Is Temptation Sin?

[skyblue888]

Well Gustave. Look at Hebrews 2:14 and 4:15 and Rev.14:12.

[Woody]

Someone isn't reading all the posts. But he did respond to you Richard. That's progress.

[Guest]

That's why I liked what pnat said.

[Guest]

Heb 2:14 Since then the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our weaknesses; but was in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin.

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Is that supposed to clear it up sky?

[Gustave]

Gustave, it's important that in this subject we be accurate. I notice a number of imprecise statements on your part. For example, you speak of Christ being peccable, but not SDA ever has taught this.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

If a man is only tempted when he is drawn toward a thing by his own desire ("lust" is archaic), then Christ was never tempted. This follows from what you said, doesn't it?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Christ was NEVER tempted apart from being tempted of the Devil. There was no point ever that Christ had to resist "HIS temptation" to do things of a sexual nature to the good looking Jewish girl that lived on His street. There was no point that Christ had to resist "HIS temptation" to beat up someone. No, Christ NEVER resisted internal temptation because Christ NEVER was drawn away by "His own lust" because Christ only had desire to do the Father's will.

The only temptation Christ suffered was external OUTSIDE of sin and it was conducted by the Father of Lies as in Satan himself.

Christ was clearly tempted to do His will instead of God's will. Jesus had a human will distinct from the FAther's will, and Jesus was tempted from within to follow His own will. That is why He prayed that God's will be done and not His own will.

Christ never committed sin and therefore He never had to overcome bad habits or sinful habits. But He did have even greater temptations than we experience because He knew that He could use His divine power to avoid the suffering. He had the power to come down off the cross but He stayed nailed to it when He didn't have to. He did it for our sakes. That required great power from the Holy Spirit. It shows the profound strength and depth of His love for the lost. He had a normal human desire to avoid death and suffering. This temptation was from within His own mind and body.

There is no reason to believe that He didn't have a normal sex drive, but the point is that He didn't sin. We don't need to sin, either, and God does give us the victory over sexual sins just as Christ was given power to overcome temptations. We have access to the same power that Christ used to resist temptation. Jesus knows what it is like to have sexual temptations. He knows by experience our weaknesses, and He knows exactly how to give us the help we need at the time we need it.

[John317]

Check out The Consecrated Way, by A.T. Jones.

Here's a link to one of the chapters dealing with the human nature of Christ:

http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/jones/conway/conway07.htm

[Gustave]

Christ was clearly tempted to do His will instead of God's will.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Christ was clearly tempted to do His will instead of God's will.

Unless you are suggesting that it was a sin for Christ to desire not to be in pain, worried, etc then I'm not seeing how Matt 26,39 supports peccability.

Originally Posted By: John317

Christ never committed sin and therefore He never had to overcome bad habits or sinful habits.

You are maintaining that Christ never "perfected" HIS SIN. If Christ every resisted His temptation to sin Satan indeed had something in him. If you or I are tempted to perfect a sin the devil has something in us.

I'm trying to understand your language and terms here. I'm used to using biblical language.

You and I are different from Christ in that we do not hate sin as Christ always did. In fact, there have been times when I've loved sin. So Satan has something in us because apart from the Holy Spirit, we love sin. If we hate sin, it is only due the influence of the Holy Spirit. And of course Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit from the time of His conception. Therefore it was never necessary for Him to undergo the new birth, as it is for us. He was born with the seed of God already in Him and it dominated His human nature. When we are born we are dominated by our fallen nature. Unless we are indwelt and led by the Spirit, our lives and our minds are dominated by the flesh. Christ's never were. He showed us that we do not need to be dominated by the flesh, either. We can resist sin and overcome just as Christ did. See 1 John 2: 6; Rev. 3: 21; Heb. 12: 2. He is the perfect leader and example of faith.

I'm not sure what you mean by "'perfected' His sin." Could you explain that? Perhaps you are referring to something in James 1: 15.

I don't see how Christ's resistance against sin means that Satan had something in Him. Christ never failed to resist the temptation to sin.

I don't mean to imply that Christ ever wanted to sin. Sin was horrible to Him and He found it utterly and completely revolting. The moment a temptation occurred to Him, He immediately rejected it through the power of the Holy Spirit.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

There is no reason to believe that He didn't have a normal sex drive, but the point is that He didn't sin. We don't need to sin, either, and God does give us the victory over sexual sins just as Christ was given power to overcome temptations. We have access to the same power that Christ used to resist temptation. Jesus knows what it is like to have sexual temptations. He knows by experience our weaknesses, and He knows exactly how to give us the help we need at the time we need it.

There you go again, if Christ had to "resist temptation", His Mind (what you claim controlled His body) desired to do stuff to that little Jewish girl and while Christ never PERFECTED "THAT" sin that SIN remained unperfected IN CHRIST which would be 100% impossible.

No, you misunderstand. I never said or implied that Christ wanted "to do stuff to that little Jewish girl." I am saying Satan planted those thoughts in His mind just as Satan planted in Christ's mind the temptations in the wilderness.

Quote:

I must say I reject your logic as our Creater and infinite God does not need to SIN to be able to know how to give us help. Oh my! I can't believe you just said that.

I never said Christ sinned. In fact, I am saying Christ never sinned even by a thought.

Not sure where you get the notion I believe Christ had to sin to be able to know how to help. CHRIST NEVER SINNED.

Quote:

I mean hey, I'm here to learn and test what I understand and I must say I'm willing to bet that the individuals inside the denomination who agree that Christ was IMpeccable will prevail as far as doctrinal authority over those who maintain Christ needed to do a little slumming so he could really get the hang of how to help us.

It's very clear that you misunderstand what I believe and what I said. NEVER DID I INDICATE THAT CHRIST SINNED OR DID "A LITTLE SLUMMING." I deny that belief completely.

I'm saying no more and no less than is said in Hebrews 4: 14-16 and other similar passages. "He was in all points tempted [to sin] AS we are, yet without sin." He knows what it is like to be tempted just as we are.

Remember that temptation is not sin. Sin is a choice, not nature.

[Gustave]

I'm trying to understand your language and terms here. I'm used to using biblical language.

[John317]

OK, I appreciate that explanation.

"Concupiscence" is simply evil desire.

What you call "perfected sin" is sin that has been completed, has run its course, or is full grown.

I just had never heard it referred to as "perfected sin" but I see that such an expression is found in Young's Literal Translation. It means sin which is "fully formed." When sin is fully formed, it brings forth death.

As I've said before, I don't believe that Christ sinned even by so much as a thought. He never had an evil desire. He had temptations but He never had a desire to commit sin. His desire was to obey the Father's will, and He rejected His own will when He found that His will came in conflict with the will of God. We can do the same by the same power that was available to Christ.

You said:

Quote:

The desire or lust or evil concupiscence or whatever you want to call it - whatever it is we resist so that we don't YEILD to it is classified as SIN that is not perfected yet.

I believe the Bible is clear that something is sin if we fail to resist temptation and instead we yield to it. For instance, if the thought occurs to me to tell a lie, but I immediately reject the thought, and ask for the Holy Spirit to empower me and direct my thoughts, I do not believe that I have sinned. On the other hand, if I think to myself, "I sure wish I could lie, but I better not because.....," at that point I have sinned. I don't believe there is any evidence that Christ ever thought that He wished He could sin against God or go against the will of God.

Did Christ sin by considering the temptations of Satan in the wilderness? I don't believe He did. He clearly did not need to confess His sins when He resisted the temptations of Satan and quoted Scripture to show Satan his error.

I checked out 1 Thess. 3: 5 but I see no reference there to the same word or concept as "evil desire" or to the Greek word, epithumian (Strongs #1939).

Quote:

According to the Bible I'm reading if Christ was ever, even ONE TIME tempted within Himself to do anything related to sin then HE HAD SIN, KNEW SIN, the Devil had something IN HIM, etc.

Can you please show your reasoning for this conclusion?

I don't view sin in this way.

If Christ didn't know temptation from within the way all humans know temptation, then Hebrews 4: 15 could not be true (at least so far as I understand it). It says He was tempted in every respect AS WE ARE. How are all humans tempted? James 1: 14 explains how: people are drawn away by their own desires. I don't see how we can avoid the conclusion that Jesus was tempted in the same way. If He wasn't, then how can we say that He was tempted in every respect AS WE ARE?

Every day Christ prayed to God for power and strength to keep His body and His will in subjection to the will of God. Remember his prayer and his struggle in the garden just before His arrest. We have to do the same, and when we do, God makes available to us the same power of the Holy Spirit that the Father gave to His Son. If the Son of God felt the need of this power, how much more conscious we ought to be of the same need.

As I understand it, the Bible teaches that the Devil would have had something in Christ if Christ had had an evil desire. But of course Christ never did have an evil desire. Christ's desire was always to obey and do the will of His Father. Satan's planting of evil thoughts in Christ's mind did not mean that Christ sinned. Christ immediately rejected those temptations and those thoughts.

[John317]

I enjoy the discussion and the reflection on these issues that it encourages. I hope you come back on Sabbath. I'm having some trouble with my computer lately, but provided it doesn't keep me away, I'll be here quite a bit on the Sabbath.

WELCOME TO THE CLUB, FRIEND. :-)

[olger]

I thought James set us straight on how temptation can lead to sin. Not that it is sin, but yielding to it is.

[Gustave]

OK, I appreciate that explanation.

"Concupiscence" is simply evil desire.

What you call "perfected sin" is sin that has been completed, has run its course, or is full grown.

[Woody]

Quote:

He had temptations but He never had a desire to commit sin.

Have you considered this?

Quote:

“And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” -Exodus 32:14

[Gustave]

[/quote=Redwood]

He had temptations but He never had a desire to commit sin.

Have you considered this?

[Woody]

So what exactually was it that God felt the need to repent of?

[Gustave]

It's not to be understood in that sense. God can and has changed His mind on what was or wasn't to happen to people and this is just another example of that.

If you need more examples I can produce some for you? It was a good question in my view.

[Twilight]

Yes I have read that statement that says that "the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God." This is a statement from the pen of inspiration.

The battle is in the realm of the mind.

Christ's flesh was just as sinful as ours but His mind never yielded to the flesh. He was tempted in all points like as we are yet without sinning. We have yielded to the flesh and our minds have become carnal. But we can have the mind of Christ. "We have the mind of Christ." "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." 1 Cor.2:16; Phil.2:5.

"His experience is to be ours." D.A.363.

The teaching of the sanctuary is that God will at last have a people of whom it will be said, "Here are they who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus."

Then the end will come.

sky

It is my understanding that it is the "will" that is the distinct faculty that does not yield.

Whereas the mind can contain the thoughts of a man, the inspiration of God and the thoughts of the enemy.

So it is indeed a battle for the mind, but it is by the will that that battle is won, is my view.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

we are not talking about Satan's external temptation of Christ, i.e. when Jesus was led into the desert to be tempted "OF" the Devil. We are talking about when Jesus walked to the market and saw a cute girl or when the town bully walked up and hit Him in the nose or any of a million things that can and do happen to US that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we need Jesus like our very Salvation depends on it. That's what we are getting to and I believe we are getting very close to making a determination that you would accept so please don't give up on me.

Just wanted to share these thoughts.

Jesus was bought into the world with a human nature.

That nature could be appealed to by Satan.

But because Jesus had been also born fully connected to the Holy Spirit.

His spirit was not corrupted.

So Satan had not created any strongholds in Him.

There was nothing in Him that satan could appeal to.

---------------------

Now the confusion comes on our part, when it says Christ was tempted in all points like we are.

Because satan controls us through "strongholds" or "sins we have submitted to", we assume that all temptation is like this and that Jesus was "tempted" in the same manner.

This is not the case.

Satan can only tempt from the external, when there is no sin for him to work on in the individual.

Jesus could therefore not be tempted internally, could not be tempted from "His sins" because they were not there to be used...

----------------------

This is my understanding (which is still very formative) and I think along the lines that you are proposing.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding "peccable"

Quote:

Pronunciation: pek-ê-bêl • Hear it!

Part of Speech: Adjective

Meaning: Capable of sin, given to sinning.

Notes: We generally think of impeccable "flawless" as an orphan negative, without a positive. But impeccable also means "sinless" because its positive counterpart, peccable, means "sinful". The noun from this word is peccability. It has a cousin with a similar meaning, peccant "sinful", which also has a noun, peccancy "sinfulness".

In Play: Today's word shouldn't be used in referring to those people known to be sinful; peccant is a better word for them. Today's word is closer in meaning to fallible: "Those of us in the USA today look forward hopefully to a new era of government in the hands of new though nonetheless peccable leaders." Peccable, however, could find plenty to do around the office: "I think we should ask someone less peccable than Robin Banks to look after the coffee money."

Word History: Today's Good Word is built on the Latin verb peccare "to stumble, go astray, sin". The root is ped-/pod- "foot" found in such borrowings as pedal, pedestrian, podiatrist, and tripod. Apparently a suffixed form of this word similar to *ped-cos "misstep" existed at one time before the formation of Latin and this word gave rise to *pedcare "to misstep". The D in this word then predictably converted to C, leaving Latin with peccare. The meaning then moved from an actual misstep to a metaphorical moral one, "to sin". So today's Good Word has made a remarkable journey to its current form and meaning—and all on foot! (Today we thank the impeccable Susan Kappel for raising the question, "Where are peccable and ravel?")(http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/peccable)

I understood by "peccable" that you meant "sinful," in the sense of Christ's having sinful flesh.

If by "peccable" you meant "capable of sinning," I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. It should be pointed out that all SDA's believe Christ was capable of sinning. Where there is disagreement is in regards to Christ's flesh, or, to say the same thing in other words, the human nature He assumed.

Quote:

Exactly, it's the mind that makes one sinful so if Waggoner states that Christ Incarnated into biological matter that had a tendency to sin - Christ had "sinful tendencies" which is precisely what Waggoner stated - How is my assessment not factual?

Christ didn't have tendencies to sin; His flesh did. That is, Christ had flesh which had the same genetic tendencies to sin that ours has. But His mind was pure, and He had no tendencies to sin, because His own nature (not speaking of assumed human nature, but His own) was sinless.

Quote:

Adam's sin was a matter of free will, he sinned without any internal urges to do so. Adam did not have an internal urge (lust or desire) to eat of the fruit, he did so out of free will. What you are doing is comparing Christ to Adam whereas Sacred Scripture CONTRASTS Christ WITH Adam.

I agree! Adam's flesh was sinless, whereas, in contrast, Christ's was not. Adam chose to sin, whereas, in contrast, Christ chose not to. What comparison is it you are seeing that I made that you are objecting to?

Quote:

Thank you! From the comments I've got thus far I wasn't expecting that. Is this part of the reason for the Liberal / Conservative groups forming within the denomination that I was told about previously?

Yes, although, to be fair, the "Liberal" group would not call itself such. The "Conservative" group calls itself Conservative, and the other group "Liberal."

Those who *would* call themselves "liberal" would be those who don't hold to all the tenants of the faith. Those who believe Christ took sinless flesh who hold to the 28 fundamental beliefs would not consider themselves liberal, but as simply having a different interpretation.

[pnattmbtc]

That isn't possible with internal temptations that come from 'our own evil desires'.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

we are not talking about Satan's external temptation of Christ, i.e. when Jesus was led into the desert to be tempted "OF" the Devil. We are talking about when Jesus walked to the market and saw a cute girl or when the town bully walked up and hit Him in the nose or any of a million things that can and do happen to US that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we need Jesus like our very Salvation depends on it. That's what we are getting to and I believe we are getting very close to making a determination that you would accept so please don't give up on me.

Just wanted to share these thoughts.

Jesus was bought into the world with a human nature.

That nature could be appealed to by Satan.

But because Jesus had been also born fully connected to the Holy Spirit.

His spirit was not corrupted.

So Satan had not created any strongholds in Him.

There was nothing in Him that satan could appeal to.

---------------------

Now the confusion comes on our part, when it says Christ was tempted in all points like we are.

Because satan controls us through "strongholds" or "sins we have submitted to", we assume that all temptation is like this and that Jesus was "tempted" in the same manner.

This is not the case.

Satan can only tempt from the external, when there is no sin for him to work on in the individual.

Jesus could therefore not be tempted internally, could not be tempted from "His sins" because they were not there to be used...

----------------------

This is my understanding (which is still very formative) and I think along the lines that you are proposing.

Mark

Remember that Christ bore our sins. He couldn't be tempted by His sins, since He had none, but He bore our sins, and those could play a part in His temptation.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Just wanted to share these thoughts.

Jesus was bought into the world with a human nature.

That nature could be appealed to by Satan.

But because Jesus had been also born fully connected to the Holy Spirit.

His spirit was not corrupted.

So Satan had not created any strongholds in Him.

There was nothing in Him that satan could appeal to.

---------------------

Now the confusion comes on our part, when it says Christ was tempted in all points like we are.

Because satan controls us through "strongholds" or "sins we have submitted to", we assume that all temptation is like this and that Jesus was "tempted" in the same manner.

This is not the case.

Satan can only tempt from the external, when there is no sin for him to work on in the individual.

Jesus could therefore not be tempted internally, could not be tempted from "His sins" because they were not there to be used...

----------------------

This is my understanding (which is still very formative) and I think along the lines that you are proposing.

Mark [/quote']

Remember that Christ bore our sins. He couldn't be tempted by His sins, since He had none, but He bore our sins, and those could play a part in His temptation.

"He bore our sins"

Was that specific to the cross.

Or throughout His life?

Mark