Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Word can be rightly divided in light of the whole counsel of God.
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.
By "vs." I was not requiring contradiction, although there seemingly is some.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.
God's will was secret to Pharaoh.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.
Scripture is pretty clear about God "testing," don't you think?
It's not two wills, it's one and the same, some of it revealed, some of it not.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.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.
Maybe Hebrew could handle it..." ... [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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.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'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.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.
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.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?
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?
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...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.
News to me!Lust is different from temptation. If we lust, we're giving into the temptation and letting g our thoughts wander.
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.
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.
Christ’s humanity goes largely unexplored by the mainstream
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?
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
I just did a quick search and the same root is used in Matthew, Mark, and Hebrews: peirazo.
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.
The request itself is subordinated in obedience, it provides a helpful model for us, and it helps illustrate the depth of God's love.
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?