Is temptation, in and of itself, sin?

Clare73 said:

Scripture seems to use that sense of peirazo as intentional by God (Genesis 22:1; Exodus 15:25, 16:4, 20:20; Deuteronomy 8:2-3; Job 23:10; Psalm 66:10, etc.).

It doesn't seem to fit for a divine Son.

Click to expand...

Nice that someone's doing the work from the Text.

Good find! Did you look closely at the Deut. 8:2-3 verses? The form of peirazo has a preposition added to it. Typically the first thing to look at in such words is the concept of intensification - the preposition intensifies the meaning. Note the parallelism with the word before it. The Greek there can trend into "mistreat, harm, think badly of, embitter, etc." and the Hebrew similarly "humble, oppress, subdue, make one feel their dependence, etc." So we can see why the translators used ekpeirazo - the intensity of the testing being described. By 8:5 it goes into "discipline," which carries the intensity, and the Greek will take this into Scriptures like Hebrews 12:6-10 and us sharing God's holiness, which is a verse that always gets to me. Interesting also how Jesus referred back here in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 when He hungered and was tested in the wilderness, showing He knew what His testing was for and how to handle it with Scripture - the Law.

Your work and find here shows how peirazo will tie into other words like paideia which is used in the OT for words that speak of strict disciplinary training. This flavors Heb12. When I take this all in, the obedience testing Christ went through on the cross just makes a lot of sense. In passing these tests and going through the strict training He went through, look what He has become!

Again, what have we been given to have a perfect Father willing to also raise Jesus' siblings to share His holiness?

It looks like Job and Psalms may be using different words than peirazo.

Clare73 said:

Scripture seems to use that sense of peirazo as intentional by God (Genesis 22:1; Exodus 15:25, 16:4, 20:20; Deuteronomy 8:2-3; Job 23:10; Psalm 66:10, etc.).

Click to expand...

BTW, track ekpeirazo back to the NT and we can see there are a few verses there that need to be looked at more closely in view of the intensity being identified. 3 have to do with testing God, and 1 has to do with a lawyer testing Jesus. This typically tells us something about the situation not being as simple as it may sound from the English, unless the translators reveal it.

GDL said:

Nice that someone's doing the work from the Text.

Good find! Did you look closely at the Deut. 8:2-3 verses? The form of peirazo has a preposition added to it. Typically the first thing to look at in such words is the concept of intensification - the preposition intensifies the meaning. Note the parallelism with the word before it. The Greek there can trend into "mistreat, harm, think badly of, embitter, etc." and the Hebrew similarly "humble, oppress, subdue, make one feel their dependence, etc." So we can see why the translators used ekpeirazo - the intensity of the testing being described. By 8:5 it goes into "discipline," which carries the intensity, and the Greek will take this into Scriptures like Hebrews 12:6-10 and us sharing God's holiness, which is a verse that always gets to me. Interesting also how Jesus referred back here in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 when He hungered and was tested in the wilderness, showing He knew what His testing was for and how to handle it with Scripture - the Law.

Your work and find here shows how peirazo will tie into other words like paideia which is used in the OT for words that speak of strict disciplinary training. This flavors Heb12. When I take this all in, the obedience testing Christ went through on the cross just makes a lot of sense. In passing these tests and going through the strict training He went through, look what He has become!

Again, what have we been given to have a perfect Father willing to also raise Jesus' siblings to share His holiness?

It looks like Job and Psalms may be using different words than peirazo.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the word study.

Still can't figure out where I went wrong and ended up agreeing with you. . . .

Clare73 said:

Still can't figure out where I went wrong and ended up agreeing with you. . . .

Click to expand...

Mutual respect for the Word and understanding that we're all doing our best with it. I knew you'd catch up!

GDL said:

BTW, track ekpeirazo back to the NT and we can see there are a few verses there that need to be looked at more closely in view of the intensity being identified. 3 have to do with testing God, and 1 has to do with a lawyer testing Jesus. This typically tells us something about
the situation not being as simple as it may sound from the English, unless the translators reveal it.

Click to expand...

Which explains his intensity in Matthew 23:29-36?

GDL said:

Mutual respect for the Word and understanding that we're all doing our best with it.
I knew you'd catch up!

Click to expand...

I'm glad somebody did!

Clare73 said:

Which explains his intensity in Matthew 23:29-36.

Click to expand...

There was so much cumulative interaction going on and so much unrighteousness in the leadership of Israel, that any and all of His intensity is understandable, and for me, very much appreciated that I can read it and be transformed by it.

Clare73 said:

Where do we find this in the texts?

Click to expand...

That’s in Malachi chapter 1.

Clare73 said:

Or he constructed a test he knew Adam would fail, for the sake of showing forth the glory of his love, mercy and justice in the creation of material children for himself, to be his treasure, personal inheritance (Ephesians 1:18; Psalm 33:12), and possession (Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 7:6, Deuteronomy 2:18; Malachi 3:17).
.

Click to expand...

So that also means that He'd be showing forth His "glory" by creating others for no other purpose than to burn eternally in hell? To know that Adam would fail-and then use that failure for His good purposes- is not the same as willing/causing him to fail. If I cause someone to fail, then save him from his failures that he could in no way avoid because of how I created him, then the culpability for everything he does is mine, I'm a puppet master and my creatures are just puppets. For my glory.

Cormack said:

That’s in Malachi chapter 1.

When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice lame or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor!​

Click to expand...

Thanks.

fhansen said:

So that also means that He'd be showing forth His "glory" by creating others for no other purpose than to burn eternally in hell?

Click to expand...

Adam was in no way forced to rebel against God's command. He had no disposition to sin, as does his fallen progeny. He had complete moral power to obey God in all things.

He chose, with no natural disposition to sin, to rebel (sin). He loved the creature (Eve) more than the Creator, and chose not to be separated from her, by choosing her destiny. He allowed that naturally good love to become inordinate, making it sinful in heart, which allowed Satan to tempt him to sin in action.

You can't hang it on God.

To know that Adam would fail-and then use that failure for His good purposes- is not the same as willing/causing him to fail. If I cause someone to fail,

Click to expand...

Did God cause Adam to fail? He did not.
Adam had complete moral power to obey God. He willingly and freely chose not to do so.

You can't hang it on God.

then save him from his failures that he could in no way avoid because of how I created him, then the culpability for everything he does is mine, I'm a puppet master and my creatures are just puppets. For my glory.

Click to expand...

You might want to be sitting down for this one.

"The law was added so that the trespass might increase." (Romans 5:21).

Sin was necessary to manifest God's justice, wrath, judgment and to manifest his power by judging, conquering and saving from sin.
Divine love is rendered illustrious, outstanding and celebrated when it shines in the midst of wrath and judgment.
Remember, we are dealing with humans here, where divine matters need to be made quite plain and manifest, and where apprehension is rooted in experience (Romans 9:23).

"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay (mankind) some pottery for noble purposes and some for ignoble purposes?" (Romans 9:21) See Jeremiah 18:3-6, Philippians 1:2-- where opposition to the church and the gospel is a sign of sure destruction, which is what they were destined for (1 Peter 1:28)--an ignoble purpose (Romans 9:22-23).

Do I need to get the smelling salts?

See Romans 9:18-23.
.

fhansen said:

So that also means that He'd be showing forth His "glory" by creating others for no other purpose than to burn eternally in hell? To know that Adam would fail-and then use that failure for His good purposes- is not the same as willing/causing him to fail. If I cause someone to fail, then save him from his failures that he could in no way avoid because of how I created him, then the culpability for everything he does is mine, I'm a puppet master and my creatures are just puppets. For my glory.

Click to expand...

Again, the sovereignty and free will issue, is it not?

If God in His omniscience creates man He knows will fail, in a universe He has created that provides for the potential of failure, and initiates tests He knows man will fail, even though it is not His will that man fails, how do we so cleanly slice the responsibility? How can we cleanly say the failure is not His will, because He knows what it will accomplish in the end?

What does God see in a person that provides for His determination that some will be clay for destruction and some clay for honor? What is the dividing line where He determines He will be party to the hardening of a heart?

We like to speak of free will, but, for example, could John the Baptist be anyone but who he was born and foretold to be? Is it just God's foreknowledge and omniscience knowing every decision John would make, or did God specifically insert him into history for His purposes? Same thing for certain evil people?

When I try to understand who He is, what His capabilities are, how His perfection keeps Him free of being imperfect in any sense, how the clay has no right or really any ability to question the Potter, how this creation is His in His Sovereignty, etc., etc., etc., I fall back into thinking that I have no capacity nor way to think I can fully understand Him or how and why He does things. I also know He is completely free of needing me to think I can protect Him with my puny thinking or words.

In a way we are just [free will] puppets. There's nothing we can do but end up where He will have us end up. He will have the creation He wants. I'm fine with this, as completely committed as I can be at this point along the way, and completely looking forward to being and doing everything He has planned for our future.

Being at the end of His strings with free will may not make logical sense, but, until someone resolves sovereignty and free-will, I'm open to the concept being logical in a way we just can't explain yet. If we want to consider the concept, all we have to do is try to look ever deeper into the mindset of our first-born brother. He made a request in godly fear, it seems clearly to have been denied, and the strings remained attached to play out what God's will was. Always doing what He saw our Father do and saying what He heard our Father say seems to be the man choosing in free will and asking for the strings.

GDL said:

Again, the sovereignty and free will issue, is it not?

If God in His omniscience creates man He knows will fail, in a universe He has created that provides for the potential of failure, and initiates tests He knows man will fail, even though it is not His will that man fails, how do we so cleanly slice the responsibility? How can we cleanly say the failure is not His will, because He knows what it will accomplish in the end?

What does God see in a person that provides for His determination that some will be clay for destruction and some clay for honor? What is the dividing line where He determines He will be party to the hardening of a heart?

We like to speak of fee will, but, for example, could John the Baptist be anyone but who he was born and foretold to be? Is it just God's foreknowledge and omniscience knowing every decision John would make, or did God specifically insert him into history for His purposes? Same thing for certain evil people?

When I try to understand who He is, what His capabilities are, how His perfection keeps Him free of being imperfect in any sense, how the clay has no right or really any ability to question the Potter, how this creation is His in His Sovereignty, etc., etc., etc., I fall back into thinking that I have no capacity nor way to think I can fully understand Him or how and why He does things. I also know He is completely free of needing me to think I can protect Him with my puny thinking or words.

In a way we are just [free will] puppets. There's nothing we can do but end up where He will have us end up. He will have the creation He wants. I'm fine with this, as completely committed as I can be at this point along the way, and completely looking forward to being and doing everything He has planned for our future.

Being at the end of His strings with free will may not make logical sense, but, until someone resolves sovereignty and free-will, I'm open to the concept being logical in a way we just can't explain yet

Click to expand...

Isn't the issue really the justice of God's sovereignty in holding man accountable?

Scripture also answers that question, via a series of Biblical principles to be understood.

If we want to consider the concept, all we have to do is try to look ever deeper into the mindset of our first-born brother. He made a request in godly fear, it seems clearly to have been denied, and the strings remained attached to play out what God's will was. Always doing what He saw our Father do and saying what He heard our Father say seems to be the man choosing in free will and asking for the strings.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

Were Adam and Eve tempted by their own evil desires? They were not yet fallen. What evil desires? The tempter had to suggest some. And did so by taking advantage of the situation. I see something in the story that I rarely if ever hear anyone talking about.

Click to expand...

I don't think they had any...

Their existence was one of complete trust and harmony with their environment.

The serpent spoke - I think they spoke to the animals also - this was normal.

What they had never encountered was deception.

They had no reason to distrust the serpent.

The serpent presented sin in a way that would not seem to contradict what God had said.

They were tempted by Satans desires - not their own.

Just as Jesus was tempted by Peter's desires not His own.

Understanding this solves the issue of the quote in James.

public hermit said:

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?

Click to expand...

Great question!

I would say yes it is a sin, because as Jesus pointed out, even lusting after a woman who is not our wife is wrong, because what goes on in the heart matters, and is not temptation that which wrestles the heart? We cannot escape our original sin.

Clare73 said:

Isn't the issue really the justice of God's sovereignty in holding man accountable?

Scripture also answers that question, via a series of Biblical principles to be understood.

Click to expand...

Probably several issues, but I'll let fhansen chime back in. He and I were into the S & FW issue and the "puppet" language sounds like it's still in that area to whatever degree. Your point is well-taken and maybe I shouldn't have jumped in. But the discussion is really a good one as I said earlier.

GDL said:

Probably several issues, but I'll let fhansen chime back in. He and I were into the S & FW issue and the "puppet" language sounds like it's still in that area to whatever degree. Your point is well-taken and maybe I shouldn't have jumped in. But the discussion is really a good one as I said earlier.

Click to expand...

Naw. . .your input is valuable.

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.

We'll have to look below the surface on a few things.
But that doesn't seem to be a problem with most of us in this discussion.

Of these five conflicts, how many do you think would have to be labored?
1) conflict of sovereignty of God and "free will" (philosophical sense) of man
--man's free will is limited (philosophical free agency);

2) no conflict between sovereignty of God and free agency
--man still acts voluntarily according to his wishes and desire, with no external constraints;

3) conflict of limited free will and justice of man's responsibility for sin
--man's responsibility is not based in ability, but in what is justly owed;

4) conflict of justice and man's responsibility for Adam's sin (Romans 5:12-21)
--personal responsibility for debt does not require debt be personally incurred (as in inherited family business);

5) conflict of justice and man's responsibility for God's operation within man's disposition (Romans 9:18)
--resolved in God's choice of election (Romans 9:14-21).

GDL said:

What does God see in a person that provides for His determination that some will be clay for destruction and some clay for honor?

Click to expand...

GDL said:

how the clay has no right or really any ability to question the Potter

Click to expand...

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?

Hmm said:

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?

Click to expand...

I have Adam to thank for that, just as the baby rattlesnake has his primary ancestor to thank for the fact that he is despised, rejected and killed in most backyards.

Is it unfair to the rattlesnakes of the world that some snake lover takes the baby rattlesnake in and de-rattles him, making him a pet instead of a despised enemy subject to destruction?

Hardly.

Is it unfair that baby rattlesnakes in backyards with children are despised and destroyed, but cute little puppies are not?

Hardly.

Depends on your reference point.
Whose reference point should govern in the above, man or ratttlesnake?

Clare73 said:

Depends on your reference point.
Whose reference point should govern in the above, man or ratttlesnake?

Click to expand...

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.