Is sin deterministic or probabilistic?

[SamIam]

First the science:

Release a softball at shoulder height and it will be accelerated toward the center of the earth at a known rate. This is a deterministic process. It must happen.

Suspend an ice cube on an insulating thread in a typical room and it will melt, but it is not a deterministic process. The average air temperature may be 72 degrees, but individual air molecules exist at higher and lower temperatures. There is a probability (however small it may be) that the ice cube will be surrounded by air molecules that are at 32 degrees or lower and the ice cube will not melt. Invariably the natural air flow and random motion of the air molecules will bring the ice cube into contact with warmer air molecules and the ice cube melts. This is a probabilistic process. The ice cube may not melt, but that probability is so close to zero, that event has never been know to happen. The ice cube always melts.

If sin is deterministic. We must sin. It is our nature. This is what I understand Augustianism (and Calvinism) to teach.

If sin is probabilistic. We will invariably sin, but it is not necessary that we will sin.

I propose that sin is probabilistic.

[backwoodsman]

When we sin, it's not because we had to, or because our luck ran out on the odds. We sin because we CHOSE to sin, or maybe because we failed to choose not to sin. So it's neither deterministic nor probabilistic; it's simply a choice we make one way or the other.

[TK]

The way you have set up the problem, I agree that sin is probabilistic.

We MUST sin. Not because we were born that way, but because it is our nature to sin. As backwoodsman said, we choose to sin and it is something we inevitably do. I am not talking about original sin here, which I believe has nothing to do with it.

It is sort of like saying that if you flip a coin a billion times, it is POSSIBLE that you will get tails every time. But the odds of that happening are exceedingly small indeed.

That being said, I do NOT believe it is possible that a person could live even a modest amount of years without sinning. It is not NECESSARY that we sin; it is just that we will.

TK

[Paidion]

I think sin is probabilistic because we possess a sin nature inherited from Adam. But as others have pointed out each individual act of sin is a choice. Sinning is not inevitable.

I think it is possible to refrain from sin over a life time. If it were impossible then Christ commanded the impossible when He said, "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48).

The writer to the Hebrews states that Christ sacrificed Himself for the purpose of the abolition of sin (Hebrews 9:26). If sin will be done away with, then it must be possible not to sin. Note: The online Bible lexicon gives the meaning of "ἀθετησις" as "abolition".

We can call on the grace of God to deliver us from sin on each and every occasion.

Is it possible to go one minute without sinning? If so, why would it not be possible to go 2 minutes? 5 minutes? 20 minutes? one hour? 12 hours? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? 1 life time?

[Bud]

Hi Sam, First a couple of verses that come to mind: James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. (KJV). James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (KJV).
I agree that it is probabilistic that almost every man will CHOOSE to sin.

(Jesus was a man that did not sin).

[SamIam]

Is it possible to go one minute without sinning? If so, why would it not be possible to go 2 minutes? 5 minutes? 20 minutes? one hour? 12 hours? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? 1 life time?

It may be possible to not sin in a given time period, but as the time period increases, the probability of not sinning approaches zero, thus the probability of sinning approaches one. If I had a chalkboard I could write the equation.

[dseusy]

"Is it possible to go one minute without sinning? If so, why would it not be possible to go 2 minutes? 5 minutes? 20 minutes? one hour? 12 hours? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? 1 life time?"

Paidion,

1 John 1:8 states, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

Maybe it is less about sin in relation to time and more about Jesus conquering it on our behalf even while our flesh continues to dwell in it. I expect you'll counter that this idea liberates one to sin with reckless abandon, but I think it liberates one to rest in Christ who has already solved the problem.

As Christ comforts me from the toil of plank-removal (the ones in my eyes) I increasingly hate sin. The idea that liberty in Christ is license to sin pollutes love and keeps Christians under the burden of manufacturing their own righteousness.

[mattrose]

1 John 1:8, I think, is grossly misused, in my opinion. It is talking about people who insist that they don't need to repent to begin with! Once we confess our need for God, we repent. Once we repent, God is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins AND to cleanse us from a little bit of our unrighteousness.

Oh wait....

It actually says ALL our unrighteousness.

[Homer]

James is much clearer than 1 John 1:8. The Greek ptaio refers to sin, even if unintentional, and as James makes plain, the person is guilty. And the stumbling in 3:2 is in the present indicative active tense.

James 2:10, New King James Version (NKJV)

For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble (Grk. ptaio) in one point, he is guilty of all.

James 3:2, (NKJV)

For we all stumble (ptaio) in many things. If anyone does not stumble (ptaio) in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body.

[Singalphile]

James 3 (NASB) - "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. 2 For we all stumble [me: or perhaps err or make a mistake?] in many ways. If anyone does not stumble [me: or perhaps err or make a mistake?] in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well."

This kind of seems to be talking about the potential damage of an error in teaching. ... though a few verses later, it sounds more like he's talking about sinful/evil speech.

SamIam wrote:
It may be possible to not sin in a given time period, but as the time period increases, the probability of not sinning approaches zero, thus the probability of sinning approaches one. If I had a chalkboard I could write the equation.

One of my good high school teachers taught this: That kind of statement kind of equates righteousness with something like doing push-ups; you can do 1, 5, 10, ... 50, until your muscles inevitably give out from the the strain. However, righteousness (really living in the Spirit, not just legalism) actually makes you spiritually stronger and more able to resist temptation.

Certainly, the more I prayerfully and obediently practice patience, self-control, charity, etc., the easier and more natural it becomes.

It seems determined that no one has or will ever be without sin (except Jesus), but once a person is a new creation in Christ, then I'm not sure why a person could not live without sin.

But, yeah, all my experience suggests that this doesn't happen.