Determinación de los parámetros de funcionamiento del Sistema de

If the saving blood of Christ merely is an "acquittal" and or "justification"of our Original Sin (and despite our personal sin) and this grace and forgiveness is a free gift which acquits us of all sins (including future sins) then according to the scriptures all men are now saved,

sanctified and acquitted, because that same blood that acquitted you and I was shed for all men.

This is not something that Catholics and Protestants teach but it is implied in their

teaching. Yet, they say, “no you have to do this or that” in order to have the acquittal. Excuse us? You have to “do something” to receive the acquittal that comes through Christ's blood? You have to be a “Christian?” You have to accept and believe? Really? Aren't Christians teaching that it's all free, that Grace cannot be “earned” and is regardless of what you do or don't do?

Look at how they both add to to the free gift, the requirements of works to receive it! Yes both Protestants and Catholics alike add “works” of some sort to the salvation equation. Catholics do it overtly Protestants clandestinely.

The Catholics add religious sacraments to the requirements of salvation. They add communion and confirmation and a drove of other traditions. They have conversion rights, confirmations, special baptisms, special sacraments, all works required of a person before he truly has the grace that the scriptures say is offered "to all men!"

We can't single out the Catholics, however. The Protestants and Evangelicals all have their traditional "works" that are required for a man to have this grace this they claim is a "free gift." Evangelicals say that a man must "confess that he is a sinner" (that is a work), that a man must "ask Jesus into his heart" (yet another work) and that a man must repent of his sins (again, another work). A man must “tithe.” (Works) A man must attend an assembly (Works). A man must say the sinner's prayer. (Works) A man must be baptized in water (works).

Some Pentecostal churches add baptism in the name of Jesus only, baptism in the Holy Spirit (with evidence of speaking in tongues) and so on and so on.

Protestants who claim to believe in "salvation by faith alone without works" will be quick to say that in order for men to be saved it is not enough that Christ died for them and shed his blood for their sins. They must receive this forgiveness and this "acquittal" which is offered through the cross of Christ. Men must first "believe" in Christ (and belief is a work, don't kid yourself, for James says faith without works is dead).

So, they who claim to believe in salvation by faith alone (Protestants and Evangelicals alike) then contradict their own teaching by saying a man must "believe" (a work) and a man must "confess" (yet another work, this one of the mouth).

They all miss the boat for even though all sins of all men have been "propitiated" by the work of Christ (atoned for) and even though the free gift (grace) is now given (offered) to "all men," according to the Apostles there remains, therefore, a requirement that men must repent and "believe" and not only that, but that it must be true repentance and true belief which results in "fruit" of the Holy Spirit. According to the Apostles one must "walk therein" or one does even have a sacrifice for sin!

While the Catholics, in their catechism, claim to believe in Christ like perfection and a life without sin, their other doctrines deny it outright. The Protestants are more pragmatic denying with their mouths that such a thing is even possible in this life as long as we are “in this cursed flesh!”

walked with no personal sin, so they have a chance of seeing it, even though their heart may say otherwise.

Sadly, non-catholic traditional mainstream Christian churches have no chance of seeing Christlike lives. They deny it outright, making a negative confession of faith to the contrary of grace, not understanding that if grace and the shed blood of Christ is all that brings salvation, then indeed the Universalists are correct and all men now must be saved.

Nevertheless, in all incidents where "Original Sin" rears its ugly head, one thing is beyond denial; namely, that the purposes of Christ are then thwarted! Which are to “set us free” from sin.

So, ironically, while the Catholic catechism claims that denial of Original Sin confuses the "mystery of Christ" the exact opposite is true. Acceptance of "Original Sin" truly confuses the "mystery of Christ" for the Mystery of Christ is "Christ in you, the hope of glory," a direct reference to the believers becoming like Christ (sinless and perfect) by the power of the Holy Spirit. When we say that only Christ and Mary could live without sin and this because they were born without Original Sin, they jeopardize the truth of our coming perfection and holiness.

Among the Protestants the nullifying of the purposes of the crucified Christ are even more obvious, stark by contrast to that of Catholicism. They openly deny the purpose of Christ to bring every man before God "without spot or blemish," (while paying lip service to it) and deny (as do the Catholics without realizing it) that any man can live sinless and perfect as Christ lived!

Wherever you find Original Sin, therefore, you find it wrecking havoc with the purposes of Christ. You find those who preach Original Sin in perpetual denial of the work of the crucifixion and its true purposes. No wonder they have to change the purposes of the cross to something else entirely.

Both Protestants and Catholics state that the work of the cross brings about "acquittal" and "justification" only, in other words Christ's blood takes away the penalty of sin only and not the sin itself.

There is no room for Christlike sinless perfection in the life of the believer under Protestantism because of their radical application of Original Sin.

There is no room for Christlike sinless perfection in the life of the believer among

Catholics. Certainly they claim a belief in the cessation of personal sin but it's highly doubtful any Catholic Priest would preach that some day we believers shall all live “In Christlike sinless perfection.” That would be blasphemy to say among Catholics. They believe that only Christ and Mary could live without sin, and this only because they were born without "Original Sin.” Pure logic dictates that those of us who were born with Original Sin have no chance of ever living Christlike, or even “Marylike” for that matter.

Popular teaching says men can "never stop sinning." Catholics will try to take you to the mat for saying this, but it is only because they have never realized the stark contradictions existing within their own Catechism and notoriously they chalk up such contradictions as being "the mystery that cannot be understood." Truth be told when Catholics teach you are saved by works of faith, they aren't talking about righteous sinless living through the Holy Spirit, they are talking about religious works of the Church. Adding line upon line of human works to the requirement of salvation.

Original Sin concludes that all men must sin as did Adam. Scripture does not support this. Romans 5 itself bears out that not all of Adam's progeny have to sin in Adam's likeness.

“12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded to many.”

If these scriptures are teaching "Original Sin" they would not say that this death (that came from Adam's sin) reigned from Adam to Moses! Original Sin wasn't broken until Christ hung on the cross (according to Christianity and according to the tenets of Original Sin).

Clearly, the Apostle is not teaching Original Sin, but something else. Death reigned over mankind from Adam until Moses, then the law came and with it the atonement for sin through sacrifice of blood on an altar. Death reigned until forgiveness and grace came in by Moses.

Of course, they had blood sacrifice before Moses but those sacrifices were not for “atonement” but for “appeasement.” God instituted shedding of blood for "atonement" and "cleansing" from sin through Moses. After Moses and the priesthood came, mankind's sins could be atoned for and death had no more reign over them.

So, even if you could prove somehow that Romans 5: 12-15 says that death came upon all men because of Adam's sin, that death only reigned from Adam to Moses according to those self same scriptures.

Christ's blood atonement is the same atonement given by Moses (administered by better promises and a better way). Under Moses it was the shedding of innocent animal blood for the forgiveness of sins every year, under Christ it is the shedding of his own blood once and for all men. So, death reigned only from Adam to Moses according to the Apostle and after that life through atonement!

Pure logic would then dictate that the blood atonement of Christ is the same blood atonement that was given under Moses. It would have to be for Christ is called “the Lamb of God.” Except, the blood of Christ is better because the animal sacrifice could not "make one perfect,” it did not promise “remission” or a “cessation” of sins, we know this because the law has them repeating the sacrifices every year. The animal blood could not bring someone to the point of sinless perfection through obedience but Christ's blood can and will! Otherwise, Christ would have to die year after year for our new sins.

Paul says that death reigned from Adam to Moses (not from Adam to Christ), then he says something else remarkable.

"Even over them that had not sinned after the similtude of Adam's transgression." Here is clear cut proof that it is at least possible for those who came after Adam to not sin like Adam! It completely destroys the Protestant and Evangelical beliefs that all the children of Adam must sin like Adam because of Original Sin.

The Catechism states that Original Sin brings death to all of mankind (even if a man were to live his entire life without personal sin of his own) and indeed Paul seems to bear this out in verse 14!, but only if you have the preconceived notion of Original Sin. Yet Romans 5: 14 does not really support the Catholic position that a death sentence was passed to all men even those who didn't have personal sin (like Adam). All the author says is that “death

reigned” over all men, including those who hadn't sinned like Adam. What does that mean?

Death reigns when sin reigns. When men yield themselves to sin they become the

servants of sin and sin “reigns.” Death reigns through the power of sin. Break that power and the reign of death comes to an end. All men were under the penalty of death should they sin with no way to escape. Sin itself reigned and all men were caught up in it's slavery. Until the law, atonement and forgiveness brought a way for men to be free, being ransomed by blood.

All of Adam's children did eventually sin. We cannot conclude from this, however that they had no choice and that they had to sin. Not without providing proof other than your doctrinal conclusions. Sin and death reigned the planet until Moses brought the system of sacrifice and blood atonement that was merely a shadow of Christ. Yet, if the figure of this sacrifice (animal blood) could not truly atone for sin and cleanse men of sin, then certainly the fulfillment of it (death of Christ) could not do it either. The only way Christ's atonement even works is if the figure atonement actually works.

Does Paul's statement "death reigned over them" support the notion that all of Adam's offspring are "condemned" and "sentenced to death" because of Adam's sin? Absolutely not! Death reigned over all men (even those who hadn't yet sinned like Adam) because there was a death penalty over all, should they sin. Tt merely states that God declared a death sentence upon Adam for his sin and that death sentence hangs over everyone (should they sin) from Adam to Moses!

Enter Moses, who brought in blood atonement and the washing of sins year to year. Men were no longer under the death sentence as long as they faithfully obeyed God in the

sacrifices.

Yes, the scriptures record that all indeed did sin, from Adam to Moses, but it is horrible logic to conclude that because all sinned, therefore they had no choice but to sin and that all must sin, even today (because of some genetic sin curse).

Romans 5: 16-19

“16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses to

justification.

17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

In verse 15 he says “by one man's offense death reigned by one.” Most translate this to say that by a single sin committed by Adam death reigns over everyone. That is not what it says however and we see that by backing up to verse 16 and reading: “the free gift (grace) is of many offenses.” He clearly states that he's not talking about “one offense” or “one act of sin” causing death upon all mankind, but “many offenses.”

Scripture does not say “by one man's one sin...”

In other words, it was Adam's sin but it was repeated over and over again by his children, bringing death to all of them. That is the actual correlation between sin passing down to all

men from Adam and righteousness passing to many through Christ. Just as it was one man's sin (Adam) multiplied over and over again by those who followed after him, even so it's one man's righteousness (Christ's) repeated and multiplied over and over again by those who follow him.

It says that judgment came by Adam to condemnation. This means that Adam sinned and brought down a death sentence on all who would do likewise.

It then states that the free gift (grace) came because of many offenses, not just Adam's one offense.

Yes, you read that right. Grace came by offenses and would not exist were it not for those offenses. Just as the law according to Paul does not exist without sin.

If there is no law, there is no sin, and if there is no sin there is grace.

That's why Paul says the free gift is "of many offenses unto justification." Paul then says in verse 17, “For if by one man's offense death reigned. This does not say by one man's “one offense.” It says “one man's offense (which would include all of his offenses as one).

All Paul was really saying is that the death penalty for sin was upon all men because Adam sinned and was sentenced to death and God is nothing if not fair.

Paul is in no way saying that all men were declared "guilty" and then put to death because of Adam's sin. Not only is that insane, it's a complete twisting of the writings of Paul to the Romans!

Original Sin attempts set up Romans 5 as clear scriptural proof that all of Adam's progeny were condemned because of Adam's sin but we know from Ezekiel that is never true and "the soul that sins it shall die."

Verse 18 merely states that because Adam sinned and was condemned, all of his children who sinned were likewise condemned (when they sinned like Adam) and that this

pronouncement of death upon the sinner applied even to them who had not yet sinned like Adam. The law reigned supreme over all men and so did death.

Yes Paul acknowledges that death also "reigned" even over any child of Adam even if they did not sin like Adam, yet that only means they were under the same penalty for sin (should they commit Adam's sin) with no way of being atoned for until Moses!

We know that all men did sin, yet even Paul acknowledges that it's at least possible for a man under the old law to "not sin after the similtude" (like) Adam!

Certainly if it's possible for someone under the old law to "not sin after the similitude of Adam" then it is possible for them that live under grace and the New Covenant in Christ's blood by the Holy Spirit to "not sin after Adam's sin!"

Finally in verse 19 it says "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners." The Catholic catechism changes this to say "by one man's disobedience all men were made sinners" and adopted the Original Sin error.

The Protestants and the Evangelicals likewise followed suit and then afterward all of the "offshoots" of those in error as well. Popular teaching stands on the brink of falling completely because of this error.

Furthermore, where Romans 5 verse 19 says "so by the obedience of one" it is speaking of Christ's entire life and example of obedience, repeated by his followers, not just his

obedient death on the cross. This is not describing an acquittal, it is describing a changing of mind of those who were once unrighteous, children of disobedience into children of obedience as a result of one man's obedience shed abroad to all by his death on a cross!

Romans 5 literally describes the perfecting of them that believe into sinless creatures as a result of what Christ did, not just on the cross but throughout his lifetime.

Popular teaching as a whole misreads the scriptures, turning the righteousness that is being offered into an "imputed" righteousness even though God said through Ezekiel that a sinful man cannot have a righteous man's righteousness imputed to him by proxy. That sinful