Are Men Born Sinners?

The Myth of Original Sin

By A. T. Overstreet*

Appendix A
The Nature and Attributes of Sin

Man must sin to be a sinner.

The foregoing statement may seem too obvious to need stating, and something that no one could deny. But those who advocate the doctrine of original sin both ignore what is clearly obvious and deny what is palpably undeniable. They teach that an infant who has never sinned is not only a sinner, but is guilty, condemned and under God's wrath.

But, what is sin? The Bible says, "Sin is the transgression of the law." I John 3:4. But what law does a newborn baby transgress by being born? Has God given a law that makes it a sin to be born? But if children violate no law in being born, then they are surely not sinners. One might as well call a man a drunkard who has never tasted drink, or a man a thief who has never stolen, or a man a murderer who has never killed, as to say that an infant who has never sinned is a sinner.

Or does God's law legislate over our nature, requiring us to be born with a certain nature? No, God has given no law requiring us to be born with a certain nature. The fact is that God is satisfied with the nature he has given us. He legislates only over the use we make of our nature. Since sin is the transgression of the law, an understanding of the nature of law will give us a clearer understanding of the nature of sin.

1. Law, in its generic sense, is any rule of action.

2. Physical law is a rule of necessary or involuntary action. The law of gravity is a physical law. The law of gravity is a rule of action that operates by a law of necessity or force as opposed to freedom and voluntary choice.

3. Moral law is a rule of free and intelligent action as opposed to involuntary or necessary action.

It is the rule for the government of free and intelligent action, as opposed to necessary and unintelligent action. It is the law of liberty, as opposed to the law of necessity--of motive and free choice, as opposed to force of every kind. Moral law is primarily a rule of the direction of the action of free will and strictly of free will only.1

We see then what must be the necessary attributes of sin. They must be liberty, voluntariness, and intelligence. By the word intelligence, it is not meant that sin is a good or reasonable choice. It is meant that the choice to sin is made with the full knowledge that it is wrong. It is an intelligent choice because the sinner knows the moral character of his actions before he sins. He knows that he is doing wrong, and if he had no knowledge of right and wrong, he could not sin. Moral law, then, cannot govern the actions of infants, who have no knowledge of right and wrong. A moral agent is a moral agent only because he has an understanding of the moral character of his actions. Infants, therefore, cannot be sinners.

Liberty, or freedom, is another attribute of sin. Without liberty there could be no such thing as sin. It is affirmed that babies are born sinners. Have they had the liberty to make a choice about this? Are they free to choose not to be born sinners? If not, then they cannot be born sinners. To speak of them being sinners involuntarily and by a law of necessity is to talk utter nonsense. Liberty, or freedom to choose (free moral agency), is a necessary attribute of sin, and if there is no liberty, there can be no sin.

The very idea of sin implies free choice. It implies that the sinner is free to do good instead of evil, and that he is able to avoid sin. If his actions are not free, and if his actions are necessitated, his deeds cannot have moral character and he cannot be a sinner. To talk of being born a sinner is the same nonsense as to talk of a wicked gun. If man is a sinner by birth, he can no more be wicked or sinful than the gun which is used to commit murder can be wicked or sinful. A sinner is a sinner only because his actions are free. Without free choice, sin cannot exist.

Voluntariness is an attribute of sin. Children cannot be born sinners because their birth is involuntary. They do not choose to be born. Their birth is completely involuntary. An involuntary sinner, a sinner by birth, is a contradiction because one of the attributes of sin is voluntariness. It is a contradiction of terms to speak of being born a sinner. The term sinner implies liberty, voluntariness, and intelligence. So to speak of being born a sinner is to speak of an impossibility. It is to use terms which contradict each other.

By necessity the attributes of sin are liberty, intelligence, and voluntariness. Any doctrine that assumes, as does the doctrine of original sin, that sin can be predicated of unfree, involuntary, and unintelligent action is absurd. There can be no unfree, involuntary, and unintelligent sin. All of these attributes pertain to physical law, rather than moral law, and completely negate the idea of sin.

Appendix B

The "Age of Accountability"

The term "age of accountability" is not used in the Bible. Nevertheless, the doctrine of an age or a time when men become accountable for their actions is clearly taught in the Bible. What is meant by this term is that children cannot be accountable for their actions until they have a knowledge of good and evil, until they know to refuse the evil and choose the good.

We know that children are not sinners at birth; for if they were, there could be no such thing as an "age of accountability." If babies are guilty and condemned for the sin of Adam from birth, then there is no room for them to reach a certain age before they become accountable. They are guilty and under God's wrath from birth. However, the Bible teaches that babies do not inherit sin and guilt from Adam. "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil..." Rom. 9:11. Jacob and Esau had no original sin; they did not sin with Adam when he transgressed. We know this because they were not sinners while in the womb of their mother, Rebecca. Since the Bible says they had done nothing good or evil up to this time, we must assume that they became moral agents at some later time, after they were born. There are numerous verses like this in the Bible which show the doctrine of original sin to be false, and which also teach, either directly or indirectly, the doctrine of an "age of accountability." Let us look at some of them:

Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, 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. Deut. 1:39

For before the children shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Isaiah 7:16

I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Gen. 8:21

Deut. 1:39 speaks of the "little ones" and the "children" who "in that day had no knowledge between good and evil." Isaiah 7:16 speaks of a child coming to an age when he knows to "refuse the evil, and choose the good." Both of these texts speak of children coming to a time in their lives when they have a knowledge of the moral character of their actions and know there is evil which they ought to refuse and good which they ought to choose. Neither of these verses gives a certain age at which moral agency begins. This is because there is no fixed age at which children become accountable, since reason will develop earlier in one child than another according to his gifts and circumstances. But when a child's reason has developed to the point that he knows to "refuse the evil and choose the good," he becomes a moral agent and is accountable for his deeds.

This possession of moral knowledge or understanding is absolutely necessary before there can be accountability. A child must know the moral character of his actions before he can be responsible for them.

Some advocates of original sin have objected that the government of God would be unjust if children were made accountable for their actions at a tender age when they would not be able easily to withstand temptation. They have used this objection as an excuse for maintaining the doctrine of original sin. This kind of logic is absurd. For, according to the doctrine of original sin, children are guilty and under the wrath of God from birth, without any probation. It is hard to understand how the advocates of original sin can swallow whole the injustice of being born in a state of guilt and condemnation, and yet quibble over the supposed injustice of becoming accountable at a tender age. This amounts to swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat.

With God, there can be no such thing as a "tender age" in the sense of an unjust age at which children become responsible. God alone knows and is the judge of when a child reaches the "age of accountability." He alone knows the thoughts and the intentions of the heart. And, knowing that God is just, we know that God will not work unrighteousness in this respect. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Gen. 18:25. Those who make this objection seem to feel that God cannot be trusted with what is unknown to us. But he can be trusted. God is just in all his judgments. The accountability or non-accountability of every child is perfectly known to God. He "searches the reins and hearts" of all men. He discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart." He will bring to light the "hidden things of darkness" and judge the "secrets of men" in truth and righteousness.

The advocates of original sin need not fear that God will unjustly make children accountable at too early an age. He can be trusted to judge righteously with the hidden things of the heart. Truth, justice, and equity are the foundations of his throne. I Cor. 4:5, Rev. 2:23, Heb. 4:12-13, Eccl. 12:14, ROM 2:15-16.

Appendix C

The Rational Moral Nature of Man

That man is responsible and accountable for his deeds is so obvious that to try to prove it would be something like a teacher of first graders trying to prove to them that the sun exists. The class might well interrupt: "But teacher, we know that the sun exists. See, there it is in the sky."

When God gave the law on Mount Sinai, he did not try to prove first to his people that they were responsible and accountable moral agents. They already knew this because of the testimony of their rational nature. They were as conscious of their responsibility and accountability as they were that the sun existed. The law of God was already written in their hearts before God gave them the law written upon tables of stone. They already knew right from wrong before God said, "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not." They already had a conscience and knew themselves to be accountable for their deeds before God warned them of judgment for disobedience. They did not need proof of their accountability, for this they had by the constant testimony of their rational moral nature. No one needs the Bible in order to know right from wrong. Murder, adultery, lying, and stealing are not wrong just because the Bible says they are wrong. They are wrong by nature. They are wrong because they violate the demands of the rational moral nature with which God created us.

The law that God has given us is not arbitrary or imposed; it is declaratory. God has declared to us the same law that is revealed in our nature, the same law that is written in our hearts, a law that harmonizes with our nature, necessities, and relations as moral beings. Had God given us a law that contradicted our nature--had he commanded us to be selfish, to work evil to our neighbor, to lie, steal, and hate our fellow man--we would all know by the testimony of our rational, moral nature that such a law was wrong and unjust. It is only because the law of God does agree with the law written in our hearts that we can and do judge it to be a just and righteous law.

This agreement between the rational moral nature of man and the teachings of the Bible gives compelling testimony to the truth of the Bible. Men do not need to have proved to them that the Bible is divinely inspired anymore than they need someone to prove that the sun exists. Their own moral nature is in such agreement with the holy teachings of the Bible, that it is a battle for wicked men to resist and smother the convictions they have when they hear the preaching of God's Word.

Appendix D

The Bible and Man's Rational Moral Nature

If the Bible taught things which were out of harmony with man's rational moral nature and if the Bible taught things which the constitution of our nature as created by God forced us to reject as false, unjust, or impossible, we would have irresistible convictions that it was not the Word of God, and it would be impossible for us to rationally believe it.

It is because the Bible is in harmony with man's rational moral nature and his knowledge of truth and reality that men have compelling convictions that it is the Word of God. It is so in harmony with the revelation and convictions given to us by our nature, it describes us so faithfully--our moral relations, our lost condition, and our necessity as lost sinners--that we have compelling evidence that it is not a man-made book, but is divinely inspired.

Christians are not gullible because they believe the Bible. They are reasonable and rational. They are living in accordance with the testimony of their rational moral nature, which affirms that the Bible is in harmony with truth, justice, and reality, and is therefore from God, just as it says it is.

On the other hand, those who refuse to believe the Bible are irrational. They are rejecting the testimony of their rational, moral nature which affirms the truth of the Bible. The impenitent sinner is not impenitent because his reason does not testify to him of the truth of God's Word; he is impenitent because he refuses to listen to reason. He does not want to repent, submit himself to God, and obey his Word. Both sin and unbelief are a voluntary resistance and abuse of the dazzling moral light given to man in his moral nature.

If the Bible were in manifest contradiction to reason, no man could believe it without being irrational. But when we look into the mirror of our nature and see the exact same image pictured there as is pictured for us in the Bible, we know that the Bible is the Word of God. If the image in the mirror of our nature were different than that pictured in the Bible, we would know that the Bible was false and not the Word of God. However, our nature agrees in every aspect with the revelation given to us in the Bible. This harmony between the Bible and our own moral nature is supernatural. The harmony is so complete, so exact, and so faithful--it mirrors man's nature and condition so faithfully--that such a harmony would be impossible upon any other supposition than that the Bible is indeed a supernatural book, inspired by God.

Appendix E

Temptation: The Occasion to All Sin

The devil, who was originally one of the holy angels, was tempted and fell from his original perfection, without a sinful nature to make him sin. A third of the holy angels were tempted and fell from their original perfection, without a sinful nature to make them sin. Holy Adam and Eve were tempted and fell from their original perfection, without a sinful nature to make them sin. How absurd is the idea, then, that the universal sinfulness of Adam's descendants can only be explained by a sinful nature inherited from Adam.

The Bible teaches that temptation is the occasion to all sin. Paul tells us that temptation is common to all men. "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man..." I Cor. 10:13. James tells us that temptation is the occasion to sin. "But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin, and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that our Lord was "tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15. The following are only a few of the Scripture references which speak of the universality of temptation, of the fact that temptation is the occasion to sin, and of the agency of the devil in tempting men: James 1:14-15; I Cor. 10:13; Heb. 4:15; Luke 4:2-13; Matt. 26:41; Matt. 6:13; I Peter 1:6; II Peter 2:9; I Thess. 3:5; Luke 8:12; Matt. 13:38-39; John 3:8; Rev. 12:9; II Tim. 2:26; Eph. 4:27; Eph. 6:11; James 4:7; I Peter 5:8-9.

If the doctrine of original sin is true, the devil is in complete ignorance of it. Or if he is not ignorant of it, he is dumb enough to go to the trouble of tempting men for nothing. Would the devil tempt men if he knew that they had a sinful nature which would make them sin without being tempted? How foolish and ignorant the devil must be. If the doctrine of original sin is true, then Jesus and the inspired writers lived in complete ignorance of it, as well. Jesus exhorted his followers to watch and pray that they not enter into temptation, and he taught them to pray, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Matt. 26:41, Matt. 6:12. His Apostles, in their writings, exhorted the believers to be on their guard against the snares of the devil, lest they be tempted and fall into sin. I Peter 5:8-9, Eph. 6:11-12. These would have been useless exhortations if all Christians have a sinful nature which makes them sin without being tempted. In fact, if the doctrine of original sin is true, Jesus and the inspired writers lived under a complete cloud of ignorance. Instead of ascribing the sins of mankind to a physical connection with Adam, they ascribed them to a moral connection with the tempter--the devil. They spoke of sinners as being children of the devil and as being of their father the devil (I John 3:8-10, John 8:44, Acts 13:10). They spoke of the sins of mankind as being the work of the devil and of sinners becoming sinners by the agency of the devil. Matt. 13:38-39. They spoke of Christ as coming to destroy the works of the devil. I John 3:8. Finally, they spoke of the sinner as being a captive of the devil, who needed to recover himself out of the devil's snare. II Tim. 2:26. It is hard to understand how they could have been so far off the track if the doctrine of original sin were true.

The Bible teaches nothing about an inherited sinful nature from Adam. It teaches only that all men are tempted and that they sin when they yield to their own desires rather than obey the law of God and reason.

Appendix F

The Folly of Taking Text out of Context

In answering the objection in chapter five that "Paul taught that the flesh is sinful and that sin dwells in the flesh," I made the statement that "Every kind of foolish and superstitious belief can be proved from the Bible if it is not interpreted according to the demands of context, language, common sense, and reality." As an illustration of this, I referred the reader to the passage in Romans 7:14-25, which is used to teach that the Apostle Paul was himself in bondage to sin at the time he wrote his epistle to the Romans.

Let us look at this passage and see how it is misinterpreted by not paying due regard to language, context, common sense, and reality:

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. ROM 7:14-25.

If we read this passage without paying any attention to its context, it looks like Paul the Apostle was a total slave to his lusts and passions at the time he wrote this epistle. But if we give attention to its context, we know that the Apostle was not describing his own experience at all in the above passage. He spoke in the first person, and uses the word I, not to describe his own personal experience, but as a literary device to illustrate the total bondage of the convicted sinner to his fleshly desires and passions. That Paul used himself as an example or illustration of one who was in carnal servitude to the law, and not to describe his own personal experience, is seen, first of all, by the language he uses:

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. ROM 7:14

Now Paul was a Christian, and Christians are not "carnal, sold under sin." Instead, they are spiritual and redeemed from sin. Paul was describing the experiences of someone who did not yet know Christ, who was still in bondage to his sins (carnal, sold under sin), and was face to face with a spiritual law. And he speaks in the first person, using himself to illustrate the bondage of this convicted sinner, who was trying to obey a spiritual law without Christ and the liberating power of God's grace.

But Paul's conclusion in verses 24 and 25 shows that what he was illustrating was not a Christian experience because he declared that Christ delivers from it:

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Many Christians have stumbled over the last part of verse 25, which says "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin" and have concluded that after all the Apostle had said about being delivered through our Lord Jesus Christ, that he was still in bondage to sin. But the last part of this verse is merely his summing up of all he had said before about the bondage of the convicted sinner who is struggling to keep the righteousness of a spiritual law without Christ. This is a recapitulation to emphasize one more time that, without the deliverance that comes through the Lord Jesus Christ, the sinner will forever remain a slave to his fleshly lusts. He may be convicted by the law, he may see the exceeding sinfulness of his sins, he may make resolutions in his mind to do what is good and right, but he will forever remain a slave to his fleshly lusts unless delivered from sin by our Lord Jesus Christ.

To teach from this passage that the Apostle Paul was living in bondage to sin when he wrote this epistle is to completely take his words out of context. For example, look at chapter six. It does not teach that Paul or any other Christian is in bondage to sin. Paul teaches in this chapter that Christ completely delivers from the power of sin:

verse 2 "How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"

verse 6 "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

(The "old man" that was crucified with Christ and the "body of sin" that was destroyed here in the sixth verse was not our literal body of flesh, but rather the sinful moral person we were before we came to Christ. Paul uses figurative language in this verse to speak of the moral and spiritual change wrought in us by the grace of Christ.)

verse 14 "Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law but under grace."

Verse 17 "Ye were the servants of sin..."

verse 18 "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."

Verse 20 "When ye were the servants of sin..."

verse 22 "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."

Paul shows in chapter six of Romans that Christ completely frees the believer from the dominion of sin. He continues in chapter seven to show that the law has no such power. Those who are familiar with the Bible will know that in chapter three of Romans, Paul shows that no one can be justified by the law, since all, both Jews and Gentiles, have sinned and are condemned by the law. Then, in chapter seven of Romans, he shows that the law cannot sanctify. It cannot deliver the sinner from the awful bondage of his sins and make him holy. The law is holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12) but it is powerless to make the sinner himself holy, just, and good. The law gives no life; it only brings conviction of the "exceeding sinfulness" of sin (ROM 7:13) and pronounces judgment upon the sinner for his sins. The Apostle's argument is that the law is absolutely powerless to break the power of sin or inspire holiness. It is only through our union with the Lord Jesus Christ (ROM 7:4-6) that we receive life and grace and are set free from the bondage of sin.

It was after showing the glorious power of Christ to deliver from the bondage of sin, and the utter inability of the law to do anything more than judge and convict of sin, that the Apostle uses himself as an illustration of one who is in the bondage of a carnal servitude to the law--one who is convicted by the law of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, but still unable by the motives of the law to free himself from his fleshly passions and lusts. But, if Paul were describing in ROM 7:14-25 his own Christian experience or the experience of any other Christian, it would directly contradict everything he said in both chapters six and eight about the Christian being freed from sin. It is impossible that the Apostle could be inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach the contradiction that the Christian is both gloriously saved by Christ from his sins and at the same time a total slave to them. This is the folly of interpreting a text without giving attention to its context.

It is sad that many who call themselves Christians have misused this text in Romans 7:14-25 to excuse their sins, saying that even the great Apostle Paul could not overcome sin, and that they don't consider themselves to be any greater or more spiritual than he. They say that they are having the same experience that the Apostle Paul had in Romans seven, that sin dwells in them the same as it dwelt in Paul, and that we all have inherited the same old Adamic sin nature. They will say that if the Apostle Paul could not overcome sin, they don't see how they can expect to live without sin. I heard one preacher's comment in the Sunday morning service after having read this passage. His comment was "I'm glad this is in the Bible; it makes me feel a lot better." He assumed that Paul was describing his own Christian experience, and it relieved his conscience to know that the Apostle Paul was in bondage to sin just like other Christians. But the person who uses this passage to relieve his conscience and to convince himself that he is a Christian while living in bondage to sin is deceiving himself. He is not a Christian. No man is a Christian who is a slave to sin. Christ sets his people free from their sins.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. ROM 8:1-4

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. ROM 8:7-10

If ROM 7:14-25 were a description of Paul's own Christian experience, it would directly contradict the Christian experience he describes above. He says, "There is now no condemnation"; "Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death"; and "The righteousness of the law" is "fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." The experience he described in Romans seven was a woeful experience, filled with condemnation, bondage, sin, and death. Is it conceivable that all the Christians to whom Paul wrote were victorious, sin free, uncondemned Christians, and that Paul alone was a condemned, sin enslaved Christian? That would have to be the fact if Paul were truly describing his own Christian experience in ROM 7:14-25. Let's compare the experience Paul describes in ROM 7:14-25 with what he taught to be the Christian's victory over sin through Christ. First, Paul said of the experience of one under the law without Christ:

--I am carnal, sold under sin. ROM 7:14

--Sin dwells in my flesh. ROM 7:14, 20

--I am in the flesh. ROM 7:18

--There is absolutely nothing good in me, and I can do absolutely nothing good. ROM 7:18

--I can't do good, and I can't refrain from evil. ROM 7:15,18

--Although I recognize the law to be holy, just, and good, it is absolutely impossible for me to obey it. ROM 7:22,23

--I war against sin but I am continually overcome by sin and made its slave. ROM 7:23

--I am condemned, I am wretched, and I need deliverance from the dominion of this body of sin and death. Who can deliver me? ROM 7:24

None of the above verses describes the experience of a Christian. Paul taught that for the Christian:

--There is now no condemnation. ROM 8:1

--Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. ROM 8:2

--The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us. ROM 8:4

--The Christian is not carnal and not in the flesh, but in the spirit; and that the Spirit of Christ and of God dwells in him. ROM 8:7-10

--That the Christian's body is dead because of sin, and that his mortal body has been quickened by the Holy Spirit that dwells in him. ROM 8:10, 11

We can be certain that Paul was not describing his own Christian experience in ROM 7:14-25, for we find that he said he was carnal, that he was sold under sin, that he had a carnal mind (which, he says later in chapter eight) was enmity against God, not subject to the law of God, and that neither indeed could be. He said that he was definitely in the flesh, and that he still had a sinful body, a body of death, or a sinful body condemned to death, which he cried out to be delivered from.

On the other hand, he told the Christians in chapters six and eight that they were not carnal, but spiritual; that they were no longer walking after the flesh; that they were not sold under sin, but gloriously delivered from the bondage of sin; that they did not have a carnal mind, but a spiritual mind; that they were not in the flesh, but in the Spirit; and that they did not have a sinful body, but that their body was dead. Now, if Paul was describing his own bondage to sin in ROM 7:14-25, then he was describing his own bondage and slavery to sin at the same time that he declared all the Christians to whom he wrote to be gloriously liberated from the bondage of sin. Such an inconsistent conclusion can only be reached as a result of ignoring context, language, common sense, and reality in interpreting the Scriptures.

No one can come to the Bible with a sincere heart, and read all of chapters six, seven, and eight of Romans, comparing chapter seven with chapters six and eight, and then come away believing that Paul was describing his own Christian experience in ROM 7:14-25. It is impossible. The contradictions involved in such an interpretation are too obvious.

Appendix G

Bible Texts Can Be Used to Prove Lies

By taking Bible texts out of their context and isolating them from the rest of the Bible, it is possible to prove almost any lie. In this way, false cults have used the Bible to prove the lie that there is no everlasting punishment for the wicked, but that the wicked will be annihilated or destroyed. Malachi 4:1, 3; Isaiah 1:28; Psalm 145:20; ROM 9:22. False cults have used the Bible to prove the lie that after death men cease to exist. Eccl. 3:19, Eccl 9:5-6. They have used the Bible to prove the lie that Jesus was created by God and was not the divine and eternally existing Son of God. Col. 1:15, Rev. 3:14.

The Bible can be used to prove the most frightening of lies. It can be used to prove the lie that God is the creator and originator of evil and that men sin because God hardens their hearts and makes them sin. Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Ex. 4:21; Ex. 10:1, 20, 27; Ex. 11:10; Ex. 14:17; Deut. 2:30; ROM 9:18.

The Bible can be used to prove the lie that the Christian who turns from God and commits just one sin is hopelessly doomed--that he can never be forgiven and restored to God again.

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. Heb. 6:4-6

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Heb. 10:25-27.

Now the above two texts, standing alone and without reference to their context and the teaching of the whole Bible, would teach conclusively that the Christian who willfully sins or backslides is doomed to judgment without any chance of forgiveness or restoration.

Another lie that can be proved with the Bible is that it is impossible for the Christian to sin, and that if he does commit sin, it shows that he never really was a Christian and never really knew God.

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. I John 3:6

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. I John 3:9

The above two verses, when taken by themselves, and without reference to the rest of the Bible, clearly teach that a Christian cannot sin, and that if he does sin, it shows that he never really knew God in the first place.

So, by ripping texts from their context and isolating them from the rest of the Bible and thus breaking the two most fundamental rules of sound Biblical interpretation--that texts must be interpreted in their context and that no text can be interpreted in such a way as to be in manifest contradiction with the clear teachings of the rest of the Bible--it is possible to prove any lie, even the lie of original sin.

*Copyright (c) 1995 by Tom Overstreet -You may copy this for Personal and Ministry use only, NOT for commercial gain.