TE: How we think is not generally considered as a behavior. It's true that what we think about can be influenced by temptation, but *how* we think need not be. That is, we can dishonor God by misrepresenting His character in our thoughts, without any temptation being involved.

MM: How we think? Don't you mean - what we believe? If so, how can we be guilty of sinning if we ignorantly believe something about God which happens to be misrepresentative?

TE: Romans 3 deals with it [beliefs which misrepresent God's character], as well as other parts of Romans. Paul had something different on his mind here is why [1 Cor 10:13 doesn't include it], as far as I can speculate.

MM: Since 1 Cor 10:13 involves all of the temptations common to mankind, I find it hard to believe it doesn't include the most common of all temptations, the basis of nearly all temptations. Misunderstanding the character of God is, no doubt, the root of all temptations.

TE: People believe wrong things about God in ignorance. In fact, I'm sure by a huge amount, the wrong thoughts we have about God are due to ignorance.

MM: Most likely. However, as mentioned above, are we guilty of sinning if we believe something about God which happens to be untrue?

TE: How we think is not generally considered as a behavior. It's true that what we think about can be influenced by temptation, but *how* we think need not be. That is, we can dishonor God by misrepresenting His character in our thoughts, without any temptation being involved.

MM: How we think? Don't you mean - what we believe?

No. Beliefs are static. They are things we believe to be true or not. I'm talking about how we think about things, our perspective, our paradigm.

MM:If so, how can we be guilty of sinning if we ignorantly believe something about God which happens to be misrepresentative?

If God exposes us to truth, and we choose not to accept that truth, that could be a sin. Ignorance is a somewat fuzzy thing (that is, not so easy to quantify). Fortunately God is gracious.

TE: Romans 3 deals with it [beliefs which misrepresent God's character], as well as other parts of Romans. Paul had something different on his mind here is why [1 Cor 10:13 doesn't include it], as far as I can speculate.

MM: Since 1 Cor 10:13 involves all of the temptations common to mankind, I find it hard to believe it doesn't include the most common of all temptations, the basis of nearly all temptations. Misunderstanding the character of God is, no doubt, the root of all temptations.

I don't think of it as a temptation. I doubt Paul did.

TE: People believe wrong things about God in ignorance. In fact, I'm sure by a huge amount, the wrong thoughts we have about God are due to ignorance.

MM: Most likely. However, as mentioned above, are we guilty of sinning if we believe something about God which happens to be untrue?

It depends. If we had to opportunity to change our incorrect thinking, to be exposed to a more correct way of thinking, and chose not to, then there could be some responsibility involved here. Actually, God is constantly seeking to teach us truth, and we are told that God gives us truth as fast as we are willing and able to receive it. The fact that so few have much truth (and I'm not including myself in this few here) would seem to indicate that not many are resisting in some way.

TE: Your OP made the statement that there is no excuse for sinning because Paul said that any temptation could be overcome. It has been pointed out to you a number of times that your assertion is missing some elements to make for a complete argument.

MM: Here's my opening statement:


In response to the question, "This means there is no excuse for sinning, right?", you seem to be arguing, NO! You seem to be saying 1 Cor 10:13 does not teach there is no excuse for sinning.

Therefore, I feel compelled to ask, Are there any "excuses" for sinning? I realize you believe 1 Cor 10:13 is only referring to the temptations that are common to mankind, that it doesn't take into consideration that people sin ignorantly without being tempted.

So, again, I feel compelled to ask, Is there an "excuse for sins which do not involve temptation"? I realize you believe this question is an attempt to "patch up" an incomplete argument, but please hear me out. I believe 1 Cor 10:13 envisions every temptation not only common to mankind but known to mankind, however, I also realize certain temptations do not apply to certain people at certain times in their life.

For example, the temptation to violate the Sabbath is a temptation common to mankind. Again, there is no such thing as a temptation that is not common to mankind. Nevertheless, certain people are unaware of the Sabbath commandment, thus, they violate the Sabbath ignorantly. As such, their sin does not involve temptation. But, the question is - Is their sin excusable? If so, then can it also be forgiven without the atoning blood of Jesus?

Isn't it, rather, saying without Jesus people cannot subdue a single sin or resist even the slightest temptation? People who are outside of Jesus are fallen - not will fall. Is it even possible for God to totally prevent them from being tempted? Fallen nature tempts from within without ceasing, right?

MM: If we choose to trod in darkness unbidden, God does not abandon us. He does not leave it up to Satan to decide how to tempt and punish us. Even under these circumstances God regulates what Satan can and cannot do to us.

asg: Actually, OHC 307.3 seems to say the opposite of your assertion.

MM: How so? I don't hear her saying God leaves it up to Satan to decide how to tempt and punish people who wander from God's will.

---

asg: Does it cover the ability to avoid being born selfish?

MM: No. Are we guilty of sining because we are born selfish? 1 Cor 10:13 includes all of the temptations common to mankind, including selfishness.

asg: Whether we are guilty or not is irrelevant. The question is, Can you live in the presence of God if you are selfish? Answer: No. That's why we need to be recreated.

MM: The question is - "Does it [1 Cor 10:13] cover the ability to avoid being born selfish?" The answer is, Of course not. We have no control over how we are born. It is not a sin to be born selfish. That is, God does not count us guilty of sinning because we are born selfish.

Regarding your second question, "Can you live in the presence of God if you are selfish?", I agree with you. We cannot live in the presence of God in a selfish state. To live in God's presence, without being consumed by His glory and brightness, we must be born again AND receive a sinless body and nature.

---

MM: What does God's nature have to do with why we cannot excuse sinning?

asg: Everything He made reflects His character. If we want to function within His creation, we must do it in congruence with His character. Sin is the anomaly.

MM: True. But, again, what does this have to do with WHY we cannot excuse sinning? Why isn't there an excuse for the sins we commit, whether willful or ignorant?

---

MM: You seem to be saying that Satan has full control over unbelievers, that God leaves it up to Satan to decide how to tempt and treat them?

asg: OHC 307.3 says that he is left to himself. Satan is not the lone tempter. Even if Satan ceased to exist right now, we will still tempt ourselves.

MM: Here is the quote again:


She speaks of falling "an easy prey to Satan's devices."

---

MM: When do we receive the glory of God, His character, so that we can begin resisting temptations?

asg: When we die to self and rise to walk in newness of life.

MM: Amen! But what does it mean to receive the glory of God, His character? What is the nature of the glory and character we receive when self dies and we rise to walk in newness of life?

Ok, thanks for explaining your thinking. In my response, I explained what the problem is. Paul says there is no excuse for being overcome by temptation. You inferred this to be saying there is no excuse for sinning. But that's not what Paul said. He said there's no excuse for being overcome by temptation. In order for you to make the argument that this implies there is no excuse for sinning, you have to connect some dots, so to speak.

As I mentioned, for your argument to be complete, you either have to show that all sin comes about by way of temptation, or that there is also no excuse for the sin that comes about not by way of temptation, in addition to their being no excuse for the sin that comes about by way of temptation.



I think I addressed your concerns in my previous comment.

Since it's clear that people resist temptations all the time (e.g. unbelievers resist the temptation to cheat on their income tax, eat too much, commit adultery, etc.), isn't the correct inference that even unbelievers are given the ability to resist temptation by Christ (although they are unaware of this)?

Tom, I've exported this post to a new thread. The title is - Are there any excuses for sinning?

So far as the title of this thread is concerned, ignoring my opening post, can we agree that there is no temptation too difficult to resist if we are abiding in Christ?

Does God perceive it as "resisting" temptation when an unbeliever chooses not to cheat on his taxes? Isn't it rather considered filthy rags when an unbeliever does something "righteous" apart from a saving relationship with Jesus? If so, can it really be considered "resiting" temptation?

Everyone on this thread has been emphasizing this point.