Buenaventura church of Christ

We are currently studying the doctrine of original sin and some of the unscriptural religious doctrines and practices which grow out of this false doctrine. The doctrine of original sin is the doctrine which states that infants are born with their souls stained with the sin of Adam, and therefore damned because of that sin. In these studies, we, among other matters, have shown that sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), and that God is the Father of spirits (He...brews 12:9). Hence, inasmuch as they received their spirits from God, then infants are not born with their souls stained by the sin of Adam. However, false concepts lead to unscriptural practices. As proof, we cite these statements from the Catholic Catechism: "Baptism takes away original sin; and also actual sin and all the punishment due them..." "Children should be baptized as soon as possible because baptism is necessary for salvation..." You will please observe that our Catholic friends also believe in the doctrine of original sin, and in order to offset the punishment due because of original sin, they invented the practice of infant baptism. I use the expression "infant baptism" accommodatively, because as a matter of fact, Catholics do not baptize infants; they sprinkle a few drops of water on the head of the usually unwilling infant and call it baptism. Bible baptism is always immersion; it was never by sprinkling or pouring, and those baptized were always believing, penitent, responsible people - never infants. And every human denomination which practices so-called infant baptism is simply cleaving to a carry-over from Rome, which was begun because some uninspired religious leader decided that infants are born in a state of damnation because of what Adam did. A study of Mark 16:16 reveals that faith must precede baptism. A study of Acts 2:38 reveals that repentance must precede baptism. And a study of Acts 8:35-39 reveals that the eunuch confessed his faith before being baptized. Moreover, the latter reference proves that Philip would not baptize the eunuch until he was assured of faith upon the part of the eunuch, the one being baptized. These requirements are prerequisite to baptism, and upon which the validity of baptism is based. Hence, infants are not fit subjects for baptism. Baptism does an infant no good whatever, but it may do him a lot of harm in later years when he, as a responsible sinner, thinking he has already been baptized, refuses to be baptized according to the Bible pattern. How sad! How tragic indeed! See more

For several lessons we have discussed the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin, or in other words, the doctrine that Adam's first sin is imputed or transmitted to all subsequent posterity. We affirm that this doctrine is as false as any lie ever told, and that it makes a heartless fiend of God, who allegedly causes every baby to be born with the guilt of sin which is not their own, and in a state of condemnation because of the sin of someone else. And, as we observed in our... last lesson, this doctrine of infant sin implies infant damnation, which paved the way for infant baptism. Before pointing out other unscriptural doctrines which grow out of the doctrine of original sin, we shall note a few other items which prove that this doctrine has to be false. First, we note Zechariah 12:1 which says that the Lord "lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him." From this passage two facts stand out: 1) the spirit of man is not eternal, but created, 2) the Lord forms it within him. The inference is that at the formation of the body the Lord forms within each person his spirit - that the spirit of man came from God and is not derived from the body of man. Hence, the inference is clear; since we derive not our spirits from Adam, then our spirits are not corrupted by his sin. Of course, we fully concur that we derived our bodies from Adam and that in consequence of his sin death comes to the body. After Adam sinned, God, in Genesis 3:19 said: "for dust you {are}, and to dust you shall return." And centuries later the inspired writer in Ecclesiastes 12:7 said, "Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it." Thus we state that only that part of man which came from Adam is directly affected by Adam's sin. Our bodies came from Adam. But as we have noted, God formed the spirit of man in him. In fact, in Hebrews 12:9 a contrast is made between "human fathers" and "the Father of spirits." You see, God, not Adam, is the "Father of spirits." Now, we ask, would God put a depraved spirit or soul into the body of a helpless infant? Or to word it differently, would God form a depraved spirit for the body of an infant, and then condemn that infant for possessing the very kind of spirit that He put into his body? NO, a thousand times NO! A person should have greater respect for God than to either invent or to believe the doctrine of infant damnation. See more

We are currently discussing the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin and comparing that doctrine with the teachings of the Bible. By the expression "original sin," we refer not to some biblical passages, for that expression is not found in the Bible. Instead, from the uninspired writings of men we learn that this expression refers to the idea that all infants are born with their souls contaminated with the sin of Adam, a sin which somehow they inherited, which somehow was i...mputed or transmitted to their account, and because of which their souls are damned! Of course, this doctrine flatly contradicts 1 John 3:7 as well as every other Scripture which tells us that God is "righteous," or that He is a just God. Think, IF an infant at birth is charged with the sin of Adam, he is charged with a sin he did not personally commit; yet a sin which he could in no way avoid. This hardly seems fair or just, to say the least. But who supposedly laid that sin upon the helpless infant? None other than God Himself! There is simply no way that God could impute the sin of Adam to the newborn babe and at the same time be a just God. But let us for a moment ponder the consequences of this doctrine. The infant is said to be born in sin, and the apostle Paul, in Romans 6:23 said, "the wages of sin {is} death." This refers to spiritual death or a spiritual separation of that infant from God. Moreover, from Revelation 21:27 we learn that no sin shall enter into heaven. Thus, to be saved, the sinner must be forgiven of his sin, and this includes all sinners. Hence, infants are said to be born in sin, therefore facing eternal damnation - and this by the decree of Almighty God! Think about it! IF he is born a sinner, it is not due to the unlawful act of the infant, but rather to the decree of God. And because he is born in sin, he faces eternal damnation - not because of what he did, but because of what Adam did! Anyone who teaches such a doctrine as that is in effect teaching that God is a heartless fiend, who, unlike any fair minded judge on earth, imposes both the guilt and the condemnation of someone else's sin upon every infant born into this world! After people accepted this non-biblical heresy, they then began to search the Bible for some way of escape from the miserable consequences of their doctrine of original sin. They discovered from Acts 2:38 that baptism is "for the remission of sins," and they then reasoned that this covers all sin, including so-called "original sin," so they introduced the practice of infant baptism. Hence, infant sin implies infant damnation, which spawned infant baptism, all of which are unscriptural, and this is only the beginning! See more

Sorry this video is incomplete.

Trying To Cover Up Sin

Godly Home And Family -6 - 3-21-2021PM

The Conversion Of The Purple-Seller - 3-21-2021AM

Our studies for the previous two lessons were based upon Luke 16:19-31 wherein is recorded the account of the rich man and Lazarus. Thus far, we have noted five lessons to be learned from the biblical account of the rich man and Lazarus: (1) A fine appearance before men does not necessarily mean final approval before God, (2) It is foolish to trust in uncertain riches instead of in the living God, (3) The universality of death, (4) The kind of funeral one has does not determ...ine the kind of future he will have, and (5) Consciousness survives the death of the body. Now we continue our study of these verses and call your attention to verses 22-26: "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Then he cried and said, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' But Abraham said, `Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.'" From these verses we learn that the rich man, following the death of the body, went to hades - a place which is defined by lexicographers as "the region of departed spirits." However, from these verses it is evident that this unseen abode of the dead is divided into two sections, one for the wicked, and the other for the righteous with a great gulf fixed between both sections so that there can be no crossing from either side to the other. Hence, from this we learn two more lessons: (1) The idea of universal salvation is false, and (2) The idea of a second chance after death is also false. The doctrine of universal salvation, or the teaching that all people will ultimately be saved is refuted throughout the Scriptures, and in these verses we have the example of a person who actually lived and died, but who died lost - a most dreadful condition in which to depart this life! And regarding the idea of a second chance, it is plainly stated in these verses that there can be no crossing the gulf that separates the saved from the lost. The idea of purgatory is found in human catechisms, but it is not taught in the Bible. But there are still more important lessons to be learned from this account, and Lord Willing we will continue with them in our next lesson. See more

We now continue our study of the rich man and Lazarus as it is recorded in Luke 16:19-31. In our last lesson, we read verses 19-21 wherein the tremendous contrast is made with reference to the "this-world" circumstances of the rich man and Lazarus, and from this record we cited two lessons to be learned: (1) A fine appearance before men does not mean final approval before God, and (2) It is foolish to trust in uncertain riches instead of the living God who is the Source of a...ll good and perfect gifts. Let us now read verses 22-24: "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Then he cried and said, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'" Thus another lesson to be learned from these verses is the universality of death. Even as it is taught in Hebrews 9:27 "it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment." The rich and the poor alike must some day die. It matters not how much money you have, your money can not buy off death. We must therefore recognize the certainty of death and be prepared for it when it comes. But regarding the rich man and Lazarus, the Bible makes no mention of the burial of Lazarus, but it does make specific mention of the rich man's burial. It is quite probable that Lazarus received a pauper's burial, and it is equally as probable that the rich man received a burial befitting his former station in life. However, it must be pointed out that the kind of funeral one has does not determine the kind of future they will have! No preacher, regardless of how eloquent, can literally preach a deceased person into heaven. Only the judgment itself can reveal how many beautiful funeral orations were as far off the mark as heaven is from hell. And a fifth lesson to be learned from the account of the rich man and Lazarus is that consciousness survives the death of the body. After death the rich man could see, recognize, speak, feel, remember, reason, and desire. He could experience torment, and Lazarus could experience comfort. Those who believe that man is wholly mortal and has no conscious existence following the death of the body can give all the strained, forced interpretations of these verses they want to give, but the fact remains that Jesus knew better, and He told it like it is! But there are more lessons to be learned from these verses, and Lord willing we will consider them in our next lesson. See more

In Luke 16 is recorded the account of the rich man and Lazarus. This is quite a revealing account, for it gives us an insight into the state of man following the death of the body. It portrays the miseries awaiting the lost and the mercies awaiting the saved. We begin by reading verses 19-21, the part of the record that depicts the contrasting "this-world" circumstances of the rich man and Lazarus. These verses read thusly: "There was a certain rich man who was clothed in... purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores." From these verses we see the tremendous contrast in the appearance of these two men. One was rich, the other was a beggar. One was clothed in purple and fine linen, the other doubtlessly in rags. One fared sumptuously every day, the other longed for the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. One would be welcomed in any society, the other was an outcast. One enjoyed the comforts of this life, the other was full of sores. However, those who are better off are not necessarily better. Things might be well on the surface, but not well with the Savior! According to 1 Samuel 16:7, "the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." In Luke 16:15 Jesus said "what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God." Such was the case with the scribes and the Pharisees. In Matthew 23:27 Jesus said to them, "you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness." It seems that we are prone to put too much stress on outward appearance; however, a fine appearance does not mean final approval before God. Indeed, this is one of the important lessons to be learned from the account of the rich man and Lazarus. A second lesson to be learned is the foolishness of trusting in riches. According to verses 22-25 both of these men died; then their roles were reversed with the rich man being tormented and Lazarus being comforted. Of course, the rich man was not lost just because he was rich, nor was Lazarus saved just because he was poor. Proverbs 11:28 says "He who trusts in his riches will fall." The rich man, instead of trusting in the living God as Paul enjoined in 1 Timothy 6:17, trusted in uncertain riches, and he fell. He gained much of this world's goods, but in the end he lost both his goods and his soul! But there are more lessons to be learned from this account, and we will pursue them, Lord Willing, in our next lesson. See more