Or call it covetousness. That is a sin.I agree, it's cutting a fine hair. But, I think it matters. I have always been of the position that temptation is not, in and of itself, sin. And I am happy to continue holding that position. But, if I do, then how do I explain that a desire for something sinful is not, in and of itself, sinful? But, yeah, I would go with you and Augustine and call it "weakness."
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?
Personally I would say that temptation itself is not sinful. (If it is we are all in a lot of trouble...) However, when I read this verse "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Mathhew 5:28. I can see where someone could make the argument even thinking about sin (temptation) is sinful. That is quite the high bar!
Wow that point really came up in that previous thread. Basically Apollinarianism, that Christ had to be not just true God, but true Man. It is possible to go too overboard on Christ's Divinity, where you see him as being "God in a Man suit" as one friend put it, or "God in a Bod" as one pastor (the famous Mark Driscol of Mar's Hill Seattle seemed to advocate in one sermon).
Christ has more than a just having a body, but had a human soul etc. to go with that body, and seeing Him as Beyond temptation inadvertently screws a lot of things up. It basically would be cheating as temptation goes, because he is suppose to understand our condition and be our example but if he bounces temptation off him, like the armor plating of a battle ship vs. a BB gun that is much different than being truly human. It also screws up the Biblical notion put forth from the Church fathers that "What is not assumed cannot be healed / redeemed".
So we have someone we can relate to -> in seeing the power of God inner working with in the Man JEsus Christ our Lord the Son of God in not falling into temptation, though the desire would have been there, he did not act upon it.
This seems to make sense, though I would add that not only did He not act upon the desire, He didn't dwell upon it. Which may be what is meant by "lusting" in the Matthew 5:28 verse.
Does it matter when we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us?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?
Does it matter when we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us?
(Do troglodytes live in trailer homes?)
Christ had no unregenerate disposition toward sin.This particular troglodyte does not. But, there is no shame for those who do.
I think it matters, in spite of the imputation, or impartation, of Christ's righteousness. Unless he was tempted as we are, can he help us overcome our own struggles?
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.
Still wrong, I think. I think you mistake what Calvin is saying.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.
Can God help us overcome our own struggles?This particular troglodyte does not. But, there is no shame for those who do.
I think it matters, in spite of the imputation, or impartation, of Christ's righteousness. Unless he was tempted as we are, can he help us overcome our own struggles?
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?
As I understand it, God is at enmity with the flesh prior to conversion. The flesh is the beast that must be controlled by Christ who is the only one who can reign it in. The conversion process is illuminating.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?
Not only does Satan tempt, but we tempt ourselves sometimes.Temptation is not desire. It is an outside force trying to convince your flesh to lust after a sin. Typically this is Satan's territory.
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?