If God kept people from putting their sinful desires into practice, this would mean that people would be forced to be hypocrites. According to the Bible hypocrisy is a sin (Matthew 23,1-32, 1 Peter 2,1), and so people would be forced to commit this sin, even if they don’t want to be hypocrites. But not only would people be forced to not act immorally, but they would even be forced to act morally, as it is only this way that God could prevent sins of omission (see Luke 12,47, James 4,17).
i) Your objection is peculiar. By your own admission, they sin by having sinful desires. They sin, not because they can't (always) do what they want, but because what they want to do is sinful. They are still sinning, whether or not they can act on their sinful impulses. So your alternative doesn't avoid sin.
ii) Why should we define hypocrisy as the inability to act on sinful impulses? That's a very idiosyncratic definition. Hypocrisy is normally defined, not as a contrast between what you wish to do and what you are able to do, but between what you say should be done and what you actually do.
iii) By your logic, God creates hypocrites when he deters transgression by threatening dire consequences. The sinner would act on his sinful impulses if he thought he could get away with it. But the deterrent value of the penalty imposes an artificial restraint on his sinful impulses, which he would act on if left to his own devices.
If God kept people from putting their sinful desires into practice, this would mean that people would be forced to be hypocrites. According to the Bible hypocrisy is a sin (Matthew 23,1-32, 1 Peter 2,1), and so people would be forced to commit this sin, even if they don’t want to be hypocrites. But not only would people be forced to not act immorally, but they would even be forced to act morally, as it is only this way that God could prevent sins of omission (see Luke 12,47, James 4,17).
ReplyDeletei) Your objection is peculiar. By your own admission, they sin by having sinful desires. They sin, not because they can't (always) do what they want, but because what they want to do is sinful. They are still sinning, whether or not they can act on their sinful impulses. So your alternative doesn't avoid sin.
Deleteii) Why should we define hypocrisy as the inability to act on sinful impulses? That's a very idiosyncratic definition. Hypocrisy is normally defined, not as a contrast between what you wish to do and what you are able to do, but between what you say should be done and what you actually do.
iii) By your logic, God creates hypocrites when he deters transgression by threatening dire consequences. The sinner would act on his sinful impulses if he thought he could get away with it. But the deterrent value of the penalty imposes an artificial restraint on his sinful impulses, which he would act on if left to his own devices.