THE SIN CLOAK FROM SIN SOAKED 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 in every episode where you see the Klingons or the Romulans there is always that much expected scene when someone orders "ENGAGE CLOAK." Suddenly, they show the ship travelling in the stars and almost like magic it starts to

shimmer like smoke, then it just vanishes away. The ship is still there, it's just that it's now invisible, not just to the other ship'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 shedding his blood on "the cross" when he was crucified). Even though Christians cannot agree on the finer points of "the blood" there's one thing upon which they nearly unanimously agree and that is when you "accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior (or are converted and confirmed a Christian), suddenly the blood of Jesus "covers" all of your sins, and just like the Romulan ship in Star Trek, your sins almost magically dissipate like smoke and vanish away. Again, just like the Romulan ship in Star Trek, the sin is still there, it's just that it is no longer visible. We must examine this concept in the light of scripture, once we do, it becomes obvious that the "sin cloak" teaching concerning the blood of Jesus Christ is just as much science fiction as is the television show, Star Trek. Perhaps even, one might argue, it's more so science fiction, because one could foresee a day when we could indeed travel among the stars and develop a technology such as this, but once you get to know the POWER OF GOD, you begin to understand that it is NEVER going to be possible to hide ANYTHING from his "naked eye." No technology or trickery is going to fool God in this way! The first question we must, of course ask, is there any evidence in the words in red (Christ's own words) that lend us to believe that his mission on earth was to provide a "cloak" or "covering" for our sins? In fact, not only is there no such evidence there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. There are numerous statements made by Christ that show us he actually came to REMOVE the covering up of sin! For you

see, attempting to cover up your sins from God is absolutely NOT a new concept. Adam and Even tried it in the garden of Eden. Accepted theology within Christianity teaches that Christ shed his blood "on the cross" because the animal sacrifices within the law could NOT really atone for sin. (Of course they are calling Moses, the prophets and God himself liars but they hope you won't realize this). They teach that animal sacrifice blood "really" couldn't atone (wash or clean you of sins). They quote the following verses to prove it.

Hebrews 10:4-6
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Another thing they hope you won't notice is how verse 6 completely contradicts their teachings about the blood of Christ. They teach that the sole purpose for Christ "coming to the earth" was to BE a sacrifice, that God desires and DEMANDS a sacrifice for our sins and that animal blood just wasn't "cutting it." It had to be HUMAN blood! Notice verse 6 says that God "has no pleasure" in sacrifices at all. The writer of Hebrews is quoting the verse from the Old Testament which says "to obey is better than sacrifice." In

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). They are concluding that animal blood REALLY couldn't take away the penalty of sin (atone for sin). So Christ was sent to "do it right once and for all." Yet, the writer of Hebrews is saying that animal blood (though it could atone for and wash one clean of sin) could never cause "obedience" and obedience is what God was truly looking for. So Christ came to shed his blood so that we could OBEY (through the gift of the Holy Spirit which was given as the result of the bloodshed of Christ). Because it wasn't the sacrifice of Christ God desired, it was OUR obedience! The writer of Hebrews would NEVER have said that animal blood cannot ATONE for sin, because he had just got done saying that it COULD!

Hebrews 9:13-14
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The "quantifying premise" of the writer's statement is that "IF" the blood of bulls and goats COULD sanctify to the purifying of the flesh then "how much more" can the blood of Christ 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 is better, not because animal sacrifice didn't work, and couldn't atone. Christ's sacrifice was better because not only did it sanctify and purify but it BRINGS "obedience" (serving God). Many have taken issue with how I read this. They deny the writer was validating animal sacrifice as a way of sanctifying by pointing out he uses the word "IF." Well, they don't realize that in making this argument they are actually stating that Christ's sacrifice can't REALLY sanctify either. How so? Well, the writer says "if animal blood can sanctify" then Christ's blood can "sanctify more." If you say "animal blood cannot sanctify" then you destroy the writer of Hebrew's entire premise for he states that Christ's blood ONLY sanctifies 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 that Christ came ONLY to shed his blood to "atone" and "pay" for our sins, they are at the same time NULLIFYING the power of the blood. (They just don't realize it). For as Paul said to the Galatians, "for if righteousness comes by the law then Christ is dead in vain," clearly he tells us that Christ came to bring RIGHTEOUSNESS and OBEDIENCE and if not (if he only came to sanctify, atone and pay for sin) then he died in vain, the reason the sacrifice of Christ is BETTER therefore is not that it atones (for animal blood does just that) no, the sacrifice of Christ is better because it brings RIGHTEOUSNESS and the law does not!

CONCLUSION: Christ shed his blood not just to "wash away" the penalty of your sins and provide a "covering" for your sins. Christ shed his blood to do what the law could never 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 of ALL Christianity as denying that we can stop sinning. That is because their Priests do NOT openly deny that we can stop sinning and in fact, parts of their Catechisms state that men can indeed live a life without personal sin (with God's help) through the Holy Spirit. Yet, Catholics do not understand the role of "original sin" in the Catechism, and how, by coupling that teaching with the teachings of the "Sinless Christ" (Virgin Birth) and "Immaculate Conception" we have a conundrum in which Catholicism denies it's own teaching (that men can live without sin).

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church PART ONE THE PROFESSION OF FAITH SECTION TWO THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH CHAPTER ONE I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER

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 402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290 421 Christians believe that "the world has been established and kept in being by the Creator's love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen to break the power of the evil one. . ." Notice the dileberate mistranslation of the verse quoted in 402. Here is the text as it is written (in all accepted versions).

Romans 5:18-19
18 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. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
First, the Catechism reverses the order in which these two verses appear, quoting verse 19 FIRST, (and changing the text at the same time having it say "all men" rather than "many") then it quotes verse 18. This might seem incidental and hardly worth mentioning, but it is not, for it was done by design. By inverting the ORDER of the two verses they together become a MUCH MORE powerful defense of the "original sin" the Catechism is attempting to prove. Also interesting to note is that where verse 18 says "by the righteousness of one" the "free gift" (salvation) came upon all men until "justification of life." The Catechism changes the phraseology of verse 19, "shall many be made righteous." This is done by quoting the first half 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 APPEARS to completely support the Catechism! What trickery. The original phrase in verse 19 "many shall be made righteous" is changed to "all men are acquitted and given life again." Directly quoting the Catechism "many are made righteous" is taken away and REPLACED by "leads to acquittal and life for all men." "Made righteous" (in reference to men) is therefore redifined as "acquittal" and "justification of life," in this way "made righteous" in verse 19 is redefined to be a reference to the CROSS. So, the significance of the Catechism on this subject, by their

handling of Romans 5: 18-19 is quite clear. By the Catechism it wasn't Christ's "obedience" (example of a man living a sinless life) that will cause "many men" to be made righteous, instead they have it to read "by the obedience of one came acquittal and justification of life." "Many shall be made righteous" in verse 19 being replaced by "acquittal" and "justification" from verse 18 (which is, to them at least, a clear 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 were made sinners" the Catechism outright LIES and says "not many" but "all men." This shows the blatancy with which they rewrite the HOLY text to suit them. We do know also that the Catechism changes the phrase "by the obedience of one" in verse 19 to the phrase "one man's act of righteousness" (they do this by LOPPING OFF the tail end of verse 19, quoting it first, following it with an indirect quote from Romans 5: 12), THEN concluding it with verse 18. They not only rewrite text, they cut pieces out and splice them in where they don't belong and then rearrange the order of verses, anything they can do to make the Bible support their Catechism. It's quite despicable when you look at it. By so doing, they have sought to completely change the meaning of the text. How so? In the text, the phrase "by the obedience of one" is NOT necessarily of a "single act of obedience," (verse 19) but that part is lopped off and the phrase from verse 18 "by the righteousness of one " is inserted in its place. The Catechism also make reference to Romans 5:12 (but does not directly quote it) by saying "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." Yet, by so doing they "shoot themselves in the foot" because

Romans 5: 12 states CLEARLY that death spread to "all men" NOT by some mysterious unexplainable "curse" or "imputed sin" 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 more than implies a direct causual relationship between original sin and personal sin (although modern Catholics and even this very Catechism itself deny such a claim). It can CLEARLY be seen within the writings of the Catechism.

Romans 5:12
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:
The only real mystery I see here is how the developers of the Catechism (and indeed the creators of the accepted original sin doctrine at the council of Trent) could read Romans 5: 12 and NOT see how it completely destroys their claim that there is a "mysterious sin curse" that passes to the rest of mankind because Adam sinned and brings about death of the soul of all of mankind! The author of Romans leaves no doubt, saying, "death passed upon all men because all men sinned," (not because there's some mystery curse).

ANOTHER FALSE PREMISE USED TO TRANSLATE TEXT

What we see done by the Catechism is the same slight of hand used throughout the scriptures by the Catechism. The phrase "by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (in verse 19 which the Catechism removed) is speaking, not of a single act of obedience, but is referring to

the TOTAL OBEDIENCE of Christ, his life of sinless perfection and obedience to the Father, for without this we do not have SALVATION. Had Christ sinned at any point in his 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 for the sins of others, it must be a Lamb "without spot or blemish." Therefore, the writer states clearly that it was by Christ's LIFE of obedience by which "many shall be made righteous." The Catechism infuses a false premise into the verse in order to translate it to be a reference to a SINGLE ACT of obedience (namely the Cross of Christ). (Through inversion of verse order, removal of key statements within a verse, infusion of partial quotes from 5: 12 and finally concluding with a reference to Christ's crucifixion) they then REPLACE a reference to Christ's righteous life being passed by example to 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 garden all of the sins of mankind were "mysteriously" and "magically" imputed to the entire human race, so when they quote Romans 5: 18-19 of course it's going to defend their position, for they rewrite it to MAKE it defend their position, and why not, at the time the Catechism was established only the PRIESTS of the Catholic church could read the text for themselves so who's going to know that they changed it's meaning? Notice the subtle difference between the scripture actually says and what the Catechism has it to say.

ACTUAL TRANSLITERAL INTERPRETATION

(Author's notes in bold and red) 18. For as by the offense (singular offense) of one man, judgment was over all men to condemn them (should they sin after the example of Adam, reference the context of Romans 5: 12 for defense); Even so by the righteousness (the righteous life of Christ which qualified him to commit the ultimate selfless act of obedience namely crucifixion) of one , the free gift (salvation by grace) came to all men for justification of life. (Their lives are now justified because their 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 lifetime example in front of his children in other words), so by the obedience of one (Christ's lifetime example of sinless perfection) shall many be made righteous.
Verse 18 indeed states that by ONE man's SINGLE act of disobedience the sentence of "death" for sin hung over ALL of mankind (for how just would God have been to pass a sentence of death on Adam for committing ONE sin but then not hold the rest of Adam's offspring up to the same standard)? Then verse 18 states that in the same way as Adam's single act of sin brought the law and judgment upon all men, the righteousness of Christ (an obedient life, even unto the death of crucifixion) brought the FREE GIFT of SALVATION BY GRACE, which comes to bring all men's

lives into a state of "justification." Yet, IF verse 18, WERE to read that by a single sin of one man ALL of mankind is condemned to death, that would be unconscionable for a loving and just God. It says no such thing. Furthermore, by lopping off the end section of verse 19 and then quoting it first, the Catechism reduces verse 19 to a simple redunant reiteration of what they claim verse 18 already established. Why would the apostle repeat himself? Verse 19 is not saying "ALL MEN" are "condemned" by Adam's sin (as the Catechism deceptively conveys). Verse 19 says "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 like Adam). The law, therefore brings death to them that sin and it has NOTHING at all to do with a pronouncement of death upon all men because Adam sinned! Death was pronounced because of Adam's sin, yes, but more importantly BECAUSE IT WAS THE LAW. This explains why MODERN preachers are now blaming the law for "causing sin." If Adam can be blamed for causing the sin of mankind, then CERTAILY the law can likewise be blamed, for all 3, THE LAW, SIN, and DEATH stem from Adam's first transgression and because of this they now blame Adam for the sins of all of mankind. (Poor Adam I say). Furthermore, by their own judgment of original sin, they have pronounced in every document they are 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 as responsible as Adam for the sins of OUR progeny! In no wise can you make verse 19 a statement that because Adam sinned it made ALL OF MANKIND SINNERS! In fact, you can't make verse 18 say this either. Yet the Catechism

has shown one thing. If you lop off half of verse 19, put it FIRST, throw in Romans 5:12, then finish with verse 18 you can 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 to the "free gift" of salvation and reconciliation of man to God (justification of life). Then, in verse 19 it compares how, just as the disobedience of one man led "many to sin" (by the example of Adam) even so Christ's lifetime of obedience which culminated in the crucifixion shall "make many righteous." Again, as with the sin of Adam, not "all men" are made righteous, just "many." We know how sin gets passed down from generation to generation, it's no mystery at all how this happens. Parents sin 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 their parents and does NOT have to be proved scripturally. If the Catechism wants to establish a "mystery" sin nature, whereby the propensity to sin (what the Catechism calls "consupiscence") is genetically or otherwise mysteriously passed from parent to child, this is not self evident among humans, they must PROVE this scripturally. We know that Adam had more than ONE sin, for we do know that Adam was a sinner (the scripture testifying that Adam and Eve both sinned). Knowing what we know about human beings, they don't just sin once in their life and then stop. Humans sin and sin and sin again. So, we know that Adam had MANY sins, not just one sin. The context of Romans 5: 18-19 says "through one man's diobedience" and we have no reason to believe it's talking about the one sin in the garden of Eden here when it says "one man's disobedience," if the Catechism wants us to believe that it IS talking about only one sin

committed by one man causing all other men to sin, they must prove this scripturally and Romans 5: 18-19 doesn't even come close to meeting that test.

CATECHISM'S INTERPRETATION (Catholic direct and IMPLIED translations in bold and red) 19 "(first half) By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners..." (add Romans 5: 12 "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 then LOP OFF the final statement in verse 19 which says "many" shall be made righteous). 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 all men), so by the righteousness of one (one man's act of righteousness) the free gift (salvation by grace) came upon all men unto justification of life . (The cross brings "acquittal" and "justifies" restoring the "life" of all mankind unto reconciliation, even though they be born and unjust sinners).
The Catechism establishes a false, unproved premise (that

the propensity to sin was mysteriously passed down from Adam to all of mankind) THEN they USE this premise to interpret Romans 5: 18-19. If you read the text WITHOUT this 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 other texts inserted, you will find the text does not support the teaching. It is only supported by the text if you BELIEVE the teaching before you read the text. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic church handles ALL scripture. Instead of examining the scripture first, determining what it says, then establishing 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 here in Romans 5: 18-19). Look at verse 18 of Romans 5. Catholics might argue that the CONTEXT of this text was not Adam's MANY sins (nor was it Christ's sinless life) and in the case of verse 18 they are ONLY PARTIALLY right; because verse 18 does not say "the single act of righteousness of one" it actually says "the righteousness of one" and can be PLURAL. Certainly we know that it references "the free gift" which is a direct reference to the crucifixion of Christ for our salvation, yet was the crucifixion a "single act of righteousness" or was it more the CULMINATION and RESULT of a LIFETIME of righteous obedience to the Father? INTERIM SUMMARY: The Catechism quotes verse 19 and rewrites it so that it says almost the exact same thing as verse 18. Catholics point to the statement "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation," and conclude "all men are implicated in Adam's sin," and so it would seem, as long as you quote the first part of verse 19 FIRST,

add to it a section of Romans 5:12, then finish with verse 18! They then have the audacity to pass this offf as scriptural support for the original sin teaching which dictates that because Adam sinned ONCE, original sin passed to all men and thereby spiritual death. Then, verse 18 reads, "by the righteousness of one is the free gift" came upon all men. They can argue that this is not talking about Christ's many acts of righteousness and sinless life (and again, pertaining to verse 18 they would be only partially accurate). I am sure the Catholic would point out that verse 18 is talking about the "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 EXAMPLES set by Adam and by Christ, but rather the one single deciding ACTIONS each of them took. In fact that is what the Catechism puts forth. "The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ" Thus, they make Adam sinning in the garden, which leads to condemnation of all men and a death sentence upon all men (for what ADAM did) and that is 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 believe it myself if it weren't for the fact that the above arguments are all based, again, on the PRECONCEIVED notion of "original sin." If you approach verse 18 WITHOUT the teachings (as if they had not yet been proved) you will see that verse 18 doesn't support the original sin idea any better than verse 19 does. Verse 18 does not say "because of one offence by one man" all men have been judged and condemned. (That is how the Catechism is translating the text). It says that by "the offense" (could either be singular or plural). You might think this is semantics but it is

certainly not. There is a very different meaning of the phrases "by offence of one" and "because of one single offence committed by one man." According to the Catechism, it only took ONE sin commited by ONE MAN and God judged and condemned the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, sentencing them all to DEATH because of what their father and mother did before they were even born! Does this sound like a "just God?" Of course it doesn't but that is what original sin teaches. Verses 18 and especially verse 19 do NOT say this without having a preconceived belief 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 "all men" (who might sin in like fashion), it does not mean what the Catechism then concludes, that there is a "sin nature" a "sin curse" that is mysteriously passed down to us. Verse 19 reads, "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 same judgment as Adam was. This is clearly describing PERSONAL SIN and not some "mysterious curse" which men inherit regardless of behavior! Verse 19 is showing HOW death passed from Adam to us, because his PERSONAL SIN was passed to his children BY EXAMPLE, and made "many sinners" (making sinners out of every offspring of Adam who sinned in his similtude). Then the author says, even in the same way, Christ's OBEDIENCE and EXAMPLE of LIVING is now passed to his followers and shall make "MANY" righteous (not all men). If it were talking here about acquittal and justification through grace and forgiveness of the cross ONLY it would not say

"SHALL many be made righteous" it would say "many HAVE been made righteous." The fact it is speaking in FUTURE TENSE here is all the evidence we need to know that verse 19 is 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 message within Romans 5: 19? Is it just that the developers of the Catechism "overlooked it?" NO, for they DELIBERATELY REMOVED 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 must believe that even though they were born sinners (original sin) through God they can learn to live their lives "without personal sin." Why did they need to change the meaning of Romans 5: 19? Because Romans 5: 18-19 does NOT support original sin on it's own, the thought has to be placed there first, then it appears to support it as long as you IGNORE the actual meaning of the text which is Christ's example of sinless perfection is now passed down to us in the same way that Adam's example of sinfulness was passed to his future generations! Original Sin, therefore, has an ULTERIOR MOTIVE and that is to sell all mankind under SIN, forever, being children of Adam, and while the Catechism says you can overcome and cease from PERSONAL SIN you will STILL ALWAYS BE A SINNER because you are born of Adam! They promise FREEDOM but the freedom they promise is bondage to a sin nature (while astonishingly enough claiming that Christ offers "freedom" from the sin nature, but calling that freedom "acquittal" only, and "justification" through faith). They teach that man is born a sinner (but it's only sin in an

analogical sense accoriding to the Catechism), yet consider, if the original sin we are freed from by the crucifixion is only "analogical" then so must the FREEDOM be analogical ONLY. It is as if man is under "contract" with the Devil to be called "sinners" no matter how they behave and to suffer DEATH for that contract (even if the man has no personal sin) In other words Adam made a "contract" of sin with the Devil and we are all BOUND by it. It's bondage to be a sinner no matter HOW you live, even if you commit no offense at all.

Taken from the Catechism:

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation 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 personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an 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 that man commits NO act of sin in his life. If you think I'm reading this wrong, you'd be in error, because they even use this idea to justify why they baptize innocent infants:

Taken from the Catechism:

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even 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 the way this happens cannot be understood and is a mystery). First, they plant the SEED of this idea in people's head then they attempt to quote SCRIPTURE to back it up (and if the verses don't back it up they will REWRITE THEM). We find this sort of deceptive teaching THROUGHOUT the Catechism. First the Catechism states, in 404 all men are implicated 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 Catechism upholds the statement of the council of Trent on the subject of original sin that it is passed by "propagation" and not by example.

Taken from the Catechism:

419 "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, "by propagation, not by imitation" and that it is. . . 'proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG 16). The Catechism then criticizes Protestants for taking this original sin transmission to it's next logical conclusion.

Taken from the Catechism:

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on 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 for saying 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 FULL agreement with the Catechism, that original sin is a "mysterious curse" which passes death from Adam to all of mankind, (and the Protestants deny that sin is passed from Adam to his children by imitation or example). Protestants have just taken this type of original sin to it's obvious and logical conclusion. There is very little difference between the original sin taught in the Catechism and the original sin taught among the Protestants, the only difference being perhaps "degree" of the corruption. Where Catholics teach (to their credit I say this) that Christ brings freedom and acquittal from this original sin and thus a Christian can, through the help of God and by the Holy Spirit live without sin (again I say this to the Catholic's credit, even though their

same Catechism concludes that men cannot REALLY live without sin because of original sin, we will get to that momentarily). Catholics do not realize how their teaching that Christians can live without sin is DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to their own Catechism on the subject of original sin (or maybe they realize it but relegate it to be a same part of the mystery which is not to be fully understood). Protestants, on the other hand, reject the idea of Christians living without sin (to their shame) but in defense I would say that logic and reason dictate their position (if you are going to accept "original sin" as written). For, if man is indeed a "born sinner" and "sinner by nature" having inherited a mysterious curse from Adam, and if grace of the cross brings only "acquittal" and "justification" (something that is clearly stated in the Catechism) then, indeed, it is pure fantasy to believe that man can live as Christ lived "without sin," for according to the selfsame Catechism, Christ (and Mary) were the ONLY humans able to accomplish sinless lives BECAUSE they had no original sin! (Not to mention that all trinitarians agree that Christ was born without original sin and lived in sinless perfection BECAUSE He was God Incarnate, but that is another subject entirely). The contradiction becomes glaring. On the one hand Catholics seek to teach that men can live holy sinless lives by the power of the Holy Spirit, but then propogate a Catechism of original sin which, if true, forever PRECLUDES a man from doing so (for even that very Catechism says only Christ and Mary could do this because they were born without original sin).

Taken from the Catechism:

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an

announcement of the "New Adam" who, because he "became obedient unto death, even death on a cross", makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore 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 all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306 What is the conclusion of this then? The Catholics, while claiming to believe Christians can, through the power of Christ, live without sin have created a doctrine of original sin and proported the notion that Mary and Jesus were living sinless and perfect lives ONLY because they were born without this original sin! The doctrines of the sinless Christ (Virgin Birth) and Immaculate Conception BOTH state unequivicably that the REASON they lived without sin is because they were born without original sin. This forever BARS them who are born with original sin of EVER living without sin. The Protestants have simply accepted the original sin doctrine of Trent (which the Catholics also have adopted) but do not contradict it (as do the Catholics- by saying that men can live their lives without sin). It is MOST DEFINITELY a contradiction to state that the sinless lives of both Mary and Jesus are the PROOF that they were born without original sin, then try to say that men who are born WITH original sin can also live sinless lives! The notion is preposterous in the extreme! The ONLY conclusion that can be drawn from the Catholic Catechism, therefore, is that men, who are ALL born with original sin are incapable of living without sin (for the very teaching affirms that Christ and Mary could NOT have lived sinless unless they were born without original sin). The

entire Catechism, therefore collapses upon itself, first saying that original sin does not prevent a man from living holy, without "personal sin," then claiming that Mary and Jesus were ONLY able to live without personal sin because they were born without original sin. Though the Catechism claims to believe in men living without personal sin through the power of Christ, it denies it in principle then the Catholics criticize the Protestants for accepting the SAME original sin teaching but then refusing to contradict it (by denying openly what Catholics only deny in principle. Why do Catholics not see this glaring contradiction? Certainly the Protestants saw it. Yet, the Protestants are WRONG indeed to say that men cannot live without sin, for there are too many scriptures that say that not only CAN followers of Christ live without sin but they SHALL. Their error is born out of an HONEST assessment of the "original sin" of the council of Trent, whereas, Catholics who are right to say men can live without personal sin, do not realize that by putting forth the original sin of the council of Trent, and at the same time putting forth the sinless life of Christ (because of virgin birth) and the sinless life of Mary (because of Immaculate Conception) they then contradict the very notion of men living without personal sin. Both Protestants and Catholics are found in error, believing a teaching of several things (original sin being only one example) which forever bar men from living as Christ lived on the earth (holy and perfect without sin) and the Catholics then claiming to believe that men can live without sin (after saying only they who are born WITHOUT original sin can live lives of sinlessness), while the Protestants are more enthusiastic in their faith in Trent and in the original sin teaching, logically concluding that if Christ was sinless because he was born "without original sin" then NONE OF

US can be sinless for we were born with original sin." Therefore, I always say that across the board, Christianity accepts original sin (the original sin of Trent) and, whether they admit it or not, by teaching this concept have forever barred mankind from EVER repeating Christ's life of sinless perfection! Protestants deny it OPENLY (and indeed I have heard Catholics deny it) while the learned Catholic who knows his or her Catechism will preach original sin, (the sinless Christ through Virgin Birth, and Immaculate Conception) and at the same time preach that men can learn to live without personal sin, never realizing how their teachings contradict each other!

GOD DENOUNCED ORIGINAL SIN LONG AGO

God spoke directly to Ezekiel and denounced the entire notion of "original sin" for you see this was NOT a new doctrine when it was set forth at the council of Trent. It was not a new teaching to Christ and the Apostles either. The Scribes and Pharisees built their entire approach to the law around the idea that when Adam sinned, his children received a death sentence for that sin! By the time of Christ there was no debate anymore in Hebrew tradition about this. Ezekiel's denouncement had gone completely unheeded by the theologians and sages of the Jewish Rabbinical tradition! I know that seems amazing, but not really, not when you see that by the time of the council of Trent this notion had STILL not been completely denounced and it became a part of the CHRISTIAN tradition as well. In Ezekiel 18 there are THREE erroneous teachings addressed at the same time. First, was the Jewish tradition that a father is to be blamed for his son's sins. God first

demolishes the supposition that since sin is passed to the son by the father (either by example of by some mysterious sin curse) then if a son sins he must have learned or inherited this from his father! The second error Ezekiel 18 addresses is the misguided notion that one man's righteousness (in this case the father's righteousness) can somehow be imputed to his progeny even though his progeny live sinfully. Then, in the second half of Ezekiel 18 God destroys the THIRD error which is the notion that a son is judged and pronounced a sinner because of his father's sin. (Or because of Adam's sin for 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 how Adam lived). There is only ONE sin death sentence according to Ezekiel and that is the sentence of death upon a man for HIS OWN SINS! Let's look at God's pronouncements against the idea that mankind were all under a death sentence because of Adam's sin:

PART ONE: A RIGHTEOUS FATHER IS NOT TO BE BLAMED IF HIS SON IS A SINNER AND A SINFUL SON CANNOT BE IMPUTED WITH HIS FATHER'S RIGHTEOUSNESS

Ezekiel 18: 1-13

1 The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying, 2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb

concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? 3 As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. 5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, 6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, 7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; 8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from

iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, 9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God. 10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things, 11 And that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife, 12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, 13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. PART TWO :

THE RIGHTEOUS SON OF A SINFUL FATHER SHALL NOT DIE BECAUSE OF HIS FATHER'S SIN

Ezekiel 18: 14-18

14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, 15 That hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour's wife, 16 Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment, 17 That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. 18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by

violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity. PART THREE : COMPLETE DENOUNCEMENT OF ORIGINAL SIN

Ezekiel 18: 19-21

19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
Here, so far, God has completely destroyed the teaching of original sin as set forth by the council of Trent and universally regarded by ALL Christians (including the

"fringe" such as Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses). The death sentence for sin is only upon the MAN THAT SINS. God makes it clear through Ezekiel that there IS NO DEATH SENTENCE upon a man for the sins of his father (or for the sins of Adam for that matter). Personal sin is the ONLY thing for which a man receives a death sentence from God. This is CLEAR in Ezekiel 18. There is no mysterious "curse" of death upon men because of Adam's sin (otherwise Ezekiel is utterly in error here). Another thing that is destroyed by Ezekiel is the teaching of the Catholic Catechism which says that even if a person has no personal sin he is still born under the death sentence of "original sin." Included in this denunciation by God is the approach that all men are "born spiritually dead" because of Adam's sin and the Protestant's contention as well, that men can NEVER hope 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 Christ and Mary could live without sin because they were born without original sin). None of these ideas can be true if we believe Ezekiel in his 18th chapter!

PART FOUR: GRACE AND FORGIVENESS OF THE REPENTANT IS NOT UNFAIR

Ezekiel 18: 22-18

22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he

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 his ways, and live? 24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. 25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful

and right, he shall save his soul alive. 28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
I must here reiterate, the above 7 verses make it clear that even if a man were to be born with some "sin curse" he has no "sentence of death" upon him until he commits "personal sin." While Protestants CLAIM to believe this (and denounce infant baptism as a result) their teaching of original sin states that it is impossible for men to live without sin (because of original sin) and they deny any notion of a man living without sin (even though Ezekiel 18 clearly acknowledges the possibility). Christians, therefore, in putting their stamp of approval on "original sin" take Ezekiel 18 only in the "hypothetical" and handle it accordingly, 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 way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? 30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
What is also interesting about Ezekiel 18 is God addresses claims of those who feel that his handling of sin is somehow "unfair." God says it is NOT unfair for God to condemn one man for his personal sin, but to then forgive another man of the same sin (if that man turn from his ways). Catholics and Protestants often offer up that very same objection to my conclusions of Ezekiel 18. I have spoken to many of them who, when they understand how I read Ezekiel 18 they will try to say that if my conclusions were correct then God's handling of sin is unfair! I am not exactly sure how they figure this because it is not unfair and Ezekiel says so! Furthermore the "original sin" notion that because Adam sinned ALL OF HIS OFFSPRING are under death sentence for his sin is the MOST UNFAIR handling of all! Even the WORLD sees the injustice of such a concept and they comment sarcastically about it all the time! The scriptures not only DENOUNCE such injustice of God sentencing to death all of mankind because Adam's sinned here in Ezekiel 18, but it also denounces the notion that just because Adam sinned, ALL HIS OFFSPRING MUST SIN too! Indeed, the "original sinners" as I call them quote the verse

that says "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and wrongfully conclude that it supports a teaching whereby all men are sinners because of Adam's transgression! Protestants make it to say that "all MUST sin." Catholics teach that a death sentence mysteriously falls upon all mankind because of Adam's sin (and even if a man were to have no personal sins he still is under this death sentence), but then conclude that men can still "live without sin" even though they ALSO teach that Christ and Mary must have been born without original sin or else they could not have lived without sin (a complete contradiction of their own claims). Protestants make the same mistake, but go one further and say that not only is this death sentence upon all mankind because Adam sinned, but sin itself is a part of our "genetics" we being all children of Adam (and concluding that man can do nothing BUT sin). The odd twist is while Catholics openly (howbeit it unwittingly by the aforementioned contradictions) agree with 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 destroys grace and leaves us all vulnerable to a death sentence anyway! Not so, for grace is included in the denouncement in verse 21. "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die." Both the Catholics and the Protestants do err in the scriptures, for, if

grace brings automatic "acquittal" and "justification" then ALL MEN are now acquitted, justifed and saved! The Apostles stated clearly that Christ died for the "sins of the whole world" and that the "propitiation" of sins is given to ALL MEN and that grace is given to ALL MEN. Let's look at these verses:

1 Timothy 4:10
10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living 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 I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, 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 the sins of the whole world.

Titus 2:11
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
If the saving blood of Christ merely is an "acquittal" and

"justification" despite our original sin (and despite our personal sin) and this grace and forgiveness is a free gift which acquits us of all sins (including future sins) then according 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, yet look at how they both add to to the free gift the requirements of 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 this forgiveness and this "acquittal" which is offered through the cross of Christ men must first "believe" in Christ (and belief is a work, don't kid yourself, for James says faith without works is dead). So, they who claim to believe in salvation by faith alone (Protestants and Evangelicals alike) then contradict their own teaching by saying a man must "believe" (a work) and a man must "confess" (yet another work, this one 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 grace that the scriptures say is offered "to all men!" Yet, the Protestants and Evangilicals all have their traditional "works" that are required for a man to have this grace this they 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 his heart" (yet another work) and that a man must repent of his sins (again, another work). I could go on and on. They all miss the boat for even though all men's sins have been "propitiated" by the work of Christ (atoned for) and

even though the free gift (grace) is now given (offered) to "all men," according to the Apostles there remains, therefore, a requirement that men must "believe" and not only that, but that it must be true belief which results in "fruit" of the Holy Spirit. While the Catholics claim in their Catechism to believe this, their other doctrines deny it outright. The Protestants are more pragmatic denying with their mouths that such a thing (Christlike perfection and holiness in one's lifetime) is even possible! At least Catholics make a verbal confession of the truth, (that men can walk even as Christ walked with no personal sin), so they have a chance of seeing it (even though their heart says otherwise because of original sin and the teaching that only one born without original sin can live without sin). Protestants have NO CHANCE of seeing it for they deny it outright, making a negative confession of faith to the contrary of grace, not understanding that if grace is ALL that brings salvation, then indeed the Universalists are correct and ALL MEN are now SAVED! In all incidents where "original sin" rears its ugly head, one thing is beyond denial, however! Namely, that the purposes of Christ are then thwarted! So, ironically, while the Catholic Catechism 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 the Mystery of Christ is "Christ in you, the hope of glory," which is a direct reference to the BELIEVERS becoming like CHRIST (sinless and perfect) by the power of the Holy Spirit, for when you say that only Christ and Mary could live without sin, and this because they were born without original sin, they jeapardize the truth of our coming perfection and holiness. Among the Protestants the nullifying of the purposes of the

crucifixion of the Messiah are even more stark by contrast to that of Catholicism. They openly DENY the purpose of Christ to bring every man before God "without spot or blemish," 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 denial of the work of the crucifixion and its purposes. Both Protestants and Catholics state that the work of the cross brings about "acquittal" and "justification" only (in other words Christ's blood takes away the PENALTY of sin only and not the sin itself). There is NO ROOM for Christlike sinless perfection in the life of the believer under Protestantism because of their radical conclusion of original sin, and there is no room for it among Catholics (who claim sinless perfection is possible) for Catholics turn right around and state that ONLY Christ and Mary live without sin, and this ONLY because they were born without "original sin," (thus, logically barring all who were born WITH original sin from 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 of these statements, but it is only because they have never realized the stark contradictions existing within their own Catechism and notoriously they chalk up such contradictions as 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 entered into the world, and death by sin; and so

death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Verse 14 says death reigned from Adam to Moses. Why not from Adam "until now?" If these scriptures are teaching "original sin" they would not say that this death (that came from Adam's sin) reigned from Adam to Moses! Clearly, the Apostle is not teaching original sin, but something else. I can tell you what that something else is. Death reigned over mankind from Adam until Moses, when the LAW CAME and with it the OFFICIAL sacrifice of blood on the altar for atonement of sin! They had blood sacrifice before that, but not the God instituted shedding of blood for "atonement" and "cleansing" from sin. That came through Moses. It then atoned for mankind's many sins (after the example and teaching of Adam). So, even if you could PROVE these

verses indeed teach that death came upon all men because of Adam's sin, that death ONLY REIGNED from Adam to MOSES according to the same Apostolic teachings! Paul says that death reigned from Adam to Moses (not from Adam to Christ), then he says something else remarkable. "Even over them that had not sinned after the similtude of Adam's transgression." Here is clear cut proof 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 the Protestant 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 of mankind (even if a man were to live his entire life without personal sin of his own) and indeed Paul bears this out in verse 14! (At least hypothetically for we do know that ALL MEN indeed have sinned and come short of the glory of God). Yet, concluding that just because ALL of the children of 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 had been) those who did not sin in like fashion to Adam, death still reigned OVER them from Adam to Moses, (for they were under a sentence of death should they sin)! Once Moses came, he provided a way whereby men could escape death should they sin, through atonement, forgiveness and yes, grace! (Many Christians are under the mistaken idea that grace did not come until Christ died on the cross) Does Paul's statement "death reigned over them" support the notion 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

Adam for his sin and that death sentence hangs over EVERYONE from Adam unto Moses! We know this because 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 by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. 18 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. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
In verse 16 it says that judgment came by Adam to condemnation (the death sentence upon them that sin) and it states that the free gift (grace) cannot exist without offences! Yes, you read that right. Grace does not exist

without the law according to Paul for if there is no law, there is no sin, and if there is no sin there is NO NEED FOR GRACE. That's why paul says the free gift is "of many offences unto justification" Paul then says in verse 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned" this merely states that the death penalty for sin was upon ALL men because Adam sinned. Paul is in NO WAY saying that all men were declared "guilty" and "dead" because of Adam's sin. That is a complete twisting of the writings of Paul to the Romans! Again in verse 18 it says "by offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation." Original sin attempts to say that this is clear scriptural proof that all of Adam's progeny were condemned because of Adam's sin (but we know from Ezekiel that is NEVER true and "the soul that sinneth it shall die.") Verse 18 merely states that because Adam sinned and was condemned, all of his children who sinned were likewise condemned (WHEN THEY SINNED LIKE ADAM) for God is nothing if not fair. Yes Paul acknowledges that death also "reigned" even over any child of Adam who did not sin like Adam, yet that only means they were under the same PENALTY for sin (should they commit Adam's sin) with no way of being atoned for until Moses! We know ALL MEN DID SIN, yet even Paul acknowledges that it's at least hypothetical for a man under the OLD law to "not sin after the similtude" (like) Adam! I submit, if it's possible for someone under the old law to "not sin after the similitude of Adam" then CERTAINLY it is possible for them that live under GRACE to "not sin after Adam's sin!" Finally in verse 19 it says "by one man's disobedience MANY were made sinners." The Catholic Catechism twisted this to say "by one man's disobedience ALL MEN were made sinners" and adopted the original sin error, the Protestants and the Evangelicals likewise followed suit and then afterward all of the "offshoots" of Christianity as well.

Christianity as a religion stands on the brink of falling completely because of this error. Furthermore, where Romans 5 verse 19 says "so by the obedience of one" it is speaking of Christ's ENTIRE LIFE OF OBEDIENCE, not just his obedient DEATH (because how could Christ have performed his final act of obedience to die for our sins if he had not remained sinless his entire life, certainly his ENTIRE LIFE of obedience therefore comes into play in bringing about the "free gift). It says "shall many be made RIGHTEOUS." This is not an acquittal ONLY, but is literally the perfecting of them that believe into SINLESS CREATURES. (Even as John wrote and said "be not deceived he that DOES righteousness is righteous)," not just them that have a "cloak" for their sins and "appear" righteous in God's eyes. Christianity as a whole misreads the scriptures, turning the righteousness that is being offered into an "imputed" righteousness (even though God said through Ezekiel that a man who continues living in sins cannot "live" just because he 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 worthy of death, can a man live by another man's righteousness? Not according to Ezekiel 18 he can't. It says "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon HIM (the righteous one) and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him (the wicked one). Through the crucifixion of Christ and through is LIFE EXAMPLE of sinless perfection we shall be "made righteous" and thus "do righteousness." That is why it says earlier in Romans 5 that we are "saved by his life."

Romans 5: 9-10 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
The "blood" of Christ came, not just to reconcile fallen man to God, the blood was shed so that we could receive the Holy Spirit, (and be saved by repeating his LIFE). The Holy Spirit does not just "cloak" or "cover" our sins but "cleanses us of all unrighteousness" and presents us in the end "without spot or blemish" and "blameless" and brings us "unto the perfect 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 continue in a sin nature and continue in sin) they are completely CHANGING 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 sins from God, but the significance is that the blood brings the HOLY SPIRIT who eradicates sin in you day by day, through LOVE and through walking and abiding IN that love! The Holy Spirit comes to "break" the sin habit in you and bring you to Christ like perfection!

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

that faith without works is dead being alone?" James 2: 20. I find this to be one of the most important verses in the Bible. Not just because it identifies that faith is never alone and is always accompanied by works but because it recognize a truth about mankind. We are VAIN! We think that every thought which pops into our heads must be true. In today's society truth itself is taught as "relative" and that one man's truth is no more valid than the next man's truth. How vain is man? I know a woman who has been living in her car for over 4 years. 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 so vain in her own mind that no one can tell her how to get OUT of that situation. If you try she becomes combative and extremely angry. No one has the right to question her "personal truth," and the current despairing situation in which she now lives can never end because if anyone makes a suggestion to her how to get out of that situation she immediately raises an objection of why that will "never work." Because to admit that someone else can help her is to violate her own vain personal truth (that the world is conspiring to keep her in her situation and she knows what is best for her own life). It's a self perpetuating defeat. Most think she's mentally ill. I do not. She is cognitive and she is in touch with reality, she merely has been taught that HER personal truth supersedes all other's truths. She is a product of 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. In today's modern world we all have our "personal truths" and no one can contradict them. These truths place us in situations and positions from which we can never escape.

No greater example can I think of than the one James gives here. Mankind thinks that belief in God is enough and that our works have nothing to do with our Salvation. This traps us into a perpetual "sin situation" from which we can never escape. In the end, it's just VANITY. It's our VAIN attempt to maintain control of our own lives. God the Father allows it (for he wants us to have free will) but the end of that road is death. O how vain is man, to think that his way is better (even though 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 SIN NOT TO COVER IT UP

There are numerous scriptures which show that the Messiah (Christ) of the Bible did not come to "cover" or "cloak" the sins of mankind. Christ came for the same reason the LAW came (only with much better result) and that was to EXPOSE SIN completely so that it could be ERADICATED! The first such inkling we get of this comes from John Chapter 15.

John 15: 18-27 18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might 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 the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which

proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
As we see, Christ's mission is not to provide sinners with a "cloak for their sins." Some undoubtedly will take exception to this, for I have seen people twist these verses to say that the ONLY reason they do not have a "cloak" for their sin is because they have "hated" both the Son of God and the Father. They infer, logically so, that Christ's statements here imply that if they LOVED him and LOVED his Father, they indeed WOULD have a "cloak for their sin." They make this error (and you will see why it is indeed error) because they are not reading the entire STATEMENT and not taking into account the MISSION of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does 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 in verse 25 of the "Comforter." Several verses later he completely describes the mission of the Comforter and what he shall do for the believer and it is NOT to "cloak" or cover our sins, but rather to "reprove" us of our sins.

John 16: 7-15 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the 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 my Father, and ye see me no more; 11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, 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; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Again, there are those who argue that verse 9 makes it clear the 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" but are instead "cloaked" or "covered." They believe that this directly cross references to Christ's statements that because they "hated him" they shall not have a "cloak for their sins." Yet, consider if you will the "Comforter" only comes to them who BELIEVE! How can the Holy Spirit "reprove" them who DO NOT BELIEVE "of sin?" In verse 13 he says the Spirit of truth will guide us into "all truth," then in verse 15 he says that "all things that the Father has are his" and promises that the Holy Spirit shall take of his (all things the Father has) and show it unto us! This includes HOLINESS and SINLESS PERFECTION. Who can argue that the Father has sinlessness and holiness? Christ promises that ALL THINGS the Father has are now his and the Holy Spirit shall come and give that which is HIS unto us! This MUST include holiness and sinless perfection, or else Christ is at the very least 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 in sin, it's only because they DON'T REALLY BELIEVE CHRIST. The Holy Spirit comes to make your faith REAL by pointing out your sin and moving you to cease! How can the Holy 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 REPROVE US of our sin so that he can replace our sinful life with a Holy and Sinless life of perfection. So shall the predictions of Christ be fulfilled when he said "be ye therefore perfect even as the Father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5: 48). We see, then that it is not just the "acquittal" and the "atonement" for

sin for which Christ "went away" (died). Although that was a PART of the reason for all of us were sinners and needed to be reconciled. Yet, the death of Christ was ULTIMATELY to send the "Comforter," the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit who's express mission is to "take of the Father" and give to us, to "reprove the world of sin" so that he that believes upon Christ might walk even so as Christ walked! (Sinless and Perfect, without spot or blemish). To teach that we can NEVER attain this (because of original sin 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 and to thwart the very ministry of the Holy Spirit!

Proverbs 28:13 13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
Here is yet another scriptural reference that states God is not interested in "covering up" your sins! When you think about it rationally, what the "blood covering" of sin teaching really does is state that God "overlooks" your sin. Christians who teach the "cloak" or "cover up" teaching (which is the lion's share 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" their sins not just to God but to one another and to ask for forgiveness. 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. What they are REALLY teaching is that God "overlooks" their sins

and pretends not to "see them" and sees the believer only as being RIGHTEOUS (imputed righteousness not DOING righteousness). Now, I ask you, what kind of parent does such a thing? What kind of parent simply pretends that their children are behaving when in fact their children are in disobedience? Will such children ever "grow?" Will such children ever have discipline and learn to behave rightly? It's not only doubtful, it's preposterous. Nevertheless, this is the Father they depict in their teachings. One who sent his son to provide a way for him to "look the other way" when them who believe upon his Son behave in disobedience! There isn't a single scripture which states that the blood of Christ "covers up" or "cloaks" your sins from God. When Christians teach this they quote scriptures that say "Christ died FOR your sins." Christ dying for your sins is NOT a saying 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, to eradicate them, to destroy them, to send the Holy Spirit for to 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 that you remain "in sin" so that grace may abound. Saying your "future sins" are "covered up" and "cloaked" is especially deceptive, for, it makes provision (or license) for FUTURE SINS! It is an open statement that Christ came so that you could "continue in sin," which is a turning of the gospel upside down and preaching the EXACT OPPOSITE of the purposes of Christ (who actually came to ERADICATE sin in you). It more than suggests that Christ and God turn a "blind eye" to your sin and disobedience and do not expect ANYTHING from you, save to "believe" and soak up God's grace!

While Catholics do not teach this sort of grace outright, it must be pointed out that when you factor in their teaching that ONLY Christ and Mary could live without sin (because they 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 only conclusion to their entire teaching is that while they CLAIM we can live without sin they teach at the same time we cannot really (for we were born with original sin) and Christ and Mary both prove that one must be born WITHOUT original sin in order to live sinless!