The Bible easily refutes the Lutheran & Reformed view of Original Sin

Sorry for the delay in posting, my life has been so busy that I've not had any chance to post, and when I sit down to post I run into all kinds of unfortunate distractions that leave many things as an unpublished "draft". That said, I have been occasionally active on Twitter (HERE), and have met some great Catholic and Protestant people on there, with some good topics that have been discussed. For this post I want to discuss a fundamental and serious error that I saw a Lutheran espousing about Original Sin, which is a major reason why they espouse Imputed Justification against Catholicism (and Scripture). I see it as a simple and short refutation of their erroneous view of Original Sin.

The Protestant Reformers erroneously saw the "evil desires" that remain within the Christian as truly and properly sinful before God. As one Lutheran put it on Twitter: "Man's fallen and wicked desire, Concupiscence, is itself actually sinful, for it is lawless and rebellion against God's law and holy will." This sinful desire, called "Concupiscence," is a major point of contention between Catholics and Protestants. If such desires as the temptation to lust after a woman, which are constantly arising within us, are truly sinful, then the Christian is in a serious bind, for how can they hope to live a life of holiness before God if they are constantly hit with lustful desires throughout their Christian life? The Protestant view is that these lustful desire are truly sinful, and thus the only way to "escape" this constant feeling of defeat and guilt before God is to "hide" behind Christ's Righteousness through Imputation, such that God now only sees Christ's holy life instead of you whenever God looks at you. It would seem that some kind of Imputation model would be the only "solution," even though this doesn't really amount to a solution when other factors are considered. Meanwhile, the Catholic view is that Concupiscence is not sinful in itself, but rather is an inclination to give into sin, and thus Concupiscence is only a temptation in the Catholic view, whereas sin is an act of the human will to choose to give into temptation. In short, for Catholicism and Scripture, we would say concupiscence is not sinful in itself but it certainly is a result of Original Sin and an unfortunate effect that remains even in Christians.

One primary Catholic proof text that concupiscence is not formally/truly sinful comes from the Epistle of James, chapter 1, which says:

12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial [temptation], for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire ["concupiscence" in Latin]. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

What James is saying is that there is a distinction between temptation/concupiscence versus that of sinning. Merely being tempted or feeling lustful desires is not sinful, but it is an effect of Original Sin. This passage would not even make sense if temptation itself was formally (i.e. truly) sinful rather than an effect of Adam's sin. In fact, this passage would seemingly undermine the Protestant view quite plainly, and I think it does. But to turn up the heat against the erroneous Protestant view, I pointed the Lutheran to many passages from the First Epistle of St John, which I will now cite here, and which he didn't seem to have any response to.

Consider these passages from First John:

Why Mormonism shouldn't be tolerated in America

This post is related to my post Why Mormonism shouldn't be tolerated in Utah (HERE), but now I'm expanding it to the whole American continent. If you've read the Utah post linked above, we can use that same principle to see what is fundamentally wrong with the Mormon mindset when it comes to Salvation History. That's what we will cover in this post.

One cornerstone of the Mormon religion is that a small group of Israelites back at the time of the Books of Kings were told by God to leave Jerusalem before the Babylonian exile and have this small group of Israelites sail on a ship to arrive somewhere near Mexico. Here's what the LDS "Guide to the Scriptures" (HERE) says about the prophet Lehi:

In the Book of Mormon, a Hebrew prophet [Lehi] who led his family and followers from Jerusalem to a promised land in the western hemisphere about 600 B.C. Lehi was the first prophet among his people in the Book of Mormon. Lehi fled Jerusalem with his family at the command of the Lord (1 Ne. 2:1–4). He was a descendant of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt (1 Ne. 5:14). The Lord gave him a vision of the tree of life (1 Ne. 8:2–35). Lehi and his sons built a boat and sailed to the western hemisphere (1 Ne. 17–18). He and his descendants became established in a new land (1 Ne. 18:23–25).

Recall that the ancient Israelite mindset was such that there is only one Promise Land, which was promised to Abraham originally, and which Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt to attain it, where the Twelve Tribes would finally settle down, where David's throne was established and the Temple was built. The land of Israel was the only Promise Land they ever envisioned. Now notice from the above quote how this is framed, Lehi "fled" Jerusalem due to the incoming Babylonian exile and was sent to establish himself and his descendants in "a" new Promise Land. This is the Mormon view and it fits perfectly with the American pioneer-fronteer mindset, but it is flatly against the Biblical theme of having one home and being temporarily removed from it due to punishment. So the accepted Mormon notion of just leaving Jerusalem to come to America for good, with no intention to return, runs completely contrary to the Biblical narrative. 

Moreover, the Israelites were in a covenant with God to keep the Mosaic Law, which means Lehi and his descendants would be required to keep the Mosaic Law. But how do you keep the Mosaic Law when you're nowhere near Jerusalem, without the Levitical Priesthood, no Temple, etc? How do you celebrate the Jewish holy days? You can't, which again runs completely against the grain of Scripture but which Mormon/Protestant views of Scripture completely miss.

Equally problematic is the Biblical theme wherein the "Ten Lost Tribes" were originally chastised for separating from Judah's authority, yet somehow Lehi separating from Judah's authority (even establishing a kingdom in America) is suddenly a good thing? And from an Old Testament prophetic perspective, you are being sent into exile for sin on a national level, even if you're relatively innocent as an individual like Daniel, and yet Lehi is instead told to "flee" instead of getting chastised with the rest of the Israelites? Or what about the great theme of "Returning Home" after the Babylonian Exile, how does that fit with a narrative where you just leave with no intention or yearning for home? Again, this Mormon-Protestant mindset is completely inconsistent with the Biblical narrative.

I understand that what I'm saying above will fall on deaf ears for many Mormons, because they either don't get it or have cognitive dissonance, but to those of us who have eyes to see, the Mormon narrative is plainly an American pioneer/pilgrim mindset, which is completely at odds with the Biblical narrative of the Israelite history. Realizing this debunks Mormonism on a "meta-narrative" level, which is essential to better direct your apologetics energy with Mormons, rather than the typical approach which implicitly concedes their foundational (erroneous) presuppositions.