For Blacks.....do you know your political history?
|
Posted:Jan 23, 2008 6:08 am
Last Updated:Jan 24, 2008 3:36 am 1321 Views
|
This major civil rights advance -- what we now know as the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- is a purely Republican achievement, because every single Democrat in Congress voted against the 14th Amendment.
That is another fact deftly omitted from American history textbooks these days: we owe our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws and due process to Republicans, and this bedrock of American civil rights was unanimously opposed by the Democrats.
Three years later, in 1869, the Republicans proposed yet another constitutional amendment, this one specifically guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. The same partisanship was in evidence: 98% of Republicans voted for it; 97% of the Democrats voted against it.
Seven years later, Republicans in Congress authored what was then, and what remains today, the most sweeping Civil Rights legislation ever enacted. The 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteed the right of equal access to all citizens in all public accommodations -- whether or not owned or controlled by the government.
Now that phrase, "public accommodations," is very familiar to us today, because it was at the heart of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which became the focal point of the 1960s civil rights movement. The reason that this question was before the Congress again in the 1960s is that the 1875 Civil Rights Act only lasted for eight years before the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. What finally became law in 1964, therefore, was the original Republican legislation of 90 years earlier. Not surprisingly, in 1964 a significantly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Every single African-American in Congress, House and Senate, until 1935 was a Republican.
In 1872, the first black governor took office in Louisiana. I love his name: Pinckney Pinchback, a great Republican. Our own state of California was the first to have a Hispanic governor. Can you guess his political party? Republican Romualdo Pacheco became governor in 1875, long before anybody had ever heard of Cruz Bustamante.
Republicans led the fight for women's voting rights -- and the Democrats, as a party, opposed civil rights for women. All of the leading suffragists -- including Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton -- were Republicans. In fact, Susan B. Anthony bragged, after leaving the voting booth, that she had voted for "the Republican ticket -- straight."
The suffragists included two African-American Republican women who were also co-founders of the NAACP: Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, great leaders of our party, both of them
Which Political Party is responsible for Civil Rights?
I have long been perplexed at how, to this day, Blacks continue to follow the liberal mindset. It wasn't always that way.
I was raised in the 50s, when there was a virtual dividing line for Black people. Until ... a Black family moved in our neighborhood. My Mother was a living saint, and she brought all of us up (5) in the teachings of God. One day, I came home from school and there was my Mom, and this new Black neighbor having coffee together. In my Mother's infinate wisdom and love for her fellow man, she recognized that woman, and her families decision to take a huge leap into an all white neighborhood, as an opportunity to welcome, and befriend her. They would have many coffee chats thereafter. That was in the late 1950s ...
I am not one to befriend or visit liberal blogs here on Myspace, for I learned long ago, even when you present factual information, it is rejected and ridiculed. Like the ole saying goes ... I love hitting my head against a brick wall, because it feels so good when I stop. However ...
I recently had the opportunity to pose this question to a Lib ... "Which political party, historicly, has played the greatest roll in defending Civil Rights in this country?" Her answer, of course, was the DEMs. Now, she appeared to be a very bright woman. Well read with a wonderful command of the English language. But she was so wrong, and I was going to prove it to her ...
We began an ongoing, email conversation that lasted a few days. I began to feel that I had a Lib within my intellectual grips, who's mind, when presented with facts, could and would be changed. The more facts I presented her with, the more here responses were wow, I didn't know that. Our conversation ended with what I presented to her below, which I hope you don't mind I share with you here, but it's long and will use up a lot of your space here. Her final response was, "Wow, that was actually enjoyable." That was a few weeks ago, and from time to time, I have visited her Blog to see if she might have passed that information on to her very loyal, liberal readers. She has not. Today, the liberal mindset is cemented within the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Martin Luther King would be appalled. And now, here is the information I sent her. Thank you for allowing me this time and space ...
Honoring 150 Years of Republican Civil Rights Achievements
This year marks an important anniversary -- and it's a big one. Our party is a century and a half old this year. That is a big, big event: after all -- a 150th anniversary doesn't come along but once … every 150 years.
It was 150 years ago this year that our party was founded in a small midwest town. Take a moment to think what was going on 150 years ago: John Phillip Sousa was born. Sacramento became the capital of our state. The San Francisco Gas Company illuminated its first gaslights. That's the world in which a few people in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin came together to map strategy and to form the Republican Party.
The history of our party is as remarkable as it is untold, and it is under-appreciated for that reason. Just in the area of civil rights, there is no way in these brief comments that I can do anything like a comprehensive presentation. But I can tell you that for the last two years, the Republican Policy Committee in the United States Congress has been working to chronicle the Republican civil rights history, gathering thousands of facts, dates, and events. And today we are proudly issuing the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar.
Unfortunately, the Republican Freedom Calendar has only 365 days. And so we have had to pick 365 out of hundreds and hundreds of additional civil rights accomplishments. It is truly impressive to go through this. I have learned an extraordinary amount about our party as a result of this project.
The Republican Party, I am absolutely confident in saying, is the most effective political organization in the history of the world in advancing the cause of freedom. Frankly, we haven't had any competition.
The mission of our party was clearly stated by Abraham Lincoln: "to lift the artificial weights from all shoulders, and clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all." His use of the word "pursuit" recalls Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. Just as America's founding document declared our right to pursue happiness, the Republican philosophy has always been focused on opportunity -- not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity. The "artificial weight" that Lincoln is talking about is, of course, the weight of the state. In the
most egregious form of statism, the government imposed slavery on millions of Americans.
Today, the animating spirit of the Republican Party is exactly the same as it was at its founding: free minds, free markets, free expression, and unlimited opportunity. Leading the organized opposition to these ideas 150 years ago, just as today, was the Democratic Party -- in the form, then as now, of politically correct speech; a preference for government control over individual decision making (and of course slavery was the most extreme form of government control); government control of enterprise; and an insistence on seeing people as members of groups, rather than as individuals. It was that refusal to see the unique value of every individual that
was at the heart of the Democrats' support of slavery.
So on this 150th anniversary, it is useful to look back. This morning, I will speak briefly on four of the significant accomplishments of the Republican Party in the area of individual rights and freedoms:
First, the role of our party in bringing an end to slavery in the United States.
Second, the role of our party in extending the right to vote to men and women of all backgrounds, of all races, and of all creeds.
Third, the leadership role of our party in ushering in the modern civil rights era.
And fourth, the leading role of our party in establishing an American policy of peace through strength that has freed hundreds of millions of people around the world from slavery and brought freedom, democracy, women's rights, and minority rights to the former Soviet Empire and across central and eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
From President Lincoln's victory in the Civil War, to President Reagan's victory in the Cold War, to President Bush's liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the policies of the Republican Party have brought freedom to a major portion of the planet's population that previously lived in slavery.
These astounding achievements are the result of our party's establishment with a fundamentally different vision than the Democrats whom we formed to oppose 150 years ago.
We started our party with the express intent to protect the American people from the Democrats' pro-slavery policies that made people inferior to the state. The Democrats didn't just oppose Republicans, or merely tolerate racial discrimination; they were aggressively pro-slavery -- so much so that they were alternately referred
to as the "Slaveocrats."
So on March 20, 1854, our founders decided to take them on. They drafted plans and platforms, and in the space of a few months, put together Republican Party organizations across the Northern and Western portions of the United States.
The first Republican state convention was held in Jackson, Michigan just a few months later in July. The first meeting of the Republican National Committee was two years later. Three months after that, the first Republican National Convention was held in Philadelphia.
That first Republican National Convention nominated our first presidential candidate, who -- as everyone here knows -- was a former U.S. Senator from California, John C. Fremont. He didn't win, but just four years later, a former member of the House did win, carrying the Republican standard. And not only did Lincoln win the presidency, but his coattails were so long and so broad that Republicans won majorities -- big majorities -- in both the House and in the Senate.
In fact, after the election of 1860, every single governor in every northern state in the United States was a Republican. This was phenomenal progress in the space of just a few years. It was possible because our party was based on such a powerful idea. We know now that we don't win elections unless we have ideas behind us. The history of the Republican Party is an amazing example of how much can be accomplished if your ideas are big enough.
These Republican majorities, and the strength of our ideas, enabled us to fight and win the Civil War. This same Republican commitment to individual freedom led our nation through Reconstruction, and guided our policies to the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century, to make the United States of America what it is today: a beacon of hope and freedom for the entire world.
Military histories of the Civil War are commonplace. There is an enormous industry dedicated to producing DVDs, videos, movies, and books about the military aspects of the Civil War. But all too little attention is paid to the political aspects of the Civil War. For many years after the Civil War, the history books accurately described the Republican Party's leading role in preserving the Union and ending slavery. But as history faded, and college professors became more partisan and politically tendentious, the facts were lost. "History" changed. The facts didn't change, but our history books did.
Today, students are taught that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was an eccentric individual act, and that Lincoln rose above politics in issuing it. In fact, the opposite was true. This was a profoundly political act, which had been expressly authorized by the U.S. Congress in a hotly debated law. Both the House and the Senate had solidly Republican majorities, which -- over strong Democratic opposition ‒ had passed the Confiscation Act.
That law stated very clearly that slaves belonging to rebels were free. By signing the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln was implementing that statute. Freeing the slaves was thus a political question that every Republican in Congress voted for, and every Democrat voted against.
At the end of the war, despite their strong majorities, Republicans in Congress knew they wouldn't have a majority forever. Anticipating that the Democrats might someday come back into power, Republicans unanimously voted for what became the 13th Amendment to the Constitution -- thereby putting an end to slavery.
The Republicans in Congress went on to pass the nation's first ever Civil Rights Act, extending citizenship and equal rights to people of all races, all colors, and all creeds. Notice that Republicans didn't take the political approach that they might have, limiting themselves to saying that former slaves would now be treated equally, or only blacks or African-Americans would gain their civil rights. We said all people, all colors, all creeds -- because that's the way Republicans think. The founders of the Republican Party were simply putting in force the stated ideals of the Founding Fathers, so that our government would finally recognize that all people are created equal, and that all should enjoy the right to pursue happiness.
Republicans have always believed that every man and woman is created equal. This is not a choice that can be made for us by others. It isn't up to our government. So we required our government to fulfill that promise.
The same year as the first Civil Rights Act, Republicans in Congress wrote another constitutional amendment to extend even further the scope of our civil rights legislation. We extended the concepts of due process of law, and equal protection of the laws, to every state. Now, every state -- even those where Democrats held sway -- would have to implement these principles. No longer just at the federal level, but at the state level as well, the civil rights of every American individual would be protected.
This major civil rights advance -- what we now know as the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- is a purely Republican achievement, because every single Democrat in Congress voted against the 14th Amendment. That is another fact deftly omitted from American history textbooks these days: we owe our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws and due process to Republicans, and this bedrock of American civil rights was unanimously opposed by the Democrats.
Three years later, in 1869, the Republicans proposed yet another constitutional amendment, this one specifically guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. The same partisanship was in evidence: 98% of Republicans voted for it; 97% of the Democrats voted against it.
Seven years later, Republicans in Congress authored what was then, and what remains today, the most sweeping Civil Rights legislation ever enacted. The 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteed the right of equal access to all citizens in all public accommodations -- whether or not owned or controlled by the government. Now that phrase, "public accommodations," is very familiar to us today, because it was at the heart of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which became the focal point of the 1960s civil rights movement. The reason that this question was before the Congress again in the 1960s is that the 1875 Civil Rights Act only lasted for eight years before the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. What finally became law in 1964, therefore, was the original Republican legislation of 90 years earlier. Not surprisingly, in 1964 a significantly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The Democrats' opposition to Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of African-Americans lasted not just through the Reconstruction era, but well into the 20th Century. In the South, the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, the Ku Klux Klan, virtually destroyed the Republican Party -- which did not recover enough to become a force in the region until President Reagan's message of freedom and equality for all prevailed in the 1980s.
Every single African-American in Congress, House and Senate, until 1935 was a Republican.
In 1872, the first black governor took office in Louisiana. I love his name: Pinckney Pinchback, a great Republican. Our own state of California was the first to have a Hispanic governor. Can you guess his political party? Republican Romualdo Pacheco became governor in 1875, long before anybody had ever heard of Cruz Bustamante.
The first Hispanic U.S. Senator was elected from New Mexico in 1928. You guessed it -- he was a Republican, Octaviano Larrazolo.
Republicans led the fight for women's voting rights -- and the Democrats, as a party, opposed civil rights for women. All of the leading suffragists -- including Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton -- were Republicans. In fact, Susan B. Anthony bragged, after leaving the voting booth, that she had voted for "the Republican ticket -- straight."
The suffragists included two African-American Republican women who were also co-founders of the NAACP: Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, great leaders of our party, both of them.
The first women delegates to a national party convention did not go to the Democratic National Convention, they went to the Republican Convention. In fact, for years Democrats kept women out, while Republicans were letting women in. The goal of the Republican suffragists, including their male Republican elected official friends, was to add an amendment to the Constitution that would give women the right to vote. Sadly, there is not a single California schoolbook in use today that tells students it was a Republican U.S. Senator from California, Aaron Sargent, who authored the women's suffrage amendment -- or that he named it in honor of another great Republican, Susan B. Anthony.
Senator Sargent introduced the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in 1878, but it didn't become the law of the land until 1920. Why? Because Republicans did not have majorities in both the House and the Senate at the same time, and the Democrats kept voting against it. But, in the meanwhile, in 1916, Montana -- which had by state law given women the right to vote -- elected Jeannette Rankin to be the first woman to serve in the United States Congress. She, of course, was a Republican.
In the national election two years later, in 1918, Republicans won majorities in both the House and the Senate. We then swiftly passed the Women's Suffrage Amendment. And 1920, therefore, was the first presidential election in which all women could vote. What do you think most women in America did? They voted for Warren Harding. In fact, I remember having a conversation with my grandmother about this. I talked to her about the first time she was able to vote, and I asked her, "Who did you vote for?" She looked at me as if I were crazy. "Of course," she answered, "I voted for the Republicans. They gave us the vote." That's why the Republican
landslide for Harding was so big that year.
Meanwhile, in the face of the Democrats' continued terrorizing of Republican organizational activity in the South, many courageous Republicans were standing up nonetheless. One of the great Southern leaders of that era who was openly calling himself a Republican and drawing attention to his cause was Booker T. Washington, the famed educator and founder of Alabama's Tuskegee Institute. But even a man as distinguished as this, and even in the 20th century, was opposed by a still-racist Democratic Party. When Republican President Teddy Roosevelt had the temerity to invite Booker T. Washington to dine with him in the White House, the Democrats raised holy hell through the media. They said it was a scandal, and outrageous, and an atrocity.
Republicans led the integration of pro sports. Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, was a Republican businessman who hired his fellow Republican, Jackie Robinson. Together they integrated Major League Baseball when Jackie Robinson took the field in 1947 for his first game. In addition to being a great athlete, a great Dodger, and a great American, Jackie Robinson was a great Republican -- and a very outspoken one.
This year, 2004, is the 50th anniversary of the modern civil rights movement, which most people date to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. That opinion was written by a Republican Chief Justice appointed by a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. And of course that Republican Chief Justice had been our three-term Republican Governor here in California, and he'd been our Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 1948: Earl Warren.
Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Now remember, the nation had just ended a long stretch of Democratic administrations -- nearly four terms of FDR, and seven years of Truman -- and yet there had been no civil rights legislation at all. In fact, the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first U.S. civil rights legislation in eight decades.
Another great Republican, U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act. It was also he who was most responsible -- more than any other individual -- for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As Republican Leader in the Senate, even though his party was in the minority, Dirksen crafted the strategy that overcame long odds and tenacious Democratic opposition.
The Democrats weren't just internally conflicted about the 1964 Civil Rights Act; a significant number of them actually filibustered it -- preventing an up or down vote on the bill. Eventually, however -- thanks to Dirksen's leadership -- this landmark legislation did get the vote it deserved. As with all of the previous civil rights legislation in our nation's history, it passed with significantly more support from Republicans than from Democrats. The same was true for the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which became law the following year.
Which political party gave our nation the first Asian American Senator in the United States Senate? The Republican Party -- and it was the esteemed Hiram Fong of Hawaii. The first African American Senator after Reconstruction? Republican Ed Brooke from Massachusetts. The first Asian American federal judge? Republican Herbert Choy, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, by President Nixon, for whom I served as law clerk.
The first woman on the Supreme Court? Everyone knows that. But you may not have known that before she became a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Arizona Republican Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman to be Majority Leader in the legislature of any state.
The first Hispanic member of the President's Cabinet? Republican Lauro Cavazos, Secretary of Education under President Reagan.
It was President Ford who, in 1976, repealed FDR's notorious executive order interning 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.
We can be proud of Republican appointments such as Justice Clarence Thomas, the former Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Colin Powell, the first African American to be National Security Advisor or Secretary of State; Condoleezza Rice, the first woman to serve as National Security Advisor; and Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, the first Asian American woman in any president's
Cabinet.
This remarkable, unbroken 150-year string of civil rights achievements is the reason that, this year, we are so proud to publish the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar. Our party has a great story to tell. There is also much work still to be done to secure the God-given rights of all men and women, and the Republican Party is
leading the way.
Ronald Reagan was fond of saying that the United States of America is the only country on Earth, now or at any time in history, that was founded not on race or nationality, but on an ideal. Republicans, from the founding of our party to this very day, have been carrying forward this ideal of individual freedom.
Now, in our 150th year as a party, we have not only an opportunity to reflect, but also a chance to advance our cause of promoting freedom. This is a presidential election year, and the choice could not be more stark.
Today, our nation is carrying the torch of freedom to oppressed people across the globe. President Bush and the Republican Party have led America to throw off the "chains of oppression" in Afghanistan, and to free millions of women from the shackles of Taliban rule. Afghan women can now vote; they can go to school; they can practice their professions; and women are no longer required to be fully covered from head to toe when in public. In response to this American victory for human rights, Michael Moore, John Kerry, and John Edwards have only criticism.
President Bush and the Republican Party have led America to liberate Iraq, freeing more than 24 million people from a brutal, murderous dictator who piled more than 400,000 men, women, and in mass graves -- and who killed more than one million of his fellow citizens. Iraqi men and women are now building their own democracy, as a free people. But John Kerry, Michael Moore, and John Edwards say that spreading democracy in the Middle East is a fool's errand unworthy of America.
Republicans disagree, as we have for 150 years. We believe that governments have no right to enslave people, and that our own liberties are at risk when racists, theocrats, terrorists, and murderers go unpunished and unchecked. That is why, in the end, our Republican commitment to civil rights and individual freedom undergirds our policies of limited government and peace through strength.
This year, the cause for freedom can advance or retreat. With your help, it will prevail. Pick up a 2005 Freedom Calendar. Share it with a friend. Remember: if you don't spread the message of our party, the media, academia, and Hollywood won't do it for you.
Congratulations on being a Republican. And happy 150th Birthday!
Speech by Rep. Christopher Cox
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Do babies go to hell? The Biblical Answer
|
Posted:Jan 23, 2008 12:55 am
Last Updated:Apr 7, 2008 11:52 pm 1259 Views
|
by
Alfred T. Overstreet
Jesus Taught That Little Are Without Sin
Jesus taught that little are without sin and belong to the kingdom of heaven:
"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little , ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 18:3
"But Jesus said, Suffer little , and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:14
"And they brought young to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little , he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them and blessed them." Mark 10:13-16
"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little shall in no wise enter therein." Luke 18:16-17
Mark 10:16 says: "And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." These were innocent little and not sinners under the wrath of God. And Jesus did not say that they were sinners and enemies of God, but he said, "of such is the kingdom of God."
The Bible Says That Men Are Created Upright And Without Sin
The Bible says that God has created man good and upright, in his own image and likeness, and without sin:
"God hath made man upright." Ecclesiastes 7:29
"God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…And God saw everything that he had made, and…it was very good." Gen. 1:26, 31
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1:27
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Genesis 9:6
"Man…is the image and glory of God." I Corinthians 11
"Men, which are made after the similitude of God." James 3:9
It Is Impossible For God To Create A Sinful Being
Throughout the Bible God affirms that he is our Creator. It is impossible for God to create a sinful being!
"Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?" Job 31:15
"Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" Malachi 2:10
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them…And God saw every thing that he had made, and , behold, it was very good." Genesis 1:26, 27, 31
"Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture." Psalm 100:3
"Thy hands have made me and fashioned me." Psalm 1193
"Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth." Ecclesiastes 12:1
"Man…is the image and glory of God." I Corinthians 11
"Men…are made after the similitude of God." James 3:9
"The Lord…formeth the spirit of man within him." Zechariah 12:1
"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." Job 33:4
"God that made the world and all things therein…seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men…For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God…" Acts 17:24-26, 28-29
"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." Revelation 22:16
"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Ecclesiastes 7:29
This last text not only afirms that God has created man, but also affirms that man is created upright. If man is created upright, he cannot be born a sinner; if man is born a sinner, he cannot be created upright. Either one or the other may be true, but they cannot both be true for the two are contradictories. But when God says he has created us "in his image," and has given us "life and breath and all things," are we to understand that he created us as sinners? When he says, "We are his offspring," are we to understand that his offspring are born sinners? And when Jesus said, "I am the root and the offspring of David," are we to understand that David sprang forth from the root Christ Jesus with a sinful nature? Or, are we to understand that Jesus, as the offspring of David, was born with a sinful nature? We know that Jesus did not create David a sinner, and we know that Jesus was not born a sinner as the offspring of David--which would have to be true if the doctrine that men are born sinners were true. The doctrine that men are born sinners is false!
Men Sin Against The Good Nature With Which God Created Them
The Bible declares that men, having been created upright and in the image of God, have corrupted themselves and sinned against the good nature that God created them with:
"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Ecclesiastes 7:29
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him…And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Genesis 1:27, 31
And, then:
"Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?…she gave me…and I did eat." Genesis 3:11-12
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth…for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." Genesis 6, 12
"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Psalm 14:1-3
"Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Psalm 53:3
"Ye are gods; and all of you are of the most High. But ye shall die like men (because of your sins), and fall like one of the princes." Psalm 82:6-7
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth…And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." Genesis 6:5-7, 11-12
"(They) have corrupted themselves; They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it." Exodus 32-8
"For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you." Deut. 31:29
"They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his : they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?…Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee." Deuteronomy 32:5-6, 18
Have No Knowledge Of Good And Evil At Birth
The Bible teaches that cannot be sinners and guilty and condemned at birth, for they do not yet know the difference between good and evil, and have not yet come to the "age of accountability":
"Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your , which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it." Deuteronomy 1:39
"Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." Isaiah 7:15-16
"For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." Genesis 8:21
These verses prove that babies are born innocent. Everybody knows that babies know nothing when they are born. They do not know right from wrong. They do not know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. They do not have evil imaginations of the heart. The Bible says that the "imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth," not from his birth. It is only when know to refuse the evil and choose the good that they can have evil intentions, evil purposes, or evil choices of the heart. Until they know right from wrong, their actions have no moral character, they can do neither good nor evil, and they are innocent before God. The Bible teaches that must reach the "age of accountability" before they can commit sin.
No Man Can Be Guilty For A Sin He Did Not Commit
The Bible says that man is guilty for his own sins and for his own sins alone. He is not guilty, and cannot be guilty, for the sin of Adam or any other man:
"The shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the : the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:20
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the , neither shall the be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16
"Far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked. That be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Genesis 18:25
"What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the 's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the is mine: the soul that sinneth it shall die…The shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the : the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:2-4, 20
"He shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did all that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die for his iniquity. Yet say ye, Why? doth not the bear the iniquity of the father? When the hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the : the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:17-20
"But he slew not their , but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the , neither shall the die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin." II Chronicles 25:4
"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?…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? 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." Ezekiel 18:25, 29-30
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezekiel 18:4
"I will judge every one according to his ways." Ezekiel 18:30
The Nature We Are Born With Teaches Us To Reject Evil And Choose Good
The Bible teaches that the nature God has created us with is a good nature that teaches us the difference between good and evil and urges us to choose the good and refuse the evil:
"That he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." Isaiah 7:15
"Before the shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good…" Isaiah 7:16
"When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." Romans 2:14-15
This last text describes the good and upright nature that God has created us with. It describes the rational moral nature that God has given us. It tells us that, having been created in the image and likeness of God, we are not like the dumb beasts of the field. We are like God; we are rational moral beings with "the law of God written in our hearts." Every human being, when he has come to the "age of accountability" and has a knowledge of good and evil, and knows to choose the good and refuse the evil, has the law of God written in his heart. He has a conscience that bears witness to him of the moral character of his actions, he has thoughts that accuse him when he does evil, and thoughts that excuse him when he does good:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law (the written law), do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men (the hidden evil thoughts and intents of the hearts of men who have trampled the voice of conscience and reason) by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Romans 2:14-16
This text describes the rational moral nature that God has endowed all mankind with: a rational moral nature that teaches us the difference between good and evil, that urges us to choose the good and refuse the evil, and that men must go against in order to sin. Men do not sin by nature. They obey God by nature:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law (the written law), do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts." Romans 2:14-15
Men Must Go Against Their Nature To Sin
Now we will look at texts from the Bible that teach us that all disobedience to God's law goes against the nature God has created us with. We must repeat Romans 2:14-15 because every time we sin, whatever that sin may be, we are sinning against the law of God written in our hearts. And this is a sin against our nature. All sin is against our nature. All righteouness conforms to our nature:
"(They) do by nature the things contained in the law." Romans 2:14
(They) show the work of the law written in their hearts." Romans 2:15
"For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." Romans 1:26
"And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lusts one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly." Romans 1:27
"But what they know naturally (know by nature)…in those things they corrupt themselves. Jude 10
Homosexuals Are Not Born Homosexuals
Homosexuals often cover and excuse their evil acts of perversion by saying they were born homosexuals. And if the teaching is true that men are born with a sinful nature, homosexuals are right to say they were born homosexuals. For they were born homosexuals if they were born sinners. Also they are right to excuse their evil acts of perversion. For if they were born sinners, they were born homosexuals; and if they were born homosexuals they can no more be blamed for their evil acts of perversion than the brute beasts can be blamed for being born brute beasts. Likewise the alcoholic cannot be blamed for his drinking if it is true he was born with the "disease of alcoholism." In fact the murderer, the , and all other sinners have a perfect and legitimate excuse for all their sins if they were born with a sinful nature. But God never excuses the murderer or the drunkard or the or the homosexual or any other sinner for his sins. For God created all men with a good nature, and for men to sin they must go against their nature: they must sin against nature. All sin is a corruption of man's nature, it is a perversion of man's nature. It is rebellion against our nature--it is rebellion against the "law of God written in our hearts" and against the God who has written his law in our hearts. No man is born a sinner. No man is born with the "disease of alcoholism." No man is born a homosexual:
"Even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." Romans 1:26
"Also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lusts one toward another." Romans 1:27
"Neither shalt thou lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion." Leviticus 19:22-23
"God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Ecclesiastes 7:29
All Sin Is Voluntary. There Is No Involuntary Sin.
The Bible teaches that every sin is a free and voluntary act. There is no involuntary sin. Man must will evil and choose evil before he can be a sinner. He cannot be born a sinner, for he has no choice in his birth. The idea that man can be a sinner without a voluntary act of his own will is completely contrary to the Bible. Man must voluntarily choose evil before he can be a sinner:
"That he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good…"Isaiah 7:15-16
"Choose you this day whom ye will serve…" Joshua 24:15
"Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations…they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. Isaiah 66:3-4
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart (that which he thought and chose to do in his heart) was only evil continually." Genesis 6:5
"For the imagination of man's heart (that which he thinks and chooses to do in his heart) is evil from his youth." Genesis 8:21
It Is Blasphemy Against The Character Of God
The very idea that God would create man a sinner is a monstrous blasphemy against the holy and righteous character of God. God is perfect in justice, holiness, and love. And it would be the greatest injustice possible to create men sinners and then condemn them to hell for the nature that he himself had created them with. God is perfect and could never work such injustice:
"I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his : they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee and established thee?…Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee." Deut. 32:3-6, 18
This text affirms that God has had nothing to do with the sins of his people: he did not create them sinners; he is holy, just, and righteous and cannot work evil, falsehood, or injustice: "His work is perfect, all his ways are judgment, he is a God of truth and without iniquity, he is just and right." He has not created his with sin. His have corrupted themselves!
SIX PROOF-TEXTS EXAMINED
Now, I am going to turn aside for a while from the more than 100 Bible texts that show the doctrine of original sin to be unbiblical and false, and respond to six texts that are taken out of context to support the doctrine that men are born sinners. These texts, when they are taken in their context, do not teach that men are born sinners. On the contrary, they agree with and teach what the whole Bible teaches, that men are created good and upright and in the image and likeness of God.
First Proof-text Examined
1. Psalm 51:5: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
This text is not literal, it is figurative. For example, let us compare Psalm 5l:5 with Job 1:21: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither."
If Psalm 51:5 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that David and all other men are born sinners, then Job 1:21 can also be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that Job and all other men will go back into their mother's womb: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither."
Neither Psalm 5l:5 nor Job 1:21 should be understood literally. Both texts are figurative expressions. The same rules of interpretation that would permit Psalm 51:5 to teach that little babies are born sinners, if they were also applied to Job 1:21 (or if they were applied to many other passages from the Bible), would permit every kind of perverted and absurd interpretation of the Word of God.
David was not teaching in this passage that he was born a sinner (which would have been an excuse for his sins in a Psalm which was clearly a Psalm of confession). On the contrary, he was confessing the great magnitude and guilt of the sin he had committed; and he broke out in the language of strong feeling and emotion--the language of figure and symbol--to express the monstrousness of his sin: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."
The Psalmist David uses figurative language throughout his Psalms; and he uses several figurative expressions in Psalm 51. Verses five, seven, and eight of Psalm 51 are all figurative expressions. So that if verse five can be used to teach the doctrine that babies are born sinners, then also verse seven can be used to teach the doctrine that hyssop cleanses us from sin:
"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean." Psalm 51
Also, verse eight can be used to teach the doctrine that God breaks the bones of the Christian when he sins, and that his broken bones rejoice when he is forgiven:
"Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice." Psalm 51:8
And another Psalm, Psalm 58:3, can be used to teach the astonishing doctrine that all babies talk and tell lies from the very moment of their birth:
"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Psalm 58:3
But, who would teach from this last text the doctrine that babies really do speak as soon as they are born? None of these passages should be taken literally. They are all figurative expressions. If they were taken in their literal sense, they would all teach what we know to be contrary to reality and impossible: Men do not enter again into their mother's womb. Hyssop does not purify our sins. Babies do not start speaking as soon as they come out of the womb. And babies are not born sinners!
Second Proof-text Examined
2. Psalm 58:3: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."
This text is supposed to teach that babies are born sinners; but like Psalm 51:5 it is figurative and not literal. If it were literal, it would teach that babies speak and tell lies as soon as they are born, and that they alienate themselves from God and go astray from him immediately upon coming out of the womb.
But all of this is clearly contrary to reality. We know that babies do not do any of these things at birth. Therefore it is clear that this language is not to be understood literally. If this verse taught that Babies literally came forth from their mother's womb "estranged from God," it would contradict other passages from the Bible that teach that babies are not "estranged from God" at birth. John the baptist was not "estranged from God from his mother's womb." On the contrary, the angel who announced his birth said, "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." Luke 1:15. This fact is hard to reconcile with a literal interpretation of Psalms 51:5 and 58:3. Job also testified that he was a guide to the widow "from his mother's womb." Job 31:18. Job obviously did not mean that from the moment he was a helpless newborn infant that he had been ministering to the needs of the widow. Also, the Psalmist David himself testified that God had been his help "from the womb." Psalm 71:6. It is easy to see that the phrase "from the womb" is often used in a figurative sense and should not always be understood in its literal sense.
Third Proof-text Examined
3. Ephesians 2:3: "And were by nature the of wrath."
This text is torn completely from its context to teach the horrifying doctrine that little babies are sinners, and condemned and under the wrath of God from birth!
But the word "nature" in this text has nothing to do with "birth" and neither does it have anything to do with "babies." It is speaking of adults and it is speaking of the wicked character of adults. This is clearly evident from its context. The context of Ephesians 2:3 shows that Paul was not speaking of the "birth" of at all when he used the word "nature." On the contrary, he used the word "nature" to describe the wicked character and the wicked works of men before they were converted.
For example, he calls the attention of the believers in Ephesians 2:1-2 to the fact that before their conversion they had lived in trespasses and sins, and walked in every kind of wickedness, in company with other sinners: "Ye were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the of disobedience." Then, he continues in verse three speaking of their participation with other sinners in carnality and wickedness: "Among whom also we all had our conversation in time past in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature (were by our past wicked works) the of wrath even as others."
It was only after he had described their past life of wicked works that he summed up the guilt and ill desert of their past life with the words: "And WERE by nature the of wrath, even as others."
We know by the immediate context of this text (as well as the context of the whole Bible) that Ephesians 2:3 is not speaking of being born a sinner or being born under the wrath of God. The immediate context and the context of the whole Bible teaches us that we Christians "were by nature" (were by our past wicked works) the of wrath, just like the rest of the world that is still living in sin." Eph. 2:3
The word "nature" in the Bible, when it refers to what we are by birth, never refers to a sinful nature. This is made manifest by Romans 2:14:
"The Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law." Romans 2:14
Now the word "nature" in the above text does refer to the nature that we receive at birth. But it is evident that the word "nature" here is not a sinful nature. For, how could a sinful nature cause us to do the things contained in the law? A sinful nature would not cause us to do the things contained in the law--a sinful nature would only cause us to do evil!
The word "nature" is used again in II Peter 1:4, and it is used just like it was used in Ephesians 2:3, speaking of character and life. We saw in Ephesians 2:3 that it spoke of the evil character or the wicked works of men; but we will see in II Peter 1:4 that it speaks of the good character and life of God--it speaks of the life and moral perfections of his divine being:
"That by these (promises) ye might be partakers of the divine nature." II Peter 1:4
Men use Ephesians 2:3 to teach that the "nature" has to refer to being born a sinner. But we see in II Peter 1:4 that the word "nature" is not speaking of a birth at all. It is speaking of the life and moral character of God.
The Bible teaches us that the nature that God has given us is not a sinful nature. It is a good nature that teaches us the difference between good and evil, and a nature that urges us to obey the "law of God written in our hearts." Also the Bible teaches us that all sin and wickedness is against the nature we are born with. But if we were born with a sinful nature not one sin would be against our nature but every sin would agree with and be in harmony with our nature. So the fact that all sin is against our nature proves that we are not born with a sinful nature.
We see, then, that Ephesians 2:3 does not teach that babies are born sinners, and condemned, and under the wrath of God. What it does teach is that all we Christians, who are presently saved from our sins by the marvelous grace of God, were before our salvation, wicked, abandoned sinners, and dead in our trespasses and sins, and under the wrath of God for our sins, just like the rest of the world that still lives in sin and rebellion against God: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins…we all had our conversation in time past in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 1:1-3
Fourth Proof-text Examined
4. Job 14:4: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one."
This text is supposed to teach that sinful parents cannot help but bear sinful . But this interpretation completely ignores the context of this text. The context shows that Job had his eyes wholly on the frail and dying state of man, and not at all upon his moral state. The whole sense of what Job was saying was that "no one can bring other than frail and dying offspring from frail and dying parents." (See the context in Job 14:1-6)
If this text teaches that a sinner invariably produces another sinner, it teaches blasphemy. For if the doctrine of original sin is true, Mary, the mother of our Lord Jesus was also born a sinner. And if Job 14:4 really does teach that a sinner must produce another sinner, there could be no way of escaping the blasphemous conclusion that our Lord also was born a sinner.
Fifth Proof-text Examined
5. Job 15:14: "What is man that he should be clean? And he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?"
First, these are the words of Eliphaz, and cannot be quoted as inspired truth. God himself testified that Job's comforters did not hold the truth. (See Job 42) But suppose we did accept this verse as inspired truth, what does it teach? It teaches nothing at all about a morally depraved physical constitution. It merely implies the sinful condition of all mankind without saying anything about how man got that way.
But again, this text, like the last, if used to teach the constitutional sinfulness of men, would teach the blasphemy that our Lord Jesus was born a sinner, because he was a man and was born of a woman.
Sixth Proof-text Examined
6. Rom. 5:12, 18-19:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned…Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
This passage is supposed to teach that all men are born sinners, and born under the condemnation and wrath of God because of Adam's transgression.
But this passage does not teach that men are born sinners. It does not teach that they are born under the condemnation and wrath of God. It does not teach that they inherit a sinful nature from Adam. It does not teach that sin is transmitted physically or any other way from Adam to his descendants. It does not teach that the sin of Adam was imputed to his descendants. And it does not teach that men have sinned "in Adam." On the contrary, Romans 5:14 teaches that Adam's descendants did not sin "in him."
"Them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." Romans 5:14
The fact that Paul says there was a body of people "that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's sin" shows that Paul did not consider Adam's sin to be their sin.
It is true that Paul connects the sin of Adam with the sin and condemnation of all mankind. But it is also true that he connects the obedience of Christ with the salvation and righteousness of all mankind:
"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." Romans 5:18
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Romans 5:19
To interpret the phrase "made sinners" to mean that men are born sinners and become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by receiving a sinful nature from Adam, is a forced and inconsistent interpretation of this passage, for this passage not only says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made righteous" by the obedience of Christ, and that the free gift of life "came upon all men" by Christ Jesus. So for the advocates of the doctrine of original sin to arbitrarily give to the phrases "made sinners" and "came upon all men" the meaning of physical force when these phrases refer to Adam's sin, without giving the same meaning of physical force when they refer to Christ's righteousness, is an example of a forced and inconsistent interpretation of this passage dictated by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin.
Paul does not affirm an involuntary, necessary, or irresistible connection between either the sin of Adam and mankind or the righteousness of Christ and mankind. Otherwise, Romans 5:18 would teach the universal salvation of mankind:
"The free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Romans 5:18
We know that universal salvation is not taught in the Bible. Men are not saved involuntarily, automatically, and necessarily because of the obedience of Christ. Nor are they "made sinners" involuntarily, automatically, and necessarily because of the transgression of Adam. But the context of Romans 5:12-21 (and the context of the whole Bible) shows that men are "made sinners" in the same way they are "made righteous," that is, voluntarily or willingly.
Paul did not teach that men are "made sinners" involuntarily, by an act of physical force; because he would have been teaching at the same time that all men are "made righteous" involuntarily, by an act of physical force. In other words he would have been teaching that every human being upon the face of the earth is saved involuntarily and necessarily whether he believes the gospel of salvation or not!
"By the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Romans 5:18
It is true that Adam brought sin and death into this world by his transgression; but his sin and his death did not pass upon his descendants. The Bible (Romans 5:12) says that "death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Men are sinners because they have sinned. Sin is an individual, voluntary choice. No human being can sin for another human being. Adam did not sin and could not sin for anyone but himself.
The purpose of the Apostle Paul in this passage is to show that, although the transgression of Adam has been a powerful force to bring sin, death, and condemnation upon all men, the righteousness and obedience of Christ in his work of atonement for sinners has been much more powerful to bring grace, reconciliation, righteousness, and eternal life upon all men. (See the overall context in Romans 5:6-21). The following Scriptures show that no man can be guilty or condemned for the sin of Adam--Adam could sin only for himself:
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the : the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:20
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the , neither shall the be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16
"But he slew not their , but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the , neither shall the die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin." II Chronicles 25:4
"He shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. 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." Ezekiel 18:17-18
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezekiel 18:4
"I will judge…everyone according to his ways, saith the Lord God." Ezekiel 18:30
"That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Gen. 18:25
-------------------
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
