Infants born with sin nature

[The Biblicist]

Psa. 53:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Pr 22:15 ¶ Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God

Every parent knows from observational experience that children ALWAYS require discipline to restrain evil that naturally flows from their hearts as soon as they are able to express themselves.

Solomon says this is "bound in the heart" of a child and discipline is necessary to drive it from them. David says that they were conceived "in sin."

Why is it that children need to be trained to do what is right but naturally do what is evil without any training, if they are not evil by nature from birth?

 

[Romans7man]

Psa. 53:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.

Ps. 58:3 not 53:3.

This is making a contrast between the wicked and righteous. It is speaking of the longevity of the wicked. Today we might would say something similar by speaking of folks we don't think very highly of. We might say, Those people are trashy, they come from a long line of trashy people, his parents were trashy, his grandparents were trashy, they have always been trashy, so he was born trashy.

I have heard people say they were something all their life, such as a farmer. I like to watch things grow, my dad was born in a farming family, his dad was born in a farming family, they have been farming all their lives. Now we know that no one is born farming, nor do they even begin to farm until at least they can use a hoe, plant seeds, drive a tractor or walk behind a horse/mule/ox and plow.

These verses are speaking of the longevity of what they are known for. But notice, it does not say anything about how the righteous were once wicked.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

I was born in a hospital, but that did not make me a doctor. Simply speaking of his environment.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

These are the words of someone that was there to "straighten" Job out just to have to be straightened out himself later. You might want to back this horse up and see what Job had to say about his "friends". Just start out in chapter 12. His friends were mocking Job, because they knew better than he.

Pr 22:15 ¶ Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

It must have not been born in it otherwise how would it be driven from the child?

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God

Paul does not start out in his argument speaking of children or infants, he starts out with those that "hold truth in unrighteousness". Also Paul is contrasting the Jew to the Gentile, but tying them together here by saying, "For all have sinned", as in Jew and Gentile.

Every parent knows from observational experience that children ALWAYS require discipline to restrain evil that naturally flows from their hearts as soon as they are able to express themselves.

Solomon says this is "bound in the heart" of a child and discipline is necessary to drive it from them. David says that they were conceived "in sin."

Why is it that children need to be trained to do what is right but naturally do what is evil without any training, if they are not evil by nature from birth?

What about when a child is sad when their parents are sad. I have seen a small child console others. where does that come from? I have seen a child feel slighted. where does that sense of justice come from? I have seen a child scold another child for taking something that belonged to the child doing the scolding. I have heard a child say, Thats not fair.

Yes a child can be selfish, rude, and even sometimes down right wicked. These are always the ones pointed to, but never the other. A lot of the time these wicked traits are learned from watching momma, daddy, brother, and sister. I have a niece that is a only child. She gets her way at home, but minds me very well, I drove her foolishness far from my house with a good whipping. She delights in coming here and she knows where I stand, no big deal.
Her mother did ask my wife, What did y'all do to my little girl, she minds so well. She told her, we have rules here and consequences if they are broken.

Children are not born with social skills. They will learn them as they get older and sometimes it means some attitude adjustments to help the outcome along.

 

[Romans7man]

Ephesians 2:3.........and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Here this has been used to say we are sinners by birth, all it is saying is we are by nature children of wrath because of what we have done, not for how we are born.

Paul gives a list of sins and says those that do them will not inherit the kingdom of God (chapter 5). Then he says, 5:6; Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

We are dead in sin because of our disobedience.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Psa. 53:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.

HP: The context in no way suggests any such notion as original sin or moral depravity from birth. David was comparing TWO groups of individuals in this text in both Psalm 14 as well as Psalm 53. There he pits the “FOOL” in the following manner: Ps 53:3 EVERY ONE of THEM is GONE BACK (not born that way, but GONE BACK) they are altogether BECOME FILTHY; (not born filthy) there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

David was speaking directly to those he considered as fools and was by no means making any universal acknowledgement of original sin or moral depravity from birth in either Psalm, Psalms 14 or Psalms 53.


David uses the cliché’, “children of men” in this passage much the in the same manner he did in another passage, to point to a group of individuals unlike himself. He considered himself to be a follower of God and righteousness, and those workers of iniquity to be merely referred to as the ‘children of men.’ Listen to David as he speaks again in the same manner in yet another text. 1Sa 26:19 Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the LORD have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering: but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the LORD; for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the LORD, saying, Go, serve other gods.” Note clearly that these workers of iniquity David spoken of were NOT as himself, but are those evil persons who drove him from abiding in the presence of the inheritance of the Lord.

One has to completely ignore the context of either Psalm and inject a notion completely foreign to Jewish thought as a presupposition , i.e., original sin, in order to force the notion of original sin upon these texts.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Romans7man:
Ephesians 2:3.........and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Here this has been used to say we are sinners by birth, all it is saying is we are by nature children of wrath because of what we have done, not for how we are born.

Paul gives a list of sins and says those that do them will not inherit the kingdom of God (chapter 5). Then he says, 5:6; Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

We are dead in sin because of our disobedience.

HP: Well said my friend, well said. :thumbsup:

 

[th1bill]

Ephesians 2:3.........and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Here this has been used to say we are sinners by birth, all it is saying is we are by nature children of wrath because of what we have done, not for how we are born.

Paul gives a list of sins and says those that do them will not inherit the kingdom of God (chapter 5). Then he says, 5:6; Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

We are dead in sin because of our disobedience.

I'm sorry but for all of your many words, you have said nothing that makes sense. Having raised my children and them in their midlife years now, they were not, nor have any children, save Jesus, ever been born without the sin nature. Not a single one of my children had to be taught to lie, cheat nor to steal, just the opposite and as the OP pointed out!

If we go back to the first three chapters of the Bible we find that the world was originally placed under the leadership and dominion of Adam. But, as time went on God made Eve, from Adam's rib, for him to have a Help Mate. That same woman was then deceived by Satan and Adam sinned, against God, as soon as he chose Eve over God.

As a result, Satan gained a victory over man and earned the temporary dominion over the Earth and ever since that time, men have been born with the nature, evil, that Satan preferred for them.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
Job 14:5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;


Job 14:4 All that can be made out of this passage, is that a physically depraved women could only bring forth physically depraved offspring. Job was not dealing with the notion or moral depravity in the least in this passage. He was dealing with the dying and frail state of humanity. His whole focus of this passage was upon the frail PHYSICAL state of humanity. What he says is simply, How could a frail dying women bring forth anything other than frail dying offspring? No one can.
Biblicist is clearly long on straining gnats and short on close attention to reasonable context in the passages he tries to support the false notion of original sin.



Job 15:14 “What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?” First, who is the author of this verse? Scripture informs us that Eliphaz stated this. Is he a reputable source of truth? Not according to God. He was using this argument to accuse a man that God said was “perfect and upright, and that feared God, and eschewed evil. Eliphaz is not hardly a reputable source for the establishment of Church doctrine. Beside this, this Scripture in no way indicates original sin, but rather is only making a statement as to the universality of sin in Eliphaz’s eyes. Enoch, Noah a preacher of righteousness, and Job are all examples that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that righteous men were indeed among the living, with Job, righteous before God, sat there in his ash heap staring Eliphaz in the face. If Eliphaz could not recognize righteousness standing before him, is it any wonder he would have a such poor opinion of the rest of the world? Again, this was Eliphaz, the miserable comforter, confused in his thinking and wrong in his assertions, and judged by God as such, that made this statement. We would do well to formulate sound doctrine from different sources.

In conclusion Jobs comment in 14:4-5 state absolutely nothing in like manner as were Eliphaz's comment in Job 15: 14. Job, in chapter 14, was speaking directly to the physical state of man. Neither verse 4 or verse five address moral depravity in the least.

On the other hand, Eliphaz's comments were indeed aimed at the moral state of Job as he viewed it. He was accusing Job in chapter 15 of sin. No way had Job accused himself or even suggested that sin lied at the heart of his demise. Eliphaz would have gave Job a high five if Job would have been speaking of moral depravity in Chapter 14, but instead he tried to convince Job in chapter 15 that it was indeed a moral fault from which his troubles came. He was accusing Job in that chapter of moral impurity, as the other miserable comforters had done as well. That is far from what Job was doing in chapter 14. Eliphaz obviously was incensed at Job's testimony of being upright in heart and retaining his integrity and refusing to say his problem was a product of sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pr 22:15 ¶ Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

HP: One thing it does not state or imply is original sin. neither does it mention or suggest moral depravity from birth.


Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God

HP: No one disagrees with that. What does that have to do with supporting moral depravity from birth or original sin? Oh I forgot. Just inject the notion into the passage by way of the presupposition of original sin, and walla, you have a proof text. What a way to establish doctrine.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

The1Bill: I'm sorry but for all of your many words, you have said nothing that makes sense.

HP: How about the Word of God? Does it make sense when it plainly tells us why death passed upon all men?

Rom 5:12 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:

 

[The Biblicist]

This is making a contrast between the wicked and righteous. It is speaking of the longevity of the wicked. Today we might would say something similar by speaking of folks we don't think very highly of. We might say, Those people are trashy, they come from a long line of trashy people, his parents were trashy, his grandparents were trashy, they have always been trashy, so he was born trashy.

Do you know of any human that is not wicked? David didn't know of any "none righteous, no, not one" (Psa. 14:2; 53:2). You just defeated your own interpretation when you said "people are trasy, they come from a long line of trashy people, his parents were trashy"! Job says "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one."

Thank you for thoroughly proving inherent total depravity by nature and by birth.

I was born in a hospital, but that did not make me a doctor. Simply speaking of his environment.

Job speaing of birth "born of woman.....Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." - Job. 141,4

Thank you again for proving total depravity by birth reproduction of like kind.

These are the words of someone that was there to "straighten" Job out just to have to be straightened out himself later. You might want to back this horse up and see what Job had to say about his "friends". Just start out in chapter 12. His friends were mocking Job, because they knew better than he.

These are words that Job already confirmed (Job 1:1,4-5). These are words that Elihu whom God never rebuked confirmed in Job 27:4. These are words that God never rebuked any of them for. These are words that Isaiah confirmed ("transgressor FROM THE WOMB" - Isa. 48:8). These are words that David confirmed (Psa. 51:4; 58:3-4).

So thank you once again for proving my point!

It must have not been born in it otherwise how would it be driven from the child?

How naive! Having raised five children myself, I can tell you that I did not have to teach, train or instruct any of them to be and do foolishness it came NATURALLY from birth already in their heart. What I had to do was discipline them when it NATURALLY manifested itself in order to RESTRAIN them from acting that way. That is what the writer has in view.

Paul does not start out in his argument speaking of children or infants, he starts out with those that "hold truth in unrighteousness". Also Paul is contrasting the Jew to the Gentile, but tying them together here by saying, "For all have sinned", as in Jew and Gentile.

He repeatedly says there "IS" none, no, not one! If infants were born good and righteous he lied! he later concludes by saying there is "NO FLESH" that can be righteous by the Law's standard! He says "EVERY MOUTH" and "ALL the world" are ruled out! If infants and small children were the exception then he lied by repeatedly using UNIVERSAL terms.

Yes a child can be selfish, rude, and even sometimes down right wicked. Children are not born with social skills. They will learn them as they get older and sometimes it means some attitude adjustments to help the outcome along.

If children are born "good" thus without a sin nature, like Jesus Christ was born good, without a sinful nature then why can't you find just ONE who also continued to resist sin like Christ????? Why does the Bible deny that even ONE can be found "no, NOT ONE" (Rom. 3:10-12).

If children are born "good" thus without a sinful nature, then from which does such things that the Bible consistently defines as sin, and the fruit of flesh arise "Yes a child can be selfish, rude, and even sometimes down right wicked"????

The Bible provides only one clear answer and repeatedly provides that answer! The answer that you have to EXPLAIN AWAY from all the above texts written in Job, in Psalms in Romans and in Isaiah "they are transgressors FROM THE WOMB" - Isa. 48:8

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: The context in no way suggests any such notion as original sin or moral depravity from birth. David was comparing TWO groups of individuals in this text in both Psalm 14 as well as Psalm 53. There he pits the “FOOL” in the following manner: Ps 53:3 EVERY ONE of THEM is GONE BACK (not born that way, but GONE BACK) they are altogether BECOME FILTHY; (not born filthy) there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

You are misinterpreting David. He asserts the heart profession of a fool in verse 1 but in verse 2 David says that God looked down from heaven to see if there were "ANY" that did the following things. Hence, he begins with the "fool"and the widens his scope to "ANY" on earth.

Absolute proof this is the correct interpetation is that Paul omits verse 1 when he quotes David in Romans 3:9-12 and applies it UNIVERSALLY to all mankind consisting of Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:9).

So your interpretation is false OR Paul's application is false! I will go with Paul.

David uses the cliché’, “children of men” in this passage much the in the same manner he did in another passage, to point to a group of individuals unlike himself. He considered himself to be a follower of God and righteousness, and those workers of iniquity to be merely referred to as the ‘children of men.’

Your interpretation is manifestly wrong! If your interpretation were correct then Paul could not have possibly applied it universally but he does "there is NONE, no, NOT ONE" "NO FLESH" "EVERY MOUTH" "ALL THE WORLD."

Are infants "flesh"? Yes.
Are infants part of the world? Yes.
Do infants have a mouth? Yes
Are infants either Jews or Gentiles? Yes

Again, I will go with Paul.

One has to completely ignore the context of either Psalm and inject a notion completely foreign to Jewish thought as a presupposition , i.e., original sin, in order to force the notion of original sin upon these texts.

You have proven yourself to be a complete incompetent interpreter of God's Word.

You fail to recognize that David starts with one class of people in Psa. 14:1; 53:1 and then specifically expands it to "ANY" and thus "ALL" on earth (Psa. 14:2; 53:2) and that Paul correctly makes this application in Romans 3:9-20 inclusive of "ALL THE WORLD" so that "NO FLESH" is excluded and "EVERY MOUTH" is included so that "NONE, no, NOT ONE" is left out!

 

[Winman]

I was going to step out of this debate, but you are misquoting scripture.

Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

This verse does not say they were transgressors from the womb, it says they were CALLED a transgressor. Not the same thing. It is also obvious Isaiah is using hyperbole and figurative language in this passage, in vs. 4 he says;

4 Because thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass.

Is this to be taken literally? Is their neck made of iron and their brow made of brass?

This is the problem with pulling scripture out of context, especially scripture using hyperbole and figurative language. A newborn baby can barely move, much less commit sins. Sin involves INTENT, a newborn baby can neither understand God's laws or form any intent to disobey them.

You are CALLING babies transgressors, doesn't mean it is so.

Edit- I forgot to mention that Isaiah is not speaking of individuals here, but of the nation of Israel. That is very important, and vs. 8 in no way can be construed to be teaching original sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

I was going to step out of this debate, but you are misquoting scripture.

Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

This verse does not say they were transgressors from the womb, it says they were CALLED a transgressor.

You should have just stepped out of this debate instead of putting your foot in your mouth once mre. Who called them this from the womb? Who is talking? It is God who called them this from the womb. Indeed, it is God that describes them from the womb as unclean in Ezekiel 16 in graphic details.

So you are accusing God of slander!

Not the same thing. It is also obvious Isaiah is using hyperbole and figurative language in this passage, in vs. 4 he says;

4 Because thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass.

Is this to be taken literally? Is their neck made of iron and their brow made of brass?

More evidence you should have stepped out because you just keep putting your foot in your mouth.

1. LITERAL AND EXPLICIT - "Because thou art obstinate"

2. Explanatory of the literal and explicit by metaphors -neck made of iron, brow of brass"

Only someone who is blind "as a bat" (metaphor) would make the claims you are making here! I think the readers have enough common sense that the metaphors are simply reinforcing the literal and explicit introductory statement. You need to step out of this debate as you just keep stepping in doo doo.

You are CALLING babies transgressors, doesn't mean it is so.

That is right! But who is speaking? Am I saying this or is it God that says this? If God is saying this it does make it so!

GOD IS CONFIRMING THAT WHAT THEY ARE CALLED FROM THE WOMB IS TRUE or else God is spreading slanders BECAUSE HE DOES NOT DENY IT?


Are you calling God a liar? He confirmed it as so or He is spreading slanders? Which is it?

 

[Winman]

First, God was not speaking of individuals or babies here, he is speaking of the nation of Israel. They did sin from the "womb" in a figurative sense when they sinned in the wilderness. This is what Isaiah is referring to. But Israel did not literally come out of a woman's womb. You are violating principles of interpretation. You are applying a verse that is speaking of the sins of a nation, and applying it to the physical birth of individuals. That is not what Isaiah is speaking about here.

And I am not calling God a liar, unlike you I realize figurative and metaphorical language is being used here, nobody has a neck made of iron or a brow made of brass. And nations don't come out of a woman's womb.

You are absolutely misapplying scripture here to say something it is not saying. This passage is not discussing whether we are born with a sin nature or not.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you know of any human that is not wicked?

Here is how Cornelius was described before he was saved:

"And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee" (Acts 10:22).

 

[Romans7man]

I'm sorry but for all of your many words, you have said nothing that makes sense. Having raised my children and them in their midlife years now, they were not, nor have any children, save Jesus, ever been born without the sin nature. Not a single one of my children had to be taught to lie, cheat nor to steal, just the opposite and as the OP pointed out!

If we go back to the first three chapters of the Bible we find that the world was originally placed under the leadership and dominion of Adam. But, as time went on God made Eve, from Adam's rib, for him to have a Help Mate. That same woman was then deceived by Satan and Adam sinned, against God, as soon as he chose Eve over God.

As a result, Satan gained a victory over man and earned the temporary dominion over the Earth and ever since that time, men have been born with the nature, evil, that Satan preferred for them.

I am one of eight and I too have raised children and none of my siblings were born with a sinful nature and none of my children were, maybe it's where you live. Does that mean we or my children have always done everything right, on the contrary. I was raised up like a heathen, but I still knew right from wrong and went against my better understanding of right many times, as did my siblings and children. Even in my lost state I knew right from wrong, but the flesh over ruled my better understanding to do the right. There were times (when I was lost) I did not want to do something and fought it, but something came over me and I felt as though I was being drawn into something against my will. (this is starting to sound like Romans 7 in Paul's lost state) So, if one is doing something against their will, then would it not make more sense that they actually don't have a sinful nature, but a nature that wants to do right?

I read nothing of a "change" of nature in Adam, only his relationship with God and environment he lived in changed. Did his nature change before he sinned or after he sinned? If it changed before then who changed it? If it changed after what exactly was it about Adam that changed? Did Adam sin with a sinful nature or without a sinful nature?

Adam sinned no doubt, but the only thing I read is that his eyes were opened and he knew good from evil and that he knew he was naked. So are we to believe knowing good from evil is the qualifier for a sinful nature?

Genesis 3:22;And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:

Adam was like God now, knowing good and evil. Are we to understand knowing these things makes one wicked? Hmmmmmmm?

If we sin because we have a sinful nature, then who needs to be tempted? We would be going against our nature to sin if we do anything right, so with that thinking are we actually sinning when we do something right or when we do something wrong?


It all comes back to loosing that relationship with God, the relationship He has been trying to restore ever sense the fall of man. Romans 1:21 tells us when they knew God they glorified Him not neither were thankful. It is when a man understand and then turns from that understanding, there is no other place to go but sin. When one turns from God he is then left to his own strength and his main focus will become his appetites. He will be driven by them and farther away from God. That is why our flesh had to be dealt with on the cross.

 

[plain_n_simple]

I'm not sure why this all matters. If we are born into this world, we will need the blood of Jesus to cleanse us no matter what. When we sin, considered a sinner when born, ability to sin from birth but not committed an actual sin? Could someone define what the actual arguement is here and why it matters?

 

[DHK]

I'm not sure why this all matters. If we are born into this world, we will need the blood of Jesus to cleanse us no matter what. When we sin, considered a sinner when born, ability to sin from birth but not committed an actual sin? Could someone define what the actual arguement is here and why it matters?

You are totally right. No matter what you say your theological position is, no man can enter into heaven without the blood of Christ.

 

[Winman]

Excellent observations Romans7man, if we are born with a sinful nature, then why do we feel good when we do that which is good, and feel guilty and fearful when we do that which we know is wrong? This is true even before one trusts Christ.

And how can we condemn crime or perversion if it is perfectly natural to do so?

In another thread I was accused of being a humanist because I disagree with original sin. The opposite is true, if men are depraved by nature, then perversion and criminal activity are natural. Those who hold to OS actually agree with homosexuals who commonly excuse themselves by arguing "I was born this way" or "This is how God made me.". If OS is true, then these folks are correct and are telling the truth. And if you go further and deny free will, then one must believe that God desires these persons to commit these sins, otherwise he would change their nature.

So, it is not those who disagree with OS that are humanists, it is those that assert it. They have given these persons the perfect excuse for their sins.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Plain n simple: I'm not sure why this all matters. If we are born into this world, we will need the blood of Jesus to cleanse us no matter what. When we sin, considered a sinner when born, ability to sin from birth but not committed an actual sin? Could someone define what the actual arguement is here and why it matters?

HP: It matters and greatly so. The nature we are born in affects practically every single doctrine you can mention, including but not limited to the nature of Christ. it has ramifications from salvation to sanctification. It affects how one views sin and the penalty of it. It will affect how one views their own sin and if in fact they will see the real need and necessity of repentance or excuse it as being necessitated. It affects one whole attitude towards sin and punishment.

More than just those issue, it affects ones ability to worship God according to the dictates of ones conscience in almost every Church. because of the anathemas that has been historically placed on any deviation from the 'orthodox' viewpoint, it often determines the usefulness one can have in different groups. I can tell you first hand, when you deviate from the accepted 'orthodox' views, you are NOT generally accepted and can have a spiritual effect on not only yourself but others as well. Regardless if you voice your concerns vocally, or simply choose to remain silent, you are regarded as untrustworthy for almost the least tasks in most churches. This is again NOT because of something you have said or done, or the life you live, but rather simple because you refuse to raise your right hand to dogmas one honestly believes are contrary to God's Word.

What does it matter? Taste and see. Listen to the hate filled rhetoric of some even on this list.