Is temptation, in and of itself, sin?

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,407
London
✟94,797.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The Word can be rightly divided in light of the whole counsel of God.

And words can be confounded by deferring to Augustine, John Calvin, John Piper and other theological humps who shall remain nameless in order to shed light upon the “whole council” of God. :heart: Preachers that equip the masses to insert large alien theories like the two wills of God into Deuteronomy aren’t shedding light, much rather spreading dark.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,407
London
✟94,797.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I don’t mean anything as dramatic as moral evil, just plumb dark ignorance. It’s not wise to put a philosophical grid over scripture, then to defer to the “whole council” because they’ve clearly misused part.
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Personally, I don't think we can say that God wills that we oppose His will-as in actively desiring that we oppose it-only that we're allowed to oppose it.

Understood and point well-taken. Ultimately I agree with you. But we're getting into another fuzzy area (like Sovereignty vs. Free Will) IMO that seems to possibly have some resolution in dimensional reasoning and hierarchal thinking.

It may be semantics, and it may just be some of His thoughts and ways being so vastly above ours. I'm familiar with the desire vs. allow thinking and have stuck with it so far.

In the Law example I mentioned: God actively desires that we oppose His will re: X under certain conditions and He has built this into His Law, so His Law and we can function at a higher level for human good.

I think there is a depth to His Law and will that we barely comprehend. I spent some time studying it and still do. One of the opening statements in a book I enjoyed on the topic was essentially a disclaimer that basically said no one knows and understand God's Law - then with that said the author wrote 300-400 or so pages on God's Law.

At the end of the analysis at this point, agreed, He doesn't will us to be out of His will, but are we always out of His will where and when we think we are? Jesus showed the lawyers of his time that they weren't as smart as they thought they were re: God's will.

Again, I go back to Moses and others in the O.T. God expressed His will. Moses and others at times questioned it and offered alternatives. Was it God's will to be questioned? Did He ever relent and change His expressed will? Was it His will to be questioned, so He could change what He expressed He was going to do?

As some have said, if He wanted robots, He could have made them.

When it comes to God willing vs. allowing evil, what do we do with this:

LXE Isaiah 45:7 I am he that prepared light, and formed darkness; who make peace, and create evil; I am the Lord God, that does all these things.

This doesn't say He allows evil. Ultimately He is perfectly righteous and just. But this doesn't mean we have a handle on precisely how He thinks and functions. And He most certainly does not fit into, nor have to fit into the boundaries we make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not to mention the wider fact that Deuteronomy 29:29 isn’t about God having a secret will, that’s to presuppose the content of what the “secret things” are. Jesus’ mission was in secret, but that’s not a secret will that contradicts Gods plain word.
By "vs." I was not requiring contradiction, although there seemingly is some.

Matthew 24:36; John 21:22; Act 1:7; Romans 11:33; 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 10:4, etc.
The immediate context in Deuteronomy is about rebels against Gods revealed law being rejected from the land, and the awe and conversation that it inspires amidst the onlookers. Sodom and Gomorrah is an example used in the chapter, and the warnings are for Gods people not to abandon the way He’s shown them.

It’s certainly not about a secret will of God.
God's will was secret to Pharaoh.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And words can be confounded by deferring to Augustine, John Calvin, John Piper and other theological humps who shall remain nameless in order to shed light upon the “whole council” of God. :heart: Preachers that equip the masses to insert large alien theories like the two wills of God into Deuteronomy aren’t shedding light, much rather spreading dark.
It's not two wills, it's one and the same, some of it revealed, some of it not.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,525
✟320,827.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
" ... [the] precise correlation between the information that was communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear."

- Sir Humphrey Applebly. Yes, Minister.
Maybe Hebrew could handle it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,525
✟320,827.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The most helpful question any Christian can answer on the whole “two wills” catastrophe is “how true is this statement in the scriptures?” About the sacrifices of children to Baal, scripture teaches it was something God...

did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

I have never commanded such a horrible deed; it never even crossed my mind to command such a thing!

which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind—

something I never commanded or mentioned, nor did it even enter My mind.

which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

something I have never commanded or mentioned; I never entertained the thought.
How true is that? If we subscribed to the two wills theory, it’s both true and untrue, the sacrifices to Baal were his will and not his will, it’s a whole lot of smoke and mirrors.
Yes, thank you. I just have a really hard time thinking that, when God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit, He secretly wanted him to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cormack
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,525
✟320,827.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
In the Law example I mentioned: God actively desires that we oppose His will re: X under certain conditions and He has built this into His Law, so His Law and we can function at a higher level for human good.
Here I think we can say that He actively foreknew that we would oppose or disobey His will, just as He knew Adam would, but also that each case would serve as a stepping stone in His plan, in man's formation, in his education, aimed at ultimately bringing man into alignment with His perfect will.
LXE Isaiah 45:7 I am he that prepared light, and formed darkness; who make peace, and create evil; I am the Lord God, that does all these things.

This doesn't say He allows evil. Ultimately He is perfectly righteous and just. But this doesn't mean we have a handle on precisely how He thinks and functions. And He most certainly does not fit into, nor have to fit into the boundaries we make.
I'd only say that I wouldn't build a theology on a single verse or passage of Scripture, especially without taking the rest of Scripture into consideration, and in light of the fact that the bible was never intended to be a precisely worded catechism or theological treatise, a fact that doesn't serve to offer much aid in resolving the many disagreements over its meanings. And, yes, God and his thoughts are bigger'n us, much bigger, a concept that many use to support whatever their thoughts happen to be. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think most Christians would say that temptation, in and of itself, is not sin. However, I came across a contrary view regarding temptation held by John Calvin. Calvin, who usually agrees with virtually anything Augustine says, takes a different view of temptation.

"Content to designate it with the term "weakness," he (Augustine) teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it, that is, when the will yields to the first strong inclination. We, on the other hand, deem it sin when man is tickled by any desire at all against the law of God. Indeed, we label "sin" that very depravity which begets in us desires of this sort" (Institutes III.III.10).

One possibility is that Calvin is being inconsistent. Perhaps in other places he argues that temptation, in and of itself, is not sin but then fails to be consistent in this passage. As it stands, this passage clearly indicates that temptation is sin. In fact, the nature that could possibly sin (i.e. depraved nature) is itself sin, according to Calvin.

That's an odd position to hold, in my opinion. What would make this opinion even more controversial is the implications it has for our Lord's Incarnation. I think the orthodox position is that our Lord was tempted, but did not sin. If Calvin argues that our Lord was tempted, then (based on this passage) he would also have to conclude that our Lord sinned in even being tempted. I seriously doubt Calvin would be comfortable with that conclusion (although, Calvin is comfortable with all kinds of positions that make most folks uncomfortable). So, assuming the above passage is his settled position, Calvin is not being consistent.

At any rate, what do you think. Is being tempted itself a sin?
14 But each person is tempted when he is dragged away and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin. And sin, when it is full grown, gives birth to death.
(James 1:14-15, NIV2011)
I believe this passage gives insight and governs...from these passages it would seem that technically the desire is not sin itself...we do have a sinful nature, but we must not sow to please that sinful nature, but rather sow to please the Spirit within us. If one entertains evil desires one is playing with fire.
 
Upvote 0

Thomas White

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2020
1,193
705
37
Stockbridge
✟78,796.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
I think most Christians would say that temptation, in and of itself, is not sin. However, I came across a contrary view regarding temptation held by John Calvin. Calvin, who usually agrees with virtually anything Augustine says, takes a different view of temptation.

"Content to designate it with the term "weakness," he (Augustine) teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it, that is, when the will yields to the first strong inclination. We, on the other hand, deem it sin when man is tickled by any desire at all against the law of God. Indeed, we label "sin" that very depravity which begets in us desires of this sort" (Institutes III.III.10).

One possibility is that Calvin is being inconsistent. Perhaps in other places he argues that temptation, in and of itself, is not sin but then fails to be consistent in this passage. As it stands, this passage clearly indicates that temptation is sin. In fact, the nature that could possibly sin (i.e. depraved nature) is itself sin, according to Calvin.

That's an odd position to hold, in my opinion. What would make this opinion even more controversial is the implications it has for our Lord's Incarnation. I think the orthodox position is that our Lord was tempted, but did not sin. If Calvin argues that our Lord was tempted, then (based on this passage) he would also have to conclude that our Lord sinned in even being tempted. I seriously doubt Calvin would be comfortable with that conclusion (although, Calvin is comfortable with all kinds of positions that make most folks uncomfortable). So, assuming the above passage is his settled position, Calvin is not being consistent.

At any rate, what do you think. Is being tempted itself a sin?

A sin cannot be committed until the person commits the sin. Temptation involves no actual commitment of an act; therefore, it is not sin.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A sin cannot be committed until the person commits the sin. Temptation involves no actual commitment of an act; therefore, it is not sin.
I just posted the James verse in the post above you (#191) which seems to indicate what we be both conclude as Truth. I just returned to post again after recalling the following verse...
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery, 28 but I tell you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28 EHV)
I believe we can say that in God's eyes these evil thoughts and desires are indeed sin while they are extending from the human nature while James seems to be saying it is full-born sin when we act upon these impulses.
Jesus in Matthew is in my view pointing out that we cannot of ourselves and our own works come to God in holiness...we are born in sin and are desperate for Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Thomas White

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2020
1,193
705
37
Stockbridge
✟78,796.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
I just posted the James verse in the post above you (#191) which seems to indicate what we be both conclude as Truth. I just returned to post again after recalling the following verse...
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery, 28 but I tell you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28 EHV)
I believe we can say that in God's eyes these evil thoughts and desires are indeed sin while they are extending from the human nature while James seems to be saying it is full-born sin when we act upon these impulses.
Jesus in Matthew is in my view pointing out that we cannot of ourselves and our own works come to God in holiness...we are born in sin and are desperate for Jesus.

Lust is different from temptation. If we lust, we're giving into the temptation and letting g our thoughts wander.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here I think we can say that He actively foreknew that we would oppose or disobey His will, just as He knew Adam would, but also that each case would serve as a stepping stone in His plan, in man's formation, in his education, aimed at ultimately bringing man into alignment with His perfect will.

Don't really see the entire connection, but re: His foreknowing and ultimate goal, I think we are certainly in agreement. How He gets this whole mess where He wants it to go is beyond fascinating. Trying to imagine His capacities is mind-numbing.

I'd only say that I wouldn't build a theology on a single verse or passage of Scripture, especially without taking the rest of Scripture into consideration, and in light of the fact that the bible was never intended to be a precisely worded catechism or theological treatise, a fact that doesn't serve to offer much aid in resolving the many disagreements over its meanings. And, yes, God and his thoughts are bigger'n us, much bigger, a concept that many use to support whatever their thoughts happen to be.

Nor can we throw out a verse if it doesn't fit our thinking. Certainly agree re: building a theology and that Scripture can be [wrongly] used to support eisegesis. All basics. This is why I asked what we do with the Isaiah verse, because it doesn't seem to fit the "allow" theology, which we apparently both have. I would also look at the potter and the clay concepts from Paul, which tie back to Isaiah (and Jeremiah).
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are some interesting pieces to a puzzle - a thread within a thread - coming out of this thread for me. I'm going to flag some of you and briefly (not my strong-suit, which I'm sure will be displayed again) and highlight why:

Christ’s humanity goes largely unexplored by the mainstream

Agreed as I also brought up in #98 and responded to in #156.

#1. Point being Christ's humanity and our first-born brother (Romans 8) raised by our Father.

So by "personally experiencing the sin problem," you mean his struggle was every bit, and more, of what the struggle with temptation to sin can be, but not that he experienced the problem of sin itself?

Essentially agreed and responded to in #176 and others.

#2. Point being from Hebrews 4:15 the "similarity" of Christ's humanity, but not the same as ours, as He did not have sin. The virgin birth.

But the involuntary impulse itself -- the initial feeling, lasting seconds...is merely the human body in its nature it seems, though we are changed, given a new heart, by Him, and so this tendency is less strong over time also

Agreed and never responded to by me.

#3. The Point: Jesus humanity and our humanity: "we are changed, given a new heart, by Him"
I just did a quick search and the same root is used in Matthew, Mark, and Hebrews: peirazo.

Defining "temptation" as brought up by fhansen.

My question back to public hermit in #153 was whether or not "temptation" was ever spoken of in Scripture as being related to the heart. So far unanswered by any of us.

#4. The Point: Jesus humanity and our rebirth with a new heart.

(Also to public hermit, once again: good thread! Thanks!)

Here we have an interplay between God's will and man's will within Jesus, both appropriate, but with God's higher will winning. And related to this, if not for Christ's aversion we surely wouldn't know with the same dramatic effect just how powerful His-God's-will and His love for us is, just how much He desires the greatest good for man, his salvation.

Agreed. Personally I always appreciate when fhansen chimes in and how he remains in a focus of God's love. As his posts quote: "It is love alone that gives worth to all things." Teresa of Avila

#5. The Point: The "interplay between God's will and man's will within [the humanity of] Jesus."

The request itself is subordinated in obedience, it provides a helpful model for us, and it helps illustrate the depth of God's love.

Agreed and appreciated how succinct is the statement "The request itself is subordinated in obedience." I and others stated in several posts how Hebrews 5:8 talks about Jesus having learned obedience.

#6. The Point: obedience - "it provides a helpful model for us." And "God's love."


There have been several other good posts, but I'll stop with these for now.

Firstly, to answer the OP: Temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted. Jesus requested a change in God's will. None of this was sin, as Jesus was sinless. Temptations become sin when our desires bait us, catch us, drag us away, conceive, and produce sin (James 1:15). No tempting/baiting of Jesus ever succeeded in catching Him and dragging Him away.

And this is where this post begins:

What prompted this post this earlier a.m. was something that came out of a discussion with Clare73:

So, it's very clear here that He was tempted/tested in a similar enough fashion to us, but not precisely the same as He was without sin. He learned obedience without possessing sin. We are learning obedience dealing with sin under subjection to God's grace. Similar enough. Not the same. He fully understands it all having also learned obedience through being tempted and experiencing the weakness of flesh even without sin.

Some rambling thoughts based upon all the above input and context of what I see as a thread within a [good] thread:

1 # 2: Jesus was given a human body that was not the same as ours, but similar enough to: provide for Him the ability to remain without sin; learn obedience through sufferings against temptations; experience the weakness of flesh breaking down in an effort to assert itself against His mental agony in spirit to complete our Father's will; and qualify to accomplish what God, in love, wanted/needed to do to accomplish our salvation.

#1 - 2: Jesus is our first born brother to whose likeness we are being conformed (Romans 8:29). Shouldn't we be focusing on Him not only as our Lord, but just as much, on Him being our first-born brother, and the new creation/humanity (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15) we are in Christ and thus be focusing much more on what we're supposed to be becoming?

If He, the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45) was given a humanity that was similar enough to ours to qualify and accomplish as He did, then what in turn is this new birth we've been given and how vast is its similarity to the humanity of Jesus Christ? He is our model. He is our brother. Our same Father is involved in raising us. We interact with the same Spirit of God. We have the same will and standards of God excepting some things that have been fulfilled and changed in Christ.

#3 - 4 What is this new heart of flesh we've been given, coupled with having been given God's Spirit? I know a few things for certain: God can and is writing His Law on new hearts of flesh vs. hearts of stone, so we can obey Him (the (Ezekiel 11:19-20; Ezekiel 36:26-27; 2 Corinthians 3:3; Jeremiah 31:33; etc.). And our consciences are being perfected under the new Great High Priesthood as never before His being in this position (Hebrews 9).

Was this the heart Jesus had? As a young boy (Luke 2:43) Jesus had been raised by our Father waking Him each morning and teaching Him (Isaiah 50:4-6). By the age of 12 He was spiritually strong / filled with wisdom, His knowledge and understanding amazed the teachers of Israel, and He was focused on the necessity of being in the things of His/our Father (Luke 2:40-49). Even in His sinless body He learned obedience, suffered, and experienced the body of flesh tugging at Him to do what comforted it. What can and is God doing with such a new heart He's given to us? What are we distracted from and not getting for the past 2,000 years? Can this new heart tempt us? What is the power of this new heart in us in Christ indwelt by Him / with His Spirit?

#5 - 6: The interplay of God's will and our will has been modeled successfully for us by our elder brother and Lord in a humanity similar enough to ours to show us it can be done. At the end of the analysis it's all about learning obedience, which is love for God (1 John 5:3; John 14:15, John 14:23-24), required of us for loving one another (1 John 5:4), directly associated with Faith (Luke 6:46 and many others), directly correlated to being born from God (1 John 3:9) and being God's children (1 John 3:10) and to several other vital words and concepts of our Faith.

Hebrews 10 is definitely worth a read again: He was given a body prepared for Him when God no longer wanted sacrifices for sins, and so He could do God's will - God took away the sacrifice system to institute the do-His-will system and:

NKJ Hebrews 10:10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Sanctified/Set apart for what?:

Hebrews 10:16-17 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," 17 then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."

And verses 10:24-31 in this context, explain why we're to be assembling and paying attention to one another (10:25-26 have been thrown at me too many times to get me to come to assemblies that are not doing much of any of the context here and who don't want to consider what the context and reason is for assembling).

FWIW: I think the similarity between Him and us in Him is way more than we think it is. I think we're way behind the curve given 2,000 years of this. I think Cormack nailed it when stating this: "Christ’s humanity goes largely unexplored by the mainstream" and I think my earlier linked comments were in agreement. I think the bulk of this thread has been very productive and it's refreshing to know that there are solid thinkers among my siblings and His. It reveals that His Ekklesia is alive and well and interspersed among denominations and locales, which all makes Scriptural sense.

There are some interesting things going on out there stemming from the persecutions against free speech, and business as usual in things called "church." Maybe at some point we get it and start becoming what we're created to be and in this defeating the temptations/testings pressured against us no matter where they emanate from, or what they are. Assembling to literally "irritate" one another to love and good works might become the norm.

Hitting Post Reply before I change my mind. Your thoughts have been very refreshing and indicative of what we should be able to do in assembling. Calvin, Aquinas, and all those who pondered all these things are valuable, but it's not done, and all of us should be considering and working on why this is.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
And words can be confounded by deferring to Augustine, John Calvin, John Piper and other theological humps who shall remain nameless in order to shed light upon the “whole council” of God. :heart: Preachers that equip the masses to insert large alien theories like the two wills of God into Deuteronomy aren’t shedding light, much rather spreading dark.
I don’t mean anything as dramatic as moral evil, just plumb dark ignorance. It’s not wise to put a philosophical grid over scripture, then to defer to the “whole council” because they’ve clearly misused part.

Well, yes, actually, you rather DO mean moral evil, I think. You can put makeup on a pig, but you still think it is a pig. (Haha, see what I did there --now you're not sure if I'm criticizing your opinion or leaving you to decide which is the pig!) What you claim is being done is in fact adding to Scripture, not just spreading ignorance, but that sword swings both directions --be careful.

I'm curious how you think the Bible can be studied objectively --i.e. without presuppositions, your "philosophical grid". We all have a worldvieew. We do our best, but it is still impossible to shed all presumptions.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums