When Lies Become Truth. Appendices On Original Sin, Unteachable, & The Sabbath

When Lies Become Truth: Appendices

Appendix 1

Unteachable…………………………………………page 2

Appendix 2

Original Sin…………………………………………..page 5

Appendix 3

Sabbath……………………………………………….page  22

Appendix 1

Unteachable

            This side of heaven, we may not know precisely the doctrine of the Nicolaitans referenced in Revelation 2:15. But one thing we can all be assured of is that the One who declared that He was the Way, the Life, and the Truth hates false doctrine and lies.

            Why does God hate false teaching? Because all false teaching works evil and produces harm in the universe. This is the exact opposite of what God wills or prefers to happen. False doctrine will send many to hell. Yes, there is a real place where the ungodly go if they do not repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ.

            The devil and those whom he has inspired tell lies to deceive, if possible, even the elect of God. The devil is seeking those whom he can devour and send to hell. False doctrine is his primary method. The God of truth hates what is false, especially as it pertains to Himself and His plan of salvation. Some false beliefs may not cause harm, but others can cause significant damage and lead to dire consequences. I recommend that you read the book “Are Men Born Sinners? The Myth of Original Sin” by Alfred T. Overstreet. Much of the material in Appendices 1 and 2 is derived from his book, which in turn draws from the teachings of other teachers of the Word of God.

            Is it possible that in our day, we still believe false doctrines? Clearly, not every contradictory opinion about doctrine, faith, and practice is valid. One or all might be wrong.

            As a new believer, I assumed that what I was being taught was the truth. It took me a few years to discover that was not the case, despite the good intentions of my teachers. I had to reject much of what I was taught as a new believer. It was tough. Why is it so hard to get those who profess faith in Christ to consider a new, biblically based interpretation of Scripture?

Below are some of the reasons why “Christians” are often unteachable.

1. A new believer is eager to be taught. He is very receptive to things he is being told. New believers are not prone to question religious authority. This pliable spirit is open to ideas that, on reflection, they might actually reject. Even if what they are being taught makes no sense, they assume it is true because of some personal deficiency, not a problem with what they are being told to believe. Godly people never mislead others, or so they think.
2. False doctrine comes with and is supported by evidence. It often cites biblical proof texts that appear to teach false doctrine. A new believer is generally unfamiliar with the Bible and has a deep trust in those who teach them. That is especially true if Biblical proof texts are used to support the false doctrine.
3. Once a new believer is instructed in a belief, it is almost impossible to change that belief. Most Christians become unteachable. I am a case in point. It was nearly harder for me to give up the false teaching I was taught as a new believer than to get right with God in the first place. What a battle that was. Only God the Holy Spirit can overturn these religious prejudices. In this way, false teaching persists from one generation to the next.
4. Sometimes false doctrine remains only because it has persisted for such a long time. There is a perception of safety in numbers. No one likes to stand alone. Peer pressure, or the fear of man, is a significant force that keeps false doctrine alive. For example, for how many centuries did the church cling to the falsehood that the Earth was the center of the universe, not the sun? For how many centuries has mankind worshiped idols in addition to the worship of Jehovah God or instead of the worship of God Almighty?
5. Christian leaders and ministers perpetuate error among Christians because of their own deficiencies and ignorance. In this way, they maintain their position by making people believe they must come to them to understand the Word of God. How many prideful ministers think that because of their education, they know more than laypeople? They become unteachable, too. How many Pharisees in Jesus’ day were teachable and correctable? Very few.
6. God allows false doctrine to carry on for as long as men cherish it more than they do the Word of God. Our unbelief perpetuates false doctrine. For example, Martin Luther finally had enough of the false teaching from the Roman Catholic Church, and he spoke out against practices and beliefs that were centuries old and unbiblical.

Let these following quotes sink in deeply. They reflect our attitude and commitment to seeking the truth, regardless of the cost. Only the truth will set us free, according to Jesus.

“The known and willful support or perpetuation of an error or false doctrine is a crime against humanity and a sin against Him who is Truth. To cling to error or defend error when one has reason to suspect it may be error reveals a heart that does not fully love the truth for the sake of the truth.

We are supposed to be children of light, and to be afraid to shine light upon what we believe shows a love still for darkness.

To persist in a belief against evidence, to refuse evidence, or avoid proof…..shows insincerity and a lack of moral integrity.

Slavish adherence to inherited traditions, merely on the ground of their wide acceptance and long continuance, would forbid the overthrow of error and the acceptance of redeeming truth”.^[1]

Consider the following words written by Charles G. Finney. He is referring to the instructions that new converts to Christ should receive immediately. “But the proper time to do this is when they are first brought in, when their minds are soft and tender, and easily yield to the truth. Then they may be led with a hair, if they believe it is the truth of God. And whatever notions of Christianity they get then, they are likely to forever cling to afterwards. It is almost impossible to dislodge a person from the notions they acquire when they are young converts. You may reason with him, but he clings to them. It is often the case where people have been taught certain things when first converted, that if they afterwards get a new minister who teaches somewhat differently, they will rise up against him as if he were going to subvert the faith, carry away the church into error, and throw everything into confusion.”

Finney makes the point well that new believers must be taught correctly right from the start. If the initial instruction is deficient, it makes it exceedingly difficult to correct. Have you ever noticed how sheepish Christians are? They long for someone to tell them what to think and what to do? Many do not have the pure love for God and the truth that energizes them to think for themselves. If the blind follow the blind, both will fall into the pit.

Are you teachable?  If you are, then you are an exception to the rule. It demonstrates that you possess integrity and a strong desire to seek the truth. Lastly, it shows that the Spirit of God is leading you. The Spirit of God is not leading the unteachable. And we know that only those who the Spirit of God is leading are children of God.

---

[1] Randolf Sinks Foster Studies in Theology, 1890. He lived from about 1820 to 1903. He was a bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church and the President of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, among a few of his appointments. Most of this appendix was taken from a book by Alfred T. Overstreet, copyright 1995, Are Men Born Sinners?

Appendix 2

Original Sin Dogma

We are born sinners

            Doesn’t every Christian believe in Original Sin? Doesn’t every Christian think we’re born with a sinful nature?

            Most Christians, I believe, think that the Bible clearly and unmistakably teaches that 1) all of us are born with the guilt of Adam’s first or his original sin, and 2) we inherit a sinful nature from Adam as a consequence of his sin.

            This sinful nature that we are born with is the source and cause of all our sins. We are born sinners who can do nothing but sin. We don’t become sinners by sinning; we are born sinners because we inherit a sinful nature or character from Adam. As children of Adam, we can’t do good, only evil, until God regenerates us. To the best of my knowledge, the Christian Church, both Catholic and Protestant, teaches this doctrine as a foundational article of faith. It is the foundation for most of the Christian world and Christian Theology.

            If almost everyone agrees on it, why then talk about it? Of what practical importance is it?

            Believe it or not, there has always been a small group of Christians (who live in the West) who do not believe in this Original Sin teaching. I think the biblical evidence warrants reconsidering this nearly sacred orthodox belief. Is it really faithful to scripture? Is it reasonable, and does it make sense?

            Many other false doctrines are born out of the false teaching on Original Sin and Adam’s posterity being born with a sinful nature. We will consider some of them. And with those erroneous ideas come a flood of confusion, misunderstandings, sin, unrighteousness, and death. All false teaching produces harm, not good. That in turn sends many to hell, even those who profess to know and love God.

In addition to the information in Appendix 1, below are more reasons why this error persists;

• To teach against this wrong idea of original sin, imputed guilt, an inherited sinful nature, and total depravity is to invite the disapproval and scorn of the religious establishment and most other Christians. It is to subject yourself to ridicule, to be mocked, to be marginalized, and to be called a heretic and or a Pelagian.

• As already mentioned, the spirit of a new believer is eager to be taught and is very receptive to what he is told, even when it makes little sense. Most new Christians are indoctrinated into this error and are told that it is the only orthodox (acceptable) position; therefore, they cling to it. Many new Christian’s are under the delusion that the things of God operate much differently than the way things on earth operate. Even if it makes no sense, they cling to error.
• False doctrine always comes with Biblical proof texts to support it. Every false doctrine can be “proved” from the Bible by taking passages out of context. More on this as we study the proof texts for original sin.
• False doctrine persists because it has been taught and believed for such a long time. There is enormous peer pressure not to leave the doctrines of your group or your church. There is safety in numbers. Galileo and Copernicus, with great courage, taught that the Earth is not the center of the universe, a concept that contradicted Christian teachings. That error persisted for well over 1,000 years. Some false ideas are even older than this one. The dogma of Original Sin dates back to the 5^th century.
• Christian leaders and ministers perpetuate ignorance, confusion, disagreements, misunderstandings, and error among Christians. Then the masses of churchgoers must come to them for answers. How few Pharisees were teachable! How many seminary-trained Pastors and Priests today are teachable? Jesus went to the Pharisees as He comes to us, as the Truth, the Life, and the Way. Yet, His own received Him not.
• God allows false doctrine to remain for so long because men cherish it more than they do the Word of God. Our unbelief and ignorance perpetuate false doctrine. It is a fantastic truth that many professing Christians do not actually believe the Word of God. They may accept some truth, but they reject much other truth because it doesn’t support them. Francis Bacon once said that “men prefer to believe what they prefer to be true.” Not what is true, but what they want to be true. A perfect example is the fact that an ever-growing number of professing Christian believers are now embracing homosexuality as a legitimate sexual expression, when the Bible unmistakably condemns this sin.
• Remember that persisting in a belief against evidence, to refuse evidence, or avoid proof… shows insincerity and a lack of moral integrity. Randolf Sinks Foster, 1890, Studies in Theology.

            If Original Sin and being born with a sinful nature are true, then how can we be saved if we can’t save ourselves?

            God must be the sole cause of salvation. As a direct result of believing in Original Sin and total depravity (total inability), many Christians believe that God is and must be the sole cause of salvation. Sinful mankind is not able to do anything good, including believe and repent, to save himself. They think all of us are born enemies of God who rightfully share in Adam’s guilt and are on our way to hell. We sin naturally and unavoidably. This is what they call total depravity, which is an irresistible craving for sin. When God regenerates the elect, He gives the elect a new nature, a good nature, or in other words, a good free will. Our evil nature and our good nature are in a perpetual battle. The bad nature is most often victorious, even with the grace and power of God, enabling us.

            The atonement,as it turns out, is inadequate to meet our deepest needs if this dogma of Original Sin is true. The blood of Jesus Christ is insufficient to save us from the practice of sinning and to save us from bondage to our sinful lusts and passions.

            But not every professing Christian believes that God alone is the sole cause of salvation. Other Christians believe that man must do something to be saved, such as believe in Jesus Christ. For these Christians, mankind has the power and responsibility to believe, as a condition of salvation. However, they also believe that we inherit a tendency or inclination towards sin when we are born. They see the injustice of God in holding us guilty for Adam’s sin at birth, so they maintain that God’s grace forgives infants of the guilt of Adam’s sin. You will not find this truth explicitly taught in the Bible, but it is a necessary belief so that God doesn’t appear unjust. John Wesley taught the idea of prevenient grace to “satisfy” this concern.

            Is the justice of God really rescued by believing that babies are born guilty of Adam’s sin, but God’s grace forgives babies of the guilt? It is not. Why? Because we are born with a sinful nature, which we inherit from Adam, who is the source and cause of all our sins. We may be forgiven of Adam’s guilt, but we are not prevented from inheriting a depraved nature from our father Adam. In other words, we are going to sin unavoidably and be sent to hell. Tell me again about the justice of God if you believe this is true?

            Is there just one theory or explanation regarding Original Sin that every Christian believes in?

            Most Christians probably don’t understand that there are several theories, at least four (4) that I am aware of, about what is called original sin, not just one theory that everyone agrees to. And the proponents of each theory refute the other theories very well. Which theory is the right one, or are any of them correct? I suggest to you that none of them is accurate. By that, I mean that none of the theories are reasonable, rational, or biblical.

            What did the early or primitive church believe for the first few hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ?

            It seems very few Christians understand that the primitive church did not believe in original sin and that it did not become a doctrine of the church until the 5^th century under Augustine. He had a profound influence on the Roman Catholic Church. For the first 400 or so years, this original sin dogma was not accepted or taught, even though the seeds of it began to emerge with a few church fathers, such as Origen and Tertullian, in the years preceding Augustine.

Why do you suppose the early church did not believe in Original Sin and a sinful nature? Perhaps the problems below were related to that fact.

1. Was Jesus born a sinner? Scripture says Christ was born as a real man. He was born in the flesh. Was Jesus born with a sinful nature or a craving for sin like you and me? Who can believe such a horrible thing? Jesus was not a sinner, but He was a real man in every sense of the word. How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
2. How can it be true that Christ was tempted in all points as we are when most Christians insist that Jesus was born without a sinful or depraved nature? If so, then how is it true that Christ knows what it is like to be tempted when the craving for sin is irresistible? Impossible! How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
3. Don’t most Christians believe Jesus couldn’t sin? I ask kindly, what then was Jesus tempted to do, if not to sin? If it is true that Jesus was not born with a sinful nature, then how could Christ know what it is like to be tempted as we are? Are we to believe that we can’t resist sin and that it is impossible for Christ to sin? Yet we are asked to believe that Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted as we are? Impossible. How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
4. Doesn’t the Word of God teach us that God provides a way of escape with every temptation? If this Original Sin and total depravity dogma is true, then that scripture is false, as there is no escaping sin for those born with a sinful nature. Everyone will succumb when tempted and sin unavoidably, no exceptions. How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
5. If it is true that mankind is born with a sinful nature, which is the source and cause of sin, it can’t be the devil’s temptation that leads us to sin, as the scripture clearly indicates. Moreover, the scriptures that warn us about the devil are ridiculous. The devil doesn’t need to tempt anyone if this doctrine is true. Is the devil an idiot going around tempting people who are already preprogrammed to sin?  With this false dogma, God is the real problem. He created the laws that govern our nature. And those laws require that we are born sinners without our knowledge or consent. We are born sinners, who sin naturally and unavoidably. Is God really doing the devil’s job for him? Impossible! How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
6. Is God a just and holy God or not? Every theory of original sin makes God unjust, cruel, and even criminal. Strong words for sure. You decide, as you consider these objections to the Original Sin and sinful nature doctrine.
7. Are we really guilty for another person’s sins?On what planet in the universe might that ever make any sense at all? Think about it. How is it that Christians are so gullible? How is it that we believe things that thinking people would never believe unless they are clouded into a mystical and superstitious world of religion, religious practices, religious beliefs, and religious words?

From the website, crosstheology.wordpress.com, we find the following quote. This web site provides excellent information about the primitive church’s rejection of the idea of Original Sin.

 “Augustine himself. A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him…When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St Augustine was angry with Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards; There needed no other proof of any assertion than “lpse dixit.” St. Augustine said it.” (This comes from John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, 1835 Edition, volume 2, p. 110).

What a critical comment, which does not speak well of the conduct of Augustine, from one of the most vital voices in the last 500 years. John Wesley was one of the most influential men in my life. He actually believed in Original Sin, but was not buying Augustine’s other errors and his unchristian like conduct.

This website boldly proclaims that “Free Will and not Original Sin (total inability, total depravity and so on) was the historic Christian position”!

Calvinists, even today, almost always state emphatically that the doctrine of total depravity and total inability (Original Sin) is the one and only historic position of the Christian Church since Christ. According to this site and what I have learned, that is simply false.

“For the first 300 to 400 years, the doctrine of free will was universally taught by the Early church, “without exception,” according to this site. Early Christians were constantly defending free will from this false Gnostic belief, which taught total inability, determination, or fatalism. The early church believed that man’s free will determined his course in life and destiny”. Like some Christians today, the Gnostics thought that they were the only true Christians. They thought that by the fall of Adam, mankind lost all ability to believe, obey, and choose between good and evil. The early church did not believe any of this. Free will was the orthodox position. When was the last time you heard that statement?

For many Christians today, if another Christian denies total depravity and total inability, they are the first ones to condemn them as being heterodox. They claim to be orthodox. Name calling comes way too easy, for many Christians.

“The Gnostics, including the Manichaeans, denied free will, while the early church believed that man must always have the ability or command over his own actions. Therefore, men and women must be able to choose good over evil. Manichaeans believed that mankind was under a “fatal necessity of sinning.” Layman Beecher (a Presbyterian minister who died in 1863) said, “…the free will and natural ability of man were held by the whole church….natural inability was to that of pagan philosophers, the Gnostics and the Manichaeans” as quoted from this site. Many, not all, Gnostic groups denied free will. “But one of the greatest threats to the early church was the Manichaeans started by Manes, a Persian philosopher, also known as Mani.”

The early church thought that the Gnostic and Manichaean error was a great threat to the Christian Church. They taught that the flesh was evil and sinful in itself. Flesh was a sinful substance. Therefore, they denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7 call them antichrist. The Gnostic sects taught that man was sinful by birth but Christians taught man was sinful by choice, 1 John 2:9.

A proof text for ‘free will’ Christians is this next passage. “Paul in Philippians 4:3 mentions my fellow laborers in the gospel and he names Clement (died AD 99) whose name he said was written in the book of life”. History knows this man as Clement of Rome. He wrote the following. “It is therefore in the power of everyone, since man has been made possessed of free will, whether he shall hear us to life, or the demons to destruction.”

Clement further said that free will was given because “he who is good by his own choice is really good: but he who is made good by another under necessity is not really good, because he is not what he is by his own choice.” (As quoted of Clement on this site). I love that statement of his. Even if something appears good but is involuntary, it is not good.

Clement also said, “For no other reason does God punish the sinner either in the present or in the future world, except because He knows that the sinner was able to conquer but neglected to gain the victory.” A sinner is punished, not for his inability and total depravity, but because he chooses to sin by a free act of his will. He was negligent. No rational-minded person can object to that, can they?

Ignatius of Antioch (died AD 107) was an early Christian leader and a disciple of John the Apostle. He said men were sinners by choice and not by nature. Ignatius was eaten by lions in the Roman Coliseum for his faith in Jesus Christ. (The website gives two quotes of Ignatius if you are interested.)

The Apostle John had another disciple named Polycarp (AD 69-155), who was the bishop of Smyrna when the Book of Revelation was written. This was one of the only churches not rebuked by Jesus in the book of Revelation. He was a personal friend of Ignatius, and he, too, was martyred in Rome.

Polycarp had a disciple named Irenaeus (120/140-200/203). He refuted the Gnostics by saying, “Man is endowed with the faculty of distinguishing good and evil; so that, without compulsion, he has the power, by his own will and choice, to perform God’s commandments.” (Site gives other quotes by him if you are interested).

Justin Martyr (died 163-167) was an early evangelist and apologist for the Christian Church, and he too was martyred by the Romans. This is what he said. “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishment, chastisement, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is our own power. For if it is predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise and the other to be blamed. (Beautifully stated.) Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions – whether they may be – for neither would man be worthy of praise if he did not himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.” (Emphasis added). What grand statements that are so obviously true.

Tertullian (160-240) was another leader of the early church, and he agreed with all this thinking about mankind’s free will, yet Augustine apparently found something in his writings suggesting the opposite. This is not unusual, as theologians often say contradictory things.

Methodius (270-312) was a Christian martyr who lived toward the end of the third century. He also agreed and rebuked the pagan idea of fate and no free will. He said that man by nature was not born evil and sinful. (Site lists some of his quotes if you are interested).

Eusebius (died in 339) was a bishop in the early church who is considered the father of Church history. He wrote, “The Creator of all things has impressed a natural law upon the soul of every man, as an assistant and ally in his conduct, pointing out to him the right way by this law; but, by the free liberty with which he is endowed, making the choice of what is best worthy of praise and acceptance because he has acted rightly, not by force, but from his own free will, when he had it in his power to act otherwise. As, again, making him who chooses what is worst deserving of blame and punishment, as having by his own motion neglected the natural law, and becoming the origin and fountain of wickedness, and misusing himself, not from any extraneous necessity, but from free will and judgment. The fault is in him who chooses, not in God. For God has not made nature or the substance of the soul bad; for he who is good can make nothing but what is good. Everything is good, which is according to nature. Every rational soul has naturally a good free will, formed for the choice of what is good. But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be blamed; for what is wrong takes place not according to nature, but contrary to nature, it being the work of choice, and not of nature.” He went on to say that it was the doctrine of devils to teach that man’s will is not at liberty but in the bonds of necessity. Amen to that!

There are additional quotes from other early church fathers that I will not repeat. Check them out for yourself if you are interested.

Summary Remarks

We just reviewed what eight (8) very important church fathers believed. Some of them knew an apostle personally and were students of that apostle. Compare that to Augustine who: 1) lived hundreds of years later, and, 2) never met an apostle, and, 3) was never tutored by an apostle personally. All of these eight men affirmed free will and rejected the Gnostic and Manichaean error that the flesh was sinful (Original Sin dogma). They categorically rejected what Augustine was peddling regarding imputed guilt and being born with a sinful nature.

Can any act be a moral wrong on earth but not in heaven? Can anything be unjust in heaven but just on the planet?

            Many Christians believe that spiritual things operate differently from earthly things. It’s a huge problem. What is unjust here on earth is apparently just in heaven. Can you imagine a more palpable miscarriage of justice than a case where someone is found guilty for the sins and crimes of another person? When we hear of someone being sent to prison for a crime they did not commit, we are indignant, aren’t we? Rightfully so. Who would call that justice? It is an injustice. All of us are up in arms when that happens. But when God does the very same thing to us, according to the doctrine of Original Sin, we keep silent and assume that God’s ways are higher than our ways. We think that our religious teachers must know more about this than we do. We believe that we are not supposed to understand how this works. We are taught to accept, without question, what on careful examination makes no sense whatsoever. We are taught to accept what our reason could never agree to.

            And many of us are under the delusion that each generation is getting better and evolving into something more special, better, and more holy than the previous one. How wrong can we be? I suspect that what is called Christian today would have been unthinkable not long ago and not recognized as Christian in any sense of the word. Yes, there are generational improvements in areas such as technology and medicine, for instance, that advance from generation to generation based on accumulated knowledge.However, godliness is not a matter of having more knowledge or technical prowess, but of humility, obedience, faith, trust, and sacrifice.

            Are we really guilty for another person’s sins? Are we really guilty for Adam’s sin? You and I are no more guilty for Adam’s sin than we are for Hitler’s sin or the sin of our parents. Our irresistible affirmations of reason attest to this truth. The Bible is obviously explicit on the subject of personal accountability. I offer two passages.

“Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins shall die.” Ezekiel 18:2.

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity: the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” Ezekiel 18:20.

Some of the most critical reasons why the dogma of original sin must be rejected:

• It conflicts with our God given sense of justice. Sending someone to hell for sins that they can’t avoid committing is an injustice. And sending babies to hell for Adam’s sin is injustice under all circumstances.
• It contradicts the necessary and irresistible affirmations of every man’s consciousness and intellect. We all know that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, Hitler’s sin, or our parents’ sin. It is impossible for us to feel and believe that we are really guilty apart from a religious deception.
• It makes sin anything but the crime it is. Unavoidable sin is not blameworthy and can never be considered a criminal act. However, the Bible says sin is lawlessness, and it is a criminal act not to be pitied but to be rejected and punished.
• It contradicts the Word of God.Several passages of scripture suggest we inherit or are born with a sinful nature. All of these are best explained individually, but none of them stand the test. And none of them explain away these very compelling reasons why this dogma must be rejected. One example of a number that we will consider is this verse. In Psalm 58:3, we read, “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.”  Please remember that the Bible is full of figurative language. It is also full of language that is to be taken literally when the context demands a literal interpretation. This Psalm is not literal due to one simple fact: babies do not have the capacity for speech when they are born. It takes many months to develop. When we know an expression is contrary to reality, we are to understand that the writer is employing a figure of speech to make a point.
• It makes God the author of sin and the cruelest person in the universe. God creates the laws that govern how we come by our nature at birth. If we are born with a sinful nature, then God is responsible for sin in the universe. Why didn’t God create us with the nature of a saint, so that no one would go to hell? And if God sends sinners, whom He created as sinners, to hell, doesn’t that make Him the most wicked and cruel person in the universe? It also makes God inconsistent and imperfect.
• If it is true, sinners should be pitied and not condemned. If sin is involuntary, then we are not blameworthy and we should be pitied, not judged, and certainly not sent to hell.
• It makes the atonement of Christ an act of justice, not an act of grace. If God creates us sinners, then He owes us justice, and the atonement is necessary because He made us sinners. To be a just God, He must provide an atonement, or He would not be just. But the atonement was a great act of benevolence and grace to an undeserving people who are sinners by choice, not by nature.
• Can a person sin before they are created and come into existence? In what world does that ever make any sense at all? There is no court of law in our depraved world that would find a person guilty for a crime committed before they were born and had life. Yet how many believe that in God’s perfect heaven, He does just that.
• It causes us to wink at, condone, and excuse sin in our lives. Can you think of a better excuse for your sin than being born with an irresistible craving for sin that you can never get rid of, even with God’s grace?
• It makes Jesus a sinner, or it must deny His humanity. Scripture states that Jesus was born of the flesh and that Mary was His earthly mother, and God was His Father. Either Jesus was born with a sinful nature or God never took on flesh and blood.
• It gives birth to many false beliefs and doctrines, such as the following:

Immaculate Conception. Mary must be free from original sin so that Jesus would not be born with a sinful nature. It is logical, just not Biblical.

Limbo. Unbaptized infants go here instead of hell—an apparent attempt to save the justice of God. If parents don’t have their kids baptized and the baby dies, the baby goes to limbo, not hell. That’s what they say they believe. If the baby dies and goes to limbo, it is not God’s fault; it is the parents’ fault for not getting the baby baptized right? Limbo is supposedly a place where neither the pains of hell nor the joy of heaven exists. Only blind and deceived men could believe such a ridiculous proposition. Limbo, as it is described, might even be worse than hell. Do babies exist throughout eternity as if in a coma or catatonic state?

Infant baptismal regeneration for the removal of original sin. Made necessary so that babies are not considered sinful and guilty for Adam’s sin. Try to find this doctrine in your Bible. Many Bible believers in the past were put to death by the Roman Catholic Church for rejecting this doctrine.

The dogma that men have lost the image of God since the fall of Adam.But scripture says the opposite throughout. You and I have the image and likeness of God in us.

Physical passive regeneration is another false doctrine. If humanity cannot save itself, then God is the only active agent in regeneration, and we are passive in the process. Our sinful nature gets a new competing nature from God that is not totally depraved but nearly so. Passive physical regeneration is essential because sin is in our blood and/or DNA.

Inability to repent, believe, and obey God. Being born with a sinful nature means that you can only sin and that you cannot repent of sin, believe in Christ, and follow the commands of God. Yet you are blameworthy and guilty for not obeying the law of God, even though you can’t obey the law of God. Impossible.

Arbitrary election and reprobation. God must elect or choose you to be saved because you have no ability at all to save yourself. If you are not the elect of God, then you will not go to heaven. God could have elected all to salvation, but chose to pass over the mass of humanity and let them go to hell for His Glory. Impossible!

Man doesn’t have free will. If we are born unable to obey, believe, and repent, then we are not free agents and we do not have free will. That is something very few of us would accept, for we know by consciousness that our wills are free to choose between sin and holiness, God and self, and love and hate. Augustine first defined free will as the ability to obey or not to follow, the choice of sin or righteousness, and the decision about doing good or doing bad. If the Original sin dogma is true, then we do not have free will but a will in complete bondage that can do nothing but sin. In other words, we have free will that is the slave of sin. That is a will, that is not free.

Sin is not a free and voluntary choice but is the result of a depraved nature that we inherit from Adam. This error dates back to around the 5^th century. Augustine was greatly influenced by the heathen ideas prevalent in his day.

Matter is evil. Sin is a substance. The Apostle John denounced those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh (matter) as deceivers and antichrists. Some taught and believed that matter (flesh) was sinful in itself; therefore, there is no way that sinless Jesus (God) was a real man like us. To deny Jesus’s deity and his humanity is a significant error and a damnable lie.

In the Apostle’s lifetime, the teachings of the Gnostics had to be refuted. This sect attempted to combine Christianity with Eastern heathen religious beliefs, pagan philosophy, and doctrines of mysticism. Gnostics believed that matter or the flesh was evil; therefore, Jesus could not have come in the substance of sinful flesh. It was from this teaching that Augustine birthed the doctrine of Original Sin. Augustine, for many years, was a disciple of the Manichaeans, a Gnostic sect. His teachings that our physical moral nature, that we inherit from Adam, is sinful had their roots in Gnosticism.

Next, we will consider some of the objections.

 Objection: Don’t the Mosaic Laws governing property inheritance suggest that Original Sin is actual and handed down to us through the male gender?

I had a person in a men’s group I was teaching who was interested in what I presented on this subject. His objection, I think, conflates the laws/practices regarding property inheritance rights with the doctrine of original sin and being born with a sin nature. It was posited that only men get the inheritance based on the laws regarding property inheritance. At the same time, indeed, the inheritance of property (land, cattle, and money) went through the man, not the woman; however, there is at least one biblical example where the woman received the property inheritance. More importantly, property inheritance rights have nothing to do with the concept of Original Sin and the notion of being born with a sin nature.

Property is a substance (money, land, cattle), and sin is not a substance. Sin is a choice, an evil choice. Property and substance are essentially the same thing and are governed by the laws of nature that govern the physical universe. Choice is an act of free will and is governed by moral law, not physical law. Substance is governed by an entirely different law, not based on free will. Choice or free will is based on the laws for action and physical laws are governed by the laws of action. These two laws govern everything in the universe that God created.

Also, the act of procreation, which brings a new human being into existence by natural law, is the combination of 50% of the chromosomes from the man and 50% from the woman. I am aware of no scientist or Christian who disputes this reality. And that is how we inherit specific physical characteristics from our parents.  Regarding the birth of Jesus, it seems reasonable to expect that God the Father miraculously supplied 50% of Jesus’ chromosomes, while Mary provided the other 50%. Jesus inherited his physical nature from both his Father and his mother, not just his Father.

Property inheritance rights have nothing to do with what we inherit in being born into the human family. To suggest that the laws of property inheritance supersede the laws regarding procreation is inappropriate, as it denies the reality of what happens in procreation.

Objection. Adam and Eve sinned, and God’s curse was pronounced. We are born with a sinful nature as a result of God’s curse.

If I understand the objection correctly, we are discussing the three curses in Genesis chapter 3. None of the following curses explains or has anything to do with the inheritance of a sinful nature. Please read it for yourself.

Adam and Eve sinned. Sin was 1) known to be a prohibited action or disobedience and 2) a deliberate/willful violation of a known commandment of God, with 3) the judgment of death stipulated as the penalty for the sin. This is what sin looks like, and it contains all three elements as cited above. Original sin/sin nature, as the cause and source of sin, can’t be true because, as the proponents of Original Sin stipulate, there is no choice or deliberate/willful violation of a commandment of God. Our nature makes us sin, not our will, so they maintain. Therefore, it can’t be a sin to do what you are preprogrammed to do. Adam and Eve sinned because they could have and should have chosen differently than they did.

Verse 14 and 15 of Genesis Chapter 3: God curses the serpent…”above all cattle, and above every beast of the field, upon their belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the day of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel”. There is no hint at all of what we now call Original Sin/Sin Nature.

In verse 16, God pronounces His judgment on the woman, greatly multiplying her sorrows related to childbirth, but that her desire would still be toward her husband, “and he shall rule over thee.” The curse for the woman is particular, and it has nothing to do with Original Sin and a sinful nature being passed on to her children. In many cases, having a man rule over a woman is indeed a curse of monumental proportions.

In verse 17, God pronounces His judgment on Adam, “cursed is the ground for thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” Verse 18 talks about thorns and thistles shall bring forth to him, but he shall eat the herb of the field, and verse 19 God says, “In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread, till thou return to the ground for out of it thou wast taken, for dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return.” Not one word about what we call the consequences of Original Sin on Adam’s descendants. Note the phrase, “cursed is the ground for the sake.” This curse on the ground was for Adam’s sake, for his good and our good. Adam and his posterity would now be required to keep very busy earning a living with minimal idle time for getting into trouble.

Again, not a word about what we are calling Original Sin as defined by its proponents as 1) humanity incurring the guilt of Adam’s sin and 2) being born with a sinful nature that can only sin. This is not stipulated or even implied as a part of the curse on Adam.

I do not see where there is any relevance whatsoever in this chapter to the subject of original sin. Not one of the four theories advanced by the proponents of Original Sin/Sin Nature over the last 1500 years talks about the curses in Genesis Chapter 3 as the basis on which Original Sin/Sin Nature is built.  And I can readily see why, as it has no bearing on the subject as far as I can tell.

Objection: If we do not have a sin nature, then it might be possible that someone never sins and doesn’t need Jesus to save them from their sins.

This objection is often raised and is actually one of several additional objections used by those who believe in the doctrine of Original Sin/Sin nature. For a more comprehensive study of this subject, I recommend purchasing the following book. Most of this appendix is taken from Mr. Overstreet’s book. Are Men Born Sinners? The myth of Original Sin, by Alfred T. Overstreet.  His book is an exhaustive and definitive treatment of this subject, as well as the objections. The following is a direct quote from his book.

Response: “This objection reveals the sinister and ungodly nature of the original sin dogma. What does this objection imply? It implies that it would be criminal, wicked, and sinful for anyone to live a life without sin. It implies that men ought to be born with a sinful nature, lest it be possible for someone to live a life without sin! It implies that God wants men to be depraved sinners…It implies that God would be insulted and dishonored if someone obeyed God all his life and never sinned against him. It implies that it would be sinful to be free to obey God. And why? Because if we were free to obey God, someone might do it and would not need to be saved. What logic!”

The truth is that we can obey God. We are born with that ability, contrary to the dogma of Original Sin/Sin Nature. We can obey God, but don’t. That makes us sinners who are blameworthy and deserving of eternal death. However, if we are unable to obey God’s commands, then sin is not sin, and we are not culpable, having nothing to repent of.

Next, we will look at the proof texts used in supporting the dogma of Original Sin. I am aware of the following six (6) “proof texts”.

1. Psalm 51:5 reads, “Behold, I was shapen iniquity; and is sin did my mother conceive me.”

What is the context? Is it figurative or literal? In verses 7 and 8 David says, “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.  Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.” Does hyssop really purge sins? Does God really break our bones when we sin? No on both counts.

David confesses his awful guilt for his sins and asks God to create in him a clean heart in verse 10. David cries out for forgiveness of his sins with a repentant heart, using hyperbolic and figurative language to describe it. He was not stating that he was born a sinner, which would be the perfect excuse for not accepting responsibility for sinning. Instead, he was confessing his voluntary and willful sin for which he alone is blameworthy. He is undoubtedly not blaming God for making him a sinner. Why would David confess his sorrow over something he had no control over and was the only possible result of being born a sinner who can do nothing but sin?

Was John the Baptist born a sinner? If so, why does scripture tell us that John was full of the Holy Spirit while in the womb? What about Job, and what does scripture say about him? How about the prophet Jeremiah in chapter 1:5 “Before I formed you in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee a prophet unto the nations.”  Does that sound like Jeremiah was born a sinner?

• Psalm 58:3 reads, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.”

We know that babies do not speak as soon as they are born. And we know that babies do not lie as quickly as they are born. It takes months for babies to develop the ability to speak. This is an example of figurative language, confirmed by reality.

This Psalm of David is about the righteous judgment of the wicked by a holy God. You will note in verses 10 and 11 that David acknowledges that “the righteous shall rejoice when he seeth thy vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. So that a man shall say, verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.” KJV. Do the saints of God really wash their feet in the blood of the wicked? Like much of this chapter, it is a figure of speech.

Again, in hyperbolic and figurative language, David addresses the guilt of the wicked, and that they have practiced evil all their days, from the commencement of moral agency or the age of accountability. But there can be no guilt for sin if we are born sinners who sin naturally and unavoidably. God will never condemn a person for committing unavoidable sin, but will rightfully condemn us for sin that we do not avoid committing.

“If this text, or any other text from the Bible, teaches that babies are sinners by birth, then it teaches that all newborn babies are children of the devil. For the Bible teaches that all sinners are children of the devil: John 8:44, I John 3:8, 10”, per the author Alfred T. Overstreet.

• Job 14:4 reads, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.”

Some say that this passage teaches that sinful parents can only bring forth sinful children. Are we to assume that everyone who has ever had a child has been sinning when their child is conceived or born? How many parents have repented of their sins and then given birth to children? Do clean parents bring forth clean children? Must that not be the case if unclean parents bring forth unclean children? Is sin a substance? Is holiness a substance that passes on physically from parent to child? The context of verses 1 and 2 indicates that Job is talking about how brief life is for all men, “he cometh forth as a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.” KJV

Frail and dying parents bring forth children like them in this regard. We are all like a flower that is soon cut down.

• Job 15:14 reads, “What is man that he should be clean, and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?” KJV

Note the context, “Then answered Eliphas.” Who was he, and was he correct in what he told Job? He was a friend, but was very wrong in his assessment of what happened to Job and why it happened. He was sure that Job was a terrible sinner, like most other men; therefore, these horrible things that happened to Job were God’s punishment because of Job’s sin. He was wrong, as God says in Job 42:7.

Recall what Jesus said to those who asked him about a man born with a physical infirmity. His disciples asked Jesus if it was because of this man’s or his parents’ sins. Jesus responded by saying that the reason for his infirmity has nothing to do with his sin or the sin of his parents but everything to do with the plan of God.

• Romans 5:12,18,19 KJV reads, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned…..Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of the 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 is the passage that is most often used to support the belief in Original Sin even though it clearly doesn’t teach all the things they say it does.

“The apostle here draws a comparison between the evil potency in the sinning Adam and the beneficent or saving potency in the righteous Christ….Both are pictured according to their tendency than according to literal fact.” Henry C. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine.

If these passages teach that we are born sinners because of Adam, then it also teaches that all humanity will be saved because of what Jesus did, “Therefore as by the offence of one (Adam) judgment came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteous on the one (Jesus) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Does everyone go to heaven?

No one is made sinful or righteous involuntarily! It’s absurd.

• Eph. 2:3 reads, “And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”

This verse doesn’t teach that babies are born with a sinful nature and consequently born “children of wrath.” Not even close. How is the word nature used in language and scripture? Nature often refers to the voluntary character of a person and not the visible or physical nature a person is born with.

What is the context? Chapter 2, verses 1, 2, and 3. “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins…in times past ye walked….according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. We also …… in times past walked in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” KJV

Those who choose to walk in disobedience are children of wrath spoken about in this text. These are by voluntary choice or by nature/character, children of wrath. It says nothing at all about being born a sinner. What we do habitually becomes our nature. Our nature doesn’t cause our habits. Our habits make our nature or our moral character.

In summary, if you wonder about the unhealthy and very carnal state of the American Christian Church, look no further than these doctrines and beliefs. Being born with a sinful nature, we come into existence not being able to do anything good. This inherited inability is the very best excuse for sin ever devised in the universe. Who believes this is true will ever try to make meaningful improvements in their lives?

What we believe determines what we do. If you think you will sin daily in thought, word, and deed, even with the grace of God and a new nature from God, you will never seriously try to stop sinning.

It is physically impossible to be born a sinner because sin is not a substance (liquid, gas or solid). The Bible teaches that sin is a transgression of the moral law, not a physical law. Sin is an immoral choice. Choice and substance are entirely different. One is voluntary and the other is not. We can’t choose to disregard physical laws, but we can disregard moral laws. It is a moral impossibility to be born a sinner, because sin requires choice and voluntariness.

If sin is a substance that can be inherited like a disease or virus, then goodness, kindness, and love are substances just like sin. But sin, wickedness, goodness, love, and kindness describe the character of a choice or action, not the substance of it. And neither sin nor holiness can be passed on physically or morally by heredity.

What about passages that appear to teach the exact opposite of Original Sin? Why are these versus rarely ever considered? These verses are from the KJV of the Bible.

Psalm 22:9 and 10 reads, “Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother’s breast. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother’s womb.”

Psalm 71:5 and 6 reads, “For thou art my hope, O Lord God: thou art my trust from my youth. By thee have I been holden up from the womb: that art he that took me out of my mother’s bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee.”

“Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” Ecclesiastes 7:29.

            These and other passages clearly do not teach that men are born sinners. Logic, reason, common sense, and the Word of God all agree that we are sinners because we voluntarily choose to sin when we could have chosen otherwise. We are not sinners because we were involuntarily born a sinner who can only sin because of our inherited sinful nature.

Appendix 3

Sabbath

Over the years, I have struggled with understanding and observing the Sabbath law, the fourth commandment of God. Christians have various interpretations regarding the Sabbath law.

1. Some Christians believe that the sabbath law still applies today. Most of these folks are part of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, but other smaller Christian groups also believe in keeping the sabbath day (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset).
2. Then there are Christians who believe that we are to keep Sunday as fulfillment of the fourth commandment regarding the sabbath. I think this is true of the Reformers, Puritans, and many others who considered Sunday the Christian or New Testament Sabbath.
3. Then there are other Christians who believe all of the 10 commandments, including the Sabbath, were abolished and abrogated by the New Covenant.

How does one make sense of all this?

From Adam until Moses, did mankind observe the 7th-day Sabbath?

There is no command or written testimony in scripture that man (Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their children or the Gentiles) rested on the seventh day as God rested on the seventh day. The SDA’s (Seventh Day Adventists) suggest that from the beginning of creation, the sabbath day was observed. If true, it is not attested to in the Bible at all. Therefore, I do not place much credibility in the SDA comment.

While it is true that the gathering of manna during the time of Moses hinted that such a law might be forthcoming, it was not known or practiced until then. Moses received the Sabbath law when God met with them before they entered the Promised Land. The sabbath was not the law, and it was not practiced by anyone, as far as we know from the Bible, up to the time of Moses. This period, from Adam to Moses, spans many centuries.

In Exodus chapter 20, Moses receives the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath commandment. It was based on the fact that God rested on the seventh day after 6 days of creation. God rested from His creative acts not just for one day, the sabbath, but thereafter. It was not one day of rest but a perpetual rest. His work of creation was finished; therefore, He ceased. Obviously, God was not tired; He had just finished His creative work. Sometime after God created Adam and Eve, they sinned, and God provided a sacrifice for them. His new work of redemption began, and His creative work had ceased.

In the sabbath law, work would resume on the first day of the following week and this weekly cycle would repeat forever, or a very long time.

In Deut. 5, Moses talks about the sabbath law as one of the 10 commandments, but relates it to Israel’s slavery in Egypt when they apparently worked 7 days every week. Nothing is said about creation in this chapter, and God ceases His creative work on the seventh day.

In both chapters containing the 10 Commandments, the Sabbath law is given, and the creation week and Israel’s slavery in Egypt provide the explanation, the principle, and the foundation for this commandment.

What about the command to keep the 7th-year sabbath?

Israel was required to work for 6 years and then let the land rest for an entire 7th year. It was a mandatory 12-month sabbath for them and the land. Do current sabbath keepers rest for a whole year, every seven years, as they rest for one day of each week? I think not.

I am not sure how the SDAs address this command, but I suspect that they attribute it to the ordinances of God that were fulfilled when Christ finished His work on the cross. However, this seventh-year sabbath is not a feast day or an ordinance that ceased to exist when Christ offered Himself for our sins, any more than the weekly sabbath was. It is a seventh-year sabbath command, much like the 7th-day sabbath command. Below, I will give Biblical evidence that some of the ordinances were not and have not been abolished.

Resting on the sabbath was not a law that we know of from Adam until Moses. Did mankind have any regulations for which they were held accountable before Moses received the 10 commandments?

We know from the story about Adam and Eve that God issued a command which they violated. They were aware of the law and its consequences if they disobeyed it.

It is also made known to us that Cain killed Abel, and God punished him for his sin. Cain knew it was wrong to kill his brother, but he did it anyway. We are not told explicitly, in these early verses of Genesis, that murder was a violation of God’s law. If God spoke to Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel about this, we are not told. Somehow, Cain knew it was wrong, and he was held accountable for killing his brother. How do we explain that?

If there were other laws that God made known to humanity, we are not told how He did it or what they were specifically. Do we have any information about these laws?

Scripture proclaims that man was made in the image and likeness of God. Obviously, this does not suggest that we possess the physical or natural attributes of God, but rather that we possess the moral qualities, including the ability to make ethical choices. God created us with the facilities of intellect, emotions, and a will. Moreover, God created us rational and moral beings, aware of the distinction between right and wrong, and between virtue and vice. We were created to love virtue and hate vice. The moral law of God, which distinguishes right from wrong, is ours by creation, centuries before it was explicitly given to Moses and the world. When the Mosaic law was given, its principles were not foreign to Israel or any other person living at the time. These Mosaic laws were declaratory. God wrote down the very laws He created within us revealed in our nature. This natural law corresponds with and flows out of our nature, and is suited to our necessities and relations as human beings.  Even the heathen nations had this internal moral law. God created all mankind with a conscience that affirmed the right and objected to the wrong with guilt and blame. Cain knew it was wrong to kill his brother because that is the way he was created. That testimony resided in his intellect and his conscience.

Romans 1 tells us that God has revealed Himself to all humanity through His creation, even to those who have never read the Bible. Therefore, everyone is without excuse for not obeying and acknowledging God’s authority.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them: for God hath shown it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, the glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Romans 1:18-21.

The word of God says, “they hold the truth in unrighteousness”. Based on this fact, we understand that humanity recognizes the existence of one and only Creator God, who alone should be worshiped and obeyed. And we realize that all people know it is wrong to murder, rape, lie, steal, and harm another person. This was all known before the law of Moses was declared in stone.  Accordingly, this must be true for all of the 10 commandments save the sabbath. All these nine other commandments were made part of our moral nature, to which our conscience testified before there was a written law from God. The sabbath commandment is different than all the rest. This command was a special sign between God and the nation of Israel only. This sign set them apart from all other countries.

At the time of Noah, God decided that the earth must be judged, and He sent a flood to destroy it because it was so evil.  Obviously, this wickedness was a sin or a transgression of the natural or moral law of God revealed in our nature and our conscience. The flood occurred hundreds of years before the Ten Commandments were given to Moses and the nation of Israel. God destroyed the ancient world, save for Noah and his family, because humanity’s wickedness was great on the earth. Those alive at this time were not living up to the light they had but had given themselves over to darkness.

To summarize, we were created rational moral beings knowing the difference between right and wrong.  This is natural law or moral law. This law existed from creation and is the basis for human accountability before and after the flood. This natural law was explicitly declared when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and the ordinances. It was not a new law but the very law God created in us that makes us unique in all His creation. Behold the following word from God through Paul.

“But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath. Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, also of the Gentile: But glory, honor and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first and also of the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For 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 2:8-15 KJV

It is clearly written that the Gentiles, who did not have the law of God written on stone, did have the natural law of God written in their hearts by virtue of the fact that they were created in the image and likeness of God Almighty, their conscience bearing witness to this truth. When the Gentiles violated this moral or natural law, it was sin. When the Jew violated the law written on stone and in the ordinances, it was sin. The written law of God given to Moses was the same moral law or natural law that God put in the human heart. The 10 Commandments declared the scope of the natural or moral law in greater detail.

With the advent of Jesus Christ, the moral law of God, as contained in the commandments, was explained in even greater scope and application. For instance, Jesus said that if you lust after a woman in your heart, you have committed adultery even if the act of adultery has not been consummated. And this is why the natural or moral law can never be abolished or abrogated. It is the law of our nature in creation.

What do we learn from the New Testament?

Does the NT affirm the continuing applicability of the sabbath law? In the NT, obedience to the sabbath law is not repeated as a command that continues. Jesus never violated the moral law of God, which, of course, means He never violated the Ten Commandments. However, Jesus did intentionally violate the sabbath law to reveal to the Jews their own corruption and misunderstanding of the sabbath law. Jesus claimed to be Lord of the sabbath, and He was. The Sabbath law was part of the 10 Commandments as a sign to the Jewish nation, based on the creation narrative. God created a perfect world that was corrupted by man’s sin and could only be restored to Edenic perfection by a return to righteousness. It was a reminder to the Jews that only through repentance could this take place.

If one considers 1 Corinthians 6, Ephesians 5, and Galatians 5, where the reader is told that in no uncertain terms, those who practice unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom of God and of Christ, we discover something about the sabbath law. Neglecting the sabbath is conspicuous by its absence from the list of sins cited in these three chapters. Yet the rest of the list of sins are all clear violations of the remaining nine commandments.

In the Old Testament, one notable sin that brought judgment on the nation of Israel was their continual Sabbath breaking. Yet it is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament as a violation of the law or a sin that will exclude a person from the kingdom of God. Moreover, other New Testament passages are disputed, but they also seem to indicate that the Sabbath commandment is no longer applicable.

I was pleasantly surprised to learn that John MacArthur agrees and believes that nine of the Ten Commandments are perpetually obligatory because they are founded on the natural or moral law created in us when we came into existence, as I have already outlined. He believes that Jesus abolished the Sabbath law because it was a unique sign to the nation of Israel. And the surrounding nations would be able to know clearly that these people served a different God. The Sabbath day is a sign, much like circumcision was a sign for Abraham during his time, and the rainbow was a unique sign to Noah that God would never again flood the world. Mr. MacArthur believes the 7-day week is exceptional in all cultures around the world, serving as a reminder that in six days, God created everything, and He rested on the seventh day. As a sign, exclusively to the nation of Israel, it was not part of the moral law that would always be obligatory. It was a reminder that man forfeited paradise by sin, and it can only be restored by a return to righteousness. Jesus did away with the Sabbath law as part of the religion of Israel, which was to be replaced; however, the moral law is never to be abrogated or abolished.

Let us say that I am wrong and that keeping the sabbath is still required today. What exactly is required of us?

In Exodus 20, God says that we are not to work on this day and that none of our family members, nor anyone else in our house, is to work. Plus, we are not to have others work for us. Does that mean we can’t travel on the sabbath? What about heating and cooling our homes and churches? If we do that, then someone is working to keep our utilities working. How do we keep this commandment? There is nothing in this passage that states that we should gather together for church on the sabbath. Are we to stay at home?

And what exactly are we obligated to do on the day? Apparently, what is not and what is acceptable on the sabbath varies significantly within the SDA denomination. Is watching TV acceptable? Is there a time limit on it? Is there a law that tells us what shows on TV are acceptable and which ones are not? How far can someone travel on that day? It is supposed to be a day devoted to God. Does that mean that the only thing a person can do on that day is to read the Bible and pray? Or does it only mean that we are not permitted to do regular work that day, the work we do during the week for which we get paid?

I watched a Seventh-day Adventist teacher explain the Sabbath requirement today. His understanding seemed very legalistic, even for me. For example, he said children could wade in the water and get their feet wet, but not swim. This whole thing appears to be according to the letter and not the spirit.

And what about the 7th-year sabbath? Why is that not still binding if the 7th-day sabbath is still binding? In Exodus 23:10 and 11, both the 7th day and the 7th year sabbaths are discussed as times of rest. If the 7^th day rest was required of Israel and the 7^th year also, why then don’t SDA’s rest every 7 years?

Has the law been abolished?

Chapter 3 of this book deals with this question. Many Christians today believe that the moral law, the Ten Commandments, as well as the entire Mosaic law, have been abrogated or abolished in the New Testament. They must have forgotten the fact that Jesus said, “Think not that I came to abolish the law, but to fulfill it”. Many Christians today believe that Jesus came to abrogate or abolish the law in direct contradiction to His words. And by that they mean that not only have the ceremonial aspects of the law been done away with, but that the Mosaic law containing the 10 commandments and the natural law from which the 10 commandments flow is also done away with and replaced with the law of love of Christ. How then is the law of Christ different from the law in the OT? How is it different from the natural or moral law that God gave us at our creation? The writer I quoted in chapter 3 stated that the ethical principles of the Old Testament law are contained in the New Testament law of Christ. Is a moral principle not a law in the New Testament and only a law in the Old Testament? In the New Testament, is it just good advice that we can disregard if it doesn’t fit with our plans?

Therefore, if the New Testament law of Christ embodies the Old Testament moral law, then how are the two different? Would the love of Christ allow us to have other Gods before Him, to make idols and worship them, to take the name of God in vain, to commit adultery, would it allow us to steal, lie, and covet our neighbor’s wife and things? Obviously not. Are the two laws different? If they are, how are they different? Some Christians today believe that the real difference is that New Testament Christians are no longer held eternally accountable for their actions, except that they may suffer a loss of rewards or position in heaven and a loss of fellowship with God here on earth.

The 10 commandments were placed in the ark, and the ordinances were placed next to the ark in the holy of holies. Therefore, the ten last forever and the ordinances pass away according to some sabbath keepers that I have become familiar with.

Seventh-day Adventist folks make mention of this to convince us that the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God, are more important and still applicable today. In contrast, the other laws written down by Moses, but given to Moses by God, are those laws or ordinances that have passed away. Is that really accurate?

One of the 10 commandments is “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” That is all that is said in the text written by the finger of God. Are we to assume that sex with animals is no longer prohibited as part of the law of God since it is not contained in the commandment against committing adultery, but contained in the ordinances? What about fornication, homosexuality, and sodomy? What about incest?  And then what do we do with the ordinances that prohibit witchcraft and occult practices? Are they okay today? 

The 10 Commandments state, “Thou shalt not steal.” But what about the law requiring restitution contained in the ordinances? Is that no longer required? Can thieves keep what they have stolen? The ordinances God gave Moses also contain moral requirements that are still binding on all people, not just Christians. Let us remember that God destroyed Israel and other nations because they practiced evil deeds. Heathen or Gentile nations did not have the Mosaic Law. Still, they did have the natural or moral law of God imprinted in their minds and hearts, which made them responsible for their evil practices such as child sacrifice, sodomy, witchcraft, adultery, theft, and murder.

The Bible indicates that the 10 commandments were given to the nation of Israel, and the New Testament believer is grafted into Israel today; therefore, we are under obligation to the sabbath commandments according to SDA’s.

In the Old Testament, the Mosaic law was given to the nation of Israel, and that is especially true regarding the sabbaths. Exodus 31:17 “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever:…” However, the moral law was known by all nations and all peoples, not just Israel; the Sabbath laws, on the other hand, were peculiar to Israel and set it apart from different nations. Likewise, the law regarding circumcision set the nation of Israel apart from all other nations. In the NT, it says that a believer is part of saved Israel and is grafted into the natural branch, which is Israel. But this is a reference to spiritual Israel, not the nation of Israel. NT believers are part of spiritual or saved Israel but are not part of the nation of Israel. That is the distinction that is often overlooked.

The ordinances regarding the sabbath day or sabbath year observance are just as authoritative as the Decalogue itself. The ordinances regarding the sabbath state that you shall not kindle a fire on the sabbath, and if you do, you shall be killed. Neither of these things is practiced today. In the 10 commandments, it is said that you shall not do any work, and that applies to all of your household, nor shall you cause any to work. That seems to suggest that turning on electricity, water, gas, and so on, on the sabbath day is prohibited because someone needs to work to provide you with that power. Exactly what can you do on the sabbath day? It sounds like you can’t even have a fire to keep warm, cook, or drive your car, which literally requires gas and fire. Therefore, it is hard to see how SDA believers keep the sabbath. When was the last time they stoned someone for breaking the sabbath law? It seems to me that knowing what can and can’t be done on the sabbath is absolutely critical.

And let’s not forget the 7^th year sabbath, which is a year of rest, not just one day of rest. Is that too obligatory? I agree that the feast days spoke of Christ to come and are satisfied or fulfilled with His ministry on earth. But the 7th-year sabbath is more like the 7th-day sabbath than a feast or holy day. Why is it not obligatory today if the 7^th day rest is obligatory today?

We, as believers, enter into the Sabbath rest of God by faith in Jesus Christ. It is through Christ we have salvation, and we are to rest in that understanding that we, as sinners, could never merit our salvation by our work. Sinners must have a savior, and they must rest in His provision.

For the real believer in Jesus Christ, every day should be a fulfillment of the law regarding the Sabbath because believers rest in Christ’s finished work for us. What Christ did out of love in securing our salvation is the procuring cause of salvation, the “that for the sake of which”. Meeting the conditions of salvation is the “that not without which”. Meeting the conditions of salvation qualifies us to receive the gift of salvation. It has more to do with our walk of faith and state of our heart than a particular day of the week and what we do or don’t do on that one day. Every day belongs to Christ, not just one day a week.

Hebrews 4 discusses entering into the Sabbath rest of God by faith, referencing the creation of God. God rested after 6 days of creative work, and that rest is continuous. Isn’t that the rest of faith we are encouraged to enter into by faith in Jesus Christ?