Being wrong is both annoyingly inconvenient and inconveniently annoying. But, alas, it happens to the best of us, right? RIGHT? But what about when you are only "sort of" wrong?
Thank you for your thoughts! Would you mind explaining what you mean by lust? I ask because I found the quote from Steve Frederick confusing. Is lust synonymous with *desire*? Or does it refer to a *general* sexual desire? Or a sexual desire/attraction toward someone *specific*? Or a sexual desire/attraction that is *actively cultivated,* either in general or toward someone specific?
Great question :) I actually spend a bit of time exploring the relationship between lust, desire, attraction etc in my forthcoming book. Even then I didn't feel like I was able to do it full justice. So this brief response certainly won't either! But no, I don't think I (or Steve) would equate lust and desire (or sexual desire) as being identical or synonymous. Some desires are good (including some sexual desires). But lust is sexual desire which has been corrupted, distorted, disordered. It is self-serving and self-focused rather than oriented towards the good of the other and the glory of God. And it is as much about what goes on our heart as it is the action of our bodies (Mt 5:27-28).
So when I argue that marriage is not a remedy for lust, I'm suggesting that marriage doesn't legitimate lust, make it OK, give it a context in which it can be properly directed. Because lust is never properly directed (whereas some sexual desire *can be* - though this too is very often compromised by our sinfulness). And when Steve says there is no concession for lust in marriage, he's arguing that lustfulness directed towards one spouse is not itself godly sexual desire. Lust is always sinful, regardless of the context. Marriage doesn't "cure" people of their lustful ways (whether that lust is directed towards their spouse or someone else), nor does it provide a context in which it is "OK" for us to lust.
Hope that provides some helpful response to your questions!
Random thoughts: I've often wondered why Protestants mostly reject the idea of celibate priests and nuns. And celibacy as a called or chosen lifestyle. Notwithstanding J.MacArthur's nonsense (yes, I followed your rabbit trails all the way to his video. One more reason why I don't like him). I agree that lust is not cured by marriage as evidenced by the number of married people committing adultery and the unfortunate plagues of pornography and sex trafficking. Lust is destructive because it objectifies the person it targets. Remember when former President Jimmy Carter said, "I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times." ? I think your comments about self-control and treating ALL sin as an abomination before God are timely and helpful.
Thank you for your thoughts! Would you mind explaining what you mean by lust? I ask because I found the quote from Steve Frederick confusing. Is lust synonymous with *desire*? Or does it refer to a *general* sexual desire? Or a sexual desire/attraction toward someone *specific*? Or a sexual desire/attraction that is *actively cultivated,* either in general or toward someone specific?
Great question :) I actually spend a bit of time exploring the relationship between lust, desire, attraction etc in my forthcoming book. Even then I didn't feel like I was able to do it full justice. So this brief response certainly won't either! But no, I don't think I (or Steve) would equate lust and desire (or sexual desire) as being identical or synonymous. Some desires are good (including some sexual desires). But lust is sexual desire which has been corrupted, distorted, disordered. It is self-serving and self-focused rather than oriented towards the good of the other and the glory of God. And it is as much about what goes on our heart as it is the action of our bodies (Mt 5:27-28).
So when I argue that marriage is not a remedy for lust, I'm suggesting that marriage doesn't legitimate lust, make it OK, give it a context in which it can be properly directed. Because lust is never properly directed (whereas some sexual desire *can be* - though this too is very often compromised by our sinfulness). And when Steve says there is no concession for lust in marriage, he's arguing that lustfulness directed towards one spouse is not itself godly sexual desire. Lust is always sinful, regardless of the context. Marriage doesn't "cure" people of their lustful ways (whether that lust is directed towards their spouse or someone else), nor does it provide a context in which it is "OK" for us to lust.
Hope that provides some helpful response to your questions!
Thank you for the very thorough answer! And yes, it was very helpful.
Random thoughts: I've often wondered why Protestants mostly reject the idea of celibate priests and nuns. And celibacy as a called or chosen lifestyle. Notwithstanding J.MacArthur's nonsense (yes, I followed your rabbit trails all the way to his video. One more reason why I don't like him). I agree that lust is not cured by marriage as evidenced by the number of married people committing adultery and the unfortunate plagues of pornography and sex trafficking. Lust is destructive because it objectifies the person it targets. Remember when former President Jimmy Carter said, "I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times." ? I think your comments about self-control and treating ALL sin as an abomination before God are timely and helpful.