Why do you sin?

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

... more people prefer what is good than to evil.

Not quite correct, Winman. More people prefer their concept of "good" vs. "evil." That is part of the common grace of God. I wrote of that earlier in another thread. His common grace is three-fold, in that He has a favorable attitude of God toward all His creatures, He restraints sin in the life of the individual and in society, and He exercises such influence that even the unsaved man is enabled to perform good deeds toward his fellow man.

That doesn't mean, however, that "good" is God-oriented. It is selfish, for the purpose of making one "feel good," which is not what "doing good" is about for the Christian. The unregenerate may choose to do "good" but it is for "evil" purposes, even if the evil is not seen in the same light as, say, the deeds of Hitler or Stalin. The deeds of Bill and Melissa Gates are "good" in the eyes of the world, but are evil in the eyes of God, in that they are done for their benefit more than any other reason.

 

[Revmitchell]

more people prefer what is good than to evil.

Good according to whom? Who sets their standard of what is good?

 

[Winman]

Not quite correct, Winman. More people prefer their concept of "good" vs. "evil." That is part of the common grace of God. I wrote of that earlier in another thread. His common grace is three-fold, in that He has a favorable attitude of God toward all His creatures, He restraints sin in the life of the individual and in society, and He exercises such influence that even the unsaved man is enabled to perform good deeds toward his fellow man.

That doesn't mean, however, that "good" is God-oriented. It is selfish, for the purpose of making one "feel good," which is not what "doing good" is about for the Christian. The unregenerate may choose to do "good" but it is for "evil" purposes, even if the evil is not seen in the same light as, say, the deeds of Hitler or Stalin. The deeds of Bill and Melissa Gates are "good" in the eyes of the world, but are evil in the eyes of God, in that they are done for their benefit more than any other reason.

If we were compelled to sin because we have a sin nature, not one of us would have a job, we would all be stealing from each other. We wouldn't be able to do anything else. We would HAVE to sin. We would all kill each other, all commit fornication everyday, etc...

The fact that we DO NOT act this way proves we are not compelled to sin.

And if you were compelled to sin, you wouldn't be worried about being "good", you would hate everything that is good and do the exact opposite.

 

[DHK]

If we were compelled to sin because we have a sin nature, not one of us would have a job, we would all be stealing from each other. We wouldn't be able to do anything else. We would HAVE to sin. We would all kill each other, all commit fornication everyday, etc...

The fact that we DO NOT act this way proves we are not compelled to sin.

And if you were compelled to sin, you wouldn't be worried about being "good", you would hate everything that is good and do the exact opposite.

You have brought holiness down to the level of sinful man.
You have lifted up sinfulness to God's level.

I am a criminal before God; we all are.
The crimes that I have done, the shame of sin, the guilt I bear, the defilement and uncleanliness of my soul, His blood has made white as snow. Positionally in his righteousness I stand. Saved and sanctified I am.
But still a sinner, and always a sinner will I be. Those deeds I've done, though under the cross, there are others still, and daily I must confess; daily I must repent, for every sin is a crime against a holy righteous God.
A sinner I am, saved by the grace of God, but a sinner still, one who has fallen fall short of the holiness of God.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If we were compelled to sin because we have a sin nature ...

That's the error of your thinking. The sin nature does not "compel" us to sin, but it does make it unavoidable, like the nature of ice makes melting in temperatures above 0° Celcius unavoidable. If the temperature doesn't rise, the ice won't melt. If it does, it will. If temptation doesn't arise, we won't sin. If it does, we will. Unfortunately, temptation always arises. And if not for God restraining even the unregenerate, not only would we surrender to every temptation, but we would wallow in, exist solely for, the depravity within our own hearts.

... not one of us would have a job, we would all be stealing from each other. We wouldn't be able to do anything else. We would HAVE to sin. We would all kill each other, all commit fornication everyday, etc...

The fact that we DO NOT act this way proves we are not compelled to sin.

This ignores the gift of common grace gives to even the unregenerate man. We do the civically responsible thing, even though we are not of God when in unbelief, because He restrains the hearts of the unredeemed becomes clear when we understand the biblical doctrine of total depravity. The nature of man's heart is hopelessly corrupt.

Jeremiah 17, NASB
9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?​

If God did not restrain the great evil that resides in the hearts of all men, humanity would have destroyed itself centuries ago. But because He works through common grace given to all men, God’s sovereign plan for history is not thwarted by their evil hearts.

And if you were compelled to sin, you wouldn't be worried about being "good", you would hate everything that is good and do the exact opposite.

While yet unregenerate, we do hate everything, and would, but for the common grace of God, strive and strain to do the exact opposite of what He desires for us, constantly and without constraint. But God restraints us. We can do nothing to restrain ourselves.

 

[Winman]

That's the error of your thinking. The sin nature does not "compel" us to sin, but it does make it unavoidable, like the nature of ice makes melting in temperatures above 0° Celcius unavoidable. If the temperature doesn't rise, the ice won't melt. If it does, it will. If temptation doesn't arise, we won't sin. If it does, we will. Unfortunately, temptation always arises. And if not for God restraining even the unregenerate, not only would we surrender to every temptation, but we would wallow in, exist solely for, the depravity within our own hearts.

If you are not compelled to sin, then you do not have to sin. It is a choice. This is what I have always said, now you are agreeing with me.

This ignores the gift of common grace gives to even the unregenerate man. We do the civically responsible thing, even though we are not of God when in unbelief, because He restrains the hearts of the unredeemed becomes clear when we understand the biblical doctrine of total depravity. The nature of man's heart is hopelessly corrupt.

Jeremiah 17, NASB
9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?​

If God did not restrain the great evil that resides in the hearts of all men, humanity would have destroyed itself centuries ago. But because He works through common grace given to all men, God’s sovereign plan for history is not thwarted by their evil hearts.

People pull this verse out of context and completely misrepresent it. What does the scripture right before this scripture say?

Jer 7:7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.

This scripture is not teaching that man's heart is out of control. Man can trust in God and this man shall be like a tree planted by the waters.

This is what happens when people proof-text. Complete error. If our heart is utterly deceitful, we could not even trust in God. This shows people misuse this verse.

We are not compelled to sin. If we were, we could not trust in God. All of our decisions would be evil decisions. The fact that we do not always choose wrong proves we are not compelled to sin.

While yet unregenerate, we do hate everything, and would, but for the common grace of God, strive and strain to do the exact opposite of what He desires for us, constantly and without constraint. But God restraints us. We can do nothing to restrain ourselves.

No we don't. I didn't hate God before I was saved, I prayed every night. I believed in God, and I believed in Jesus, but I didn't know the gospel.

Cornelius was not saved, and he did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he feared God, prayed always, and did good works that God recognized and sent an angel to tell him to send for Peter so he could hear the gospel and be saved.

Calvinism is utterly false and teaches many false doctrines. It completely misrepresents men. Yes, all men are sinners, all men have come short of the glory of God and need to trust Jesus to be saved, but men are not compelled to sin, and men do not have to be regenerated to trust Jesus to save them. '

Calvinism perverts all of scripture.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If you are not compelled to sin, then you do not have to sin. It is a choice. This is what I have always said, now you are agreeing with me.

No. I'm telling you that the only reason we do not sin greatly, without restraint, is because God, not us, restrains us. That's not agreement with you, brother.

People pull this verse out of context and completely misrepresent it. What does the scripture right before this scripture say?

Jer 7:7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.

It's a new paragraph. It's a change of thought, not a continuation of the previous thought.

This scripture is not teaching that man's heart is out of control. Man can trust in God and this man shall be like a tree planted by the waters.

Now you're agreeing with me. Man must trust God to be "a tree planted by the waters," otherwise he will be a depraved sinner.

This is what happens when people proof-text. Complete error. If our heart is utterly deceitful, we could not even trust in God. This shows people misuse this verse.

Sorry, but "more deceitful than all else" is practically a verbatim translation from Hebrew into English. It means exactly what it says. Jeremiah ends this passage by praising God for delivering him from this state.

I didn't hate God before I was saved, I prayed every night.

To what end? You prayed for what, and hoping for what? Because if you did not believe, those prayers didn't rise above your ceiling, given that the relationship you sought, you did not have. It's like asking a bank for a loan when you don't have a checking account there. They don't know you, they won't deal with you.

Cornelius was not saved, and he did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he feared God, prayed always, and did good works that God recognized and sent an angel to tell him to send for Peter so he could hear the gospel and be saved.

Do you see what you wrote there? " ... hear the gospel and be saved" ... ? Regardless of what "good" he did, where, had God not sent him to Joppa, would he be spending eternity?

Calvinism is utterly false and teaches many false doctrines. It completely misrepresents men.

I agree. I'm not a Calvinist. But the concept of total depravity is absolutely correct, and it is correct because of the nature of Adam that was passed on to us by our Earthly father. Once he and Eve sinned, he became imperfect. How were two imperfect beings going to procreate and have a perfect offspring? Sinlessness requires perfection man does not possess. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would not have had to intervene with Mary to bring forth a Perfect God-Man.

 

[Winman]

No. I'm telling you that the only reason we do not sin greatly, without restraint, is because God, not us, restrains us. That's not agreement with you, brother.

Then why did God destroy the earth with a flood? Why didn't he just restrain man?

It's a new paragraph. It's a change of thought, not a continuation of the previous thought.

Nevertheless, vs. 7 shows that man has the ability to trust God.

Sorry, but "more deceitful than all else" is practically a verbatim translation from Hebrew into English. It means exactly what it says. Jeremiah ends this passage by praising God for delivering him from this state.

Again, he can still trust God if he chooses to do so. His heart is not out of control. If you believe otherwise, you are a Calvinist after all.

To what end? You prayed for what, and hoping for what? Because if you did not believe, those prayers didn't rise above your ceiling, given that the relationship you sought, you did not have. It's like asking a bank for a loan when you don't have a checking account there. They don't know you, they won't deal with you.

Complete error, and the story of Cornelius proves this. He was not saved, and he did not have the Spirit, yet God heard his prayers and sent an angel to tell him how to be saved.

This is a perfect example of how Calvinism has perverted man's view of mankind. Total Inability is complete falsehood.

Do you see what you wrote there? " ... hear the gospel and be saved" ... ? Regardless of what "good" he did, where, had God not sent him to Joppa, would he be spending eternity?

Of course I realize what I wrote. Cornelius was not saved, neither did he have the Holy Spirit, yet he was able to fear God, pray always, give much alms to the poor, etc... He was able to do truly "righteous works" as Peter himself said of Cornelius. He was not utterly compelled to sin all the time as Calvinism teaches. And God did not treat his good works as being hypocritical or self-serving as they insist everything an unsaved man does must be. The story of Cornelius absolutely destroys the false doctrine of Total Inability.

I agree. I'm not a Calvinist. But the concept of total depravity is absolutely correct, and it is correct because of the nature of Adam that was passed on to us by our Earthly father. Once he and Eve sinned, he became imperfect. How were two imperfect beings going to procreate and have a perfect offspring? Sinlessness requires perfection man does not possess. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would not have had to intervene with Mary to bring forth a Perfect God-Man.

If you mean by depravity that all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God, I agree with you 100%. If you believe everything an unsaved man does is evil, you are absolutely wrong, and the story of Cornelius proves that. He was not saved, yet he was able to "worketh righteousness".

Acts 10:30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Total Inability is a total lie.

 

[DHK]

Total Inability is a total lie.

Why do you keep throwing this out there? Aren't you paying attention?
Read TND's post carefully:

I agree. I'm not a Calvinist. But the concept of total depravity is absolutely correct, and it is correct because of the nature of Adam that was passed on to us by our Earthly father.

How many times have I also told you:
I am not a Calvinist. I don't believe in Total Inability.
Why do you keep repeating something we don't believe in. Pay attention.

 

[Luke2427]

People choose not to sin all the time. The vast majority of people do not want to be thieves and prefer to work for an honest living. Most people prefer to get married and not live in sin.

So you are absolutely wrong, more people prefer what is good than to evil.

Except that EVERY person DOES sin.

Nobody goes through life without sinning. Which brings us full circle.

Why?

Because they do not prefer righteousness over ease and sinful pleasure many, many, many times throughout their lives.

Like you for example. You said you have lied "hundreds of times" in your life.

That's just one of your many sins. And you have committed it HUNDREDS of times.

Yet you believe that you could have gone your whole life without EVER sinning.

Why didn't you?

Because righteousness, hundreds of thousands of times, in your life was not preferable to ease and sinful pleasure.

Why was righteousness not preferable to ease and sinful pleasure?

Because you are a sinner at heart.

 

[righteousdude2]

I call it ....

Because you are a sinner at heart.

.... the Sin Nature! But it is the same!

As for why we sin ..... Flip Wilson said best ....
"The devill made me do it!"

 

[convicted1]

Commentaries on Matthew 12:33:

Adam Clarke:

Verse 33. "Either make the tree good" - That is, the effect will be always similar to the cause; a bad tree will produce bad fruit, and a good tree, good fruit.

The works will resemble the heart: nothing good can proceed from an evil spirit; no good fruit can proceed from a corrupt heart. Before the heart of man can produce any good, it must be renewed and influenced by the Spirit of God.

http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkemat12.htm


Andrew Wommack:

Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit.

Note 2 at Mt 12:33: Jesus was still speaking about blaspheming the Holy Ghost. It is impossible to separate the Holy Ghost from His actions or fruit. Anyone who discredits the acts of the Holy Ghost is also discrediting the Holy Ghost.

http://www.awmi.net/bible/mat_12_33


That's about the only two commentaries I could find of those who hold to free will. But neither of these hold to the fact we have the ability to make ourselves good....

 

[psalms109:31]

Inability means that no man on their own has the ability to come to Christ without the working of the Holy Spirit. No one can come leaving it just man has no ability.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ive this go 7 pages now...fact is we are all sinners and wether you want to say we are born to it or not...there is a sin nature there. All I know is this.....this world moves on it and revolves around it.

Some will say they would perfer not to live in sin while others will freely choose it. But if we are honest we would all have to admit to being reality....the only reality in the world and everything else is confusion, lies, hypocrisy, delusion etc. Even the Bible tells you that Satan is God of this world. See 2 Corinthians 4:4 and John 12:31.

But this is not to say that he rules the world completely because God is still sovereign ... God has only allowed Satan to operate in the world within a timetable and with certain boundaries. Believers are no longer under the rule of Satan. But the reason I support a "sin nature " doctrine is that I as a believer still sin. What's that about....I'm not perfected yet....the old man character is not totally eradicated.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Saw Casting Crowns in concert last month. Their new album "Thrive" is an awesome piece of work, and the last song on it is this one.

"Waiting on the Night to Fall"

I think it speaks to the issue of this thread quite well.

 

[Winman]

Except that EVERY person DOES sin.

Nobody goes through life without sinning. Which brings us full circle.

People do both good and evil. Sometimes people choose good. Most people prefer to work and earn an honest living. They could choose to be a career criminal, but they don't. People have the ability to choose.

Why?

Every person is different, and every situation is different, there is no simple answer.

Because they do not prefer righteousness over ease and sinful pleasure many, many, many times throughout their lives.

But sometimes they do, like I keep saying, the vast majority of people prefer to work an honest job, only a small minority choose to be career criminals.

Like you for example. You said you have lied "hundreds of times" in your life.

That's just one of your many sins. And you have committed it HUNDREDS of times.

Yes, and I've told the truth many hundreds and thousands of times as well.

Yet you believe that you could have gone your whole life without EVER sinning.

I believe it is possible, but HIGHLY improbable. It is possible to get a hit every time you come to bat in baseball, but no one ever has.

Why didn't you?

Again, every situation is different. I have lied before because I was afraid. You broke you mother's favorite dish, you know she will be very angry, so you deny it when she asks if you broke it.

Because righteousness, hundreds of thousands of times, in your life was not preferable to ease and sinful pleasure.

Well, in the example before, no I did not prefer that my mother would be angry with me.

Why was righteousness not preferable to ease and sinful pleasure?

Why do you ask questions you know the answer to?

Because you are a sinner at heart.

I wasn't compelled to sin, and if you are honest you will admit you are not compelled to sin either. You choose to sin. That is why you are guilty. If you were compelled to sin, then sin would not be your fault.

It is you that will not face the truth. You don't have to sin, you choose to.

And asking questions people cannot answer proves nothing, just another false form of argument Calvinists especially have learned.

 

[Winman]

Commentaries on Matthew 12:33:

Adam Clarke:


http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkemat12.htm

Yes, and a person can choose to trust Christ and receive a new good heart.

Andrew Wommack:



http://www.awmi.net/bible/mat_12_33


That's about the only two commentaries I could find of those who hold to free will. But neither of these hold to the fact we have the ability to make ourselves good....

Most of your commentaries were written by Calvinists and reflect a Calvinist view. Big deal. Go to the Vatican's library and most of the books will reflect a Catholic view.

It is scripture that counts, not the opinions of men, and Jesus said "Either make" yourself a good tree that produces good fruit, "or else make" yourself a corrupt tree that produces corrupt fruit. I really don't need to consult a commentary to understand this verse, it is quite simple and straightforward.

You can listen to your fellow Calvinists, I will listen to Jesus.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Most of your commentaries were written by Calvinists and reflect a Calvinist view. Big deal.

Clarke was Arminian and a forerunner of Pentecostal theology.

 

[DHK]

People do both good and evil. Sometimes people choose good. Most people prefer to work and earn an honest living. They could choose to be a career criminal, but they don't. People have the ability to choose.

But sometimes they do, like I keep saying, the vast majority of people prefer to work an honest job, only a small minority choose to be career criminals.

Yes, and I've told the truth many hundreds and thousands of times as well.

You have painted a picture of all the religions of the world.
Someday they will stand before their God and their works will be put into a balance, and they will be able to say: "see my good outweighs my bad," and on that basis they think they will enter heaven.

All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. They don't count in the sight of God. God does not look upon them. Their prayers don't go past the ceilings of their houses. "The truth" is for their own selfish benefit, not for the "God" they know not. Therefore it is all in vain.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Clarke was Arminian and a forerunner of Pentecostal theology.

Maybe the wrong Clarke...There are two I know of, the Arminian you speak of,
but if I'm following, he means Adam Clarke, who was a chair of philosophy at Princeton?:
Very brilliant, a Philosopher by trade actually, but a good Theologian in his own right who wrote some commentaries and other works; but he was very much a Calvinist.

I think the identity of "Clarke" gets confused on B.B. sometimes. He may be speaking of a different "Clarke".