Is temptation, in and of itself, sin?

[Clare73]

I don't see rattlesnakes in that way. The idea that certain animals are a pest or a product is a man-made one. God instructed us to be stewards of the earth and to care for all the animals. There are no Calvanistic reprobate ones just as there are no reprobate humans so all means all, not just the cuddly ones. Of course I wouldn't put a rattlesnake in a baby's pram if I thought it was looking lonely and needed a little company but I would regard it as having certain inalienable rights just as you and I have.

Wow! You won't be baby sitting any kids in my family!

 

[Hmm]

Wow! You won't be baby sitting for any kids in my family!

Well, I'm cheap and if any rattlesnakes drop by hoping to meet new friends, I'll simply tell them to call back another time when you're in!

 

[Saint Steven]

Understanding this solves the issue of the quote in James.

Now if someone would repair the bad translation... (not likely)

 

[Taodeching]

So long as people are lost in their sin, they’re trapped in the upside down hierarchy that Satan rules, he’s the worst of the worst, and as a result he’s the head of the problem.

Like Stranger things we are in the upside down, we been in it for so long that we are use to it. Reminds me of an interview with Douglas Gresham where he said in part when he stepped into the Church he stepped into the real world out of the fake

 

[Cormack]

Like Stranger things we are in the upside down, we been in it for so long that we are use to it.

And as a result God replies in His Kingdom people who we know as the first will be last and the last will be first, it’s a reversal of expectations since we have been trained into seeing the truth of things upside down.

The wicked system of things requires certain character traits, qualities and goals so as to better align yourself with itself. Those things aren’t in line with Gods values though.

An excellent black pill meme I seen just today read “the reward for conformity is that everyone likes you but yourself.”

Systems of the world are no different, you’re “loved” insofar that you conform yourself to the image of success that the world propagates.

 

[Cormack]

I agree that calamity or disaster is predominate.

Being predominant could imply there’s some kind of lesser meaning to the verse that isn’t calamity, but that’s not the case. It’s just calamity or a synonym of calamity, so it’s calamity, disaster, catastrophe. It’s not moral evil and that verse doesn’t shed any light on Gods relationship to sin, at best it’s an example of Gods justice upon wicked nations. Notice you shared the verse to argue for the idea that God doesn’t merely allow evil, rather he creates evil so far as you were aware due to the quote.

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.

That’s not the case though, it’s not about evil and outside of the King James most translations won’t use that word.

NIV

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster;

NLT

I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times.

ESV

I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity;

An easy principle of interpretation that helps us see that evil is an incorrect word to use there is to note how Isaiah is using opposites. What’s the opposite of light? Darkness. What’s the opposite of peace? Evil? No, that’s not right. The opposite of peace is something like unrest, war, calamity, disaster.

It’s not meant to be a treatise on how God interacts with evil, righteousness or anything of that nature. Whenever the Bible does go into writing on actual evil, God always stresses His distance and distaste for it.

 

[public hermit]

Can anyone explain this? It's something I've never understood. I believe that Jesus was tempted/tested yet never sinned. The idea that He did sin just doesn't seem right somehow. But I'm at a loss as to why it's important, or more accurately crucial. Why did Jesus have to be free from sin and resurrected in order to achieve or make possible our reconciliation with God? I hope this isn't too off topic.

I saw your question this morning, but didn't have time to give my feeble offering. I see Christ's Incarnation as the fulfillment of human potential, in terms of the divine intention for humanity. In scripture it's referred to as the fulfillment of the law, but it amounts to the same thing. His sinless life is more about what we were created to be, than about what we should not do. In the great mystery of the divine plan, Jesus fulfilled the apex of human potential, while also bearing the consequences of human sin. He is an example, but also an ontological doorway, so that we might also participate in the fullness of human being. Or, so I say.

 

[Saint Steven]

I have a different take on the fulfillment of the Law. (for what it's worth)

Luke 24:44 NIV
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

-- COMPARE --

Matthew 5:17 NIV
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

 

[GDL]

I think it can all be resolved, but I don't want to OP it.
I'll be a major contributor, but not an OP.

No fhansen yet and honestly your post is a challenge to my tired capacity tonight (was out for the day earlier). Will try to look back at it tomorrow.

 

[GDL]

So, if it turns out that you are one of the unlucky ones who are made out of "clay for destruction" and not "clay of honor", whatever strange substances these are, are you seriously saying that, when swimming around eternally in the lake of hell fire through no fault of your own, the thought won't once cross your mind that the Potter had been a bit unfair to you?

clay vessels for honor & for destruction - Romans 9 - derived from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations

No I'm not saying what your saying. But I am asking questions about how God does things and what He does and am asking if we have truly resolved such things. I'm also asking whether or not we have a complete handle on what He can do and does within the boundaries of His essence, including what is just or fair.

 

[Clare73]

No fhansen yet and honestly your post is a challenge to my tired capacity tonight (was out for the day earlier). Will try to look back at it tomorrow.

Get some rest. Good night.

 

[public hermit]

I have a different take on the fulfillment of the Law. (for what it's worth)

Luke 24:44 NIV
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

-- COMPARE --

Matthew 5:17 NIV
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Do you mean his fulfillment of the law was a fulfillment of the scriptures? I would agree with that.

I see the primary purpose of the law to be flourishing life. God, via Moses, told the wandering Hebrews that the law meant life for them. They, for reasons only known to God, were chosen to be God's peculiar people in the world who lived as God intended.

Christ fulfilled that divine intention. He lived the way of flourishing life in a world that kills flourishing. But, of course, death can't hold it. Death can't stop truly flourishing life.

Flourishing life is the fulfillment of human potential, or the fullfilment of the law. Same thing. Christ made that real in spite of evil. His sinless ways and resurrected (flourishing) life are intimately related. Human potential is fulfilled if and when human life flourishes. But evil and sin, by their very nature cannot endure, cannot flourish.

 

[GDL]

Being predominant could imply there’s some kind of lesser meaning to the verse that isn’t calamity, but that’s not the case.

That’s not the case though, it’s not about evil and outside of the King James most translations won’t use that word.

Predominate [quantity] translation was my meaning, however, I have 9 English translations on my screen + the Hebrew + the Greek, which is pretty normal at all times so I can glance through them all. So, lets' check closer than my previous glance: evil - 3; woe - 1; calamity - 4; disaster - 1. As I said, calamity or disaster is predominate [in quantity], and added now: evil close behind.

It’s not moral evil and that verse doesn’t shed any light on Gods relationship to sin,

As I said, I'm OK with the translation "evil," which is not always used of moral evil (see lexicon inclusion below). NKJ English search while writing this: "evil" 482 hits in 454 verses. Also: Hebrew "ra" 569 hits in 529 verses (although it looks like the search is picking up a few other similar words). Greek "kaka" 354 hits in 325 verses. Big job to tell me "evil" is not an acceptable translation, or for me to prove it is. So, let's just agree that it's OK for now to retain our personal preferences for whatever our reasons.

at best it’s an example of Gods justice upon wicked nations.

FWIW, I'm not opposing you on this, as I've already explained that I do see the context speaking of national judgments by God. We're thus in agreement it seems.

Notice you shared the verse to argue for the idea that God doesn’t merely allow evil, rather he creates evil so far as you were aware due to the quote

I'm fully aware of what I said, and of the reasons for saying it. The full context of my discussion was not moral evil, but of how God works His will in relation to man's will.

An easy principle of interpretation that helps us see that evil is an incorrect word to use there is to note how Isaiah is using opposites. What’s the opposite of light? Darkness. What’s the opposite of peace? Evil? No, that’s not right. The opposite of peace is something like unrest, war, calamity, disaster.

Thanks for the input. I did look for such things when reading the Text and normally do. I also looked for parallels and know that darkness is used as a metaphor for evil at times (whatever its precise meaning is in context) and I noted that "create" is used in relation to both darkness and evil in Isaiah 45:7. If I was digging deeper, I'd want to know more of why. I already noted that it seems God is making the case that He is the Sovereign God that is behind all the things that will be done by Cyrus, and that there are no other (g)God's but Him.

It’s not meant to be a treatise on how God interacts with evil, righteousness or anything of that nature. Whenever the Bible does go into writing on actual evil, God always stresses His distance and distaste for it.

Depends on what "evil" means here and His judgment on nations surely has to do with how He interacts with the things you mention.

Re: evil: in this instance and maybe in one or more of the other hundreds of uses of the word, He is not distanced from evil, because it does not have to mean what you narrowly want it to mean. It all depends on what is meant by "evil" in the context. Also, just to show you what I'm looking at without digging much deeper into other resources, here's some of the flexibility of the Hebrew "ra" and note, if you care to read all this (and no criticism if you don't) how "evil" shows up 3 different times in 2 or 3 different senses:

רַע adjective masculine singular absolute
__________________________________
Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT (HOL)
Hol7961
רַע, ) רָע225 × ) : f. רָעָה; pl. רָעִים, cs. רָעֵי, f. רָעוֹת; adj.: — 1. of bad quality, inferior: cattle Gn 4120, water 2K 219; mar°eh ugly Gn 413; — 2. disagreeable, unwholesome: lifetime Gn 479, region Nu 205; b®r¹±â in unfavorable circumstances 2K 1410; — 3. bad, of no value, contemptible: name Dt 2214; — 4. bad-tempered, evil, morally depraved: maµš¹bâ (scheme) Gn 65; derek r¹±â 1K 1333; — 5. ra± b®±ênê bad in the eyes ( = judgment) of = disagreeable, displeasing Gn 288, = undesirable, annoying Nu 1110, = objectionable, disapproved of 1K 116; ra± ±al annoying to Ec 217; — 6. bad = vicious, harmful: boils Dt 2835, wild animal Gn 3733; d¹b¹r ra± something unwholesome 2K 441; rûµ r¹±â harmful, destructive spirit 1S 1614; ra± ±ayin envious Pr 236; — 7. evil, adverse: yôm r¹± fatal day Am 63; r¹± disaster Gn 4434; b®r¹± in a bad situation Ex 59; l®ra± l¹kem to your harm Je 76; — 8. bad, evil (in the absolute, ethical sense) Gn 29 1K 39; — 9. in a bad mood, cross, discontented: p¹nék¹ r¹±îm you look out of sorts Gn 407; — 10. ra± > noun: (I fear no) evil Ps 234; °anšê r¹± wicked men Pr 285; — 11. spec.: b®r¹± hû° he is prone to evil Ex 3222; ±¹´â r¹±â cause disaster? do harm to onesf. ? 2S 1218. (pg 342)


With all this said, like I said, I'm not really opposing you. I'm a fan of attempting to be consistent with translating words. It's confounding to see the varieties of translations for the same word. But words have ranges of meanings, translations are done in different eras under different controls, and some of my attempts to be consistent in translating myself have been humbled.

It wasn't my case that God creates moral evil, but that we don't have a handle on exactly what He does and doesn't do in all respects. I also for some time have not desired to remain in a theological box anymore and I question most thinking now, including some of the indirect responsibilities for His creation that God seems to logically have, and why that logic may or may not be correct. I understand that His character is never lessened in any way.

 

[Saint Steven]

Do you mean his fulfillment of the law was a fulfillment of the scriptures? I would agree with that.

Yes. In the scriptures I quoted, "the Law" was in reference to the Books of the Law, not the law itself. The fulfillment then would be prophetic fulfillment.

Saint Steven said: ↑
I have a different take on the fulfillment of the Law. (for what it's worth)

Luke 24:44 NIV
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

-- COMPARE --

Matthew 5:17 NIV
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

 

[Hmm]

But I am asking questions about how God does things and what He does and am asking if we have truly resolved such things.

I agree that we can't understand everything about God or what He does.

I'm also asking whether or not we have a complete handle on what He can do and does within the boundaries of His essence, including what is just or fair.

I believe God gives us a conscience - the capacity to know good from evil - and this allows us to get a complete handle on the idea of Him creating and predesting some to hell and others to heaven. It would be clear to a child that this is not fair or just and didn't Jesus say something about thinking like that?

 

[Hmm]

I saw your question this morning, but didn't have time to give my feeble offering. I see Christ's Incarnation as the fulfillment of human potential, in terms of the divine intention for humanity. In scripture it's referred to as the fulfillment of the law, but it amounts to the same thing. His sinless life is more about what we were created to be, than about what we should not do. In the great mystery of the divine plan, Jesus fulfilled the apex of human potential, while also bearing the consequences of human sin. He is an example, but also an ontological doorway, so that we might also participate in the fullness of human being. Or, so I say.

That's hardly a feeble offering! Do you mean that our salvation is that we too will be given new resurrection bodies and be perfectly united with God in a sinless kind of way?

 

[Cormack]

You don’t really need Hebrew school, @GDL. The lexicons and multiple translations aren’t much needed since they only serve to confound the community and create ambiguous within the text.

“Evil” in old style English usage could simply mean “an evil thing occurred in my life,” as in something we didn’t like so much.

There’s only a need for “context” and lexicons and innumerable Bible translations to enter into the conversation around the word evil when we use ambiguous translations of the Bible and attempt to argue that Isaiah 45:7 is somehow related to moral evil (which it’s not.) In my experience it’s the most misused verse during inter denominational dialogue with Calvinists.

I read your entire message and appreciate the effort, although I wouldn’t go to those lengths if I agreed with what someone else wrote. I’d probably just tick “agree.”

 

[Cormack]

I already noted that it seems God is making the case that He is the Sovereign God that is behind all the things that will be done by Cyrus, and that there are no other (g)God's but Him.

Sovereign though simply means ruler, it’s not intended to mean that the ruler’s “behind all things” (in whatever way that phrase is being used.)

If you pop open a physical copy of the King James the King of England is addressed as “dread sovereign.” Again to be sovereign is a word that many Calvinists hijack and misuse as if it were intending to mean Gods in control of everything, like the common misuse of Isaiah 45:7 by that same group.

Not all Calvinists do this, thankfully. The Gospel Coalition has an article about how the proper use of sovereign simply means to rule.

It’s not a commentary on how the sovereign chooses to rule, it’s about the fact that he does rule.

 

[public hermit]

That's hardly a feeble offering! Do you mean that our salvation is that we too will be given new resurrection bodies and be perfectly united with God in a sinless kind of way?

Yes. It's kind of funny when you put it that way, haha. That's pretty succinct. Maybe I'm going the long way around the short cut.

 

[Hmm]

Yes. It's kind of funny when you put it that way, haha. That's pretty succinct. Maybe I'm going the long way around the short cut.

Perhaps it's my maths background. I'm always trying to reduce things down to their simplest terms, which doesn't make for a good writing style like you have!