Here is John Frame's definition of lust:
***QUOTE***
But what is lust? Negatively,
1. Lust is not sexual desire as such. That is something good, a
God-given incentive to marriage, to intimacy within marriage, and to
reproduction. A single person who has a sexual desire for another
single person who might be a marriage candidate is not thereby guilty
of sin. 1 Cor. 7:9 does not condemn the desire itself, only a desire
than cannot be controlled.
2. Nor is lust a general recognition of another person's sexual
attractiveness. Usually when we describe another person as "beautiful"
or "handsome" there is a sexual aspect to our judgment. Biblical
writers do this often (as Gen. 29:17, 1 Sam. 16:12, 25:3, 2 Sam.
11:2). The human form is one of the beauties of God's creation, given
for all for aesthetic enjoyment.
3. Nor is it lustful merely to view or imagine sexual relationships,
though there are great dangers here. Scripture itself provokes our
imaginations by describing sexual events of various kinds. If it is
wrong even to think about such matters, then sex education would be
impossible. If we are to avoid evil and do good, we must to some
extent know about evils and goods.
4. Nor, again, should we confuse lust with temptation. (Cf. the
previous discussion of homosexuality.) One can be tempted to sin
without sinning, as was Jesus (Heb. 4:15). This does not mean that we
should seek out opportunities to be tempted. In the Lord's Prayer, we
ask God not to "lead us into temptation" (Matt. 6:13). But temptation
is a part of life, and we should pray also that God will enable us to
be steadfast in trial. God promises the crown of life to those who
persevere (James 1:12; cf. 1 Pet. 1:6-8). (17)
What, then, is the positive meaning of lust? Lust is specifically the
desire to break God's law in sexual matters.
***END-QUOTE***
HT: Patrick Chan
[Quoting Dave Armstrong] "On the one hand he rails against nudity in great art, and on the other he says masturbation is fine and dandy!"
ReplyDelete—Dave Armstrong
Apparently, dear old Dave is missing a frontal lobe or two.
On the one hand, I never raised any objection to artistic nudity. I made no statement for or against it.
Rather, I pointed out the glaring tension between Armstrong's stated disapproval over the sexual objectification of women and his approval of the female nude in in so much Catholic art.
He keeps running away from his original statement, attempting to change the subject in the hope that readers will forget what he said.
On the other hand, I never said that masburbation is fine and dandy. What I've argued, rather, is that I don't find it either explicity or implicitly condemned in Scripture—contrary to Blosser's assertion.
Where does that Frame quote come from?
ReplyDeleteIt comes from Frame's yet to be published Doctrine of the Christian Life (chapter 38).
ReplyDelete