Sinning necessarily, but without compulsion

[siliconwafer]

I've been reading Luther's book, The Bondage of the Will, and I've been enjoying it so far. Luther argues that there is a distinction between sinning necessarily and sinning with compulsion. Unbelievers are slaves of sin so they sin necessarily. They are inclined to sin and they cannot please God nor do good in God's sight. However, they do not sin with compulsion. People sin voluntarily; they are not forced to sin. When a person sins, he is acting according to his desires.

Calvin makes the same argument in his book, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will.

Some compatibilists would make the same point that Luther made. Even though unbelievers sin necessarily, they are still morally accountable for their sin because they sin voluntarily. They are not forced to sin; they act according to their desire.

Do you have any thoughts concerning this?

[themuzicman]

I guess it depends on what we mean by "necessarily." If we mean that everyone sins at least once in their life, then that's fine, but I'm not sure that's what is meant.

If we mean that every sinner sins every time they make a choice, then there is a problem, as Romans 2:14-16 says that when those without the law do the works of the law, that becomes a law to themselves. But, if they sin (thus breaking the law) with every decision, then there is no basis for judgment against them.

So, it depends on how we interpret "sins necessarily."

[FarEastBird]

I've been reading Luther's book, The Bondage of the Will, and I've been enjoying it so far. Luther argues that there is a distinction between sinning necessarily and sinning with compulsion. Unbelievers are slaves of sin so they sin necessarily. They are inclined to sin and they cannot please God nor do good in God's sight. However, they do not sin with compulsion. People sin voluntarily; they are not forced to sin. When a person sins, he is acting according to his desires.

Calvin makes the same argument in his book, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will.

Some compatibilists would make the same point that Luther made. Even though unbelievers sin necessarily, they are still morally accountable for their sin because they sin voluntarily. They are not forced to sin; they act according to their desire.

Do you have any thoughts concerning this?

Sin is breaking the law. Of breaking the law, whether we willed it, or not, is sin. Aren’t we convicted of being imperfect, not of because whether we willed to sin or not? The requirement is to be perfect, or not to commit any sin; as even James implied clearly.

I think Luther is pointless.

FEB

[RBerman]

I agree with Luther and Calvin on this one. Surprise!

[Tanakh Keeper]

Unbelievers are slaves of sin so they sin necessarily. They are inclined to sin and they cannot please God nor do good in God's sight. However, they do not sin with compulsion. People sin voluntarily; they are not forced to sin. When a person sins, he is acting according to his desires.

{snip}

Do you have any thoughts concerning this?

As you say that it is impossible for them to please your god, voluntary seems to be out the window. Merely existing and breathing is a sin for them.

[siliconwafer]

I guess it depends on what we mean by "necessarily." If we mean that everyone sins at least once in their life, then that's fine, but I'm not sure that's what is meant.

If we mean that every sinner sins every time they make a choice, then there is a problem, as Romans 2:14-16 says that when those without the law do the works of the law, that becomes a law to themselves. But, if they sin (thus breaking the law) with every decision, then there is no basis for judgment against them.

So, it depends on how we interpret "sins necessarily."

What Luther meant by sinning necessarily was that his willingness to sin is not something that he cannot in his own strength eliminate, restrain, or alter. The unbeliever cannot change his bent towards evil. I don't think that Luther meant that unbelievers sin 100% of the time. Unbelievers cannot please God.

[siliconwafer]

As you say that it is impossible for them to please your god, voluntary seems to be out the window. Merely existing and breathing is a sin for them.

They sin voluntarily, which means that they act according to their sinful desires. They take delight in sin.

[Tanakh Keeper]

I don't understand the difference. Since it is impossible for them to do good, then all their actions are a sin. They have no choice but to sin. If something is unavoidable, I don't understand how it is voluntary.

That's like saying having a heart beat is voluntary.

[RBerman]

I don't understand the difference. Since it is impossible for them to do good, then all their actions are a sin. They have no choice but to sin. If something is unavoidable, I don't understand how it is voluntary. That's like saying having a heart beat is voluntary.

"Voluntary" means that you did what you want to do. The reason that all their actions are sin is that they always want to sin, in the sense that they are never acting due to a desire to honor and serve God as he truly is.

[Phat8594]

What Luther meant by sinning necessarily was that his willingness to sin is not something that he cannot in his own strength eliminate, restrain, or alter. The unbeliever cannot change his bent towards evil. I don't think that Luther meant that unbelievers sin 100% of the time. Unbelievers cannot please God.

To me that seems different from you were saying before. From my knowledge of the more moderate Calvinists, the argument seems to go that men by nature are essentially incapable of being willing to do any good.


However, IMO, this type of reasoning is contrary to what we see everytday....not to mention scripture. As Romans 7 clearly points out, the problem with us sinning is not a problem of knowledge, or wanting to do right....but rather, its a problem of power. Our flesh is incapable of fulfilling something that is spiritual (the Law)...thus our need for a kinsman redeemer.

[Phat8594]

I don't understand the difference. Since it is impossible for them to do good, then all their actions are a sin. They have no choice but to sin. If something is unavoidable, I don't understand how it is voluntary.

That's like saying having a heart beat is voluntary.

Yes, I agree. If there is not more than one option, then how is it a choice? And if there is no choice, then how is it voluntary?

Of course, the Calvinist will define choice as merely doing what one wants...options don't matter. However, I don't think it needs to be said that I disagree with this definition of choice on a philosophical level.

IMO, the fact that Hashem commands people to do things, shows in itself that we have a choice, and that we need His direction.

[RBerman]

Yes, I agree. If there is not more than one option, then how is it a choice? And if there is no choice, then how is it voluntary? Of course, the Calvinist will define choice as merely doing what one wants...options don't matter. However, I don't think it needs to be said that I disagree with this definition of choice on a philosophical level. IMO, the fact that Hashem commands people to do things, shows in itself that we have a choice, and that we need His direction.

You have ably summarized both sides of the debate; Calvinists agree that we have a choice. Barring some extraordinary external compulsion, I will always choose not to eat feces, because it is detestable to my nature.

[Phat8594]

Barring some extraordinary external compulsion, I will always choose not to eat feces, because it is detestable to my nature.

I actually laughed out loud for this one RB!

Ironically there are people that do eat feces. Hard to believe, I know...but it happens.


As a side note, I find cod liver oil detestable...but I still take it because I believe it is good for my heart and my teeth.

[Tanakh Keeper]

"Voluntary" means that you did what you want to do. The reason that all their actions are sin is that they always want to sin, in the sense that they are never acting due to a desire to honor and serve God as he truly is.

I think I understand you. Assuming pro-god is southwest and anti-god is northeast, you are saying that at any given point, an unbeliever can choose to go southwest, but they will always choose to go northeast.

Or using true-to-life actions, an unbeliever will always choose to steal when able and will never be charitable to anyone. With their actions, they will always choose to do the opposite of what your god wants them to do. I got it.

[Phat8594]

Or using true-to-life actions, an unbeliever will always choose to steal when able and will never be charitable to anyone. With their actions, they will always choose to do the opposite of what your god wants them to do. I got it

Actually, I think the argument goes that even when an unbeliever chooses to charitable, it is out of impure motives.