One doesn't need to perform a sinful act to be a sinner.
Um really? One does not have to miss the mark in order to miss the mark? How does that make any sense at all? Do you have any idea what the word sin means? It is an ACTION. It must be performed. One must miss the mark in order to miss the mark.
God is absolved in creating a sinful man.
No He is not. Why not?
He did not create a sinful man.
Man was not created holy or sinless for these are the Deific Attributes of God and as Isaiah said in his prophecies, "There is only ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory to NO ONE."
Again, what does this have to do with anything? If God created a sinful man, then He doesn't have any deific attributes Himself. He Himself would be flawed, being incapable of meeting the standard Himself. Angels are sinless beings. God created them that way. Yet some sinned, and were imprisoned for it.
Thus, man was created "missing the mark" (sinful) because Sinlessness is the Nature of God and it is His glory and He does not give His glory to NO ONE.
God's nature isn't sinless. Why not? There is no standard for God to meet. As you say, the Lord our God is one. that is, God is UNIQUE. There is none like Him. So, by what standard are you judging God to say He is sinless? He is neither sinless, nor sinful. He is Holy, set apart from all being unique. Adam was created sinless, however, unlike God, Adam had a standard to meet, and he failed.
Man was not holy because Holiness is the Nature of God and He gives His Holiness to NO ONE.
You really need to stop with this nonsense, for God gave His holiness and glory to His Son. The Jews could not understand this, because they didn't understand God at a fundamental level, much less Jesus.
God did not copy, reduplicate, share, or give His Holiness to man when he was created because Holiness is an Attribute of God.
Adam was created sinless, and is not a duplicate and did not have God's holiness. However, what does God command of His creation? "Be holy as I am Holy". Leviticus 19:2 "2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them,
Ye shall be holy:
for I the Lord your God am holy."
As you can see, being holy is not something that is given, but is a state of being. What you should see here is that you don't understand what holiness is.
There is NONE like Him, so man did not possess holiness in his creation for only God is Holy and He says this of Himself many times in Scripture. There is NONE like Him. This means that man was not created possessing any Deific Attributes of God.
I say and claim what I have been saying and claiming, and I am not saying man has any deific attributes. BTW where did you get that terminology that is not present anywhere in scripture? Did you make it up? God has a nature, and that nature includes His omniscience, His omnipotence, His omnipresence, etc. I say that God isn't sinless because He is the standard. There is no standard for God to meet except Himself, and it is impossible for God to violate Himself. He would cease to exist.
When we look at the text in Genesis man sinned against God and revealed himself a sinner. man sinned because he was created a sinner.
No. That is not what scripture says. Paul says that the man was without sin UNTIL... sin was found in him. That is when Adam violated God's standard, and missed the mark. (The definition of sin.)
Sin comes from sinner. Sin does not come from righteousness or Holiness, or sinlessness. Sin comes from sinner. And man was created a sinner who possess NONE of God's glory such as Holiness or righteousness, or sinlessness.
You need to stop creating this stuff. It is not scriptural, and it has your mind twisted in a bunch. Paul says that sin comes from the Law.
God commanded the man "thou shalt not!" The existence of "Thou shalt not" is proof that man was a sinner before any act was made by man.
Um... NO. The existence of "Thou shalt not" set up a standard. If they never did, then they would be sinless forever, like angels. However they did sin by doing what God commanded them not to do, and thus BECAME sinners. You have totally contaminated scripture with your beliefs. Adam was sinless simply because Adam had not sinned. God can be said to be sinless because it is impossible for God to sin. God is the standard. Jesus could have sinned because Jesus came to Earth in the form of a man, thus experienced all we experienced. He was hungry, Satan tempted Jesus to sin to satisfy said hunger. Jesus came to die to save the world, Satan put it on a platter and basically said, why suffer? Satan would just give it to Jesus if Jesus would just worship him. And then Satan basically aimed at the whole aspect of frustration and tiredness. The people constantly rejected Him though the full truth was presented in front of them. Satan basically told Jesus He could end all of that bullying and non-belief by simply revealing Himself using Satan's method. Jump off the pinnacle of the temple, and when the Father sends angels to save you, there would be no more doubt in the mind of the people, and they would worship Him as the Son of God. No more bullying. He could lord it over everyone.
Read carefully.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Romans 7:7–11.
In other words, there was no sin until the Law. That is because the Law was the standard by which humanity died.
Let's apply this to the first man God created.
Yes, God gave Adam a Law, a standard, and sin did not become alive in Adam until Adam actually missed the standard.
Adam: "What shall say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known disobedience, except the law had said, Thou shalt not eat of it."
That isn't how it works. Adam didn't have the Law. All he had was one command from God.
This is not hard to understand. By commanding the man to NOT eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil God is showing us that the first man was a sinner. Even before any sinful act he would have committed the existence of "Thou shalt not!" in the Garden is evidence of man's sinfulness.
No, that is not what God was doing.
"
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"
Consider that realizing he was naked was Adam becoming a sinner. God already knew Adam would sin (I am a determinist), and just read the script. You ate of the tree didn't you? Their eyes were opened. Opened to what?
"5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,
and ye shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil."
What the serpent didn't say was that they would become evil, which is how they would come to know evil.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. Romans 7:12–13.
There is no difference between the Law of God and the Commands of God. The commands of God are law, and the Law of God are His commands.
There is much difference between Paul and Adam. Jesus could not be the archetype of Adam if Adam was a sinner. Then Jesus would have to be a sinner. The difference between Jesus and Adam is that Adam sinned, becoming a sinner, while Jesus did not, and Jesus remained sinless. Since Jesus was God in the flesh, sin actually was a problem. He would never sin, however, His flesh was sorely tempted by Satan himself.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Romans 5:12–14.
So, if Adam was a figure of Christ, which is him to come, then if Adam was a sinner, the Christ is also a sinner. I'm not sure how the logic escapes you. However, if Adam was sinless until he sinned, then, Christ would be sinless, and... can continue to be sinless by not sinning. So Adam plunged humanity into sin and death, while Christ saves humanity from sin and death. The thing you don't understand is that God seeks to redeem His creation, He seeks to reconcile. However, if man was always a sinner, there can be no redemption, there can be no reconciliation. Why? There is no state to return to. If it was always sin, then it must always be sin.
Saul does not say Adam performed a sinful act. "By one man sin entered into the world." Even Saul understands that God created man sinful ("missing the mark.") Do you see verse 13? "but sin is not imputed when there is no law." But we know that the command of God to the man to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil proves that man was sinful BEFORE
This is where reading comprehension could be really useful. Basically by way of one man, that is, by one man's action, sin entered the world, and by sin, death. However, you seem to believe that Paul is speaking to Adam. He is not. He is trying to show that the reason God gave the Law, that is the Mosaic covenant, was so that sin would abound. That is the sole reason. And by sin abounding, one sees the necessity of Christ. It is only by Christ, not the law, that a man is justified. That is, God does not hold a man accountable for their sin. Only in Christ. The Law is a tutor that points to Christ. As for the last part here, reread the passage. It is clear that what you say is false. God tells them, hey, you can eat everything, but don't eat from that one tree. That does not show that man was sinful before. If they were, then they would already feel naked, and be running for the trees, looking for a way to clothe themselves. They were sinless, but again, key concept, they were INNOCENT. They didn't know sin at all. They did not know evil. Even the serpent told them they wouldn't know until after they ate the fruit. How do you miss such small details?
If there is no standard, there can be no missing of the standard. However, what Paul is saying is, one is not held accountable for missing the standard, if they don't know there is a standard. So, if God had not said anything, and Adam ate the fruit, He would be fine. However, God giving Adam the command means that if Adam ate the fruit, then he disobeyed God, which is a sin. God gave a standard, so if Adam failed to keep the standard, then Adam becomes one who misses the standard, that is, a sinner. It is not a difficult concept to understand. And, as the federal head of humanity, all humanity fell to sin. And for Jesus, as the archtype of Adam who was the federal head of humanity, Christ is the federal head of the elect, that is, those who would believe in Christ to salvation. Those who are born of the spirit, not of the flesh. Adam is the federal head of the fleshy man, while Christ is the federal head of the spiritual man.
