 |
 | 
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/29/2004 5:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | In the case of Israel, God wasn't punishing them because they were sinners, per se, but because they were disobeying the commandments he had specifically given them which, at other times they had followed. So, I believe, they were more than capable of following them.
Of course, there are two views, as Spen shows. However, given God being called "love," I find it disingenious that God would give us laws to "crush" us. Rather, I believe we are basically capable of following the law.
I am sure John Earp can articulate this better than I? John? Care to jump in... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 3/29/2004 5:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
I was reading Ezekiel 20 last night and it struck me how God kept punishing Israel for their sins when He knew all along that it was inevitable that they would sin because they could not (were unable to) save themselves by obeying His law.
Tigress, it is NOT inevitable that we choose to sin. It was NOT inevitable that Israel would choose to sin.
Israel had the power to NOT sin, which is why God could command them to not sin but to obey Him. God does NOT hold people morally responsible for that which they cannot do. Since He holds us all morally responsible for our choices, we all HAVE the power to resist sin.
the Apostle John says:
1John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
Note, John doesn't say when we sin but if.
Also, the idea that it's inevitable we sin is tied to the belief in "original sin" which is unscriptural. The verse used to support it is Romans 5:12:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."
1. The Latin vulgate added "in Adam" after "all sinned" so it said "all sinned in Adam". But no modern translations have that as it was an incorrect addtion.
2. It doesn't say sin spread to all men, it says sin entered the world (became available).
3. Death is what spread to all men, why? Because all sinned. That's what sin is, a VERB. It's an action against God.
Paul compares and contrasts sin/Adam to salvation/Jesus. Through Jesus, salvation enters the world (and is available). Salvation doesn't automatically spread to all, it has to be chosen.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/29/2004 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | | Spen: Historically, Luther definitely was a Calvinist. He agreed fully with Calvin on every major doctrine and is approvingly quoted by Calvinists today. So whether or not he considered himself a Calvinist (which most likely was not a term in effect during his day), he was one in theology and doctrine. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 3/29/2004 6:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
I was reading Ezekiel 20 last night and it struck me how God kept punishing Israel for their sins when He knew all along that it was inevitable that they would sin because they could not (were unable to) save themselves by obeying His law.
Tigress, it is NOT inevitable that we choose to sin. It was NOT inevitable that Israel would choose to sin.
Israel had the power to NOT sin, which is why God could command them to not sin but to obey Him. God does NOT hold people morally responsible for that which they cannot do. Since He holds us all morally responsible for our choices, we all HAVE the power to resist sin.
the Apostle John says:
1John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
Note, John doesn't say when we sin but if.
Also, the idea that it's inevitable we sin is tied to the belief in "original sin" which is unscriptural. The verse used to support it is Romans 5:12:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."
1. The Latin vulgate added "in Adam" after "all sinned" so it said "all sinned in Adam". But no modern translations have that as it was an incorrect addtion.
2. It doesn't say sin spread to all men, it says sin entered the world (became available).
3. Death is what spread to all men, why? Because all sinned. That's what sin is, a VERB. It's an action against God.
Paul compares and contrasts sin/Adam to salvation/Jesus. Through Jesus, salvation enters the world (and is available). Salvation doesn't automatically spread to all, it has to be chosen.
What you're saying sounds to me like humans are able to not sin and therefore get to heaven on their own. But, I'm saying that because of Adam's first sin, it's impossible for us to not sin at some point in our lives, which makes us completely incapable of salvation without Christ's help. Therefore, on the larger scale, it was inevitable that Israel would not be able to keep obeying God's commands, even if they had at one time. So, how was it fair for God to punish them for something that He knew they'd inevitably do. He even told them they would eventually sin through Moses before they entered the promised land. They vehemently denied that, but He knew they (their children) would eventually. I've been told that Israel had to go through this to learn that they were incapable of being perfect by obeying all of God's laws, so that they'd recognize their need for a Savior and then the world would learn this about itself, too. But, somehow it still seems kind of cruel of God to punish them with exile and other really heavy stuff like famine, pestilence and the sword for something that they couldn't help but do.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 3/29/2004 6:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
What you're saying sounds to me like humans are able to not sin and therefore get to heaven on their own. But, I'm saying that because of Adam's first sin, it's impossible for us to not sin at some point in our lives, which makes us completely incapable of salvation without Christ's help.
That most people sin is not proof that we have an inability to NOT sin.
Jesus was tempted in all ways, JUST LIKE US, and yet did not sin.
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
Tigress, that's why He can be your High Priest, because He was a man who was tempted, just like you, yet never chose to sin.
Secondly, Enoch lived a sinless life for a while, how else could God have taken him up? God can't abide in the presence of sin, hence when He found Enoch pleasing enough to Him to have Enoch in His presence, He brought him up to heaven. Evidently, for a time, Enoch lived a sinless life.
Third, God's testimony of Job was that Job was righteous. Do you believe God when He says Job was righteous?
Tigress, do you think God holds us responsible for what we can't do?
That most of us choose to sin is no proof that's it's inevitable.
Because most people choose to eat, is that proof that eating is inevitable? Some people have starved themselves to death by choice.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 3/29/2004 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
What you're saying sounds to me like humans are able to not sin and therefore get to heaven on their own. But, I'm saying that because of Adam's first sin, it's impossible for us to not sin at some point in our lives, which makes us completely incapable of salvation without Christ's help.
That most people sin is not proof that we have an inability to NOT sin.
Jesus was tempted in all ways, JUST LIKE US, and yet did not sin.
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
Tigress, that's why He can be your High Priest, because He was a man who was tempted, just like you, yet never chose to sin.
Secondly, Enoch lived a sinless life for a while, how else could God have taken him up? God can't abide in the presence of sin, hence when He found Enoch pleasing enough to Him to have Enoch in His presence, He brought him up to heaven. Evidently, for a time, Enoch lived a sinless life.
Third, God's testimony of Job was that Job was righteous. Do you believe God when He says Job was righteous?
Tigress, do you think God holds us responsible for what we can't do?
That most of us choose to sin is no proof that's it's inevitable.
Because most people choose to eat, is that proof that eating is inevitable? Some people have starved themselves to death by choice.
Jesus was God (as well as man) - that's why He didn't sin. If He wasn't God He would have been unable to resist sin like the rest of us. We're not God, so we can't resist temptation and sin. Humans no longer have the power to do that because of the Fall. When the Holy Spirit was put into the hearts of believers, we (the believers in Christ) were made able to resist all temptations - but not before the Holy Spirit came. So, before Jesus came, and therefore before the Holy Spirit could be given to us, we didn't have the power to resist sin.
Oh, and my understanding of the righteousness of people like Enoch and Job was because of the faith they had in God to save them from the sins they had committed - not because they never sinned in mind and/or body. I find it difficult to believe that even in their minds they didn't sin. God imputed righteousness to Abraham for his faith, and we all know he sinned many times in his life, but God still regarded him righteous for his faith, not his works.
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/29/2004 7:58 AM (GMT -6) | | In Deut. 30, God tells Israel that his Law is "not to hard for you," but that they are "able to do it."
In 1 John 5, God tells Christians that "his commandments are not burdensome."
As to "someone could be able to keep the law and not need Christ," this is a non sequitur, for all do in fact sin. The question is, "Are they truly responsible and accountable for their sins?" The whole of Scripture virtually shouts that people are responsible for their own sins. (See esp. Ezek. 18, Romans 1, 2, & 3).
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
di
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 49
| Posted 3/29/2004 9:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
I was reading Ezekiel 20 last night and it struck me how God kept punishing Israel for their sins when He knew all along that it was inevitable that they would sin because they could not (were unable to) save themselves by obeying His law.
Tigress, it is NOT inevitable that we choose to sin. It was NOT inevitable that Israel would choose to sin.
Israel had the power to NOT sin, which is why God could command them to not sin but to obey Him. God does NOT hold people morally responsible for that which they cannot do. Since He holds us all morally responsible for our choices, we all HAVE the power to resist sin.
the Apostle John says:
1John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
Note, John doesn't say when we sin but if.
Also, the idea that it's inevitable we sin is tied to the belief in "original sin" which is unscriptural. The verse used to support it is Romans 5:12:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."
1. The Latin vulgate added "in Adam" after "all sinned" so it said "all sinned in Adam". But no modern translations have that as it was an incorrect addtion.
2. It doesn't say sin spread to all men, it says sin entered the world (became available).
3. Death is what spread to all men, why? Because all sinned. That's what sin is, a VERB. It's an action against God.
Paul compares and contrasts sin/Adam to salvation/Jesus. Through Jesus, salvation enters the world (and is available). Salvation doesn't automatically spread to all, it has to be chosen.
I agree that we are not guilty of Adam's sin, but that sin entered the world through one man's sin.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
So what about an infant that is born only to die seconds later? Has this child sinned? Romans 3:23 would say yes, so what sin could this child be guilty of? Sin separates us from God; are we born separated from God?
di
di | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/29/2004 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | St. Augustine elaborated on the doctrine of orginal sin but he did not coin the phrase. The notion that the taint of sin is transmitted from generation to generation was an idea foreign to the Bible. He took this idea from the 2nd-century theologian Tertullian, who actually coined the phrase original sin. Theologians who advocate the doctrine of original sin argue, however, that it is strongly implied by Paul (see Romans 7), by John (see 1 John 5:19), and even by Jesus himself (see Luke 11:13).
Medieval theologians retained the idea of original sin, it was asserted again by Protestant reformers, primarily Martin Luther and John Calvin. Liberal Protestant theologians developed an optimistic view of human nature that was incompatible with the idea of original sin. Theologians sucha as Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Paul Tillich, however, were unwilling to attribute the transmission of sin to procreation, instead attributing it to an already corrupt society.
Peace, Mark
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 3/29/2004 9:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by di
quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
I was reading Ezekiel 20 last night and it struck me how God kept punishing Israel for their sins when He knew all along that it was inevitable that they would sin because they could not (were unable to) save themselves by obeying His law.
Tigress, it is NOT inevitable that we choose to sin. It was NOT inevitable that Israel would choose to sin.
Israel had the power to NOT sin, which is why God could command them to not sin but to obey Him. God does NOT hold people morally responsible for that which they cannot do. Since He holds us all morally responsible for our choices, we all HAVE the power to resist sin.
the Apostle John says:
1John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
Note, John doesn't say when we sin but if.
Also, the idea that it's inevitable we sin is tied to the belief in "original sin" which is unscriptural. The verse used to support it is Romans 5:12:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."
1. The Latin vulgate added "in Adam" after "all sinned" so it said "all sinned in Adam". But no modern translations have that as it was an incorrect addtion.
2. It doesn't say sin spread to all men, it says sin entered the world (became available).
3. Death is what spread to all men, why? Because all sinned. That's what sin is, a VERB. It's an action against God.
Paul compares and contrasts sin/Adam to salvation/Jesus. Through Jesus, salvation enters the world (and is available). Salvation doesn't automatically spread to all, it has to be chosen.
I agree that we are not guilty of Adam's sin, but that sin entered the world through one man's sin.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
So what about an infant that is born only to die seconds later? Has this child sinned? Romans 3:23 would say yes, so what sin could this child be guilty of? Sin separates us from God; are we born separated from God?
di
I'm not going to get into an argument about the salvation of babies here. I believe a just God would not condemn a baby or young child to hell. I do believe that we are all born with the propensity to sin and that we're not able to resist temptation and sin until after we accept Christ and He infills us with His Holy Spirit. His Holy Spirit empowers us to resist temptation and sin.
Even the youngest child sins in order to please himself through lying, stealing, not sharing, throwing tantrums and generally doing what his parents said not to do, etc. These are evidences that humans are born in and with sin, even though a child at that age cannot be held accountable for those sins until he learns that they're wrong through the training and discipline of his parents or caregivers. Maybe I just answered my own question here. Maybe there was no other way Israel and humanity at large could understand its need for a Savior without going through what Israel did, which included God's disciplinary actions towards them when they sinned. I guess He was just showing them the consequences of their actions, and what the ultimate eternal consequences would be like if they remained in sin like that. Hmmmmm......Thanks for everyone's input! 
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/29/2004 10:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Theologians who advocate the doctrine of original sin argue, however, that it is strongly implied by Paul (see Romans 7), by John (see 1 John 5:19), and even by Jesus himself (see Luke 11:13).
Those of us who find the idea of Original Sin to be absurd and unscriptural need not deny Romans 7, 1 John 5:19, or Luke 11:13, as all that is affirmed in these passages is that people are evil. The Bible demonstrates plainly from Genesis to Revelation that people corrupt themselves by choosing to violate their own conscience (see esp. Romans 1-3 for the stark detail of this).
As to infants and "all have sinned," in context, Paul has been arguing that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners, and consequently are in desperate need of God's grace. The argumentation presupposes people mature enough to make moral choices, and need not require one to believe that babies are capable of sin.
Tigress: If people are unable to do right, how are they guilty? And how is God not the most impossible tyrant imaginable, condemning people to hell for that which they could not help but do?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
di
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 49
| Posted 3/29/2004 10:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
quote:
Originally posted by di
quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
I was reading Ezekiel 20 last night and it struck me how God kept punishing Israel for their sins when He knew all along that it was inevitable that they would sin because they could not (were unable to) save themselves by obeying His law.
Tigress, it is NOT inevitable that we choose to sin. It was NOT inevitable that Israel would choose to sin.
Israel had the power to NOT sin, which is why God could command them to not sin but to obey Him. God does NOT hold people morally responsible for that which they cannot do. Since He holds us all morally responsible for our choices, we all HAVE the power to resist sin.
the Apostle John says:
1John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
Note, John doesn't say when we sin but if.
Also, the idea that it's inevitable we sin is tied to the belief in "original sin" which is unscriptural. The verse used to support it is Romans 5:12:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."
1. The Latin vulgate added "in Adam" after "all sinned" so it said "all sinned in Adam". But no modern translations have that as it was an incorrect addtion.
2. It doesn't say sin spread to all men, it says sin entered the world (became available).
3. Death is what spread to all men, why? Because all sinned. That's what sin is, a VERB. It's an action against God.
Paul compares and contrasts sin/Adam to salvation/Jesus. Through Jesus, salvation enters the world (and is available). Salvation doesn't automatically spread to all, it has to be chosen.
I agree that we are not guilty of Adam's sin, but that sin entered the world through one man's sin.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
So what about an infant that is born only to die seconds later? Has this child sinned? Romans 3:23 would say yes, so what sin could this child be guilty of? Sin separates us from God; are we born separated from God?
di
I'm not going to get into an argument about the salvation of babies here. I believe a just God would not condemn a baby or young child to hell. I do believe that we are all born with the propensity to sin and that we're not able to resist temptation and sin until after we accept Christ and He infills us with His Holy Spirit. His Holy Spirit empowers us to resist temptation and sin.
Even the youngest child sins in order to please himself through lying, stealing, not sharing, throwing tantrums and generally doing what his parents said not to do, etc. These are evidences that humans are born in and with sin, even though a child at that age cannot be held accountable for those sins until he learns that they're wrong through the training and discipline of his parents or caregivers. Maybe I just answered my own question here. Maybe there was no other way Israel and humanity at large could understand its need for a Savior without going through what Israel did, which included God's disciplinary actions towards them when they sinned. I guess He was just showing them the consequences of their actions, and what the ultimate eternal consequences would be like if they remained in sin like that. Hmmmmm......Thanks for everyone's input!
Tigress, nor was I intending "to get into an argument about the salvation of babies here."
I'm sincerely asking for insight from anyone regarding "Romans 3:23 for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and how this could apply to the infant who lives only a VERY brief amount of time, seemingly not long enough to sin "in order to please himself through lying, stealing, not sharing, throwing tantrums and generally doing what his parents said not to do, etc." I'm sincerely wondering what could be the earliest sin we are guilty of - at what point are we "separated from God" - at birth or sometime after when we willingly choose to sin.
di
di | | Back to Top | | |
|
di
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 49
| Posted 3/29/2004 10:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Theologians who advocate the doctrine of original sin argue, however, that it is strongly implied by Paul (see Romans 7), by John (see 1 John 5:19), and even by Jesus himself (see Luke 11:13).
Those of us who find the idea of Original Sin to be absurd and unscriptural need not deny Romans 7, 1 John 5:19, or Luke 11:13, as all that is affirmed in these passages is that people are evil. The Bible demonstrates plainly from Genesis to Revelation that people corrupt themselves by choosing to violate their own conscience (see esp. Romans 1-3 for the stark detail of this).
As to infants and "all have sinned," in context, Paul has been arguing that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners, and consequently are in desperate need of God's grace. The argumentation presupposes people mature enough to make moral choices, and need not require one to believe that babies are capable of sin.
Tigress: If people are unable to do right, how are they guilty? And how is God not the most impossible tyrant imaginable, condemning people to hell for that which they could not help but do?
Thanks John, that makes sense. Now I'm thinking about "none righteous, no not one" but I'll go read that in context as well.
Blessings all,
di
di | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 3/29/2004 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Even the youngest child sins in order to please himself through lying, stealing, not sharing, throwing tantrums and generally doing what his parents said not to do, etc. These are evidences that humans are born in and with sin
How does an infant girl, for example, let her mother know she is hungry, or has a stomach ache, or fire ants are biting her?
Crying is their only initial means of communication. It's the point when they use crying for illegitimate purposes rather than legitimate that they are sinning. That doesn't happen as early in life as you think.
I wasn't talking about crying infants there, Laika. I was talking about older children who can talk a bit, but still sin in many different ways to get what they want even if they don't need it. Some sin is actually not learned, like refusing to share and taking what doesn't belong to you. Young children do these things without having learned to do them from anyone else, and that is inborn sin, even though they aren't old enough to be accountable for it since their brains are not developed enough to understand that it's wrong to hurt others by doing those things. An infant's only mode of communication is crying so whenever one cries it's not sinning. It's simply calling for help. That's different than taking another child's toy and refusing to give it back.
Laika wrote:
[Tigress, why did Jesus bother to come to earth? His temptations mean nothing to me if they were merely God resisting temptation. Scripture says God can't be tempted, so saying Jesus was merely God resisting temptation is not helpful to me at all. The ONLY way it makes sense is if Jesus, the MAN, was tempted JUST LIKE ME and resisted those temptations.
That's why Paul says He can be our high priest, because He was tempted JUST LIKE US. The MAN part of Him. Otherwise it's all worthless.]
I guess I've always had a difficult time understanding that about Jesus. If He is at once God and Man, how does that work? I mean like you said - God can't be tempted to sin, so as God He could never give in to it. Yet, as Man he was tempted? How does this make sense? How is it possible to be Man and be tempted while at the same time be God and unable to be tempted?
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/29/2004 10:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by di
Thanks John, that makes sense. Now I'm thinking about "none righteous, no not one" but I'll go read that in context as well.
Blessings all,
di
Hi di, 
"None righteous," is in the same context as "all have sinned." (Romans 3). Those of us who deny Original Sin do not deny that all have sinned, just that all CANNOT help but sin. It would be awfully strange for God or Paul to be lamenting something that was inevitable anyway. I.e., "There is none righteous, no not one! (And yet this is the way I designed it--tee hee hee)."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/29/2004 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
I guess I've always had a difficult time understanding that about Jesus. If He is at once God and Man, how does that work? I mean like you said - God can't be tempted to sin, so as God He could never give in to it. Yet, as Man he was tempted? How does this make sense? How is it possible to be Man and be tempted while at the same time be God and unable to be tempted?
It is helpful to keep in mind that to say someone cannot do something does not have to imply moral inability. Scripture makes plain that moral agents could do other than they do, or else their actions cannot be truly moral. For instance, God (metaphysically) COULD say something that is untrue. That is, he has the power of free will. However, he does not and indeed "cannot" lie. This can be easily explained by exalting God's CHARACTER as perfectly righteous, holy, and benevolent, and is no different than saying of someone, "he can't be tempted with that."
All things considered, I think it makes more sense to say that instead of God being some kind of "holy robot" who always acts from a necessitated nature, that the REASON God cannot is that God WILL NOT. This is not unlike saying of myself that it is impossible for me to lust after a man. Not that it would be logically impossible (for I obviously have the physical ability to choose perversion if I want to), but that this sin is absolutely no temptation to me. It is a moral impossibility, given the degree to which my character has already been formed.
This view of God's moral freedom allows us to glory in his wonderful holiness/righteousness, as He always has and always will choose to do that which is righteous (benevolent) towards all. The other view, that God acts from a necessitated nature, completely confuses the concept of morality, righteousness, and love.
Love must be freely chosen to truly be love. When the Bible says "God is love," it is not saying that God is made up of a bunch of stuff called love; it is saying that his character is so perfectly loving that we can metaphorically say that God is the very personification of love.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
| 95 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:35 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|