whichmen inherit regardless of behavior! Verse 19 is showingHOW death passed from Adam to us, because hisPERSONAL SIN was passed to his children BY EXAMPLE,and made "many sinners" (making sinners out of everyoffspring of Adam who sinned in his similtude).

Then the author says, even in the same way, Christ'sOBEDIENCE and EXAMPLE of LIVING is now passed to hisfollowers and shall make "MANY" righteous (not all men). Ifit were talking here about acquittal and justification throughgrace and forgiveness of the cross ONLY it would not say


19/55

"SHALL many be made righteous" it would say "many HAVEbeen made righteous." The fact it is speaking in FUTURETENSE here is all the evidence we need to know that verse 19is prophecy. It's predicting that the obedience of Christ (by

example) and by the POWER of the cross (the Holy Spirit)shall make MANY RIGHTEOUS!

Why does the Catechism wash over this powerful messagewithin Romans 5: 19? Is it just that the developers of theCatechism "overlooked it?" NO, for they DELIBERATELYREMOVED the part about one man's obedience causing"many" to be righteous! This shows a conscious desire and

act to change the meaning of the text. One has to ask WHY,especially if, as the Catechism admits, Christians mustbelieve that even though they were born sinners (originalsin) through God they can learn to live their lives "withoutpersonal sin." Why did they need to change the meaning ofRomans 5: 19? Because Romans 5: 18-19 does NOT supportoriginal sin on it's own, the thought has to be placed therefirst, then it appears to support it as long as you IGNORE theactual meaning of the text which is Christ's example of

sinless perfection is now passed down to us in the same waythat Adam's example of sinfulness was passed to his futuregenerations!

Original Sin, therefore, has an ULTERIOR MOTIVE and thatis to sell all mankind under SIN, forever, being children ofAdam, and while the Catechism says you can overcome andcease from PERSONAL SIN you will STILL ALWAYS BE A

SINNER because you are born of Adam! They promiseFREEDOM but the freedom they promise is bondage to a sinnature (while astonishingly enough claiming that Christoffers "freedom" from the sin nature, but calling thatfreedom "acquittal" only, and "justification" through faith).They teach that man is born a sinner (but it's only sin in an


20/55

analogical sense accoriding to the Catechism), yet consider, ifthe original sin we are freed from by the crucifixion is only"analogical" then so must the FREEDOM be analogicalONLY. It is as if man is under "contract" with the Devil to be

called "sinners" no matter how they behave and to sufferDEATH for that contract (even if the man has no personalsin) In other words Adam made a "contract" of sin with theDevil and we are all BOUND by it. It's bondage to be asinner no matter HOW you live, even if you commit nooffense at all.

Taken from the Catechism:

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all hisdescendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as onebody of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" allmen are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated inChrist's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is amystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know byRevelation that Adam had received original holiness and

justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By

yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personalsin, but this sin affected the human nature that they wouldthen transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will betransmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by thetransmission of a human nature deprived of original holinessand justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only inan analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not"committed" - a state and not an act.

The Catechism defends the position that man is a "sinner"from the minute he's born until the day he dies, even if thatman commits NO act of sin in his life. If you think I'mreading this wrong, you'd be in error, because they even usethis idea to justify why they baptize innocent infants:


21/55


403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the

overwhelming misery which oppresses men and theirinclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apartfrom their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he hastransmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, asin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of thiscertainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sinseven tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

According to the Catechism, sin, therefore is "transmitted"

somehow from parent to offspring, (and they say that theway this happens cannot be understood and is a mystery).First, they plant the SEED of this idea in people's head thenthey attempt to quote SCRIPTURE to back it up (and if theverses don't back it up they will REWRITE THEM). We findthis sort of deceptive teaching THROUGHOUT theCatechism. First the Catechism states, in 404 all men areimplicated in Adam's sin, 404 says it is not Adam and Eve's

"personal sin" that is transmitted, but rather an "analogical"sin that they call "original sin." Then in 419 the Catechismupholds the statement of the council of Trent on the subjectof original sin that it is passed by "propagation" and not byexample.


419 "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original

sin is transmitted with human nature, "by propagation, not byimitation" and that it is. . . 'proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG 16).

The Catechism then criticizes Protestants for taking thisoriginal sin transmission to it's next logical conclusion.


22/55


406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sinwas articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially

under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections againstPelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to theProtestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by thenatural power of free will and without the necessary help ofGod's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced theinfluence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestantreformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin hasradically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they

identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency toevil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. TheChurch pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelationon original sin especially at the second Council of Orange(529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

As you can see, 406 of the Catechism attacks Pelagius forsaying that original sin is passed by Adam's example(imitation) but then ATTACKS Protestants for taking the

same stand as the Catholics! The Protestants are in FULLagreement with the Catechism, that original sin is a"mysterious curse" which passes death from Adam to all ofmankind, (and the Protestants deny that sin is passed fromAdam to his children by imitation or example). Protestantshave just taken this type of original sin to it's obvious andlogical conclusion. There is very little difference between theoriginal sin taught in the Catechism and the original sintaught among the Protestants, the only difference beingperhaps "degree" of the corruption. Where Catholics teach(to their credit I say this) that Christ brings freedom andacquittal from this original sin and thus a Christian can,through the help of God and by the Holy Spirit live withoutsin (again I say this to the Catholic's credit, even though their


23/55

same Catechism concludes that men cannot REALLY livewithout sin because of original sin, we will get to thatmomentarily). Catholics do not realize how their teachingthat Christians can live without sin is DIAMETRICALLY

OPPOSED to their own Catechism on the subject of originalsin (or maybe they realize it but relegate it to be a same partof the mystery which is not to be fully understood).

Protestants, on the other hand, reject the idea of Christiansliving without sin (to their shame) but in defense I would saythat logic and reason dictate their position (if you are goingto accept "original sin" as written). For, if man is indeed a

"born sinner" and "sinner by nature" having inherited amysterious curse from Adam, and if grace of the cross bringsonly "acquittal" and "justification" (something that is clearlystated in the Catechism) then, indeed, it is pure fantasy tobelieve that man can live as Christ lived "without sin," foraccording to the selfsame Catechism, Christ (and Mary) werethe ONLY humans able to accomplish sinless lives BECAUSEthey had no original sin! (Not to mention that all trinitariansagree that Christ was born without original sin and lived in

sinless perfection BECAUSE He was God Incarnate, but thatis another subject entirely).

The contradiction becomes glaring. On the one handCatholics seek to teach that men can live holy sinless lives bythe power of the Holy Spirit, but then propogate a Catechismof original sin which, if true, forever PRECLUDES a manfrom doing so (for even that very Catechism says only Christ

and Mary could do this because they were born withoutoriginal sin).


411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an


24/55

announcement of the "New Adam" who, because he "becameobedient unto death, even death on a cross", makes amendssuperabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have

seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary,the mother of Christ, the "new Eve". Mary benefited first of alland uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was preservedfrom all stain of original sin and by a special grace of Godcommitted no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306

What is the conclusion of this then? The Catholics, whileclaiming to believe Christians can, through the power ofChrist, live without sin have created a doctrine of original sinand proported the notion that Mary and Jesus were livingsinless and perfect lives ONLY because they were bornwithout this original sin! The doctrines of the sinless Christ(Virgin Birth) and Immaculate Conception BOTH stateunequivicably that the REASON they lived without sin isbecause they were born without original sin. This foreverBARS them who are born with original sin of EVER livingwithout sin. The Protestants have simply accepted the

original sin doctrine of Trent (which the Catholics also haveadopted) but do not contradict it (as do the Catholics- bysaying that men can live their lives without sin). It is MOSTDEFINITELY a contradiction to state that the sinless lives ofboth Mary and Jesus are the PROOF that they were bornwithout original sin, then try to say that men who are bornWITH original sin can also live sinless lives! The notion ispreposterous in the extreme!

The ONLY conclusion that can be drawn from the CatholicCatechism, therefore, is that men, who are ALL born withoriginal sin are incapable of living without sin (for the veryteaching affirms that Christ and Mary could NOT have livedsinless unless they were born without original sin). The


25/55

entire Catechism, therefore collapses upon itself, first sayingthat original sin does not prevent a man from living holy,without "personal sin," then claiming that Mary and Jesuswere ONLY able to live without personal sin because they

were born without original sin. Though the Catechismclaims to believe in men living without personal sin throughthe power of Christ, it denies it in principle then theCatholics criticize the Protestants for accepting the SAMEoriginal sin teaching but then refusing to contradict it (bydenying openly what Catholics only deny in principle.

Why do Catholics not see this glaring contradiction?

Certainly the Protestants saw it. Yet, the Protestants areWRONG indeed to say that men cannot live without sin, forthere are too many scriptures that say that not only CANfollowers of Christ live without sin but they SHALL. Theirerror is born out of an HONEST assessment of the "originalsin" of the council of Trent, whereas, Catholics who are rightto say men can live without personal sin, do not realize thatby putting forth the original sin of the council of Trent, andat the same time putting forth the sinless life of Christ

(because of virgin birth) and the sinless life of Mary (becauseof Immaculate Conception) they then contradict the verynotion of men living without personal sin.

Both Protestants and Catholics are found in error, believing ateaching of several things (original sin being only oneexample) which forever bar men from living as Christ livedon the earth (holy and perfect without sin) and the Catholics

then claiming to believe that men can live without sin (aftersaying only they who are born WITHOUT original sin canlive lives of sinlessness), while the Protestants are moreenthusiastic in their faith in Trent and in the original sinteaching, logically concluding that if Christ was sinlessbecause he was born "without original sin" then NONE OF


26/55

US can be sinless for we were born with original sin."

Therefore, I always say that across the board, Christianityaccepts original sin (the original sin of Trent) and, whether

they admit it or not, by teaching this concept have foreverbarred mankind from EVER repeating Christ's life of sinlessperfection! Protestants deny it OPENLY (and indeed I haveheard Catholics deny it) while the learned Catholic whoknows his or her Catechism will preach original sin, (thesinless Christ through Virgin Birth, and ImmaculateConception) and at the same time preach that men can learnto live without personal sin, never realizing how their

teachings contradict each other!

GOD DENOUNCEDORIGINAL SIN LONG AGO

God spoke directly to Ezekiel and denounced the entirenotion of "original sin" for you see this was NOT a newdoctrine when it was set forth at the council of Trent. It wasnot a new teaching to Christ and the Apostles either. The

Scribes and Pharisees built their entire approach to the lawaround the idea that when Adam sinned, his childrenreceived a death sentence for that sin! By the time of Christthere was no debate anymore in Hebrew tradition about this.Ezekiel's denouncement had gone completely unheeded bythe theologians and sages of the Jewish Rabbinical tradition!I know that seems amazing, but not really, not when you seethat by the time of the council of Trent this notion had STILL

not been completely denounced and it became a part of theCHRISTIAN tradition as well.

In Ezekiel 18 there are THREE erroneous teachingsaddressed at the same time. First, was the Jewish traditionthat a father is to be blamed for his son's sins. God first


27/55

demolishes the supposition that since sin is passed to the sonby the father (either by example of by some mysterious sincurse) then if a son sins he must have learned or inheritedthis from his father! The second error Ezekiel 18 addresses

is the misguided notion that one man's righteousness (in thiscase the father's righteousness) can somehow be imputed tohis progeny even though his progeny live sinfully. Then, inthe second half of Ezekiel 18 God destroys the THIRD errorwhich is the notion that a son is judged and pronounced asinner because of his father's sin. (Or because of Adam's sinfor that matter). The general message of Ezekiel 18 is that"the soul that sins (personal sin) shall die", which completely

destroys the notion of a death sentence upon a man for some"imputed" sin due to how his father lives (or due to howAdam lived). There is only ONE sin death sentenceaccording to Ezekiel and that is the sentence of death upon aman for HIS OWN SINS!

Let's look at God's pronouncements against the idea thatmankind were all under a death sentence because of Adam'ssin:

PART ONE:A RIGHTEOUS FATHER IS NOT TO BE BLAMEDIF HIS SON IS A SINNERAND A SINFUL SON CANNOT BE IMPUTEDWITH HIS FATHER'S RIGHTEOUSNESS

Ezekiel 18: 1-13

1 The word of the Lord came unto meagain, saying,

2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb


28/55

concerning the land of Israel, saying, Thefathers have eaten sour grapes, and thechildren's teeth are set on edge?

3 As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shallnot have occasion any more to use thisproverb in Israel.

4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soulof the father, so also the soul of the sonis mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

5 But if a man be just, and do that whichis lawful and right,

6 And hath not eaten upon themountains, neither hath lifted up his eyesto the idols of the house of Israel, neither

hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neitherhath come near to a menstruous woman,

7 And hath not oppressed any, but hathrestored to the debtor his pledge, hathspoiled none by violence, hath given hisbread to the hungry, and hath covered

the naked with a garment;

8 He that hath not given forth uponusury, neither hath taken any increase,that hath withdrawn his hand from


29/55

iniquity, hath executed true judgmentbetween man and man,

9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hathkept my judgments, to deal truly; he isjust, he shall surely live, saith the LordGod.

10 If he beget a son that is a robber, ashedder of blood, and that doeth the liketo any one of these things,

11 And that doeth not any of thoseduties, but even hath eaten upon themountains, and defiled his neighbour'swife,

12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy,

hath spoiled by violence, hath notrestored the pledge, and hath lifted uphis eyes to the idols, hath committedabomination,

13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hathtaken increase: shall he then live? he

shall not live: he hath done all theseabominations; he shall surely die; hisblood shall be upon him.

PART TWO :


30/55

THE RIGHTEOUS SON OF ASINFUL FATHER SHALL NOT DIEBECAUSE OF HIS FATHER'S SIN

Ezekiel 18: 14-18

14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seethall his father's sins which he hath done,and considereth, and doeth not such like,

15 That hath not eaten upon themountains, neither hath lifted up his eyesto the idols of the house of Israel, hathnot defiled his neighbour's wife,

16 Neither hath oppressed any, hath notwithholden the pledge, neither hathspoiled by violence, but hath given his

bread to the hungry, and hath coveredthe naked with a garment,

17 That hath taken off his hand from thepoor, that hath not received usury norincrease, hath executed my judgments,hath walked in my statutes; he shall not

die for the iniquity of his father, he shallsurely live.

18 As for his father, because he cruellyoppressed, spoiled his brother by


31/55

violence, and did that which is not goodamong his people, lo, even he shall die inhis iniquity.

PART THREE :COMPLETE DENOUNCEMENT OF ORIGINAL SIN

Ezekiel 18: 19-21

19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the sonbear the iniquity of the father? When theson hath done that which is lawful and

right, and hath kept all my statutes, andhath done them, he shall surely live.

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Theson shall not bear the iniquity of thefather, neither shall the father bear theiniquity of the son: the righteousness of

the righteous shall be upon him, and thewickedness of the wicked shall be uponhim.

21 But if the wicked will turn from all hissins that he hath committed, and keep allmy statutes, and do that which is lawfuland right, he shall surely live, he shall notdie.

Here, so far, God has completely destroyed the teaching oforiginal sin as set forth by the council of Trent anduniversally regarded by ALL Christians (including the


32/55

"fringe" such as Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, andJehovah's Witnesses). The death sentence for sin is onlyupon the MAN THAT SINS. God makes it clear throughEzekiel that there IS NO DEATH SENTENCE upon a man for

the sins of his father (or for the sins of Adam for thatmatter). Personal sin is the ONLY thing for which a manreceives a death sentence from God. This is CLEAR inEzekiel 18. There is no mysterious "curse" of death uponmen because of Adam's sin (otherwise Ezekiel is utterly inerror here).

Another thing that is destroyed by Ezekiel is the teaching of

the Catholic Catechism which says that even if a person hasno personal sin he is still born under the death sentence of"original sin."

Included in this denunciation by God is the approach that allmen are "born spiritually dead" because of Adam's sin andthe Protestant's contention as well, that men can NEVERhope to live sinless because of Adam's sin. (As we have seen,the Catholics deny the Protestant approach but then create

doctrines that contradict the denial by saying that only Christand Mary could live without sin because they were bornwithout original sin). None of these ideas can be true if webelieve Ezekiel in his 18th chapter!

PART FOUR: GRACE AND FORGIVENESSOF THE REPENTANT IS NOT UNFAIR

Ezekiel 18: 22-18

22 All his transgressions that he hathcommitted, they shall not be mentionedunto him: in his righteousness that he


33/55

hath done he shall live.

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the

wicked should die? saith the Lord God:and not that he should return from hisways, and live?

24 But when the righteous turneth awayfrom his righteousness, and committethiniquity, and doeth according to all theabominations that the wicked man doeth,shall he live? All his righteousness thathe hath done shall not be mentioned: inhis trespass that he hath trespassed, andin his sin that he hath sinned, in themshall he die.

25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not

equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is notmy way equal? are not your waysunequal?

26 When a righteous man turneth awayfrom his righteousness, and committethiniquity, and dieth in them; for his

iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

27 Again, when the wicked man turnethaway from his wickedness that he hathcommitted, and doeth that which is lawful


34/55

and right, he shall save his soul alive.

28 Because he considereth, and turneth

away from all his transgressions that hehath committed, he shall surely live, heshall not die.

I must here reiterate, the above 7 verses make it clear thateven if a man were to be born with some "sin curse" he hasno "sentence of death" upon him until he commits "personalsin." While Protestants CLAIM to believe this (anddenounce infant baptism as a result) their teaching of

original sin states that it is impossible for men to livewithout sin (because of original sin) and they deny anynotion of a man living without sin (even though Ezekiel 18clearly acknowledges the possibility). Christians, therefore,in putting their stamp of approval on "original sin" takeEzekiel 18 only in the "hypothetical" and handle itaccordingly, yet there is NO scriptural support for doing so.They do so only because of their man made doctrine of

original sin.

Ezekiel 18: 29-32

29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The wayof the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel,are not my ways equal? are not your waysunequal?

30 Therefore I will judge you, O house ofIsrael, every one according to his ways,saith the Lord God. Repent, and turnyourselves from all your transgressions;so iniquity shall not be your ruin.


35/55

31 Cast away from you all yourtransgressions, whereby ye have

transgressed; and make you a new heartand a new spirit: for why will ye die, Ohouse of Israel?

32 For I have no pleasure in the death ofhim that dieth, saith the Lord God:wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

What is also interesting about Ezekiel 18 is God addressesclaims of those who feel that his handling of sin is somehow"unfair." God says it is NOT unfair for God to condemn oneman for his personal sin, but to then forgive another man ofthe same sin (if that man turn from his ways). Catholics andProtestants often offer up that very same objection to myconclusions of Ezekiel 18. I have spoken to many of themwho, when they understand how I read Ezekiel 18 they will

try to say that if my conclusions were correct then God'shandling of sin is unfair! I am not exactly sure how theyfigure this because it is not unfair and Ezekiel says so!Furthermore the "original sin" notion that because Adamsinned ALL OF HIS OFFSPRING are under death sentencefor his sin is the MOST UNFAIR handling of all! Even theWORLD sees the injustice of such a concept and theycomment sarcastically about it all the time! The scriptures

not only DENOUNCE such injustice of God sentencing todeath all of mankind because Adam's sinned here in Ezekiel18, but it also denounces the notion that just because Adamsinned, ALL HIS OFFSPRING MUST SIN too!

Indeed, the "original sinners" as I call them quote the verse


36/55

that says "for all have sinned and come short of the glory ofGod" and wrongfully conclude that it supports a teachingwhereby all men are sinners because of Adam'stransgression! Protestants make it to say that "all MUST

sin."

Catholics teach that a death sentence mysteriously falls uponall mankind because of Adam's sin (and even if a man wereto have no personal sins he still is under this deathsentence), but then conclude that men can still "live withoutsin" even though they ALSO teach that Christ and Mary musthave been born without original sin or else they could not

have lived without sin (a complete contradiction of their ownclaims).

Protestants make the same mistake, but go one further andsay that not only is this death sentence upon all mankindbecause Adam sinned, but sin itself is a part of our "genetics"we being all children of Adam (and concluding that man cando nothing BUT sin).

The odd twist is while Catholics openly (howbeit itunwittingly by the aforementioned contradictions) agreewith the Protestants, at the same time they criticize them.Yet, God sets aside all of these questions by saying, "look,people, the soul that sins shall die."

Christians will be quick to say that this approach destroysgrace and leaves us all vulnerable to a death sentence

anyway! Not so, for grace is included in the denouncementin verse 21. "But if the wicked will turn from all hissins that he hath committed, and keep all mystatutes, and do that which is lawful and right,he shall surely live, he shall not die." Both theCatholics and the Protestants do err in the scriptures, for, if


37/55

grace brings automatic "acquittal" and "justification" thenALL MEN are now acquitted, justifed and saved! TheApostles stated clearly that Christ died for the "sins of thewhole world" and that the "propitiation" of sins is given to

ALL MEN and that grace is given to ALL MEN. Let's look atthese verses:

1 Timothy 4:10

10 For therefore we both labour andsuffer reproach, because we trust in theliving God, who is the Saviour of all men,

specially of those that believe.

1 John 2: 1-2

2 My little children, these things write Iunto you, that ye sin not. And if any mansin, we have an advocate with the Father,

Jesus Christ the righteous:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins:and not for ours only, but also for thesins of the whole world.

Titus 2:11

11 For the grace of God that bringethsalvation hath appeared to all men,

If the saving blood of Christ merely is an "acquittal" and


38/55

"justification" despite our original sin (and despite ourpersonal sin) and this grace and forgiveness is a free giftwhich acquits us of all sins (including future sins) thenaccording to ALL the scriptures (especially the 3 listed

above) ALL MEN are now saved, sanctified and acquitted.I'm sure both Catholics and Protestants will disagree, yetlook at how they both add to to the free gift the requirementsof works to receive it! Yes, works!

Protestants who claim to not believe in "Salvation by works"will be quick to say that in order for men to RECEIVE thisforgiveness and this "acquittal" which is offered through the

cross of Christ men must first "believe" in Christ (and beliefis a work, don't kid yourself, for James says faith withoutworks is dead). So, they who claim to believe in salvation byfaith alone (Protestants and Evangelicals alike) thencontradict their own teaching by saying a man must "believe"(a work) and a man must "confess" (yet another work, thisone of the mouth).

The Catholics add even much more to it creating conversion

rights, confirmations, special baptisms, special sacraments,all works required of a person before he truly has the gracethat the scriptures say is offered "to all men!" Yet, theProtestants and Evangilicals all have their traditional"works" that are required for a man to have this grace thisthey claim is a "free gift."

Evangelicals say that a man must "confess that he is a

sinner" (that is a work), that a man must "ask Jesus into hisheart" (yet another work) and that a man must repent of hissins (again, another work). I could go on and on.

They all miss the boat for even though all men's sins havebeen "propitiated" by the work of Christ (atoned for) and


39/55

even though the free gift (grace) is now given (offered) to "allmen," according to the Apostles there remains, therefore, arequirement that men must "believe" and not only that, butthat it must be true belief which results in "fruit" of the Holy

Spirit. While the Catholics claim in their Catechism tobelieve this, their other doctrines deny it outright. TheProtestants are more pragmatic denying with their mouthsthat such a thing (Christlike perfection and holiness in one'slifetime) is even possible! At least Catholics make a verbalconfession of the truth, (that men can walk even as Christwalked with no personal sin), so they have a chance of seeingit (even though their heart says otherwise because of original

sin and the teaching that only one born without original sincan live without sin). Protestants have NO CHANCE ofseeing it for they deny it outright, making a negativeconfession of faith to the contrary of grace, notunderstanding that if grace is ALL that brings salvation, thenindeed the Universalists are correct and ALL MEN are nowSAVED!

In all incidents where "original sin" rears its ugly head, one

thing is beyond denial, however! Namely, that the purposesof Christ are then thwarted! So, ironically, while the CatholicCatechism claims that denial of original sin confuses the"mystery of Christ" the exact opposite is true. Acceptance of"original sin" TRULY confuses the "mystery of Christ" for theMystery of Christ is "Christ in you, the hope of glory," whichis a direct reference to the BELIEVERS becoming likeCHRIST (sinless and perfect) by the power of the Holy Spirit,

for when you say that only Christ and Mary could livewithout sin, and this because they were born without originalsin, they jeapardize the truth of our coming perfection andholiness.

Among the Protestants the nullifying of the purposes of the


40/55

crucifixion of the Messiah are even more stark by contrast tothat of Catholicism. They openly DENY the purpose ofChrist to bring every man before God "without spot orblemish," and deny (as do the Catholics without realizing it)

that any man can live sinless and perfect as Christ lived!Wherever you find original sin, therefore, you find the denialof the work of the crucifixion and its purposes. BothProtestants and Catholics state that the work of the crossbrings about "acquittal" and "justification" only (in otherwords Christ's blood takes away the PENALTY of sin onlyand not the sin itself). There is NO ROOM for Christlikesinless perfection in the life of the believer under

Protestantism because of their radical conclusion of originalsin, and there is no room for it among Catholics (who claimsinless perfection is possible) for Catholics turn right aroundand state that ONLY Christ and Mary live without sin, andthis ONLY because they were born without "original sin,"(thus, logically barring all who were born WITH original sinfrom ever living without sin in this life).

That is why I have said over and over again that Christianity

across the board teaches that men can "never stop sinning."I have had many Catholics take me to the mat because ofthese statements, but it is only because they have neverrealized the stark contradictions existing within their ownCatechism and notoriously they chalk up such contradictionsas being "the mystery that cannot be understood."

Romans 5 itself bears out that not all of Adam's progeny

HAVE to sin as he did!

Romans 5: 12-15

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin enteredinto the world, and death by sin; and so


41/55

death passed upon all men, for that allhave sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world:but sin is not imputed when there is nolaw.

14 Nevertheless death reigned fromAdam to Moses, even over them that hadnot sinned after the similitude of Adam'stransgression, who is the figure of himthat was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is thefree gift. For if through the offence of onemany be dead, much more the grace ofGod, and the gift by grace, which is byone man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded

unto many.

Verse 14 says death reigned from Adam to Moses. Why notfrom Adam "until now?" If these scriptures are teaching"original sin" they would not say that this death (that camefrom Adam's sin) reigned from Adam to Moses! Clearly, theApostle is not teaching original sin, but something else. I cantell you what that something else is. Death reigned overmankind from Adam until Moses, when the LAW CAME andwith it the OFFICIAL sacrifice of blood on the altar foratonement of sin! They had blood sacrifice before that, butnot the God instituted shedding of blood for "atonement"and "cleansing" from sin. That came through Moses. It thenatoned for mankind's many sins (after the example andteaching of Adam). So, even if you could PROVE these


42/55

verses indeed teach that death came upon all men because ofAdam's sin, that death ONLY REIGNED from Adam toMOSES according to the same Apostolic teachings!

Paul says that death reigned from Adam to Moses (not fromAdam to Christ), then he says something else remarkable."Even over them that had not sinned after thesimiltude of Adam's transgression." Here is clear cutproof that it is at least POSSIBLE for people who are living"under the law" to not have any "personal sin" and to not sin"like Adam sinned." It also completely destroys theProtestant and Evangelical beliefs that all the children of

Adam MUST sin like Adam because of original sin.

The Catechism states that original sin brings death to all ofmankind (even if a man were to live his entire life withoutpersonal sin of his own) and indeed Paul bears this out inverse 14! (At least hypothetically for we do know that ALLMEN indeed have sinned and come short of the glory ofGod). Yet, concluding that just because ALL of the childrenof Adam did INDEED sin, that is not proof that they HAD to

sin because they were children of Adam!

Paul is saying in Romans 5: 14 that even if there were (or hadbeen) those who did not sin in like fashion to Adam, deathstill reigned OVER them from Adam to Moses, (for they wereunder a sentence of death should they sin)! Once Mosescame, he provided a way whereby men could escape deathshould they sin, through atonement, forgiveness and yes,

grace! (Many Christians are under the mistaken idea thatgrace did not come until Christ died on the cross) DoesPaul's statement "death reigned over them" support thenotion that all of Adam's offspring are "condemned" and"sentenced to death" because of Adam's sin? Absolutely not!It merely states that God declared a death sentence upon


43/55

Adam for his sin and that death sentence hangs overEVERYONE from Adam unto Moses! We know thisbecause of what Paul says next in Romans 5.

Romans 5: 16-19

16 And not as it was by one that sinned,so is the gift: for the judgment was byone to condemnation, but the free gift isof many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence deathreigned by one; much more they whichreceive abundance of grace and of thegift of righteousness shall reign in life byone, Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore as by the offence of one

judgment came upon all men tocondemnation; even so by therighteousness of one the free gift cameupon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobediencemany were made sinners, so by theobedience of one shall many be maderighteous.

In verse 16 it says that judgment came by Adam tocondemnation (the death sentence upon them that sin) andit states that the free gift (grace) cannot exist withoutoffences! Yes, you read that right. Grace does not exist


44/55

without the law according to Paul for if there is no law, thereis no sin, and if there is no sin there is NO NEED FORGRACE. That's why paul says the free gift is "of manyoffences unto justification" Paul then says in verse 17 For if

by one man's offence death reigned" this merely states thatthe death penalty for sin was upon ALL men because Adamsinned. Paul is in NO WAY saying that all men were declared"guilty" and "dead" because of Adam's sin. That is acomplete twisting of the writings of Paul to the Romans!Again in verse 18 it says "by offence of one judgment cameupon all men to condemnation." Original sin attempts to saythat this is clear scriptural proof that all of Adam's progeny

were condemned because of Adam's sin (but we know fromEzekiel that is NEVER true and "the soul that sinneth it shalldie.") Verse 18 merely states that because Adam sinned andwas condemned, all of his children who sinned were likewisecondemned (WHEN THEY SINNED LIKE ADAM) for God isnothing if not fair. Yes Paul acknowledges that death also"reigned" even over any child of Adam who did not sin likeAdam, yet that only means they were under the samePENALTY for sin (should they commit Adam's sin) with no

way of being atoned for until Moses! We know ALL MENDID SIN, yet even Paul acknowledges that it's at leasthypothetical for a man under the OLD law to "not sin afterthe similtude" (like) Adam! I submit, if it's possible forsomeone under the old law to "not sin after the similitude ofAdam" then CERTAINLY it is possible for them that liveunder GRACE to "not sin after Adam's sin!"

Finally in verse 19 it says "by one man's disobedience MANYwere made sinners." The Catholic Catechism twisted this tosay "by one man's disobedience ALL MEN were madesinners" and adopted the original sin error, the Protestantsand the Evangelicals likewise followed suit and thenafterward all of the "offshoots" of Christianity as well.


45/55

Christianity as a religion stands on the brink of fallingcompletely because of this error. Furthermore, whereRomans 5 verse 19 says "so by the obedience of one" it isspeaking of Christ's ENTIRE LIFE OF OBEDIENCE, not just

his obedient DEATH (because how could Christ haveperformed his final act of obedience to die for our sins if hehad not remained sinless his entire life, certainly his ENTIRELIFE of obedience therefore comes into play in bringingabout the "free gift). It says "shall many be madeRIGHTEOUS." This is not an acquittal ONLY, but is literallythe perfecting of them that believe into SINLESSCREATURES. (Even as John wrote and said "be not

deceived he that DOES righteousness is righteous)," not justthem that have a "cloak" for their sins and "appear"righteous in God's eyes.

Christianity as a whole misreads the scriptures, turning therighteousness that is being offered into an "imputed"righteousness (even though God said through Ezekiel that aman who continues living in sins cannot "live" just becausehe FATHER was righteous). A sinful man cannot have a

righteous man's righteousness imputed to him by proxy.Shall a sinful man be called righteous just because his father(or his Lord) is righteous, despite his sins which are worthyof death, can a man live by another man's righteousness?Not according to Ezekiel 18 he can't. It says "therighteousness of the righteous shall be upon HIM (therighteous one) and the wickedness of the wicked shall beupon him (the wicked one).

Through the crucifixion of Christ and through is LIFEEXAMPLE of sinless perfection we shall be "made righteous"and thus "do righteousness." That is why it says earlier inRomans 5 that we are "saved by his life."


46/55

Romans 5: 9-10

9 Much more then, being now justified by

his blood, we shall be saved from wraththrough him.

10 For if, when we were enemies, wewere reconciled to God by the death ofhis Son, much more, being reconciled, weshall be saved by his life.

The "blood" of Christ came, not just to reconcile fallen manto God, the blood was shed so that we could receive the HolySpirit, (and be saved by repeating his LIFE). The Holy Spiritdoes not just "cloak" or "cover" our sins but "cleanses us ofall unrighteousness" and presents us in the end "withoutspot or blemish" and "blameless" and brings us "unto theperfect man, unto the fulness of the stature of Jesus Christ."When they teach "original sin" and that the blood merely

"acquits you" and "justifies you" (even though you continuein a sin nature and continue in sin) they are completelyCHANGING the mission of both Christ and the Holy Spirit,nullifying the REASON Christ shed his blood to begin with.The significance of the blood is not that is "covers" your sinsfrom God, but the significance is that the blood brings theHOLY SPIRIT who eradicates sin in you day by day, throughLOVE and through walking and abiding IN that love!

The Holy Spirit comes to "break" the sin habit in you andbring you to Christ like perfection!

O VAIN MAN!

There's a scripture that says "wilt thou not know O Vain man


47/55

that faith without works is dead being alone?" James 2: 20. Ifind this to be one of the most important verses in the Bible.Not just because it identifies that faith is never alone and isalways accompanied by works but because it recognize a

truth about mankind. We are VAIN! We think that everythought which pops into our heads must be true. In today'ssociety truth itself is taught as "relative" and that one man'struth is no more valid than the next man's truth. How vain isman?

I know a woman who has been living in her car for over 4years. She believes that the world conspired to put her in that

position. You cannot tell her otherwise. Her "personal truth"reigns supreme over all (including reality itself). She is sovain in her own mind that no one can tell her how to get OUTof that situation. If you try she becomes combative andextremely angry. No one has the right to question her"personal truth," and the current despairing situation inwhich she now lives can never end because if anyone makes asuggestion to her how to get out of that situation sheimmediately raises an objection of why that will "never

work." Because to admit that someone else can help her is toviolate her own vain personal truth (that the world isconspiring to keep her in her situation and she knows what isbest for her own life). It's a self perpetuating defeat. Mostthink she's mentally ill. I do not. She is cognitive and she isin touch with reality, she merely has been taught that HERpersonal truth supersedes all other's truths. She is a productof mankind's vanity. She thinks that her way is better (even

though it leads to a lifetime of homelessness and despair).

Is she any different than most human beings? Not at all. Intoday's modern world we all have our "personal truths" andno one can contradict them. These truths place us insituations and positions from which we can never escape.


48/55

No greater example can I think of than the one James giveshere. Mankind thinks that belief in God is enough and thatour works have nothing to do with our Salvation. This traps

us into a perpetual "sin situation" from which we can neverescape. In the end, it's just VANITY. It's our VAIN attempt tomaintain control of our own lives. God the Father allows it(for he wants us to have free will) but the end of that road isdeath.

O how vain is man, to think that his way is better (eventhough it leads us to a lifetime of sin and ultimately death),

and to reject that God might have a better way.

CHRIST CAME TO UNCOVER SINNOT TO COVER IT UP

There are numerous scriptures which show that the Messiah(Christ) of the Bible did not come to "cover" or "cloak" thesins of mankind. Christ came for the same reason the LAWcame (only with much better result) and that was to EXPOSE

SIN completely so that it could be ERADICATED! The firstsuch inkling we get of this comes from John Chapter 15.

John 15: 18-27

18 If the world hate you, ye know that ithated me before it hated you.

19 If ye were of the world, the worldwould love his own: but because ye arenot of the world, but I have chosen youout of the world, therefore the worldhateth you.


49/55

20 Remember the word that I said untoyou, The servant is not greater than his

lord. If they have persecuted me, theywill also persecute you; if they have keptmy saying, they will keep yours also.

21 But all these things will they do untoyou for my name's sake, because theyknow not him that sent me.

22 If I had not come and spoken untothem, they had not had sin: but now theyhave no cloak for their sin.

23 He that hateth me hateth my Fatheralso.

24 If I had not done among them theworks which none other man did, theyhad not had sin: but now have they bothseen and hated both me and my Father.

25 But this cometh to pass, that the wordmight be fulfilled that is written in their

law, They hated me without a cause.

26 But when the Comforter is come,whom I will send unto you from theFather, even the Spirit of truth, which


50/55

proceedeth from the Father, he shalltestify of me:

27 And ye also shall bear witness,because ye have been with me from thebeginning.

As we see, Christ's mission is not to provide sinners with a"cloak for their sins." Some undoubtedly will take exceptionto this, for I have seen people twist these verses to say thatthe ONLY reason they do not have a "cloak" for their sin isbecause they have "hated" both the Son of God and the

Father. They infer, logically so, that Christ's statements hereimply that if they LOVED him and LOVED his Father, theyindeed WOULD have a "cloak for their sin." They make thiserror (and you will see why it is indeed error) because theyare not reading the entire STATEMENT and not taking intoaccount the MISSION of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spiritdoes not come to "hide" or "cloak" the sins of the believers(while at the same time exposing and reproving the world of

the same sin) how unfair would that be? Christ speaks inverse 25 of the "Comforter." Several verses later hecompletely describes the mission of the Comforter and whathe shall do for the believer and it is NOT to "cloak" or coverour sins, but rather to "reprove" us of our sins.

John 16: 7-15

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It isexpedient for you that I go away: for if Igo not away, the Comforter will not comeunto you; but if I depart, I will send himunto you.


51/55

8 And when he is come, he will reprovethe world of sin, and of righteousness,

and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to myFather, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince ofthis world is judged.

12 I have yet many things to say untoyou, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth,is come, he will guide you into all truth:

for he shall not speak of himself; butwhatsoever he shall hear, that shall hespeak: and he will shew you things tocome.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shallreceive of mine, and shall shew it unto

you.

15 All things that the Father hath aremine: therefore said I, that he shall takeof mine, and shall shew it unto you.


52/55

Again, there are those who argue that verse 9 makes it clearthe ONLY ones who are reproved of sin are them that"believe not on me." By inferrence, therefore, they conclude

that those who believe on Christ are not "reproved of sin" butare instead "cloaked" or "covered." They believe that thisdirectly cross references to Christ's statements that becausethey "hated him" they shall not have a "cloak for their sins."Yet, consider if you will the "Comforter" only comes to themwho BELIEVE! How can the Holy Spirit "reprove" them whoDO NOT BELIEVE "of sin?" In verse 13 he says the Spirit oftruth will guide us into "all truth," then in verse 15 he saysthat "all things that the Father has are his" and promises thatthe Holy Spirit shall take of his (all things the Father has)and show it unto us! This includes HOLINESS and SINLESSPERFECTION. Who can argue that the Father hassinlessness and holiness? Christ promises that ALL THINGSthe Father has are now his and the Holy Spirit shall comeand give that which is HIS unto us! This MUST includeholiness and sinless perfection, or else Christ is at the veryleast completely inaccurate and at the worst he is lying!

When it says the Holy Spirit comes to the believer to"reprove the world of sin" it's saying that if a believer is insin, it's only because they DON'T REALLY BELIEVECHRIST. The Holy Spirit comes to make your faith REAL bypointing out your sin and moving you to cease! How can theHoly Spirit do that if your sins are "cloaked" or "covered"and God can't see them anymore?

So, the purpose of the Holy Spirit is to come and REPROVEUS of our sin so that he can replace our sinful life with a Holyand Sinless life of perfection. So shall the predictions ofChrist be fulfilled when he said "be ye therefore perfect evenas the Father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5: 48). We see,then that it is not just the "acquittal" and the "atonement" for


53/55

sin for which Christ "went away" (died). Although that was aPART of the reason for all of us were sinners and needed tobe reconciled. Yet, the death of Christ was ULTIMATELY tosend the "Comforter," the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit

who's express mission is to "take of the Father" and give tous, to "reprove the world of sin" so that he that believes uponChrist might walk even so as Christ walked! (Sinless andPerfect, without spot or blemish).

To teach that we can NEVER attain this (because of originalsin or because ONLY CHRIST and MARY could attain this,being born WITHOUT original sin) is to completely

NULLIFY the very purposes of the crucifixion of Christ andto thwart the very ministry of the Holy Spirit!

Proverbs 28:13

13 He that covereth his sins shall notprosper: but whoso confesseth andforsaketh them shall have mercy.

Here is yet another scriptural reference that states God is notinterested in "covering up" your sins! When you think aboutit rationally, what the "blood covering" of sin teaching reallydoes is state that God "overlooks" your sin. Christians whoteach the "cloak" or "cover up" teaching (which is the lion'sshare of all Christianity) understand that you cannot "hide"things from God, which is why they ALL have in place

teachings urging the Christian who sins to "confess" theirsins not just to God but to one another and to ask forforgiveness. If they REALLY believed God no longer "sees"their sins (being covered perpetually by the blood of Christ)they wouldn't teach that we need to confess our sins. Whatthey are REALLY teaching is that God "overlooks" their sins


54/55

and pretends not to "see them" and sees the believer only asbeing RIGHTEOUS (imputed righteousness not DOINGrighteousness). Now, I ask you, what kind of parent doessuch a thing? What kind of parent simply pretends that their

children are behaving when in fact their children are indisobedience? Will such children ever "grow?" Will suchchildren ever have discipline and learn to behave rightly?It's not only doubtful, it's preposterous. Nevertheless, this isthe Father they depict in their teachings. One who sent hisson to provide a way for him to "look the other way" whenthem who believe upon his Son behave in disobedience!

There isn't a single scripture which states that the blood ofChrist "covers up" or "cloaks" your sins from God. WhenChristians teach this they quote scriptures that say "Christdied FOR your sins." Christ dying for your sins is NOT asaying that Christ "died to cover up your sins from God."That is a HUGE TWIST of the truth of scripture. Indeed,Christ not only died "for your sins" (to take them away, toeradicate them, to destroy them, to send the Holy Spirit forto rid you of your sins) but Christ died BECAUSE of your sin!

These two truths do not a "sin cover-up" or "sin cloak" make!Indeed, the "sin cover-up" teaching MORE than implies thatyou remain "in sin" so that grace may abound. Saying your"future sins" are "covered up" and "cloaked" is especiallydeceptive, for, it makes provision (or license) for FUTURESINS! It is an open statement that Christ came so that youcould "continue in sin," which is a turning of the gospelupside down and preaching the EXACT OPPOSITE of the

purposes of Christ (who actually came to ERADICATE sin inyou). It more than suggests that Christ and God turn a"blind eye" to your sin and disobedience and do not expectANYTHING from you, save to "believe" and soak up God'sgrace!


55/55

While Catholics do not teach this sort of grace outright, itmust be pointed out that when you factor in their teachingthat ONLY Christ and Mary could live without sin (becausethey were born without original sin) you are back to the

VERY SAME NOTION, that the blood of Christ merely"acquits" you of sin and "justifies you" by "faith." Indeed,that is how they word it in their Catechism. The onlyconclusion to their entire teaching is that while they CLAIMwe can live without sin they teach at the same time wecannot really (for we were born with original sin) and Christand Mary both prove that one must be born WITHOUToriginal sin in order to live sinless!

Documents

The Sin Cloak