God makes us sin.

[Ajax 777]

Think about it. God causes no man to sin; He tempts no one, for He Himself cannot be tempted by evil. If God gives men over to a depraved mind to do as their filthy hearts desire, it is because we have already rejected the truth of our condition and need of Him. We already made that choice when we rejected His offer of mercy; then He is letting men fall into the ditch of their corruptions their golden calf led them into, and lets them see for themselves whether their "god" can save or deliver them. Those who say "God has made me to sin so that He can show me mercy" are justly condemned like those who say "let us do evil, that good may come".

Now, wrap your noodles around THAT.

If we choose death and curses, He lets us make that choice. He has not caused it; He does not need for us to sin in order to show us mercy; but truthfully, we often need to come to the ruin of consequence for our rebelliousness before WE realize our need of Him.

It is a glory of glories and indescribable love that, like the Father of the prodigal son, He awaits to clothe us and adorn us and feed us with the fattened calf of His mercy once we return to Him. He has set mercy aside to redeem us, knowing beforehand what is in us (man), and He renews it every morning.

If He needed us to sin, then His creation would have included it from the beginning, rather than only allowing entry once we disobeyed in the garden.

God needs no excuse to send every last one of us to Hell,
and hasn't since the fall in the garden. No further sin is required.
But in His mercy, He is not willing that any should perish.

Thank You, Father God, for Your mercy which never faileth.

 

[Faulty]

Think about it. God causes no man to sin; He tempts no one, for He Himself cannot be tempted by evil. If God gives men over to a depraved mind to do as their filthy hearts desire, it is because we have already rejected the truth of our condition and need of Him. We already made that choice when we rejected His offer of mercy; then He is letting men fall into the ditch of their corruptions their golden calf led them into, and lets them see for themselves whether their "god" can save or deliver them. Those who say "God has made me to sin so that He can show me mercy" are justly condemned like those who say "let us do evil, that good may come".

Now, wrap your noodles around THAT.

If we choose death and curses, He lets us make that choice. He has not caused it; He does not need for us to sin in order to show us mercy; but truthfully, we often need to come to the ruin of consequence for our rebelliousness before WE realize our need of Him.

It is a glory of glories and indescribable love that, like the Father of the prodigal son, He awaits to clothe us and adorn us and feed us with the fattened calf of His mercy once we return to Him. He has set mercy aside to redeem us, knowing beforehand what is in us (man), and He renews it every morning.

If He needed us to sin, then His creation would have included it from the beginning, rather than only allowing entry once we disobeyed in the garden.

God needs no excuse to send every last one of us to Hell, and hasn't since the fall in the garden. No further sin is required.

Thank You, Father God, for Your mercy which never faileth.

I was thinking about it one day, about what if Adam had never sinned.

Jesus never would have the need to take on the nature of man. The Creator would never have taken on Himself the characteristics of one of His creations. This means there would have always been an infinite gulf between us and our relationship with Himself. There would have been no adoption as sons, there would have been no "Brother" in Jesus, or no "Father" to us.

It seems as if He needed to happen what happened in order to make it so that the nature of His creation "man" could be elevated to sit on His throne in the person of Jesus. To what purpose? I have no idea. It's a very humbling thought.

 

[Ajax 777]

I was thinking about it one day, about what if Adam had never sinned.

Then we would now be in the perfect Creation He originally established, and we would all likely know Adam personally, and we would walk with Him and speak with Him personally in the cool of the day. I believe that if Adam had not sinned, the devil would not have been allowed another chance. He is restoring us back to a right relationship with Him; we didn't need to first lose it in order to regain it.

Jesus never would have the need to take on the nature of man.

But He would still be among us, for He was with God from the beginning. We would still have Him as we will one day again behold Him.

The Creator would never have taken on Himself the characteristics of one of His creations.

I don't know about that; we were created in His likeness and image.

This means there would have always been an infinite gulf between us and our relationship with Himself. There would have been no adoption as sons, there would have been no "Brother" in Jesus, or no "Father" to us.

I think He would have been our all-in-all regardless, but I do see what you're saying. On the other hand, I do not believe He ever needed us to sin to accomplish this. Perhaps He would have made another way to know Him like this. But it diminishes the glory of His accomplishing it now not one iota.

It seems as if He needed to happen what happened in order to make it so that the nature of His creation "man" could be elevated to sit on His throne in the person of Jesus. To what purpose? I have no idea. It's a very humbling thought.

I really do not think He needed sin, death, or Hell to ever enter into the earth; that He still had a plan for when it did even further reveals His great love for us.

 

[Faulty]

Then we would now be in the perfect Creation He originally established, and we would all likely know Adam personally, and we would walk Him and speak with Him personally in the cool of the day. I believe that if Adam had not sinned, the devil would not have been allowed another chance. He is restoring us back to a right relationship with Him; we didn't need to first lose it in order to regain it.



But He would still be among us, for He was with God from the beginning. We would still have Him as we will one day again behold Him.



I don't know about that; we were created in His likeness and image.



I think He would have been our all-in-all regardless, but I do see what you're saying. On the other hand, I do not believe He ever needed us to sin to accomplish this. Perhaps He would have made another way to know Him like this. But it diminishes the glory of His accomplishing it now not one iota.



I really do not think He needed sin, death, or Hell to ever enter into the earth; that He still had a plan for when it did even further reveals His great love for us.

When you consider He was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, then "would have" and "could have" are no longer viable options, as it was planned from before the beginning to be this way. You might say He didn't need it to do so, but His actions seem to speak otherwise.

 

[lismore]

He hardened the heart of Pharao.

Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: “Every Hebrew boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live.”

A man who gave orders to have newborn babies thrown into the Nile, his heart was already harder than granite.

God does not cause people to sin, they do that themselves quite cheerfully.

 

[Ajax 777]

When you consider He was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, then "would have" and "could have" are no longer viable options, as it was planned from before the beginning to be this way. You might say He didn't need it to do so, but His actions seem to speak otherwise.

Like I said, it's as hard to wrap one's mind around it, but He made obedience just as possible an outcome as disobedience. Perhaps He saw the end of either outcomes simultaneously, and like sin being judged by the desires of the heart rather than requiring the action following, He knew His Son in this scenario would do as He did, thus making Him the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." We really don't know; our finite minds are as unable to grasp foreknowledge and predestination as we are to invent an eighth color of the spectrum which nobody has ever seen before. But God is just, and would no more require injustice to consummate His plan than He can be tempted by evil; otherwise the verse about "God tempts no man" is a lie.

 

[whatfor]

As I left for work after I posted yesterday , I felt that God only hardened pharoah after he sinned, what happens is a consequence of our sin, not God causing it.

 

[x141]

Think about it. God causes no man to sin; He tempts no one, for He Himself cannot be tempted by evil. If God gives men over to a depraved mind to do as their filthy hearts desire, it is because we have already rejected the truth of our condition and need of Him. We already made that choice when we rejected His offer of mercy; then He is letting men fall into the ditch of their corruptions their golden calf led them into, and lets them see for themselves whether their "god" can save or deliver them. Those who say "God has made me to sin so that He can show me mercy" are justly condemned like those who say "let us do evil, that good may come".

Now, wrap your noodles around THAT.

If we choose death and curses, He lets us make that choice. He has not caused it; He does not need for us to sin in order to show us mercy; but truthfully, we often need to come to the ruin of consequence for our rebelliousness before WE realize our need of Him.

It is a glory of glories and indescribable love that, like the Father of the prodigal son, He awaits to clothe us and adorn us and feed us with the fattened calf of His mercy once we return to Him. He has set mercy aside to redeem us, knowing beforehand what is in us (man), and He renews it every morning.

If He needed us to sin, then His creation would have included it from the beginning, rather than only allowing entry once we disobeyed in the garden.

God needs no excuse to send every last one of us to Hell,
and hasn't since the fall in the garden. No further sin is required.
But in His mercy, He is not willing that any should perish.

Thank You, Father God, for Your mercy which never faileth.

In the case of the prodigal son, who financed the journey?

 

[x141]

I was thinking about it one day, about what if Adam had never sinned.

Jesus never would have the need to take on the nature of man. The Creator would never have taken on Himself the characteristics of one of His creations. This means there would have always been an infinite gulf between us and our relationship with Himself. There would have been no adoption as sons, there would have been no "Brother" in Jesus, or no "Father" to us.

It seems as if He needed to happen what happened in order to make it so that the nature of His creation "man" could be elevated to sit on His throne in the person of Jesus. To what purpose? I have no idea. It's a very humbling thought.

God has always filled all things, but this is not our perception of this one truth that we are in, which is given to us by our own reasoning and what the tree of knowledge is the symbol of.

Jesus knew both who he was and where he was, Adam didn't know either, and is why the first question in the Bible is, Where art thou.

 

[x141]

As I left for work after I posted yesterday , I felt that God only hardened pharoah after he sinned, what happens is a consequence of our sin, not God causing it.

What is sin? and what truth was Pharaoh a picture of to us, as us as individuals, and how does this tie in with the cross, and the tree of knowledge?

The tree of knowledge is the common denominator.

The ultimate statement of the obedience of Jesus is "I am" which is what got him crucified.

According to Luke, Adam was the son of God to, and according to Jesus, we all are, but this is a truth only the Father reveals, even as he revealed it in Jesus, as the truth being him.

 

[Ajax 777]

In the case of the prodigal son, who financed the journey?

I assure you, the father didn't send the son out to go and fall into ruin, or he would have also done the same with his other son, who
complained about the father's kindness toward his brother upon his return, as well.

 

[Messy]

In the case of the prodigal son, who financed the journey?

The father. Who wanted to go away? He just let him go, he didn't force him to stay.

 

[x141]

The point is not about God, it is about us, and to bring us all to a cross concerning the perception of what Truth is (which is not based on good and evil, God being the Truth), which is given to us by our soul, or in the day we eat, by an image that is outside of us. The eldest son, though he was in the field, the truth of who he was, was still closed to him, which is all that the Father has was always his, being a son of the Father, just as Adam, which is no less the case for the prodigal son. The eldest wandered around in the wilderness of his mind even as the prodigal son did.

Jesus came to show the truth of the garden, by showing it to the extreme, who went to his death, which was the commandment of his father, or to the end he was born to, which he believed to be life, against everything that his five senses told him. If he based it on a truth outside of him he would have never went to the cross (or got in the boat), all it takes is one doubt, one thought. Jesus with Peter likened it to the desires of men, which thought was a seed of a serpent or adversary.

The commandment in the garden not to eat is what the feast of Passover is a picture of, even as the outer court with it's altar, etc. are a picture of this same truth concerning our soul, both lead to death, obedience and disobedience, one death was unto life, the other a death, unto the death of the truth of who he was, and who we are, all of us being told that if we are to be taught of Christ who is now in us, we must pick up our cross in the same manner, which is obedience to the first commandment, that though it looked like death, actually revealed the Life that Jesus was, him not asking us to do anything he had not done already.

It is by our soul as a garden not enclosed that we measure the finished work of God, and now the finished work of Christ, in relationship to who we are which is the table we eat from, and which table becomes a snare to us concerning self, or the child/son of God we are, until all the thoughts of warfare against the truth we are as sons of God dies out.

All things work for the good, not just the good.

 

[x141]

I assure you, the father didn't send the son out to go and fall into ruin, or he would have also done the same with his other son, who
complained about the father's kindness toward his brother upon his return, as well.

These are two fruits of the same tree, if you know your whole Bible well, follow the pattern.

But tell, why would God need blood to satisfy him? Isn't he God?

There is more to the lamb in picture as it relates to us than our soul is willing to enter into, in fact, it is our soul through a laboring by thought to be, that keeps us from it.

 

[x141]

The father. Who wanted to go away? He just let him go, he didn't force him to stay.

In connection with why the father did what he did, knowing what would happen when he did it, What was Abraham's exceeding and great reward, and what path did he reveal this reward through to him? (this is very involved (there is more to the fatted calf than meets the eye as a picture of something throughout scripture).

To the question ... Why did he want to go away?

Jesus understood the principle of the two sons in scripture, which begins with the heaven and the earth (what was without form and void was the earth, which is a key in understanding where light is called out from, and how the one day was split in two). This parable helps define (among other things), the difference between the offering of Cain and the offering of Abel whom the inheritance was divided up in, and reflect the choice in the garden to eat, which produces the son after the image of this truth first, or first the natural, then the spiritual, which is a narrative that has many streams that flows through scripture to a cross.

Jesus was this second son, or Adam, who offered the lamb by offering his soul, as Paul said, by the cross he made the two one again (Paul knowing the OT very well having been a Pharisees, but not understanding the truth they declared until he was taught of Christ, which he included very little of this knowledge in the 13 epistles attributed to him).

Your son was right though ... even if you do not understand the words that came out of his mouth. Caiaphas was right, even though he didn't understand the words that were God's, that came out of his mouth, his perception of them being his own, and not God's.

 

[Gospel Guy]

Satan is subject to God and can do nothing without God’s permission. In that way he is and will always be an agent of God to test our wil

This is another one of the slickest deceptions satan has brought in to carnal, man-made religious teaching (commonly taught in religious cemeteries) due to a misunderstanding of the experiences of Job and failure to adhere to the New Testament and read Job based on revelation found in the New Testament.

If satan is an agent of God... then that would mean this is claiming that there is darkness and evil in God. This type of thing God rejects and He will not desire to be close to those that claim He and satan are working together to test, tempt and try people with evil.

James 1:13-15
LET NO MAN SAY when he is tempted, I AM TEMPTED OF GOD: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man:
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Then when lust hath conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.

 

[Ajax 777]

These are two fruits of the same tree, if you know your whole Bible well, follow the pattern.

But tell, why would God need blood to satisfy him? Isn't he God?

There is more to the lamb in picture as it relates to us than our soul is willing to enter into, in fact, it is our soul through a laboring by thought to be, that keeps us from it.

I have no idea what you're even talking about here. To me, it sounds like double-speak.

Believe as you will. There is neither sin in the Father nor the Son; how then can you say He draws us closer to Himself by first causing us to sin? What a horrible thing to accuse our God of double-mindedness.

Again, Scripture itself says "Brethren, let none of you say 'I am being tempted by God.' God Himself cannot be tempted by evil." I guarantee you, we don't need God to cause us to sin. We ended up in it all by ourselves just fine.

 

[x141]

This is another one of the slickest deceptions satan has brought in to carnal, man-made religious teaching (commonly taught in religious cemeteries) due to a misunderstanding of the experiences of Job and failure to adhere to the New Testament and read Job based on revelation found in the New Testament.

If satan is an agent of God... then that would mean this is claiming that there is darkness and evil in God. This type of thing God rejects and He will not desire to be close to those that claim He and satan are working together to test, tempt and try people with evil.

James 1:13-15
LET NO MAN SAY when he is tempted, I AM TEMPTED OF GOD: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man:
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Then when lust hath conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.

Not saying you are right or that you are wrong, but, what do you make of this ...

1Co 5:4-5 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Or how about this one ...

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (which reflects how God brought judgment on Israel when David was tempted to number the people, which becomes an allegory of the offering that Jesus identified himself with).

Or this one ...

2Co 12:7-9 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

The OT is rich with these analogies.

 

[x141]

I have no idea what you're even talking about here. To me, it sounds like double-speak.

Believe as you will. There is neither sin in the Father or the Son; how then can you say He draws us closer to Himself by first causing us to sin? What a horrible thing to accuse our God of double-mindedness.

Again, Scripture itself says "Brethren, let none of you say 'I am being tempted by God.' God Himself cannot be tempted by evil." I guarantee you, we don't need God to cause us to sin. We ended up in it all by ourselves just fine.

You haven't come to the understanding yet of the nature of temptation which is outside of God but common to man.

Believe as you will ...

I believe the Lamb of God took away the sins of the world, and there is no place in my perception that they are found to be anymore, let alone something attributed to God.

Do you believe he finished the work? you only enter in by faith, outside of this, there is an exalting our thoughts above his, which is tantamount to exalting our throne above his, and thereby, robbing God.

"Who told you that you were naked" ... "did you eat" ... by this act, "Where art thou?"

They wanted to be like God, this was the temptation that all others are born of. This was the seed of the serpent. We do not eat to become, and we do not eat to prove we are. Knowledge does not define us we define knowledge. One is of labor, the other is given. One is the identity of a servant (who does not abide in the house forever) the other the identity of a son.

A pattern, the elder serves the younger.

 

[JimB]

It's a weird doctrine, like God set it all up and it was His plan that Lucifer would sin and everything. God is not the originator or inventor of sin.

C'mon Messy, you know better than this. God did no such thing and you know it. It is our own freewill (for lack of a better term) that has created the mess we are in. God gave both angels and men freewill and we have chosen our way. But God still approves of the course of human history and of our freewill, despite our misuse of it, because without it we would be preprogrammed cyborgs without the ability to love either man or God. (Love or indifference is a choice we make.) You might say that God predestined freewill, but the choices remain ours, whatever they may be; ergo, we are responsible for our own shortcomings and victories, wars and failures of diplomacy, and we can blame no one else, not God or the devil, for the state of the world. James said as much when he said, “What causes quarrels and wars among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. ” (ch.4.1-2).