Sinning necessarily, but without compulsion

[Carrikature]

I'm surprised that you question whether people have conflicting desires underneath that.

I'm doing a really bad job expressing myself in this thread. Let me try again.

People obviously have multiple priorities that they much reconcile to reach any decision. There's no questioning this. My contention, though, is that most of these priorities have nothing to do with God or religion, or more specifically a desire to honor and serve God. Perhaps I am overstating or misunderstanding the argument, but as far as I can tell the claim is that Christians are not sinners because their intent is to honor and serve God.

Moreover, the claim is that there is a fundamental desire difference between Christians and non-Christians. Non-Christians always sin, simply because they never have the intent to honor and serve God. Meanwhile, Christians may sometimes fail, but their intent is still to honor and serve God. I disagree that this is the case. If intent/focus is the sole delineation, then all concept of morality becomes moot. It is not the act that is important, but the intent. This seems obviously false.

What I mean by "perfectly pure motives" is simply that. Are you, a human, capable of doing anything perfectly?

I often perform flawed actions. I don't think it's right that my motives are always impure. Insofar as a perfectly pure motive is the desire to honor and serve God, without other considerations, I disagree that humans are incapable of this. We may fail at the actual serving/honoring part, but our motive can be right. As I understand your claim, this motive is the difference between sinning and not sinning.

Maybe I misunderstand, though. Maybe it is the case that not sinning requires both pure motive and actualization of the motive. I would have to wonder if this ever happens, and if not, if it is a meaningful distinction.

God can influence men in various ways. He can apply an external influence, as when He caused the Assyrians to forcibly carry Israel off into captivity. That was compulsion; the Israelites did not want to go, but God wanted them to go, and off they went. (Remember, this thread is about the distinction between compulsion and logical necessity.) Or God can change men's hearts, so that they willingly choose to do the thing that God has ordained them to do. "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases." (Prov 21:1) That's not compulsion, and it's not forcible, inasmuch as the man acts according to his new desire.

I disagree that there is any meaningful distinction here. God forcing the Israelites into compulsive slavery is an application of influence with an obvious and intended effect. God changing the heart of the man is the same thing. We don't have the ability to override our desires in this manner. If our desire is forcibly changed, our actions are forcibly changed. The verse from Proverbs perfectly illustrates this.

Your earlier statement that two things can have the same result with different purposes and processes is true. However, that's not what's happening here. You are seeing different processes with the same purpose and the same result. There is no meaningful difference between God picking you up and placing you somewhere and God making you want to go there if the desired result is to get you to a new location. Unless we have the ability to override the desires of our heart, and I don't think we do, then a change in our hearts necessarily means a change in our actions. God's actions are an external influence directly on our actions/desires.

Interesting. I don't know any devout Christians who don't pray for the souls of others.

I don't qualify as devout these days, and I'm not sure that I ever have. It's a borderline No True Scotsman concept, in my opinion, but that's beside the point. How many people that you consider devout have you talked with about praying for souls? How many do you know do so, and how many do you just assume do so? I can think of a couple of people who probably do, but I don't know that anyone does. Most Christians I know may not fall under your definition of 'devout', though.

[RBerman]

People obviously have multiple priorities that they much reconcile to reach any decision. There's no questioning this. My contention, though, is that most of these priorities have nothing to do with God or religion, or more specifically a desire to honor and serve God. Perhaps I am overstating or misunderstanding the argument, but as far as I can tell the claim is that Christians are not sinners because their intent is to honor and serve God.

Moreover, the claim is that there is a fundamental desire difference between Christians and non-Christians. Non-Christians always sin, simply because they never have the intent to honor and serve God. Meanwhile, Christians may sometimes fail, but their intent is still to honor and serve God. I disagree that this is the case. If intent/focus is the sole delineation, then all concept of morality becomes moot. It is not the act that is important, but the intent. This seems obviously false.

I often perform flawed actions. I don't think it's right that my motives are always impure. Insofar as a perfectly pure motive is the desire to honor and serve God, without other considerations, I disagree that humans are incapable of this. We may fail at the actual serving/honoring part, but our motive can be right. As I understand your claim, this motive is the difference between sinning and not sinning.

I avoid the ambiguous term "sinners" as much as possible. If it means "someone who sins" then Christians still do sin and are thus sinners. But if it means "someone whose identity is characterized by sinning" then Christians don't qualify; our identity is in Christ, and we sin despite that identity rather than because of it. Christians do have a desire to honor and serve God, but that desire is imperfect. Even when doing good things, I'm regularly aware of my mixed motives. I am a work in progress. I would never ascribe perfection to either my actions or motivations.

Maybe I misunderstand, though. Maybe it is the case that not sinning requires both pure motive and actualization of the motive. I would have to wonder if this ever happens, and if not, if it is a meaningful distinction.

It happened for Jesus. It does not happen for us in this life, but will in the life to come. That's why it's a meaningful distinction.

I disagree that there is any meaningful distinction here. God forcing the Israelites into compulsive slavery is an application of influence with an obvious and intended effect. God changing the heart of the man is the same thing. We don't have the ability to override our desires in this manner. If our desire is forcibly changed, our actions are forcibly changed. The verse from Proverbs perfectly illustrates this.

Your earlier statement that two things can have the same result with different purposes and processes is true. However, that's not what's happening here. You are seeing different processes with the same purpose and the same result. There is no meaningful difference between God picking you up and placing you somewhere and God making you want to go there if the desired result is to get you to a new location. Unless we have the ability to override the desires of our heart, and I don't think we do, then a change in our hearts necessarily means a change in our actions. God's actions are an external influence directly on our actions/desires.

I agree that when God changes our hearts, that does change our actions/desires. It's an indirect influence, mediated by the change in our heart. The reason it's important is that we're discussing terms like "compulsion" and "choice." A choice is when you act according to your strongest desire of the moment. Your choices thus come from your heart. Calvinists can thus affirm that humans do make choices, while also affirming that we act according to God's design. This is mainly important in responding the to anti-Calvinist canard that Calvinists don't believe in choice.

I don't qualify as devout these days, and I'm not sure that I ever have. It's a borderline No True Scotsman concept, in my opinion, but that's beside the point. How many people that you consider devout have you talked with about praying for souls? How many do you know do so, and how many do you just assume do so? I can think of a couple of people who probably do, but I don't know that anyone does. Most Christians I know may not fall under your definition of 'devout', though.

We pray for specific people's souls at my church all the time. It's a regular topic of prayer at every group prayer session I've ever been in, at a variety of churches, home Bible studies, parachurch organizations, etc. I don't know whether you are "devout" in one sense or another. When I talk about people who are devout, I mean that they read the Bible, pray, exhibit the Fruit of the Spirit, are active in serving the church, speak reflexively in a way that shows a deep concern for the things of God, etc.

[siliconwafer]

It was God's plan that some people would crucify Christ. God made a plan that some soldiers would nail Jesus to a cross, but this does not mean that those soldiers were forced to do what they did. They took delight in what they were doing; they acted according to their desires. Their actions proceeded from their will and their hearts. It is not like God made them do something that they did not want to do.

[Carrikature]

I avoid the ambiguous term "sinners" as much as possible. If it means "someone who sins" then Christians still do sin and are thus sinners. But if it means "someone whose identity is characterized by sinning" then Christians don't qualify; our identity is in Christ, and we sin despite that identity rather than because of it. Christians do have a desire to honor and serve God, but that desire is imperfect. Even when doing good things, I'm regularly aware of my mixed motives. I am a work in progress. I would never ascribe perfection to either my actions or motivations.

Fair enough.

It happened for Jesus. It does not happen for us in this life, but will in the life to come. That's why it's a meaningful distinction.

You never have a pure motive and act on it? No one is capable of this?

I agree that when God changes our hearts, that does change our actions/desires. It's an indirect influence, mediated by the change in our heart. The reason it's important is that we're discussing terms like "compulsion" and "choice." A choice is when you act according to your strongest desire of the moment. Your choices thus come from your heart. Calvinists can thus affirm that humans do make choices, while also affirming that we act according to God's design. This is mainly important in responding the to anti-Calvinist canard that Calvinists don't believe in choice.

Unless you can act other than your heart's desire, then the choice is an illusion. I don't even have a problem with this, but call it what it is.

We pray for specific people's souls at my church all the time. It's a regular topic of prayer at every group prayer session I've ever been in, at a variety of churches, home Bible studies, parachurch organizations, etc. I don't know whether you are "devout" in one sense or another. When I talk about people who are devout, I mean that they read the Bible, pray, exhibit the Fruit of the Spirit, are active in serving the church, speak reflexively in a way that shows a deep concern for the things of God, etc.

I see. There was perhaps a time when I was a member of a church that made this a priority. I honestly can't say either way about my current church. I know I don't qualify. The people in my small group don't either, for the most part, and that bothers me. I have spiritual/mental conflicts that are stopping me. They are mostly just uninterested.

[RBerman]

You never have a pure motive and act on it? No one is capable of this?

No one is perfect but God. Perfect is the operative word that was present in my previous post but absent from your question here.

Unless you can act other than your heart's desire, then the choice is an illusion. I don't even have a problem with this, but call it what it is.

That depends entirely on how you define "choice." You haven't explicitly offered a definition. Mine would be something like "Among several theoretical options, to act according to the option that was your greatest desire at that moment."

I see. There was perhaps a time when I was a member of a church that made this a priority. I honestly can't say either way about my current church. I know I don't qualify. The people in my small group don't either, for the most part, and that bothers me. I have spiritual/mental conflicts that are stopping me. They are mostly just uninterested.

I am sorry to hear that. I will pray that God brings you into a healthy fellowship which contributes to your spiritual nurture!

[Phat8594]

That depends entirely on how you define "choice."

Bingo!


I had a feeling this conversation would come down to this.

[Carrikature]

No one is perfect but God. Perfect is the operative word that was present in my previous post but absent from your question here.

Not quite, but let me rephrase the question. Do you accept that "not sinning requires both pure motive and actualization of the motive"? That seems to be what you're claiming, but I may be misunderstanding. If you do accept it, then by your own statement, "It does not happen for us in this life, but will in the life to come" it is implied that Christians always sin. Is that what you're saying?

That depends entirely on how you define "choice." You haven't explicitly offered a definition. Mine would be something like "Among several theoretical options, to act according to the option that was your greatest desire at that moment."

Theoretical options aren't enough for me. That some other person could act differently doesn't mean that I can act differently. If I could, or would, then I would arguably not be the same person that I am. Choice to me, then, is closer to "acting on one of several equally-desirable options."

I am sorry to hear that. I will pray that God brings you into a healthy fellowship which contributes to your spiritual nurture!

Thanks, I appreciate it.

[Carrikature]

Bingo!


I had a feeling this conversation would come down to this.

It pretty much has to, as far as I can tell. Choice and sin are inextricably linked.

[RBerman]

Not quite, but let me rephrase the question. Do you accept that "not sinning requires both pure motive and actualization of the motive"? That seems to be what you're claiming, but I may be misunderstanding. If you do accept it, then by your own statement, "It does not happen for us in this life, but will in the life to come" it is implied that Christians always sin. Is that what you're saying?

In this life, Christians always have some element of sin in everything that we do. We're not perfect, and nothing we do is perfect. We are acceptable to God not due to our own righteousness, but due to the righteousness of Christ, who clothes us as we are united to him by faith.

Theoretical options aren't enough for me. That some other person could act differently doesn't mean that I can act differently. If I could, or would, then I would arguably not be the same person that I am. Choice to me, then, is closer to "acting on one of several equally-desirable options."

I do not see how these sentences relate to each other. The state in which two options are completely equally-desirable is called "indecision" and persists until something breaks the stalemate, resulting in a choice of one or the other, or sometimes an attempt to have both at once if that's possible in the case at hand.

[George Blaisdell]

The state in which two options are completely equally-desirable is called "indecision" and persists until something breaks the stalemate, resulting in a choice of one or the other, or sometimes an attempt to have both at once if that's possible in the case at hand.

They resolve nicely in obedience...

As Paul instructs that we obey those appointed over us...

Arsenios

[siliconwafer]

Bingo!


I had a feeling this conversation would come down to this.

A choice would be the opportunity to decide which course of action to take. A person looks at two courses of action and then decides which one is more desirable.

[RBerman]

Bingo! I had a feeling this conversation would come down to this.

That's because (1) you are an insightful person, and (2) this same conversation has been held here multiple times before, and it always comes down to this.

[Carrikature]

I do not see how these sentences relate to each other. The state in which two options are completely equally-desirable is called "indecision" and persists until something breaks the stalemate, resulting in a choice of one or the other, or sometimes an attempt to have both at once if that's possible in the case at hand.

The common usage of 'choice' and 'free-will' to me indicate the natural process observed by our 'self' (or consciousness). It's not a directed process, as far as I can tell, in that the self does not alter the process. However, I now realize that I can't honestly argue this very far while remaining within the strictures of this forum section, so I'll just leave it at that. Thanks for the conversation, though.

[Carrikature]

I am sorry to hear that. I will pray that God brings you into a healthy fellowship which contributes to your spiritual nurture!

By the way, after talking with another couple in my community group, and talking more with my wife, she and I have decided to change groups. It sounds like this new group does things a lot better, with a focus on staying connected to each other. The couple I was talking to are among the people I'm sure pray for the souls of others.

[RBerman]

By the way, after talking with another couple in my community group, and talking more with my wife, she and I have decided to change groups. It sounds like this new group does things a lot better, with a focus on staying connected to each other. The couple I was talking to are among the people I'm sure pray for the souls of others.

Glad to hear it! Praying for a good result.