Is temptation, in and of itself, sin?

[Cormack]

Well, yes, actually, you rather DO mean moral evil, I think.

One of the best features on CF is the ability to check out a posters message history, if you do, you’ll find I rarely traffic in moral condemnation (if ever.) Of course there’s no amount of evidence that can convince a person otherwise if they don’t trust my clarifying messages.

There’s no curiosity if you won’t read my messages in plain language. I’m not writing one thing but secretly meaning something else (unless I’m being obviously facetious,) rather saying one thing in a sober manner but intending something else is the God of John Calvin, who you worship.

now you're not sure if I'm criticizing your opinion or leaving you to decide which is the pig!

No man should think so deeply about what other men are thinking. You wrote something, it’s there, it’s not a meaningful response to anything I’ve shared.

I’m sure you’re not just salty because the last time we conversed I shared more than two dozen arguments against your brand of Calvinism, and you were able to respond to none of them. A whopping zero.

 

[fhansen]

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).

Well, first of all we can't get into the author's mind in any absolute way but I'd say, based on what Jesus, especially, revealed to us about God for one thing along with the general message in the bible, from Genesis on, regarding the role of man's will in responding to God and turning from evil, accompanied by our own experience in this life, that Isaiah was using "created" metaphorically-or loosely in any case, with the major intent being to describe God's final control over all things. We may agree that God "causes" physical evil: illness, natural tragedies ("acts of God"), etc, but He's also the indirect cause of the worst kind of evil, the moral evil (sin) willed by man, simply by allowing, and possibly using, that evil for His, presumably, ultimately good ends. Moral evil is considered to be the worst kind of evil because we know that the perpetrator could've done otherwise, that deliberate malice is involved.

And yet God must be isolated in some manner from that malice, from directly willing this kind of evil because that would completely erase any real distinction between good and evil; the concept of morality would be rendered as fallacious and any reason for God holding man accountable for sin would be unreasonable, irrational. We can defer to the concept that God's ways are not our ways, etc but if He directly wills the torture and rape of a 5 year old child then He's simply no longer trustworthy; whatever we think we know about Him from the bible or from wherever is a hoax, or worthless and there'd at least be no sane reason to think heaven should be any better than hell.

 

[Petros2015]

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

There are a couple of things - I think it's important to distinguish between Sin Action and Sin Nature.
Some things, I am not tempted by. If someone mistakenly leaves a $20 bill on a table with me, gets up and walks away, I'm not tempted to take it and hide it and not tell them about it. It's theirs and I call their attention to it. Bully for me!

But... this could be largely conditional. I'm not broke or starving; I have plenty of $20 bills of my own. If I had been unemployed for 2 years and was having coffee with someone who I thought had plenty of $20 bills of their own, and the same thing happened, it's possible the outcome might be different.

There are things that I AM tempted by though and there are sins that I do commit;
I think temptation itself is not a weakness, but it exposes where the areas of weakness are.
Power, Money, Sex are the big traditional areas. Most people might laugh at an offer for 2 out of those 3, but say "ok let's talk a little more" about an offer for 1 of them

The offer is the temptation
It's the "ok let's talk a little more" that's the Sin-Nature which is interested in having something in this area in a way that is not appropriate
And then it's the Sin when the deal is struck.

But it's really the Sin-Nature that's the problem
As that is lessened, temptations that once were are no longer
I think it's possible to go through life without committing any of what we would consider grevious sins (like murder)
But having developed a Sin-Nature that is murderous (and probably, hopefully, pretty frustrated lol)
Not a good idea!
I think a man who commits a murder in a moment of rage is probably in better shape spiritually than a man who meditated on one for years and never did. The same thing for adultery. "the opportunity to do it without consequence never presented itself, so I never did it" is not the same thing as "God said this was not to be done, therefore, I chose not to think about doing it. I have been given better things to think on"

If God is truly Lord God, then isn't Sin at its heart an act of treachery?
So it's a problem of the heart, I think and not the action
Or the mind
Whose thoughts come
From the Heart

To paraphrase Christ roughly, "the actions are forgiven, the heart must be changed"
I think that happens dramatically, miraculously for some in some areas
And for others, or for others in other areas, it's a process of a lifetime that He guides us through
If we want Him to.

 

[GDL]

indirect cause

Still my thoughts at this point. Your second paragraph reasoning included.

 

[zoidar]

See, I agree. But putting that to the side, for arguments sake. If I am tempted by a desire that is contrary to God's will, isn't that sin? If there is within me even the slightest desire (which is what temptation is), isn't that sinful?

Isn't it sin first when you by will choose sin? For an example, having unpure thoughts popping up in your head is not a sin since it's not a choice. When you choose to dwell in the unpure thoughts it becomes sin, because you choose it. My thinking anyway.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes, thank you. What is temptation? Isn't it desire? If I have the slightest desire to do other than God's will, isn't that sinful?

Temptation is not desire.

Temptation precedes desire.

 

[public hermit]

Temptation is not desire.

Temptation precedes desire.

James seems to think it springs from our own desires.

"But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death." James 1:14-15.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There’s no curiosity if you won’t read my messages in plain language. I’m not writing one thing but secretly meaning something else (unless I’m being obviously facetious,) rather saying one thing in a sober manner but intending something else is the God of John Calvin, who you worship.

You seem to invoke intellectual honesty. To me that is impossible with any of us, myself first. We stretch after that goal, but none of us are quite there.

I guess I should say, "turnabout is fair play." I.e no, I don't worship Calvin, nor any other Calvinist nor Reformed writer nor philosopher.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I would say it this way after what I've said (probably too lengthily) already: Sin is ultimately disobedience to God (lawlessness & unrighteousness). Jesus learned obedience through what He suffered. So, yes, in a way I think what you say may well be a way to express what His struggle was and wasn't. He obviously never sinned.

Just a thought here, never considered as such before: Is it possible that him 'learning obedience' is meant as him finding out (as the human he was) what it is like as a human to obey? Not that he ever disobeyed, but that he suffered temptation and weakness as we do, and can therefore be counted as one of us, not merely divine?

 

[Mark Quayle]

James seems to think it springs from our own desires.

"But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death." James 1:14-15.

This is what I think Calvin was talking about in the quote where you took him to mean that temptation is sin, as opposed to Augustine. I don't see Calvin as saying that temptation is in and of itself sin, but flirting with it is, putting onself in the way of being enticed, hoping to be overwhelmed so "it isn't my fault.'

 

[Cormack]

You seem to invoke intellectual honesty. To me that is impossible with any of us, myself first.

If you believe you’re somehow gimped of intellectual honesty, that’s going to come across in how you interact with others. In addition to how you interpret their messages. Bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.

Whether or not we’re intellectually honest is just dirty laundry so far as I’m concerned, grown up gossip, what’s more fundamental to conversations about theology is whether or not God is intellectually honest.

You know well enough where my arguments go from here (e.g. the insincere offer of the gospel, enmity and who felt it first, false spirits sent by God to delude and confuse,) there’s no need to rehash them in detail and derail the topic while we both know that the Calvinists in chat have no valuable response. Their God isn’t honest in any sense of the word and their misguided game of twister played with the English language can’t extract them from that fact.

Diehard Calvinists may cling to their John Macarthurs and their Pipers so long as they can stand their breathy, dramatic tones, swallowing up their bad medicine without chewing on the bitter pill (as Charles Spurgeon explained.) Everybody else however will want to pursue the God who’s recognisably loving, honest and pure. A God whose Spirit does not deceive or threaten deception.

I don't worship Calvin

You worship John Calvin’s God, the deterministic, forked tongued (only insofar that he speaks untruths as though they were his will,) hateful, inscrutable being. The great enemy of sinners who himself orchestrated sin from the very beginning.

Hopefully that counts as clarification.

 

[GDL]

Just a thought here, never considered as such before: Is it possible that him 'learning obedience' is meant as him finding out (as the human he was) what it is like as a human to obey? Not that he ever disobeyed, but that he suffered temptation and weakness as we do, and can therefore be counted as one of us, not merely divine?

I just answered your other similar thread re: Hebrews 4:15, which has a bearing on this.

I think He learned & experienced as a man - a man in sufficient similarity to us - what it was like to remain in obedience to God's will in the weakness of a human body. His experience in the Garden before His arrest is exemplified in the sense of learning obedience from the things He suffered. In this agonizing experience that has Him seeking God in repeated prayers to "let this cup" pass from Him, Luke says His body was shedding as if great drops of blood. As Zippy2006 has well-said in this thread, His "request itself is subordinated in obedience."

So, in answer, yes, as best I understand you. He was tempted/tested, and learned obedience from what He suffered. The similarity of His humanity to ours coupled with His dealing with attempts to tempt Him was sufficient for Him to be able to sympathize/suffer with us in whatever we go through.

And as Zippy2006 said, more completely (my highlighting):

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

 

[Carl Emerson]

James seems to think it springs from our own desires.

"But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death." James 1:14-15.

I will pick this up tomorrow - have to take grand kids to birthday treat...

 

[public hermit]

I will pick this up tomorrow - have to take grand kids to birthday treat...

Enjoy!

 

[Mark Quayle]

I just answered your other similar thread re: Hebrews 4:15, which has a bearing on this.

I think He learned & experienced as a man - a man in sufficient similarity to us - what it was like to remain in obedience to God's will in the weakness of a human body. His experience in the Garden before His arrest is exemplified in the sense of learning obedience from the things He suffered. In this agonizing experience that has Him seeking God in repeated prayers to "let this cup" pass from Him, Luke says His body was shedding as if great drops of blood. As Zippy2006 has well-said in this thread, His "request itself is subordinated in obedience."

So, in answer, yes, as best I understand you. He was tempted/tested, and learned obedience from what He suffered. The similarity of His humanity to ours coupled with His dealing with attempts to tempt Him was sufficient for Him to be able to sympathize/suffer with us in whatever we go through.

And as Zippy2006 said, more completely (my highlighting):

Good stuff. Thanks!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Whether or not we’re intellectually honest is just dirty laundry so far as I’m concerned, grown up gossip, what’s more fundamental to conversations about theology is whether or not God is intellectually honest.

I hope you mean something more like whether what we believe implies God's dishonesty vs honesty. If God isn't honest he isn't God. And, no, I don't mean by that, that he has to satisfy our understanding or worldview.

You know well enough where my arguments go from here (e.g. the insincere offer of the gospel, enmity and who felt it first, false spirits sent by God to delude and confuse,) there’s no need to rehash them in detail and derail the topic while we both know that the Calvinists in chat have no valuable response. Their God isn’t honest in any sense of the word and their misguided game of twister played with the English language can’t extract them from that fact.

Haha, nice. YOU can bring them up, but I mustn't, not even in my own thread! Since you assert I have no defense, why should I bother defending them? Well, Calvinism was not the point of my OP, so I'll leave it alone for now.

Diehard Calvinists may cling to their John Macarthurs and their Pipers so long as they can stand their breathy, dramatic tones, swallowing up their bad medicine without chewing on the bitter pill (as Charles Spurgeon explained.) Everybody else however will want to pursue the God who’s recognisably loving, honest and pure. A God whose Spirit does not deceive or threaten deception.

I don't suppose you are unaware that Spurgeon was also a Calvinist. But it's interesting that you wish to continue to pursue this line after saying there's no use pursuing it, since Calvinists have no defense. Are you in the habit of beating dead horses?

If you believe you’re somehow gimped of intellectual honesty, that’s going to come across in how you interact with others. In addition to how you interpret their messages. Bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.

Do you honestly, intellectually honestly, think your world view is without misapprehension of the facts, and does not color all you see, read, think, say and write??? (Job) "No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you!"

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

Well put.

 

[Hmm]

Do you honestly, intellectually honestly, think your world view is without misapprehension of the facts, and does not color all you see, read, think, say and write??? (Job) "No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you!"

@Cormack has never claimed that about himself. Is it possible you're projecting something here?

 

[public hermit]

This is what I think Calvin was talking about in the quote where you took him to mean that temptation is sin, as opposed to Augustine. I don't see Calvin as saying that temptation is in and of itself sin, but flirting with it is, putting onself in the way of being enticed, hoping to be overwhelmed so "it isn't my fault.'

I don't read that as flirting. He says...

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"

If one is tickled by any desire, it's a sin. Not only that, but the nature that allows such a desire to arise is sin (depravity). If we allow for the notion that temptation comes primarily from our desires, then any desire that is contrary to the will of God is temptation. It probably would have helped if I had made the connection between desire and temptation in the OP. I thought it was obvious, but this thread has shown that we have an issue.

There seems to be three general positions regarding temptation in this thread:
1. Temptation refers primarily to the object that tempts the person (objective).
2. Temptation refers primarily to the subjective experience of desire (epithumia/intense desire...subjective)
3. Some combination of both, or not any emphasis on the distinction.

I argue, as James does, that temptation is primarily about the subjective experience of intense desire (2). Why is it that the exact same object can tempt one person and not another? I wouldn't feed white wedding cake to my dog. I think it's too, too sweet, and therefore nasty. Some people might gorge themselves on it. It's just not tempting to me. I have no desire for it. Some people are tempted by public approval. It strokes their pride. Other people could care less, but will squirrel money away like they quit making it. Temptation rests primarily in the internal experience of desire.

If that is correct and temptation is primarily about internal desire, then when Calvin says "tickled by any desire," there is no temptation that is not sin, i.e. all temptation is sin. The very nature that can desire contrary to God's will is sin. How could a nature like that not sin? I don't agree that every temptation is a sin, but I think that's what Calvin is saying. Am I wrong? Maybe.

When it comes to temptation, I would say the first thought just pops up, very often. I don't consider first thoughts to be sin, because they are so random. "Where did that thought come from?" I can nurse that thought or try to reject it, but therein lies the battle. Ultimately the temptation is to indulge the thought, which leads to the act (often enough to notice). I think Calvin is saying that first thought is sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't read that as flirting. He says...



If one is tickled by any desire, it's a sin. Not only that, but the nature that allows such a desire to arise is sin (depravity). If we allow for the notion that temptation comes primarily from our desires, then any desire that is contrary to the will of God is temptation. It probably would have helped if I had made the connection between desire and temptation in the OP. I thought it was obvious, but this thread has shown that we have an issue.

There seems to be three general positions regarding temptation in this thread:
1. Temptation refers primarily to the object that tempts the person (objective).
2. Temptation refers primarily to the subjective experience of desire (epithumia/intense desire...subjective)
3. Some combination of both, or not any emphasis on the distinction.

I argue, as James does, that temptation is primarily about the subjective experience of intense desire (2). Why is it that the exact same object can tempt one person and not another? I wouldn't feed white wedding cake to my dog. I think it's too, too sweet, and therefore nasty. Some people might gorge themselves on it. It's just not tempting to me. I have no desire for it. Some people are tempted by public approval. It strokes their pride. Other people could care less, but will squirrel money away like they quit making it. Temptation rests primarily in the internal experience of desire.

If that is correct and temptation is primarily about internal desire, then when Calvin says "tickled by any desire," there is no temptation that is not sin, i.e. all temptation is sin. The very nature that can desire contrary to God's will is sin. How could a nature like that not sin? I don't agree that every temptation is a sin, but I think that's what Calvin is saying. Am I wrong? Maybe.

When it comes to temptation, I would say the first thought just pops up, very often. I don't consider first thoughts to be sin, because they are so random. "Where did that thought come from?" I can nurse that thought or try to reject it, but therein lies the battle. Ultimately the temptation is to indulge the thought, which leads to the act (often enough to notice). I think Calvin is saying that first thought is sin.

Well written, and thoughtful. Enjoyed reading it and thinking about it.

Calvin was, like any of us, not entirely consistent in his terminology, and being Reformed in his theology, he was also open to improvement, and did to some degree change some views, or at least, changed how he stated of defended them. I don't take that as entirely 'inconsistent' as you conjectured in your OP. For example, I, in some circles, use 'freewill' to mean simply that we do have real choice and have a real, effectual will. But when others who have a completely different use for it claim that it is uncaused, unfettered, etc, then I don't use it. Maybe the use of the term is inconsistent, but my position on it hasn't changed.

So when Calvin says, '..it is sin..' I take the whole sentence. We know he wasn't ignorant or stupid enough to think that Christ's temptation was Christ's sin, and that Christ was tempted as we are. Therefore, the "it" (as the structure of the sentence allows) probably could be used in our English, not to refer to the temptation, but the whole scenario where temptation is entertained, considered, perhaps sometimes even fostered and nursed. That, you would agree, would certainly be sin. It could also be his mindset, or worldview, hating depravity as he did, that when the fount of temptation is from within that it is the work of the 'old man', the flesh, and therefore at least of sin, and just spoken of as sin. Again, I can't believe he equates Jesus' temptations with sin. That just doesn't add up that he would.

BTW, I have not ignored the rest of what you said; I just wanted to explain in more detail what I thought of Calvin's remarks.