Defining Lust

[Duder]

Greetings, all -

Another thread in this forum discusses the ethics of masturbation. Rather than beating that topic to death (sorry) , I would like to focus on a side issue that was raised there. It was suggested that masturbation might be wrong for the reason that it involves lust of the heart.

I don't think I'm wrong to say that for most Christians, lust means any sexual thoughts or feelings that are not focused entirely on one's spouse. I don't believe this is the correct understanding of lust. I think that this understanding of lust comes from a pervasive squeemishness about sex that arose early in the culture of Christianity. I think this understanding of lust reflects a human sociological anomoly, and not a divine truth.

If it is lust to merely entertain in one's mind the object of sexual desire, then I think that this prohibition against "merely entertaining" should apply in many areas of human interest, and not just in sex. Let us take, for example, an object of art.

My neighbor has a photographic print hanging in his study. It is a picture of Yosemite taken by Ansel Adams. I like the photograph very much. I have seen it in books, and I admire it whenever I am in my friend's study. I think it gives my friend pleasure when I admire his print.

But don't we have to say, if the principle of "merely entertaining" is correct, that I commit a sin whenever I view and take pleasure in my friend's print? After all, it is not mine. It is his. No one gets to own this print but my friend.

Well, of course that is absurd. Liking the picture does not mean that I lust after it. To lust after this picture, I think I would have to make plans to break into my friend's house and steal it from him, or give serious consideration to going to the library to rip it from the pages of a book. If I took seriously the prospect of commiting an injustice because of this picture, then I could be said to lust after it and to have commited a sin in my heart. But admiring the picture, taking pleasure from it, "merely entertaining" the picture does not amount to lusting after it.


Now, what is different about sex that we should not think the same way about our erotic sensibilities? Why is it that when it comes to sex, we are not allowed to "merely entertain" the beauty and pleasure of it that is so immediately and obviously apparent? Gosh, we see something sexy and we avert our eyes with a gasp of Hank Hill horror as if God never intended to place sexy things before our gaze - as if God never intended that we should think about such things nor take pleasure from them.

Friends, God made sex sexy. I cannot think that God is displeased when we take pleasure from seeing or thinking about a sexy person. And I don't believe he gets mad if we give free reign to our fantasies about lovemaking. That is not lust. Lust is when you want to steal, damage, sully, foul, corrupt, abuse or exploit the object of sexual desire.

If "merely entertaining" the joy of my friend's print does not abuse that print, how exactly does "merely entertaining" the joy of his wife's sexiness abuse her?

[James Peter]

Brave comments Duder and I'm sympathetic to them. There is a difference between desiring and lusting, the question is when does the first become the second? I don't think I agree with your definition of lust to be honest, for me it is not the nature of the desire but rather the intensity of it that matters. A desire to corrupt (even sexually) is not necessarily lustful. Similarly if my (sexual) desire is to harm somebody psychologically it does not mean that desire is lustful. Wrong, certainly, but not lustful.

[Duder]

Brave comments Duder and I'm sympathetic to them. There is a difference between desiring and lusting, the question is when does the first become the second? I don't think I agree with your definition of lust to be honest, for me it is not the nature of the desire but rather the intensity of it that matters. A desire to corrupt (even sexually) is not necessarily lustful. Similarly if my (sexual) desire is to harm somebody psychologically it does not mean that desire is lustful. Wrong, certainly, but not lustful.

That is an interesting perspective, JP. Are you saying that the difference between desire and lust is one of degree, but not of kind?

You're right to point out that defining precisely where the one becomes the other would be very difficult.

Could we say that desire has become lust when one is willing to commit an offence in order to aquire the object of desire? And if that were right, then isn't that a difference in kind and not merely in degree?

[Spokoina]

Brave comments Duder and I'm sympathetic to them. There is a difference between desiring and lusting, the question is when does the first become the second? I don't think I agree with your definition of lust to be honest, for me it is not the nature of the desire but rather the intensity of it that matters. A desire to corrupt (even sexually) is not necessarily lustful. Similarly if my (sexual) desire is to harm somebody psychologically it does not mean that desire is lustful. Wrong, certainly, but not lustful.


As I see it, lust is "self centered desire" versus "God centered desire".

If I am desiring something for my own pleasure that would not also please God, then it is lust. And it, for me, is not only sexual in content.

Lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and pride of life...includes lots of things.

[James Peter]

That is an interesting perspective, JP. Are you saying that the difference between desire and lust is one of degree, but not of kind?

You're right to point out that defining precisely where the one becomes the other would be very difficult.

Could we say that desire has become lust when one is willing to commit an offence in order to aquire the object of desire? And if that were right, then isn't that a difference in kind and not merely in degree?

Lust is 'consuming desire' or 'illicit desire' - the first is a question of degree and the second of kind. Some desire (paedophilia, for example) is perhaps always illicit but a single man desiring a single women is not, in my opinion, illicit. It can be lustful though depending on its intensity.

[Turgonian]

Friends, God made sex sexy. I cannot think that God is displeased when we take pleasure from seeing or thinking about a sexy person. And I don't believe he gets mad if we give free reign to our fantasies about lovemaking. That is not lust. Lust is when you want to steal, damage, sully, foul, corrupt, abuse or exploit the object of sexual desire.

If "merely entertaining" the joy of my friend's print does not abuse that print, how exactly does "merely entertaining" the joy of his wife's sexiness abuse her?
It is wrong to harbour and cherish thoughts of committing sins. Adultery is a sin. Hence, sexual fantasies about someone else's wife are wrong. But you are right that merely enjoying physical beauty (without, however, those aforementioned fantasies) is not wrong.

I like John Piper's definition: Lust is a sexual desire minus honour and holiness.

Someone else defined it as 'self-centered sexual desire'.
So having positive thoughts of the beauty of someone you're not married to is not lust by definition, and lust can also occur within marriage!

[Duder]

Hi, Turgonian -


It is wrong to harbour and cherish thoughts of committing sins. Adultery is a sin. Hence, sexual fantasies about someone else's wife are wrong.

Yes, I would agree with your argument if what one harbours is thoughts of committing adultry. However, one does not necessarily harbour thoughts of committing adultry if he entertains fantasies about someone else's wife, nor does he necessarily cherish the prospect of fornication if he imagines sex with a girl to whom he is not married.

Once again, I want to try and demonstrate the difference with a non-sexual illustration:

I remember watching an old video clip from the 1980s. It shows Saddam Hussein taking control of the Iraqi legislature, and announcing names of delegates in the hall who were to be arrested, tortured and killed. Many of the delegates present got to their feet and declared undying love and devotion for Saddam, and they loudly cheered what he was doing - not because they liked him, but because they did not want their names to be called next. Saddam stood with a smug grin on his face and continued to read names.

Watching this film was the first time I understood what a monster Saddam was. I'm sure you can understand my righteous anger against him. I felt in my heart how richly this man deserved to suffer a horrible death.

Now, it was and it remains my belief that the death penalty is a sin. I don't want to argue about the death penalty here, but I just raise it to make a point: If I am right - if the death penalty is wrong in the eyes of God - did I commit a sin when I imagined the horrible death of Saddam Hussein?

No, I didn't. The reason I didn't commit a sin is this: I did not want nor wish that his horrible death should come about by means of the death penalty. The way in which I imagined his horrible death was my . . . I'm looking for an adjective . . . aesthetic? . . . it was the way in which my wrath against him was aesthetically expressed in my thoughts. The image was my mental symbol of how low he had fallen.

The point is, to imagine something, to entertain something, to cherish an image or an imagining, is not the same thing as wanting to cause that thing to happen. There is no way I would sit in judgement of Saddam and sentence him to death, nor would I imagining myself doing so. Nevertheless, his death was present in my thoughts. There'd have to something wrong with me if I didn't think about that in light of what he was doing.

It was not wrong for my mind to give voice to its horror by means of the images it generated - of Saddam dying horribly. It would have been wrong if I had wanted him to be in fact killed. Do you see the difference?

Now, in exactly the same way, the mind sometimes entertains images of beauty, intimacy and erotic ecstacy. To my way of thinking, these are gifts to mankind from God. It is not a sin to entertain these things in the mind, nor to imagine these gifts manifested in people of your aquaintence. What you don't get to do is harbour desires of going out and making it happen under circumstances that would be sinful.

One of the problems with Christianity today, as I see it, is an overemphasis on purity of mind. A believer overly preoccupied with purity of mind posts a "mental cop" to police his thoughts. This sets up a nightmare psychic feedback loop where you begin to second- and third-guess everything that crosses your mind. You begin to examine your motives to a pathological degree. You risk becoming colorless, narrow and constricted - a tight azz and a stuffed shirt.

Why not trust "the mind of Christ" in us? Our world is full of risks, and our minds are full of dangers. The mind of Christ in us can navigate them safely without the help of our self-posted thought police clubbing us for the things we entertain.


I like John Piper's definition: Lust is a sexual desire minus honour and holiness.

I like it, too, and move that it be adopted without objection!

[Turgonian]

I think that enjoying any image of sin -- whether it be murder, adultery or fornication -- is wrong, while I agree with you that we shouldn't take it to pathological depths.
Intimacy = OK. Fornication = not OK. All evil desires arise from the heart and God looks at the heart. Apparently this 'heart' (or mind) is important to keep clean.

And just a quick question...if capital punishment is wrong in God's eyes, whoever was responsible for the OT and the Mosaic law?

[God_is_personal]

Pretty interesting points . . .

"self-centered" would be lust

kind and intensity . . . intensity would also have something to do with it...if the emotion is DOMINATING, this would be an indication because Jesus is "gentle and lowly in heart" (in Matthew 11:29) "and you will find rest for your souls," He also says here; so if the passion is NOT gentle and humble...this would not be in God's love

then there is USING > if I am just USING the lady to look at, NOT really relating with her and caring for her . . . this would make it lust, even if it is not an overbearing passion > still, it is degrading me from really loving her, and sensitively sharing with God

God bless you; I appreciate how well everyone is communicating considerately here

[Scottme]

Admiration: "She's an attractive woman" then avert your eyes.

Lust: "She's an attractive woman" but then you continue to check out her [this] and her [thats] and her [other], i.e., undressing her in your imagination.

[commonman]

Admiration: "She's an attractive woman" then avert your eyes.

Lust: "She's an attractive woman" but then you continue to check out her [this] and her [thats] and her [other], i.e., undressing her in your imagination.

Now that is a dishonest definition.

Go ahead and soak in the whole picture. Measure every inch of the curve of her hips with your eyes, capture the smell of her perfume with your nose, be captivated by the sound of her voice, I'll leave taste and touch to your imagination. The point is you have to let yourself know the depths of your depravity before you can fully repent. God told Ezekiel to dig through the wall of his mind, so he could see the evil things that went on in there. (Ezekiel 8) Our repentence is not complete until we do this.

I believe those people that have acted out their imaginations are much closer to God in many ways than those that have been restrained. The restrained mind tries to patch the hole in the wall, locking the evil thought within, rather than shining light on them to repent of them. At least those that have acted out their imaginations are fully aware of the depravity their mind, ergo, theirself, is capable of.

[Turgonian]

Scottme -- It depends on your reaction whether you have to avert your eyes. Some people don't feel evil urges when they see admirable attractive women.

commonman -- People who are acting out their imaginations are closer to God? Not at all! Sinning moves people away from God, not towards Him. Your post sounds like an excuse to sin.


Go ahead and soak in the whole picture. Measure every inch of the curve of her hips with your eyes, capture the smell of her perfume with your nose, be captivated by the sound of her voice, I'll leave taste and touch to your imagination.
I see nothing wrong or evil with smelling perfume and being captivated by a voice's sound. The evil thing is lust, not admiration for the beauty that God created.


The point is you have to let yourself know the depths of your depravity before you can fully repent.
Where does the Bible say that? And can we even know the depths of our depravity? Are they not bottomless?
As to your quote of Ezekiel, that's completely taken out of context. Ezekiel was not commanded to see how evil he was, but what kind of abominations the elders of Israel were committing, as you can see when you read on. 'And he brought me to the entrance of the court, and when I looked, behold, there was a hole in the wall. Then he said to me, “Son of man, dig in the wall.” So I dug in the wall, and behold, there was an entrance. And he said to me, “Go in, and see the vile abominations that they are committing here.” So I went in and saw. And there, engraved on the wall all around, was every form of creeping things and loathsome beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel. And before them stood seventy men of the elders of the house of Israel, with Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan standing among them. Each had his censer in his hand, and the smoke of the cloud of incense went up. Then he said to me, “Son of man, have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the dark, each in his room of pictures? For they say, ‘The Lord does not see us, the Lord has forsaken the land.’”'
The Bible does not tell us that we should indulge in sin to get a good look of how evil we really are. It tells us to abhor, flee, shun sin. Rather than looking at our sinful selves, we should cast our eyes on the Mediator. The Son of Man must be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness (John 3). The people of Israel were told to look at the image of the snake and get healing, not to count their sores!

[commonman]

commonman -- People who are acting out their imaginations are closer to God? Not at all! Sinning moves people away from God, not towards Him. Your post sounds like an excuse to sin.

Have you not read Acts when Paul was frustrated by the Athenians?

Or perhaps Jesus' rebuke of the lukewarmness of the church of the Laodiceans. Jesus said it was better to be hot or cold then to be lukewarm! If you don't know the fullness of your own depravity, but would rather hide it behind a wall, then you are lukewarm.


I see nothing wrong or evil with smelling perfume and being captivated by a voice's sound. The evil thing is lust, not admiration for the beauty that God created.

I didn't say it was evil, Scotme did.





Originally posted by commonman
The point is you have to let yourself know the depths of your depravity before you can fully repent. Where does the Bible say that?

There is this one (underlines mine):

"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" - 2 Corinthians 10:5
You can't bring the thought into Christ's captivity until you let it go. You can't let it go if it is locked up in some chamber of your mind, behind the wall that's pictured in Ezekiel.

Here is an example of this process in action (underlines are mine):

"As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass. But as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart." - Daniel 2:29-30


And can we even know the depths of our depravity? Are they not bottomless?

Without the Holy Spirit our depravity is too deep to search, but mercifully, He sent the Holy Spirit to help us.


As to your quote of Ezekiel, that's completely taken out of context. Ezekiel was not commanded to see how evil he was, but what kind of abominations the elders of Israel were committing, as you can see when you read on. 'And he brought me to the entrance of the court, and when I looked, behold, there was a hole in the wall. Then he said to me, “Son of man, dig in the wall.” So I dug in the wall, and behold, there was an entrance. And he said to me, “Go in, and see the vile abominations that they are committing here.” So I went in and saw. And there, engraved on the wall all around, was every form of creeping things and loathsome beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel. And before them stood seventy men of the elders of the house of Israel, with Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan standing among them. Each had his censer in his hand, and the smoke of the cloud of incense went up. Then he said to me, “Son of man, have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the dark, each in his room of pictures? For they say, ‘The Lord does not see us, the Lord has forsaken the land.’”'

What is a room of pictures? It's not an art gallery. It is your imagination, your thoughts. God told Ezekiel to look at these things as part of a vision. This is not to be understood literally, just as Peter's vision in Acts 11 is not to be understood literally. And consider that Ezekiel saw 70 men, of which God referred to him as Son of Man. Ezekiel is of his fathers, the elders of Israel. I could go on.


The Bible does not tell us that we should indulge in sin to get a good look of how evil we really are. It tells us to abhor, flee, shun sin. Rather than looking at our sinful selves, we should cast our eyes on the Mediator. The Son of Man must be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness (John 3). The people of Israel were told to look at the image of the snake and get healing, not to count their sores!

Paul's letter the the Romans is clear that we are not to indulge in sin, that is why God gave us empathy, so we could consider all things to their end without having to do them. Please understand, I said it is better to go out and do all depravity then to pretend it is not there.

Consider the possibility that the reason Moses held up the serpent was so that the Israelites would see themselves for who they are, the sons of the serpent (see John 8:44)? When they looked away from the snake, when they didn't look behind the wall, they perished.

If you don't have the courage to look behind the wall, then you do not have confidence that Christ's sacrifice can overcome that sin.

[easyboy201]

You guys have opened up a lot of different thoughts on this!

:D

Personally, it's hard to define but we're constantly at war between SELF love and GOD love. If we love God with all our mind, soul and etc and other people as ourselves... then we can be sure not to lust.
Lust is thinking about what I want to think about, and not what God wants me to think about.
(i.e. focus on heavenly things).
That's why within a marriage, it should be about pleasing your spouse and not yourself - otherwise, that's what I would see as lust.

[Turgonian]

Have you not read Acts when Paul was frustrated by the Athenians?
They didn't accept the Resurrection. What are you talking about?


Or perhaps Jesus' rebuke of the lukewarmness of the church of the Laodiceans. Jesus said it was better to be hot or cold then to be lukewarm! If you don't know the fullness of your own depravity, but would rather hide it behind a wall, then you are lukewarm.
Not quite. Have a look at this commentary (http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=17&source=1&seq=i.73.3.3):

The site where Laodicea once stood includes an elaborate fountain and a water tower supplied by an aqueduct from hot springs at the site of modern Denizli, four miles south. Not surprisingly, many have suggested a possible local reference here, "a play on words, contrasting what may have been the tepid water of the aqueduct at Laodicea with the possibly fresher and colder water at Colossae and with the very hot water of the cascades at Hierapolis" (Finegan 1981:182). Yet readers in any of the Asian cities, no matter how close or how far away their water supply, would have understood the metaphor. Either cold or hot water is good for something, but lukewarm water is not. The point of the rebuke is not lack of zeal or enthusiasm. If it were, "lukewarm" would at least have been better than "cold"! The point is rather the utter worthlessness of what the congregation has done and is doing. The metaphor is a more blunt and colorful way of saying what was said to the angel at Sardis: "I have not found your deeds complete [that is, acceptable] in the sight of my God" (3:2).
Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that we must know the depths of our depravity before we come to God. All we have to do is acknowledge that we are depraved to such an extent that we need the Saviour, Jesus. There was no whisper of depravity-searching in the apostolic preaching in Acts, where 'Christ crucified' was preached and Him alone, not subjective digging. Which is anachronistic anyway: the ancient, Biblical world didn't even have the concept of that.


"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" - 2 Corinthians 10:5

You can't bring the thought into Christ's captivity until you let it go. You can't let it go if it is locked up in some chamber of your mind, behind the wall that's pictured in Ezekiel.
Rather, if some evil thought arises, we should reject it and 'bring it into Christ's captivity'. We aren't encouraged to focus on evil! Paul is emphasizing the need to make the whole person obedient to Christ. If we have had evil thoughts in the past, but they do not trouble us again, we don't have to bring them up again: they have already been forgiven! If they do trouble us again, that's the time to lay them before Christ. But all this is something quite different from inviting evil thoughts by 'acting out' as much depravity as we can. In that case, we do not uncover evil thoughts, but we create them at that moment.

Your Daniel quote is as much out of context as the one from Ezekiel. Daniel is saying that Nebuchadnezzar was lying on his bed, and God revealed to him what was going to happen. (Note: the king was not 'searching his mind', but God showed him a prophecy in a vision.) God gave Daniel the correct interpretation of the dream, to pass that on to the king. No one digged into his mind here, let alone to search for depravity.


Without the Holy Spirit our depravity is too deep to search, but mercifully, He sent the Holy Spirit to help us.
The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, who brings us to Christ. Can you show me an unambiguous Bible text (preferably in a context where the Gospel is explained in simple form, such as Romans) where it states that you have to know your own depravity before you can come to Christ?


What is a room of pictures? It's not an art gallery. It is your imagination, your thoughts.
No, those pictures were images of idols, and the rulers of Israel were worshipping them.


Paul's letter the the Romans is clear that we are not to indulge in sin, that is why God gave us empathy, so we could consider all things to their end without having to do them. Please understand, I said it is better to go out and do all depravity then to pretend it is not there.
This is completely false. When a man sins, his heart is hardened. Sinning is not a way of searching God; it is rebellion.
I don't even know what kinds of depravity exist in the world, and I don't want to know. I wonder how people were saved before they could freely do all kinds of atrocious things, by the way. Social control in ancient Israel was pretty rigid: when you sinned publicly, there would be heavy sanctions. Read Leviticus 24, for instance. Somebody publicly blaspheming was not told that he was doing the right thing, acting out his depravity and such, which would undoubtedly get him closer to God (:no:). Rather, he was stoned to death immediately. The same happened to other kinds of sinners. With these heavy restrictions on liberty to act out depravity, how was anyone saved?
And how was Zacchaeus saved? The Bible doesn't say he saw his own depravity. Jesus said, 'Come down immediately' and down he came immediately.


Consider the possibility that the reason Moses held up the serpent was so that the Israelites would see themselves for who they are, the sons of the serpent (see John 8:44)? When they looked away from the snake, when they didn't look behind the wall, they perished.
This is your own hyper-subjective interpretation, which is not shared by any Bible commentary of note. The text says nothing of the Israelites realizing they were sons of the serpent. It talks about a divine command, 'Look at the snake', and the dire consequences if anyone refused to do this simple thing.

Tell me, how were the Israelites to understand this text without John?


If you don't have the courage to look behind the wall, then you do not have confidence that Christ's sacrifice can overcome that sin.
The Bible says nothing about 'looking behind the wall', except in texts twisted out of context. We are to be confident that Christ will forgive us and cleanse us from sin. We do not have to deliberately act in depraved ways before doing that.

Biblical Exegesis Lesson: Unless the context indicates that something should not be taken literally, the Bible means what it says. Furthermore, clear texts explain ambiguous texts, not the other way around.

[commonman]

Let's start from the bottom up:


Biblical Exegesis Lesson: Unless the context indicates that something should not be taken literally, the Bible means what it says. Furthermore, clear texts explain ambiguous texts, not the other way around.


"And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." - Mark 4:11The words in italics are not actually in the Greek text, so when you read it without the italics Jesus says ALL THINGS ARE DONE IN PARABLES. By all, I am taking Him at His word: He means ALL things.


"Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." - John 5:39So all of scripture, according to Jesus [not some guy that writes for the InterVarsity Press] is about Him.

Using the rule that you offered, the entire Bible, according to Jesus, should be taken as parables that testify of Him and not literal history or science or anthropology or a sex manual or a book of how tos and rules or anything else.


The Bible says nothing about 'looking behind the wall', except in texts twisted out of context. We are to be confident that Christ will forgive us and cleanse us from sin. We do not have to deliberately act in depraved ways before doing that.

Perhaps you do not believe Ezekiel should be in the Bible.


This is your own hyper-subjective interpretation, which is not shared by any Bible commentary of note. The text says nothing of the Israelites realizing they were sons of the serpent. It talks about a divine command, 'Look at the snake', and the dire consequences if anyone refused to do this simple thing.

For the record, my understanding is very close to John Wesley's, for one. In his commentary, he likened the brasen serpent to Christ, as Son of Man, on the cross. Christ hung as an emblem of our sin, though sinless. The brasen snake hung on the pole as an emblem of what concerned the Israelites. My guess is that if you or I got bitten by a snake, we would do everything in our power to remedy the bite to save ourselves, rather than accept that the moment is in God's hands.


Tell me, how were the Israelites to understand this text without John?

It is a wonder the Israelites could even understand the Torah. Torah was written without spaces and without vowel points. It wasn't until the writing of the Septuagint that vowel points and spaces were inserted. It took a person filled with the Spirit of God to even read Torah, much less understand it. I cannot even begin to answer that question.


This is completely false. When a man sins, his heart is hardened. Sinning is not a way of searching God; it is rebellion.
I don't even know what kinds of depravity exist in the world, and I don't want to know. I wonder how people were saved before they could freely do all kinds of atrocious things, by the way. Social control in ancient Israel was pretty rigid: when you sinned publicly, there would be heavy sanctions. Read Leviticus 24, for instance. Somebody publicly blaspheming was not told that he was doing the right thing, acting out his depravity and such, which would undoubtedly get him closer to God (:no:). Rather, he was stoned to death immediately. The same happened to other kinds of sinners. With these heavy restrictions on liberty to act out depravity, how was anyone saved?
And how was Zacchaeus saved? The Bible doesn't say he saw his own depravity. Jesus said, 'Come down immediately' and down he came immediately.

Again, you are claiming I wrote things that I did not write. I said it is better to do those sinful things than to pretend that you are not sinful. That is what the parable about the pharisee and the publican in Luke 18 is all about. The Pharisee did not acknowledge the depravity within, he suppressed it rather than repent of it. That is why Jesus called the Pharisees like whitewashed sepulchres: all clean and spotless on the outside, but dead to sin on the inside. At least the publican had the integrity to admit he needs God's mercy. Once you know the vanity of sin, whether because you've done it or because you already see it for what it is, there is no need to go back to your own vomit.


No, those pictures were images of idols, and the rulers of Israel were worshipping them.

The Hebrew word is Maskiyth and it means imagination or conceit. And they were worshipping them. And as long as you refuse to see that this whole vision was a metaphor (not a literal projection of the future, past or present), you will not understand this point. The rulers of Israel in Ezekiel 8 represent the thought processes that rule your mind. They are the strongholds that Paul refers to in 2 Corinthians.



The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, who brings us to Christ.

Parakletos can be equally translated as helper.


Can you show me an unambiguous Bible text (preferably in a context where the Gospel is explained in simple form, such as Romans) where it states that you have to know your own depravity before you can come to Christ?

I did. The walk of a believer is to search our minds so that we may repent of our depravity at deeper and deeper levels. St. Teresa of Avilla wrote about this walk in Interior Castle. I cannot find a clearer scripture passage that talks about this process. But it is not a requirement to come to Christ, it is our walk in Christ, so that our union with Christ can become more perfect in anticipation for that day when we are in the presence of God.


Your Daniel quote is as much out of context as the one from Ezekiel. Daniel is saying that Nebuchadnezzar was lying on his bed, and God revealed to him what was going to happen. (Note: the king was not 'searching his mind', but God showed him a prophecy in a vision.) God gave Daniel the correct interpretation of the dream, to pass that on to the king. No one digged into his mind here, let alone to search for depravity.




Let's look at the key verse in question. I will relace thy and thee with your and you so it is easier to understand,
As for you, O king, your thoughts came into your mind upon your bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to you what shall come to pass. - Daniel 2:29Daniel clearly tells Nebbie, that the thoughts of his dream are his, but through interpretation God reveals the meaning. This particular scripture, though, is not critical to the concept, but merely offered as an example of the concept.




Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that we must know the depths of our depravity before we come to God. All we have to do is acknowledge that we are depraved to such an extent that we need the Saviour, Jesus. There was no whisper of depravity-searching in the apostolic preaching in Acts, where 'Christ crucified' was preached and Him alone, not subjective digging. Which is anachronistic anyway: the ancient, Biblical world didn't even have the concept of that.

You are right, we don't have to know our depravity before we come to God, but the walk of the believer is a process of revealing sin and repenting of it. And the Bible doesn't whisper this point, it screams it (2 Cor. 10)

Again, the comparison was between committing the sin versus hiding it deep within your heart/head. It is better to do it, so the sin can be made known, than to pretend it doesn't exist and never repent of it.


They [the Athenians] didn't accept the Resurrection. What are you talking about?

Specifically Acts 17:32, where the Athenian philosophers in effect said, "Interesting theory, come tell us more." They were lukewarm.


Not quite. Have a look at this commentary (http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=17&source=1&seq=i.73.3.3):

Nice little commentary that serves to demonstrate the depth of meaning in scripture. That the words have a deeper meaning many times than our language can convey.



Rather, if some evil thought arises, we should reject it and 'bring it into Christ's captivity'. We aren't encouraged to focus on evil! Paul is emphasizing the need to make the whole person obedient to Christ. If we have had evil thoughts in the past, but they do not trouble us again, we don't have to bring them up again: they have already been forgiven! If they do trouble us again, that's the time to lay them before Christ. But all this is something quite different from inviting evil thoughts by 'acting out' as much depravity as we can. In that case, we do not uncover evil thoughts, but we create them at that moment.

Again, I didn't say you should seek out evil to do it. I said it is better to go do the evil thing than to pretend it is not there to begin with. Evil lirks in dark corners, shine the light on it so that it can be revealed for what it is and repented of.

[Turgonian]

The words in italics are not actually in the Greek text, so when you read it without the italics Jesus says ALL THINGS ARE DONE IN PARABLES. By all, I am taking Him at His word: He means ALL things.
1) Why did you think the translators included the word 'these'? Very often, 'all' is qualified, depending on the context and other things. Matt. 10:22: 'All men will hate you because of me.' Including fellow Christians?
2) The text reads 'All things are done in parables', not 'said in parables'. Does that mean that all things that are done (like eating and sleeping) are 'done in parables', whatever that may mean? Of course not.


So all of scripture, according to Jesus [not some guy that writes for the InterVarsity Press] is about Him.
This time, and with less good reason, you insert the word 'all'. The Scriptures testify of Jesus. That doesn't mean every single verse or chapter does. Or even every book. How does Esther testify of Jesus?


Using the rule that you offered, the entire Bible, according to Jesus, should be taken as parables that testify of Him and not literal history or science or anthropology or a sex manual or a book of how tos and rules or anything else.
Twisting verses into extreme absolutes is one thing; interpreting the clear meaning of an unambiguous text is quite another.


Perhaps you do not believe Ezekiel should be in the Bible.
Perhaps not. And perhaps I do. What kind of weird suggestion is that? I only said your interpretation of Ezekiel was way off and hyper-spiritualized. Once again: the ancients did not know mind-digging as you describe it.


For the record, my understanding is very close to John Wesley's, for one. In his commentary, he likened the brasen serpent to Christ, as Son of Man, on the cross. Christ hung as an emblem of our sin, though sinless. The brasen snake hung on the pole as an emblem of what concerned the Israelites.
Typology is different from allegory.
What matters is how the intended readers would have understood it. Otherwise, you can do a lot of crazy things with Bible texts.


It is a wonder the Israelites could even understand the Torah. Torah was written without spaces and without vowel points. It wasn't until the writing of the Septuagint that vowel points and spaces were inserted. It took a person filled with the Spirit of God to even read Torah, much less understand it. I cannot even begin to answer that question.
You're dodging here. You referred to a text in John to give the real meaning of an OT text. And how could the intended readers understand the text without the benefit of having read the Gospel of John?
The Israelites could understand the Torah because they had amazing memories and its reading was preserved in tradition.


Again, you are claiming I wrote things that I did not write. I said it is better to do those sinful things than to pretend that you are not sinful. That is what the parable about the pharisee and the publican in Luke 18 is all about. The Pharisee did not acknowledge the depravity within, he suppressed it rather than repent of it. That is why Jesus called the Pharisees like whitewashed sepulchres: all clean and spotless on the outside, but dead to sin on the inside. At least the publican had the integrity to admit he needs God's mercy. Once you know the vanity of sin, whether because you've done it or because you already see it for what it is, there is no need to go back to your own vomit.
I apologize; I misunderstood you here, due to my own background.


And as long as you refuse to see that this whole vision was a metaphor (not a literal projection of the future, past or present), you will not understand this point. The rulers of Israel in Ezekiel 8 represent the thought processes that rule your mind. They are the strongholds that Paul refers to in 2 Corinthians.
No, they don't. They represent Israel.
With all your talks about 'metaphor', you're getting dangerously close to Gnosticism. The 'exoteric' meaning of the text is actually a false, misleading meaning; the 'esoteric' meaning, the real meaning, is only revealed to those who know the code.
Of course the prophets were written in 'code', symbol language, but it was a symbol language the ancients would have understood, and interpreting idol-worshipping Israelites in Jerusalem as things that went on in the mind would be a far stretch, unparallelled in other ancient literature.



Can you show me an unambiguous Bible text (preferably in a context where the Gospel is explained in simple form, such as Romans) where it states that you have to know your own depravity before you can come to Christ?
I did.
Where? None of the texts you brought up came close.


The walk of a believer is to search our minds so that we may repent of our depravity at deeper and deeper levels.
No...to spread the Kingdom of God. It spreads primarily outward, not inward, although there are inward changes.


You are right, we don't have to know our depravity before we come to God, but the walk of the believer is a process of revealing sin and repenting of it. And the Bible doesn't whisper this point, it screams it (2 Cor. 10)
It's mentioned in passing. Of course thoughts ought to be made obedient to Christ, but 'casting down arguments' refers to the heresies the Christians had to combat (on the outside).


Again, the comparison was between committing the sin versus hiding it deep within your heart/head. It is better to do it, so the sin can be made known, than to pretend it doesn't exist and never repent of it.
OK, I can live with that. Your first post was just a little scary. When we find ourselves beginning to sin, we should not 'go ahead', but turn around immediately and repent.


Specifically Acts 17:32, where the Athenian philosophers in effect said, "Interesting theory, come tell us more." They were lukewarm.
And you think Paul would have preferred them to pursue evil? Given his reaction to the idolatry in Athens, I doubt it.


Again, I didn't say you should seek out evil to do it.
Good. I misunderstood you there.