Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Inability to avoid a particular sin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Inability to avoid a particular sin

    Some people claim that they cannot avoid a particular sin such as fornication, lying, stealing, and so on. They say that since they cannot avoid those things, then they are not morally responsible for committing those things. How would you respond to this? I was thinking that they made a choice to do those things for the first time. After doing those things for the first time, they kept on doing those things until they became trapped. They are responsible for making the choice to do those things for the first time.

    Also, they are responsible for repenting of sin and believing in Christ. After they are saved, Christ can set them free from their bondage.

  • #2
    Even Paul the Apostle admitted it's not always easy.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
      Some people claim that they cannot avoid a particular sin such as fornication, lying, stealing, and so on. They say that since they cannot avoid those things, then they are not morally responsible for committing those things. How would you respond to this? I was thinking that they made a choice to do those things for the first time. After doing those things for the first time, they kept on doing those things until they became trapped. They are responsible for making the choice to do those things for the first time.

      Also, they are responsible for repenting of sin and believing in Christ. After they are saved, Christ can set them free from their bondage.
      They are always morally responsible. They need to confess their sin, and do their best to do better. The great sin is not the fact that we fall, we all do, but not getting up to try again. It is a life time struggle.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Even Paul the Apostle admitted it's not always easy.
        That does not change their responsibility for their actions. They are trapped by their own willingness ultimately.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
          That does not change their responsibility for their actions. They are trapped by their own willingness ultimately.
          Absolutely
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #6
            Let's take lying as an example. Has anyone, even saved, been able to stop lying? Does that change the fact that you are nontheless forgiven? You don't go around saying "well lying is not a sin, so who cares" - you know it is a sin, and you try not to sin, yet every one of us still lies from time to time. I think the danger in such sins is not in doing them when you can't help it, but in trying to justify them as not sinful at all.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Even Paul the Apostle admitted it's not always easy.
              He struggled with sin. He would do what he did not want to do.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
                He struggled with sin. He would do what he did not want to do.
                Yes, sir.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Let's take lying as an example. Has anyone, even saved, been able to stop lying? Does that change the fact that you are nontheless forgiven? You don't go around saying "well lying is not a sin, so who cares" - you know it is a sin, and you try not to sin, yet every one of us still lies from time to time. I think the danger in such sins is not in doing them when you can't help it, but in trying to justify them as not sinful at all.
                  I just thought of this. Suppose someone says, "I cannot avoid lying so I'm not responsible for it." You could say to that person, "How would you react if someone lied to you? Would you tell him to stop?"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                    That does not change their responsibility for their actions. They are trapped by their own willingness ultimately.
                    Some people take delight in their sin so much that they would not want to change even if they had the ability to do so.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
                      He struggled with sin. He would do what he did not want to do.
                      Uggg....Paul isn't talking about his own personal struggle with sin in Romans 7. In context, it is the struggle of the unbelieving Jew who is trying to uphold the law, but finds that in his own flesh he is unable to do so. Romans 7 simply is not a believer.


                      That being said -- despite whether or not avoiding sin is easy or not -- since man has free will and the ability of choosing right (i.e. has the moral ability) , he therefore is liable for his action. This has been the reasoning of the church since the start. And this is also one of the reasons why, the ECF so clearly and often rebuked the teachings of the gnostics that man was born without free will, and that everything that happened was predetermined.

                      Furthermore, as believers we are told that God provides a way out of temptation -- which clearly dismisses the idea that as believers, there are sins that we cannot avoid (such as fornication, lying, etc.)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                        Uggg....Paul isn't talking about his own personal struggle with sin in Romans 7. In context, it is the struggle of the unbelieving Jew who is trying to uphold the law, but finds that in his own flesh he is unable to do so. Romans 7 simply is not a believer.
                        wow that is completely wrong. Paul was talking about himself, and about everyone else too.

                        That being said -- despite whether or not avoiding sin is easy or not -- since man has free will and the ability of choosing right (i.e. has the moral ability) , he therefore is liable for his action. This has been the reasoning of the church since the start. And this is also one of the reasons why, the ECF so clearly and often rebuked the teachings of the gnostics that man was born without free will, and that everything that happened was predetermined.

                        Furthermore, as believers we are told that God provides a way out of temptation -- which clearly dismisses the idea that as believers, there are sins that we cannot avoid (such as fornication, lying, etc.)
                        The problem is that we still DO sin, even though we know we shouldn't. Our corrupt bodies are still slaves to sin while our souls are free. We still CHOOSE to sin.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          wow that is completely wrong. Paul was talking about himself, and about everyone else too.
                          I agree that many Christians today, read that passage and go "Oh, I still deal with sin.." and therefore interpret the passage as Paul talking about himself, and Christians in general.

                          That being said, there are several problems with that interpretation. Some of which are:

                          1. The ECF did not believe this to be Paul talking about himself (which although not authoritative in itself, it is interesting as a note of how people who spoke the original language, and closer to the original text read, understood, and interpreted this passage)

                          2. The context, and text explicitly shows that Paul is not, and cannot be talking about himself, or Christians in general...(that is if we read it for what it is, and in its context)

                          For example, if we are to believe Paul is talking about himself / Christians in general, we will need to affirm that:

                          1. Christians are slaves to sin (contrary to Romans 6:6-7,14, 17-18, 22)
                          2. Christians, although wanting to do good, cannot do good (contrary to Romans 6:13, 19, 22, and Romans 7:4-6, and Romans 8:12-13)
                          3. Christians are slaves to the law of sin and death (contrary to Romans 8:2)
                          4. Christians are 'of the flesh' or 'unspiritual' (contrary to Romans 8:4-9, 12-15)

                          And of course, this doesn't mean that we, as Christians, don't still deal with sin -- it just means that we are no longer slaves to it. While we WERE once slaves of sin, we have now been set free in Christ.

                          So my challenge to you (and everyone else) is to really read Romans 7:14-28 and read Romans 6-8. And then compare how Paul describes the believer / unbeliever in Romans 6-7:13 and Romans 8 and compare it to the man found in Romans 7:14. Especially note all the language (and tense, i.e. past vs.present) Paul uses with regards to believers and sin (e.g. slave to sin vs. set free from sin, were vs. now, dead to sin, etc.)

                          (as a side note, I also used to believe Paul was talking about himself)

                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          The problem is that we still DO sin, even though we know we shouldn't. Our corrupt bodies are still slaves to sin while our souls are free. We still CHOOSE to sin.
                          We do still sin - sure. And yet, we are no longer slaves to sin. Although our bodies (and this world) still suffer the consequences of sin (i.e. death), they are not slaves to sin, in themselves. To separate mind and body to that extent, IMO, begins to approach the type of beliefs held by early gnostics.

                          Rather, as Paul says:

                          Romans 7:5-6

                          For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

                          Romans 6:12-14

                          Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

                          Romans 6:17-18
                          But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
                          Last edited by phat8594; 07-01-2016, 03:19 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Even Paul the Apostle admitted it's not always easy.
                            If perchance you are making an allusion to Romans 7:7–25 and Paul (purportedly) there writing of his struggle with sin as a believer (i.e. a regenerate person), I would like to point out that this view appears to have first been advanced by Augustine. A long line of interpreters that preceded him understood the aforementioned passage as referring to persons in an unregenerate state. (Interestingly, Arminius broke from much of the Protestant Reformation’s reliance upon Augustine and his understanding of Romans 7:7–25, citing patristical evidence in favour of the view that this text was not speaking of believers. See James Nichols and William Nichols [trans.], The Works of James Arminius, London ed., 3 vols [repr., Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1986], 2:471–683.)
                            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              (Note to phat: I had not seen your message [#13] prior to writing and posting mine.)
                              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X