Necessity of Sin

[percho]

No, God had to give us a choice, he could not impose even a holy nature on us. This is why sin cannot be prevented.

Now, once we make the choice to be saved by Jesus and baptized into his Spirit, it is not wrong for God to give us his holy nature and the incorruptible body.



If Calvinism is true, then the only persons who willingly sinned were Adam and Eve. Everyone else was forced and compelled to sin by the sin nature imposed upon them at birth. They are no different from a baby born addicted to heroin because his mother chose to break the law and use heroin. If this is true, we are not criminals, but victims of our parent's sin. We do not deserve judgment, but compassion and mercy.



God is certainly self sufficient, but the scriptures say God is love, and I believe that love needs expression. God certainly has chosen to create and have fellowship with man.

As if. :laugh:



You are not writing well lately, is there a reason?



The reason I am having trouble understanding you is that your writing is a little discombobulated.




I didn't say God couldn't avoid sin, Jesus did. Jesus said that "it must needs be that offences come" . Now that is simple enough, he is saying that sin is necessary. The debate is over WHY sin is necessary, not that it is necessary, that is a given.

Because of the sin of Adam whether anyone else sinned or not they would, "to die you shall die." Foreordained before the creation of Adam who brought this death for man the lamb without blemish and without spot was determined to die.

Also before Adam was created God who cannot lie promised the hope of eternal life.

Who is the only man (one subject to death) who has lived and died actually received that promise?

Who only has received the gift of God?

Who only is, "the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen?"

The death and resurrection of the Son of God is the faith by which we are, "heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:7"

the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[convicted1]

God must have been so miserable with just the 3 of them all by Himself and got so lonely that they decided to create sin. If sin was NECESSARY and God knowing such from eternity past, sin would have to be eternally existent in order to remain consistent in demonstrating God's attributes because if sin is necessary to make God whole, then it had to co-exist with Him from all eternity in order to claim that God has ALWAYS been whole.

1. God has been self-existent and self-sufficient throughout eternity
2. God said "I AM THAT I AM" and that is all that is necessary for God to prove that He is.
3. God has never been unsatisfied or un-content in eternity, has never been evil or sinful. There has never been a time when God was not perfect, and perfectly good.
4. God has been whole throughout eternity. Nothing has ever been necessary to God beyond His own fact of existence for Him to exist as God. God is necessary for creation, creation is not necessary for God.
5. Therefore sin is not and has never been necessary

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Because of the sin of Adam whether anyone else sinned or not they would, "to die you shall die." Foreordained before the creation of Adam who brought this death for man the lamb without blemish and without spot was determined to die.

Also before Adam was created God who cannot lie promised the hope of eternal life.

Who is the only man (one subject to death) who has lived and died actually received that promise?

Who only has received the gift of God?

Who only is, "the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen?"

The death and resurrection of the Son of God is the faith by which we are, "heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:7"

the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I have no idea what this mumbo jumbo of yours is saying, or how it pertains to the OP.

The OP is asking whether sin is necessary, and if so, why?

 

[Winman]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Well Willis, it's fine and dandy to agree with Dr.Ach that sin is not necessary, but what did Jesus say?

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!

Whether we understand why or not, Jesus plainly said that "it must needs be that offences come". Jesus is saying that sin MUST come, it HAS to come, sin is NECESSARY.

I get a little tired of hearing folks say the scriptures do not mean what they say.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Well Willis, it's fine and dandy to agree with Dr.Ach that sin is not necessary, but what did Jesus say?

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!

Whether we understand why or not, Jesus plainly said that "it must needs be that offences come". Jesus is saying that sin MUST come, it HAS to come, sin is NECESSARY.

I get a little tired of hearing folks say the scriptures do not mean what they say.

The word "offenses" here is skandalon (from where we get scandal) whereas sin is hamartia. This verse isn't saying that sin will come but that offenses are inevitable because of sin or other circumstances. This is also implied by the term 'must needs' from anagke which is something made necessary by external conditions. The parallel verse in Luke 17 says, "Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!"

This verse isn't arguing for the necessity of offenses, it is saying that it WILL come because it is inevitable due to external circumstances ,sin being one of those circumstances which shows that since there is a contrast between the external circumstance that creates the inevitability of offenses and the offense that are caused by sin, that sin is not the subject in this verse. However, there are other things that can cause offense that sin did not cause. Christ was a rock of offense (same word used, Rom 9:33) yet He was perfect, but Christ didn't cause those to sin who stumbled at the offense. Something (Someone) good was the cause of the offense, but someones decision caused the sin by choosing to be offended.

And the key also is the rest of the verse, " but woe to him by whom the offense cometh". That "by whom" part is relative to the person who causes the offense which Jesus is stating in context of a person who offends a little child back in verses 1-6. Obviously, the offender is not causing the child to sin, but he is offending the child and woe to him that causes offenses. Since offense is seen in this light, then then counter part of the verse can not be a reference to "sin must come but woe to him that causes this child (or anyone) to sin."

Thus Christ is demonstrating the inevitably of offenses that will come, not for the necessity of the existence of sin, and then offers a warning by those who cause offenses to occur.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well Willis, it's fine and dandy to agree with Dr.Ach that sin is not necessary, but what did Jesus say?

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!

Whether we understand why or not, Jesus plainly said that "it must needs be that offences come". Jesus is saying that sin MUST come, it HAS to come, sin is NECESSARY.

I get a little tired of hearing folks say the scriptures do not mean what they say.

Wow.....something we finally agree on! :smilewinkgrin::thumbs:

 

[Winman]

The word "offenses" here is skandalon (from where we get scandal) whereas sin is hamartia. This verse isn't saying that sin will come but that offenses are inevitable because of sin or other circumstances. This is also implied by the term 'must needs' from anagke which is something made necessary by external conditions. The parallel verse in Luke 17 says, "Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!"

This verse isn't arguing for the necessity of offenses, it is saying that it WILL come because it is inevitable due to external circumstances ,sin being one of those circumstances which shows that since there is a contrast between the external circumstance that creates the inevitability of offenses and the offense that are caused by sin, that sin is not the subject in this verse. However, there are other things that can cause offense that sin did not cause. Christ was a rock of offense (same word used, Rom 9:33) yet He was perfect, but Christ didn't cause those to sin who stumbled at the offense. Something (Someone) good was the cause of the offense, but someones decision caused the sin by choosing to be offended.

And the key also is the rest of the verse, " but woe to him by whom the offense cometh". That "by whom" part is relative to the person who causes the offense which Jesus is stating in context of a person who offends a little child back in verses 1-6. Obviously, the offender is not causing the child to sin, but he is offending the child and woe to him that causes offenses. Since offense is seen in this light, then then counter part of the verse can not be a reference to "sin must come but woe to him that causes this child (or anyone) to sin."

Thus Christ is demonstrating the inevitably of offenses that will come, not for the necessity of the existence of sin, and then offers a warning by those who cause offenses to occur.

A distinction without a difference. Sin cannot be prevented because men have free will. It says nothing about who sins, just that sin must occur.

 

[Inspector Javert]

No. God will make a world where people will freely love him and yet not sin, the new world. You are wrong yet again.

No, he will create an eternal home where those who already DO love him will dwell with him. The choice to love God and choose him was already made contra-causally on Earth.

Sin (or at least the possibility of sin) un-avoidable given God's desire to create a being in his own image with real freedom of choice.
It serves no positive purpose
It is not otherwise inherently necessary for God's aseity or his essential existence, but only His choice to create.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Are we talking about the "sin" of Satan (in the spiritual realm) or A&E's subsequent "sin" (in physical universe)?

God permitted sin in the later so that it could be dealt with in a concrete/redemptive way, at the cross. This included all aspects of His creation.

If only the former, God permitted sin and could simply judge/condemn it. Already has a place for eternal judgment for Satan and his minions.

Either way, I would use the word "permit" in the choices.

 

[percho]

I have no idea what this mumbo jumbo of yours is saying, or how it pertains to the OP.

The OP is asking whether sin is necessary, and if so, why?

Would the lamb of God have ever died had there not been sin?

Before Adam was created the lamb was going to shed his blood. Die!

Was sin a necessary ingredient to bring about death of man in order for the lamb to die? Did the lamb have to be of another nature than God Spirit nature or angelic spirit nature? For what purpose do you think man was created considering it was determined before man was created that the lamb of God would die?

What is the purpose of the death of the Christ, a lamb without blemish and without spot other than redemption and just what is man redeemed from?

 

[percho]

Are we talking about the "sin" of Satan (in the spiritual realm) or A&E's subsequent "sin" (in physical universe)?

God permitted sin in the later so that it could be dealt with in a concrete/redemptive way, at the cross. This included all aspects of His creation.

If only the former, God permitted sin and could simply judge/condemn it. Already has a place for eternal judgment for Satan and his minions.

Either way, I would use the word "permit" in the choices.

Are they not the same? Is one sin akin to the other?

To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, Acts 26:18 ----- without the added words
To open their eyes, to turn from darkness to light, and the power of Satan unto God,

The power of Satan the devil (darkness) unto the God (light). What is the power of Satan the devil and how long has he had that power?

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

How long has darkness, Satan been on the earth and how long has he had the power of death?

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep. Gen 1:2

Why was the earth without from and void, a dead planet?

And God said, "Let there be light." Light where? Reading Acts 26:18 who would you say is the light which came upon the earth with darkness upon the face of the deep?

Now read post 13 relative to the OP.

Winman should read also.

 

[percho]

Double post sorry

 

[Jope]

Was sin necessary?

According to Hebrews 2:10, yes.

HCSB
For in bringing many sons to glory, it was entirely appropriate that God—all things exist for Him and through Him—should make the source of their salvation perfect through sufferings.​

Without sin, there would be no suffering. Sin was therefore necessary to make the source of our salvation complete or perfect.

 

[The Biblicist]

"the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" (Heb. 13:20) and God's eternal purpose of redemption presuppose the necessity of sin or else they are worthless terms.

Sin makes manifest God's justice as well as His mercy and therefore ultimately glorifies God.

 

[DrJamesAch]

"the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" (Heb. 13:20) and God's eternal purpose of redemption presuppose the necessity of sin or else they are worthless terms.

Sin makes manifest God's justice as well as His mercy and therefore ultimately glorifies God.

That is one of the most blasphemous things I have ever read. Everlasting means LASTS FOREVER, it doesn't mean that the covenant was created in eternity, it was created IN TIME.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was" John 17:5

The Father and Son had perfect glory BEFORE there was ever a creation. To say that sin glorifies God makes God dependent upon evil to demonstrate His character. God triumphs in glory IN SPITE OF sin, NOT BECAUSE OF IT. If sin is necessary then God was not fully God before He became sovereign over anything that was created.

No wonder folks doctrine on here is so screwed up with such a materialist view of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is one of the most blasphemous things I have ever read. Everlasting means LASTS FOREVER, it doesn't mean that the covenant was created in eternity, it was created IN TIME.

James, do you understand what "TIME" is? Let me suppose you don't, even if you do. TIME is a measurement of things that have a beginning point. I am 63 years old and nine months. That is a measurement of TIME from my origin on earth.

God has no beginning and no ending and that is why we call Him "eternal" as He cannot be confined to any measurement within the sphere of time. Time began with the first thing that had an origin of existence. Time began with the first created thing and from that point forward it could be measured by time.

NOw, election is said to have occured "BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN" (Eph. 1:4 and all sides agree that "election" relates to salvation and God's purpose or covenant of salvation. God's coveant of salvation is called "EVERLASTING" not because it occurred within the sphere of time but because it is inseparable from God's own mind. If it were not, then God is mutable and He came to purpose something that never existed in His mind previously and thus he is not omniscient or immutable because then he came to purpose something that never existed in His mind previously.

Therefore, to deny the covenant of redemption is "EVERLASTING" is to deny the God of the Bible. Second, it is to deny the clear testimony of the scriptures:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

The phrase "before the foundation of the World" is used to explain the preexistence of Christ with the Father before creation:

Joh 17:24 ¶ Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Now, about you last argument. You assert that since God had "glory" before the world began that, that fact, negates post-creation things cannot bring God FURTHER glory?????? James, you know better than that! Even you are supposed to let your light shine for what purpose? To glorify you Father in heaven.

Without sin, the perfection of God's attribute of JUSTICE could never have been revealed. Justice presupposes condemnation and guilt and that could not exist without sin. And so sin will bring glory to God as it glorifies the Justice of God. Without sin, the perfection of God's mercy could never have been revealed. Mercy presupposes condemnation and guilt and that does not exist apart from sin.