Subject: Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not |
Bible Note: According to the simple dynamics of what I see, if there was no "opportunity" to sin, then he wasn't really tempted. It's like tempting a eunich with female companionship, if you catch my drift. He has no need or desire for it, but a normal man does. How can we have a high priest that sympathizes with our weakness and has been tempted in all things as we are if he isn't subject to the same temptation in the same exact capacity? A person that has just eaten is not going to be tempted by food. A eunich, as stated before, can't be tempted by women. If he were not in a temptable state, then he can't sympathize with us. Nor can he choose to resist what is not, in truth, a genuine temptation. Therefore, if he is tempted, he has opportunity. At the moment of temptation, he chose to say no. Because of this, having been tempted of the devil, having resisted temptation, having declined to sin given opportunity and desire to do so, he kept himself separated from sin by not doing it. Now, your first paragraph, I'm wondering: Are you trying to suggest the age-old "Original Sin" concept? I hope this does not have to become a debatable subject, but I am strongly of the opinion that sin is something that has to be comitted. Scripture says that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, but it also says that "all have sinned" and fallen short of the glory of God. You have to do sin to have sin. It's not automatic, else we will have to go back to the days of St. Augustine and start baptizing children so they won't go to hell if they die in infancy. |