It seems to me waterrock resorts to semantics to provide an apparent distinction where none exists. In other words, waterrock depends upon subtle deception.
There is no meaningful distinction between tempts and tests, in this regard. It is telling though, that God's word is so flaky that it can be twisted to make apparent sense anyway.
Waterrock writes:
Every situation? How about a situation of temptation? If not, why not?
Temptations produce sin. A test is merely a trial of [our] character.
This presents a false dichotomy: temptations that produce sin and tests that provide an opportunity for good. The first problem with waterrocks proposal is there is a logical flaw in that temptations produce sin (i.e., there is no choice involved) while tests depend on the possibility of choice. Waterrock has to inject this flaw because if in both temptations and tests choice is involved, they become in effect indistinguishable. And, in fact, tests and temptations are indistinguishable if free will means anything. They are merely two different judgment-laden words for the same thing. Temptations are bad because the Devil is trying to make us do bad, supposedly. Tests are good because God is trying to see if we will keep from doing bad, supposedly. But whatever the tempter/tester intends is beside the point. Someone said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Likewise, the highway to heaven may be lined with bad intentions! In other words, intended results and acts that lead to those results are two different things. Throw in the ingredient of individual choice, and it becomes more complicated. Waterrocks false dichotomy places the responsibility for the results outside the individual in only one case, temptation (which raises the question: How can we responsible then for sinning!?). In other words, if we are truly defined as being of free will, then a temptation could lead to good and a test could lead to bad, foiling both the Devil and God! Doh!
It could be that God is a tempter and the Devil is a tester.
But of course the Christian always has a ready-made answer for good outcomes from bad, or vice-versa: The Lord works in mysterious ways. So with that little trick, anything can be interpreted away, in either direction, if the Christian so wishes.
Gnostically yours,
Ron
There is no meaningful distinction between tempts and tests, in this regard. It is telling though, that God's word is so flaky that it can be twisted to make apparent sense anyway.
Waterrock writes:
Quote:
What sort of temptation is James talking about here? He leaves no doubt as he proceeds to write in the next few verses: temptations which are induced by lust and which produce sin. In other words, temptations in which the goal of the tempter is to get the tempted individual to commit evil. God never does that. (...) Every situation, including situations in which our souls are tested, is an opportunity for some good to be accomplished, even if it is only the good of holding ones ground.
Every situation? How about a situation of temptation? If not, why not?
Temptations produce sin. A test is merely a trial of [our] character.
This presents a false dichotomy: temptations that produce sin and tests that provide an opportunity for good. The first problem with waterrocks proposal is there is a logical flaw in that temptations produce sin (i.e., there is no choice involved) while tests depend on the possibility of choice. Waterrock has to inject this flaw because if in both temptations and tests choice is involved, they become in effect indistinguishable. And, in fact, tests and temptations are indistinguishable if free will means anything. They are merely two different judgment-laden words for the same thing. Temptations are bad because the Devil is trying to make us do bad, supposedly. Tests are good because God is trying to see if we will keep from doing bad, supposedly. But whatever the tempter/tester intends is beside the point. Someone said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Likewise, the highway to heaven may be lined with bad intentions! In other words, intended results and acts that lead to those results are two different things. Throw in the ingredient of individual choice, and it becomes more complicated. Waterrocks false dichotomy places the responsibility for the results outside the individual in only one case, temptation (which raises the question: How can we responsible then for sinning!?). In other words, if we are truly defined as being of free will, then a temptation could lead to good and a test could lead to bad, foiling both the Devil and God! Doh!
It could be that God is a tempter and the Devil is a tester.
But of course the Christian always has a ready-made answer for good outcomes from bad, or vice-versa: The Lord works in mysterious ways. So with that little trick, anything can be interpreted away, in either direction, if the Christian so wishes.
Gnostically yours,
Ron
