Featured A determined view of salvation or the RIGHT view, part deux

Your first mistake is saying that God could have made a world without sin.

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Jesus said sins or offences "must needs be". They are necessary, they cannot be avoided. Why?

I believe the answer is free will. God being moral and loving MUST give man free will and choice, and free and choice necessarily enables the possibility of sin. You can't have free will and choice without the possibility of sin.

So, your premise that God could have made a world without sin is error.

 

Wow, that's bad exegesis, bad hermeneutics, and bad theology.

The Archangel

 

Right, a person has to have a PhD to understand the words "must needs be"

 

You can read Willis, what do the words I highlighted in red say?

This is your problem, since you became a Calvinist, you only believe what Calvinists tell you to believe and you completely ignore what scripture says. Not wise.

I'm going to give you some help, Calvinism often departs from scripture.

 

I have to say I do not understand this logic. One does not automatically lead to the other.

 

Jesus is the one who said "it must needs be that offences come". Jesus is the one that said sin must occur Willis, not me. You can read, look in your own Bible, I have not wrested scripture in any way whatsoever.

Now, I might be mistaken as to why sin must occur, but I am not mistaken that Jesus said sin must occur. So this idea of yours that God could make a world without sin is error.

And what is the alternative view? You believe God could have made a world without sin (which this scripture I posted refutes) and therefore you assume God desired sin.

 

Must does not equal Can't

 

Actually, if God could have made a world without sin as Willis believes, then the logical conclusion is that God desired sin.

The trouble is that Willis's view contradicts scripture, Jesus said it "must needs be" that offences come. So, it was not possible for God to make a world without sin.

That naturally leads to the question, why? And I believe it is because God is love and therefore cannot compel people to love and believe in him. He MUST give them choice, and this choice makes the possibility of sin unavoidable, even for God.

 

Not at all...

But, you do need to have a bit of hermeneutic common sense, which is not being displayed in the statement you've made.

First, what do you do with the Genesis account that says that God made the world and everything in it and, as a statement of evaluation, called it "Very Good?"

Second, what do you do with Paul's statement in Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin...?

Obviously, the world was without sin before Adam's sin.

Further more, how, in the eternal Kingdom, will there be no more sin when the entire story line of scripture is a return to "Eden" where there was no sin before Adam's sin?

So, you're simply wrong in your assessment of Matthew 18. You're wrong because, as you've demonstrated myriad of times here, you have no knowledge of hermeneutics--how to read scripture.

It's unfortunate, but the situation is correctable--if you're willing to learn.

The Archangel

 

Logical conclusion to whom, who says that is the logical conclusion? Why do people believe that have a full understanding of what God can or should do? Very arrogant.

 

I don't know what you are saying here.

Jesus said "it must needs be that offences come". Sin HAS to happen, it cannot be avoided. God could not make a world without sin.

 

It is not arrogant, it is a logical conclusion. If God could have made a world without sin, and yet the world has sin, then you MUST conclude that God desired sin as Willis believes.

Willis's conclusion was correct, but his premise was error. Jesus shows that God could not make a world without sin. Read for yourself.

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

This scripture is simple and straightforward.

 

No it is false that you must. In fact I would have never even thought such a thing. Where does logic like that even come from. It is arrogant because it assumes you know everything about God, what He can and cannot do, and what His motives must always be. Those things are not possible to know by man.

 

It is not arrogant when Jesus himself tells us that offences MUST NEEDS BE.

This scripture is not difficult to understand, Jesus is saying that offences HAVE TO happen. They MUST happen. I didn't say that, JESUS DID.

If that topples your little world, I feel sorry for you.

 

It does not say why it must happen. It is only your assumption that must equals cant.