Original sin (not) in Judaism

[Lenten_ashes]

LA, from what I have observed of you I would be surprised if you are inferring that to be in a minority automatically makes you wrong…

No, that’s not what I’m saying. That would be a logical fallacy(appeal to popularity)

Just would like to understand ***who ***on the protestant side is not believing in original sin as I have heard it preached regularly on the protestant side.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I think the Church of Christ doesn’t believe in original sin, but nearly all other non-Catholic Christian churches do.

Those Protestants that believe in total depravity specifically use original sin as a reason for it.

And that is sort of shocking as well as CofC places so much emphasis on Baptism.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I am sure that I am right in saying that Catholicism teaches that Jesus was fully human as well, correct? Was he then born with original sin?

One of the reasons Rome has defined the immaculate conception, imo.

Totally pure vessel for the Lord to dwell in.

 

[Wannano]

No, that’s not what I’m saying. That would be a logical fallacy(appeal to popularity)

Just would like to understand ***who ***on the protestant side is not believing in original sin as I have heard it preached regularly on the protestant side.

I personally think there is confusion in the terms used. Original sin causing the need for infant baptism to cleanse the infant leaves one with the impression the baby would be guilty without the baptism even though there is no way for it to know it was accountable.

To say we share in propensity to sin as a result of our inherited sinful nature but that we as individuals are not accountable until we reach the point in our individual lives where we realize we are accountable, may be more the actual stance of those who do not baptize babies. Most evangelical churches practice this way in my experience.

 

[susanlo]

I started out non-denom fundamentalist(one of the largest mainstream churches in the country) and they didn’t baptize babies and they*** most definitely*** preached original sin.

And southern Baptists, who make up much of protestant Christianity in the USA, also believe in original sin and do not baptize infants.

"One long-term result of “the fall” was that all of their descendants were born in a state of “original sin”. One consequence of original sin is that every person’s normal destination at death is Hell, where they will be eternally tortured without any hope of mercy or relief. Another result had been an unbridgeable chasm between God and humanity; reconciliation and avoidance of Hell can only be achieved through the individual becoming “saved.” "

religioustolerance.org/chr_savs.htm

Now that is not to say they believe God is throwing babies into hell, they believe in His mercy they will be saved.

So no offense intended, but this is bizarre as I have never encountered a non-Orthodox Christian who said they did not believe in it. Maybe it’s just my area of the country or something, but I am intrigued now as I thought we all believed in it.(again the Augustine connection between our faiths) That’s why I inquired about your denomination. I’d like to know who does not believe in it as they would definitely be in the minority.

The webpage you cited goes on to say: “Once saved, God will forgive – and actually forget – an individual’s past sins. In a process called sanctification, the Holy Spirit will continually improve their behavior and spirituality while they remain alive on earth.”

There are various understandings of exactly what the effects of Adam and Eve’s sins are, but what some Christians (and Jews and Muslims) reject is that babies are born tainted with sin. It isn’t that they exactly believe in Pelagianism either.
Here is one source that provides information on various beliefs: christianity.about.com/od/denominationscomparison/ss/comparebeliefs2.htm

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I personally think there is confusion in the terms used. Original sin causing the need for infant baptism to cleanse the infant leaves one with the impression the baby would be guilty without the baptism even though there is no way for it to know it was accountable.

To say we share in propensity to sin as a result of our inherited sinful nature but that we as individuals are not accountable until we reach the point in our individual lives where we realize we are accountable, may be more the actual stance of those who do not baptize babies. Most evangelical churches practice this way in my experience.

Yes, that was my experience in the Evangelical Churches. Original sin*** was*** legit, but culpability was another story. I saw no sense of necessity to wash it away with baptism as taught in the Catholic Church. You confessed Jesus as savior and are forgiven of personal sin…but because of your sinful nature, you are still going to sin after your confession.

.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The webpage you cited goes on to say: “Once saved, God will forgive – and actually forget – an individual’s past sins. In a process called sanctification, the Holy Spirit will continually improve their behavior and spirituality while they remain alive on earth.”

There are various understandings of exactly what the effects of Adam and Eve’s sins are, but what some Christians (and Jews and Muslims) reject is that babies are born tainted with sin. It isn’t that they exactly believe in Pelagianism either.
Here is one source that provides information on various beliefs: christianity.about.com/od/denominationscomparison/ss/comparebeliefs2.htm

Nevermind, thank you.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, they believe in it they just don’t typically think baptism washes it away. If that were the case, then they would all be baptizing babies. And I don’t think they see the necessity in washing it away as it’s understood to be a natural occurrence from birth. tbh. Therefore, babies will not be held accountable for something they did not personally do. I think perhaps the “limbo” Catholic theory turned them off and so this is yet another attempt to distance themselves from Rome.

And even in the Anglican church I went to, I was told that while special graces are received in baptism, the main point is the parents making their pledge over that child to raise him/her as a Christian.

Thanks. Perhaps because of the distancing themselves from Rome that they sound as if they do not believe in original sin, to me.

I notice there are Catholics who tried to make the doctrine of original sin and infant baptism more palatable to Protestants.

Classic Catholic teaching on this, at least when I was small I was being taught so, that babies need to be baptized so that their original sin would be washed away (in baptism).

Thus the word of Jesus for not stopping them from coming to him. They can only come to him (in baptism) but only if their parents do not stop them.

 

[Wannano]

Thanks. Perhaps because of the distancing themselves from Rome that they sound as if they do not believe in original sin, to me.

I notice there are Catholics who tried to make the doctrine of original sin and infant baptism more palatable to Protestants.

Classic Catholic teaching on this, at least when I was small I was being taught so, that babies need to be baptized so that their original sin would be washed away (in baptism).

Thus the word of Jesus for not stopping them from coming to him. They can only come to him (in baptism) but only if their parents do not stop them.

Hi Reuben, would you mind giving me the texts in Scripture where Jesus speaks of infant baptism as a way of not stopping the little children from coming to him? Thanks.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi Reuben, would you mind giving me the texts in Scripture where Jesus speaks of infant baptism as a way of not stopping the little children from coming to him? Thanks.

Perhaps It’s on the same page that says the word “Trinity”?

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Reuben, would you mind giving me the texts in Scripture where Jesus speaks of infant baptism as a way of not stopping the little children from coming to him? Thanks.

Hi. This is where scripture is insufficient for our everyday life. It doesn’t cover thing like this. That’s the reason why our faith and belief cannot be solely based on scripture without the Church Tradition and her Teachings.

Scripture tell us we must believe in or order to be saved. It does not tell us how. So we need to find out how. Scripture tells us to come to Jesus. It does not tell how, we have to find out by ourselves.

Jesus said do not stop little children from coming to him.

#1, How does children coming to Jesus? #2, What is coming to Jesus?

#3, How does one stop children from coming to Jesus?

Start with #2 first. What is coming to Jesus? In the context of our old self, we can only ‘come to Him’ in order to be with him, in our new self. It can be born again. In Christianity, that can be by baptism, ‘repent and be baptized’.

Thus children need to be baptized. They do not need to repent as they do not know how, but baptize they can.

#3, How do we stop children from coming to Jesus then? We stop them by not baptizing them. We stop them because we are responsible for them as they cannot do it on their own. Parents who stop their children from being baptized when they can do so are actually stopping their children from coming to Jesus.

Rather simple. Instead sometimes we make it difficult and forget the obvious. Otherwise how else we stop them, who do not know how to walk or talk, from coming to Jesus?

I know Protestants do not believe in this as some also do not believe in original sin. Also some of them tell us that belief should be made simple. Some say only the essentials to be believed. I often scratch my head on how to figure this. What are essentials and what are not?

Thanks for the question.

God bless.

 

[gazelam]

My silly 2 cents worth here…

1. The Bible specifically teaches that no one is punished for the sins of others.

2 Kings 14:6 But their children he did not put to death, according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD commanded: Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for one’s own crimes shall a person be put to death.

Ezekiel 18:20 *Only the one who sins shall die. The son shall not be charged with the guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of his son. Justice belongs to the just, and wickedness to the wicked.
*

1. There is no Bible verse indicating, or even inferring that an infant was ever baptized. Often the pro-infant baptism crowd refers to baptism of “entire households” referenced in the Bible to show that infants were indeed baptized. But in each of the 5 accounts there is always a phrase in the account stating that the household did something that an infant simply couldn’t do (i.e. Acts 10:43 - everyone who believes in him).
2. There is no historical account of an infant baptism before 200 AD.

Kurt Aland said…

It can be no accident… that all of our information about the existence of infant baptism comes from the period between A.D. 200 and 250….For the time before this we do not possess a single piece of information that gives concrete testimony to the existence of infant baptism… To this day [1963] nobody can prove an actual case of the baptism of an infant in the period before A.D. 200…. That our entire sources, at least when allowed their literal sense, have in view only the baptism of adults, or at best the baptism of older children, can as little be contested. (Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, pp. 101, 102)

Everett Ferguson wrote…

There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. This fact does not mean that it did not occur, but it means that supporters of the practice have a considerable chronological gap to account for. Many replace the historical silence by appeal to theological or sociological considerations.
Arguments against the originality of baby baptism, in addition to its lack of early attestation, include: the essential nature ascribed to verbal confession and repentance; the liturgy designed for persons of responsible age; size of baptisteries; and the lack of an agreed theology to support it (Chrysostom and the Eastern churches vs. Augustine).
The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of the practice of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries.
In the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy infant baptism was a principal support for the doctrine of original sin, rather than the other way around, since baptism was universally recognized as for forgiveness of sins. With the victory of Augustine’s arguments original sin became the reason for infant baptism in the western church. (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, pp. 856, 857)

1. When children were brought to Jesus, He blessed them. He didn’t baptize them.

Mark 10:13-16 *And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.

When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child* will not enter it.

Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them.*

1. Jesus likens the kingdom of heaven to children. He wouldn’t have done so if they were tainted by sin.

Matthew 19:14 but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

 

[Lenten_ashes]

My silly 2 cents worth here…

Greetings Gazel.

1. The Bible specifically teaches that no one is punished for the sins of others.

2 Kings 14:6 But their children he did not put to death, according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD commanded: Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for one’s own crimes shall a person be put to death.

Ezekiel 18:20 Only the one who sins shall die. The son shall not be charged with the guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of his son. Justice belongs to the just, and wickedness to the wicked.

But what about generational curses? And what about David’s child dying for the sins that he committed?

2 Samuel 12:13-18New International Version (NIV)

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.”

15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth** on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

18 On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.”**

I have heard prosperity preachers insist that generational curses do not exist today. I beg to differ and would implore anyone to take a hard look at the Kennedy family and explain away all the bad things that have happened to them. Not saying they are definitely cursed as that would be insensitive, but it’s perplexing to me how it’s just one tragedy after another.

1. There is no Bible verse indicating, or even inferring that an infant was ever baptized.

Kurt Aland said…

It can be no accident… that all of our information about the existence of infant baptism comes from the period between A.D. 200 and 250….For the time before this we do not possess a single piece of information that gives concrete testimony to the existence of infant baptism

… To this day [1963] nobody can prove an actual case of the baptism of an infant in the period before A.D. 200…. That our entire sources, at least when allowed their literal sense, have in view only the baptism of adults, or at best the baptism of older children, can as little be contested. (Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, pp. 101, 102)

Everett Ferguson wrote…
.
Arguments against the originality of baby baptism, in addition to its lack of early attestation, include: the essential nature ascribed to verbal confession and repentance; the liturgy designed for persons of responsible age; size of baptisteries; and the lack of an agreed theology to support it (Chrysostom and the Eastern churches vs. Augustine).
The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of the practice of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries.
In the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy infant baptism was a principal support for the doctrine of original sin, rather than the other way around, since baptism was universally recognized as for forgiveness of sins. With the victory of Augustine’s arguments original sin became the reason for infant baptism in the western church. (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, pp. 856, 857)

The argument of silence is insufficient and does not negate the idea/practice of infant baptism. Please consider the heavy persecution the Church was under the first 200 years of it’s existence. So much of the Church was underground and therefore, we simply do not have much literature from that era to examine.

1. When children were brought to Jesus, He blessed them. He didn’t baptize them.

Mark 10:13-16 *And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.

When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child* will not enter it.

Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them.*

1. Jesus likens the kingdom of heaven to children. He wouldn’t have done so if they were tainted by sin.

Matthew 19:14 but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

How did babies ‘come to God’, so to speak, in the old covenant? It was through a “work” or act of circumcision. Likewise, this is how they come to God and enter into the body of Christ, through baptism.

In the OT the firstborn male child was consecrated to the Lord (Luke 2:23) So we see these examples of how babies are welcomed right away and not required to pass some sort of man made test.

Pax

 

[Wannano]

Hi. This is where scripture is insufficient for our everyday life. It doesn’t cover thing like this. That’s the reason why our faith and belief cannot be solely based on scripture without the Church Tradition and her Teachings.

Scripture tell us we must believe in or order to be saved. It does not tell us how. So we need to find out how. Scripture tells us to come to Jesus. It does not tell how, we have to find out by ourselves.

Jesus said do not stop little children from coming to him.

#1, How does children coming to Jesus? #2, What is coming to Jesus?

#3, How does one stop children from coming to Jesus?

Start with #2 first. What is coming to Jesus? In the context of our old self, we can only ‘come to Him’ in order to be with him, in our new self. It can be born again. In Christianity, that can be by baptism, ‘repent and be baptized’.

Thus children need to be baptized. They do not need to repent as they do not know how, but baptize they can.

#3, How do we stop children from coming to Jesus then? We stop them by not baptizing them. We stop them because we are responsible for them as they cannot do it on their own. Parents who stop their children from being baptized when they can do so are actually stopping their children from coming to Jesus.

Rather simple. Instead sometimes we make it difficult and forget the obvious. Otherwise how else we stop them, who do not know how to walk or talk, from coming to Jesus?

I know Protestants do not believe in this as some also do not believe in original sin. Also some of them tell us that belief should be made simple. Some say only the essentials to be believed. I often scratch my head on how to figure this. What are essentials and what are not?

Thanks for the question.

God bless.

I am sure you really believe all you have said here and I want to respect that. I see it differently and I hope you can respect that also.

I do not share your belief that not presenting your children for infant baptism is stopping them from coming to Jesus. You raise an interesting question when you ask “otherwise, how else do we stop them, who do not know how to walk or talk, from coming to Jesus?” My answer is that we don’t want to stop them at all. We don’t stop them. We encourage them from little on up. That is why my wife and I brought our four children to the front of the congregation along with other parents and participated in a dedication service where the parents not only dedicated the baby to God but also dedicated themselves to the role of a parent and spiritual guardian of the child promising to nuture and instruct them in the ways of the Lord from little on up. The congregation also pledges to the parents to be a community of help and assistance in the spiritual development of the child. In this view the child is innocent of his inherited sinful nature until he becomes mature enough to realize that he has one, then he has to make a decision as to whether he is going to cooperate with it or put it to death.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Thanks. Perhaps because of the distancing themselves from Rome that they sound as if they do not believe in original sin, to me.

I notice there are Catholics who tried to make the doctrine of original sin and infant baptism more palatable to Protestants.

Classic Catholic teaching on this, at least when I was small I was being taught so, that babies need to be baptized so that their original sin would be washed away (in baptism).

Thus the word of Jesus for not stopping them from coming to him. They can only come to him (in baptism) but only if their parents do not stop them.

Very likely.

It’s like having a discussion about purgatory with the Orthodox…you might be led to believe that they don’t believe in any sort of purgation as they don’t want our terms or doctrines applied to them.

 

[Reuben_J]

I am sure you really believe all you have said here and I want to respect that. I see it differently and I hope you can respect that also.

Hi. No problem at all. Yes, I just saying what my belief was.

I do not share your belief that not presenting your children for infant baptism is stopping them from coming to Jesus. You raise an interesting question when you ask “otherwise, how else do we stop them, who do not know how to walk or talk, from coming to Jesus?” My answer is that we don’t want to stop them at all. We don’t stop them. We encourage them from little on up. That is why my wife and I brought our four children to the front of the congregation along with other parents and participated in a dedication service where the parents not only dedicated the baby to God but also dedicated themselves to the role of a parent and spiritual guardian of the child promising to nuture and instruct them in the ways of the Lord from little on up. The congregation also pledges to the parents to be a community of help and assistance in the spiritual development of the child. In this view the child is innocent of his inherited sinful nature until he becomes mature enough to realize that he has one, then he has to make a decision as to whether he is going to cooperate with it or put it to death.

I agree with you about parents’ responsibility of bringing up their children in the faith.

In Catholicism this is what infant baptism entails. The priest/Church may refuse to baptize the infant if there is no commitment from the parents that the child will be brought up in the faith.

So what you are doing is actually what we do in bringing up the child except for you, there is no baptism.

I was saying bringing a child to Jesus by baptism because this is what baptism means to us. In order to be a Christian, one must be initiated into the faith and that was through baptism.

We also believe in original sin which can only be wiped off by the grace of baptism.

If you do not believe in original sin and the purpose of baptism as we do, then of course there is no need for baptism of infant for you. I guess our respective belief comes as a result of what we believe.

 

[Reuben_J]

My silly 2 cents worth here…

1. The Bible specifically teaches that no one is punished for the sins of others.

Yes, we can sound silly when we express our belief that is quite different from the others, from the others perspective. But that does not mean you are silly; you are just expressing your belief.

As I have been mentioning, this is the downside of free interpretation of the Bible without the Church to guide you. My position is that doctrine comes first before the Bible. One cannot look for doctrine from the Bible because one does not know which is doctrine and which is not.

So when you cite the Bible to justify your belief, another person who has opposite belief to yours would simply cite another set of biblical verses to support his. So in the end, it is just your set of biblical verses against his.

Even though the Bible specifically teaches that no one is punished for the sins of others, and which I believe too, it tells about people who suffered the consequence of other people’s sin. Not punished for the sin but suffered the consequence.

And this is what original sin is all about – suffering the consequence of Adam’s sin.

As been mentioned in another post, the son of King David died as a consequence of his sin (adultery). Nathan made it clear it was not a punishment because his sin had been ‘taken away’ but the death of his son was the consequence of his sin.

So there you are.

 

[AnimaQuaerenti]

My silly 2 cents worth here…

gazelam, while I’m familiar with the Mormon view on the idea of Original Sin, my two cents is it’s also a bit disingenuous - if we were all truly “punished for our own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” as Smith claimed, then we’d all be living in the Garden.

Original sin, as defined by the Catechism (CCC 405), is the fallen nature of mankind and a consequent fall from God’s grace. Even Mormons believe this is the case - again, because of the choices Adam made, we’re in a non-perfect (sinful) state today and cast away from the relationship of grace that Adam had with God; the Catholic word for this collective state is “the Stain of Original Sin.” Furthermore, as explained in Genesis and the temple video during the endowment, there are various curses inherited by mankind as a result of the fall. So much for being punished for your own sins, huh?

Original sin does not denote a culpability for what Adam did, only an inheritance of the imperfect nature of humanity and a loss of grace as a result of what he did. The Catholic church doesn’t teach that unbaptized Mormon infants are going to hell because they were culpable in Adam getting kicked out of the Garden.

Baptism of infants by the Catholic church is an attempt to return some of what was lost in the Fall and simultaneously following Christ’s teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation, not a belief that unbaptized children have willfully committed mortal sins. No scripture in either of our faith traditions list when the actual “age of accountability” or “age of reason” occurs where sins are committed without a perfect ignorance. As for the Catholic teaching on where unbaptized children end up, they’re entrusted to the mercy of God (CCC 1261).

 

[MichaelP3]

Honestly this is new to me as Protestants, at least that I know or hear, do not believe in original sin. This is an issue where they criticize Catholicism and how boring it is to defend against this umpteen of times.

May I ask how you came upon the idea Protestants don’t believe in original sin?

I know we may differ on some issues but rest assured, that is one where we agree

 

[gazelam]

Yes, we can sound silly when we express our belief that is quite different from the others, from the others perspective. But that does not mean you are silly; you are just expressing your belief.

This is a debate forum and it would be awfully quiet without people expressing beliefs that are quite different from others.

As I have been mentioning, this is the downside of free interpretation of the Bible without the Church to guide you. My position is that doctrine comes first before the Bible. One cannot look for doctrine from the Bible because one does not know which is doctrine and which is not.

So when you cite the Bible to justify your belief, another person who has opposite belief to yours would simply cite another set of biblical verses to support his. So in the end, it is just your set of biblical verses against his.

Doctrine does come before the Bible, but doctrine is spelled out in the Bible. Paul and Silas were able to convert the fair-minded Jews of Beroea because those Jews were knowledgeable of scripture.

Acts 17:10, 11 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews. These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so.

Even though the Bible specifically teaches that no one is punished for the sins of others, and which I believe too, it tells about people who suffered the consequence of other people’s sin. Not punished for the sin but suffered the consequence.

And this is what original sin is all about – suffering the consequence of Adam’s sin.

Christ lived a sinless life and suffered the consequences of all of our sins. Do you believe Christ is tainted by original sin? The RCC clearly teaches that we all (except Christ and Mary) come into this world in a sinful state, not just suffering the consequence of Adam’s sin.

CCC 404 And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Are you saying that the state of a new born infant does not need to change since the infant is incapable of sin, and only suffering the consequence of Adam’s sin?

As been mentioned in another post, the son of King David died as a consequence of his sin (adultery). Nathan made it clear it was not a punishment because his sin had been ‘taken away’ but the death of his son was the consequence of his sin.

Clearly the David’s son was impacted because of David’s bad behavior, but David’s son did not need the atonement of Jesus Christ to cleanse himself of David’s sin. Experiencing the consequences of sin does not make one unclean in the sight of God.