I originally edited my last post but decided to repost it here so it won't be missed.
Do you really believe my response will be much different just because you expand upon your statement of not liking his paper? We'll see.
Here are a few quotes from the article that we can focus on.
- "Lust means desire not thought, therefore erotic fantasies are not necessarily the lust Jesus spoke of in Matthew 5:28."
- "Lust is actually the same word as covet in the Greek (Ex. 20:17). We can covet our neighbor's stuff, or we can covet earnestly the best gifts (1 Cor 12:31). Just like adultery and fornication are perversions of God's gift of sex, lust is a perversion of the sexual desire God gave us. Just like sex is only wrong if we have it with the wrong person, lust is wrong if we desire (covet) someone who is not our spouse."
The first quote is the second point he says he is going to argue though he actually argues it first and that not effectively or logically. He never once defines what an erotic fantasy is and then distinguishes it from lust. He simply says what he thinks lust is and says an erotic fantasy isn't necessarily that. What kind of argument is that? Seriously?
He defines lust using the Greek and Hebrew. Did you look at them?
The most common words translated as lust in the Bible are
epithumeo, epipotheo, and orego. They all mean to desire, to covet, to
long for intensely, to set ones heart upon. The idea of intent or volition is
usually present.
Your summary of his argument is of your own creation. He states very clearly what lust is and then states that erotic fantasy doesn't automatically fit into that definition. This makes your argument in your above quote a straw man.
I propose now that an erotic fantasy is lust because it is born out of desire. Have you ever fantasized about something that you didn't desire? OK, maybe you had a scary daydream or something but we are talking about deliberate fantasizing, not daydreaming. I would also argue that this is where the volition the writer argues actually comes in.
Just because something starts with a desire doesn't mean it is sinful lust. The author points that out. Once again:
Lust is actually used in a good way in Matt. 13:17;
Luke 22:15; 1 Tim 3:1; Heb. 6:11; and 1 Pet. 1:12. It is also used in a bad
way in Matt. 5:28; Rom. 7:7; 13:9; 1 Cor. 10:6; and James 4:2.
Having a lustful thought pass through our minds as a temptation is not sin and most Christians know that. It becomes a sin when we do not take that thought captive into obedience to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5) and instead we choose to feed our flesh with it. Instead of letting it pass on through, we consider it and take ownership of the thought through an act of our will (volition). Remember, it's not a sin to be tempted, it's a sin to give into that temptation.
Prove that what you describe is indeed a temptation. Is it described as such by the Bible? Is entertaining it described as sinful in the Bible? If so, where? 2 Corinthians 10:5 is not talking about sexual sin in context at all. It's talking about spiritual warfare to an extent and how to keep our minds clean. It doesn't describe what a 'dirty' thought would look like. So your example is useless in this context unless you can show that what you describe as sin here is also described as such in the Bible.
Now concerning the second quote. Cheddie (the author of the article), actually makes a very good point here. Problem is, the point he is making actually goes against the arguments he is supposed to be proving. This brings in the tenth commandment; thou shalt not covet... (Exodus 20:17). Coveting has nothing to do with intent to break one of the other laws such as "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14) which seems to be the authors entire argument for erotic fantasies and masturbation not being sin. He argues that there is no intent there to take someones wife, etc.
Correct. There is no intent there, it is merely fantasy, which means there is then no desire to take what is not yours, which then means it is not coveting or lustful. He never says coveting has to do with the intent to break another commandment, this is a straw man argument.
I can look at my neighbor's house and covet it, yet never intend on doing something to make it mine. I can covet his wife and never intend on making her mine. Here are a few quotes about the tenth commandment and coveting:
- "This is certainly the language of discontent at our own lot, and envy at our neighbour's, and these are the sins principally forbidden here." - John Wesley
- "The others forbid all desire of doing what will be an injury to our neighbour; this forbids all wrong desire of having what will gratify ourselves." -Matthew Henry
- "As the sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments forbid us to injure our neighbor in deed, the ninth forbids us to injure him in word, and the tenth, in thought." - Albert Barnes
From these insightful men whom many would call "experts" when it comes to matters of faith, we see that covetousness is rooted in envy, discontentment with what God has given us, and wrongful self gratification. I cannot think of a better way to describe what an erotic fantasy is and here the Bible says it is SIN!
Commentators are far from experts. Commentators are just that: people who comment about the Bible. You are using quotes from men who are long since dead and do not have the same knowledge we do. A commentator does not get to redefine what a Hebrew word means. And let's say just for kicks and laughs that your commentators are right. Did you quote them correctly? Wesley states:
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet - The foregoing commands implicitly forbid all desire of doing that which will be an injury to our neighbour, this forbids all inordinate desire of having that which will be a gratification to ourselves. O that such a man's house were mine! such a man's wife mine! such a man's estate mine!
You ignore this in your quote and instead jump into to his opinion of where the coveting comes from. Thinking about someone is hardly injurious to them unless you act upon the thought, and I very much doubt you will argue that all thoughts are acted upon. The above clearly indicates what lust is, and then attempts to address the possible attitude behind the sin of coveting. But that's not quite enough. You also misquote Henry:
VI. The tenth commandment strikes at the root: Thou shalt not covet, Exo_20:17. The foregoing commands implicitly forbid all desire of doing that which will be an injury to our neighbour; this forbids all inordinate desire of having that which will be a gratification to ourselves. O that such a man's house were mine! Such a man's wife mine! Such a man's estate mine! This is certainly the language of discontent at our own lot, and envy at our neighbour's; and these are the sins principally forbidden here. St. Paul, when the grace of God caused the scales to fall from his eyes, perceived that this law, Thou shalt not covet, forbade all those irregular appetites and desires which are the first-born of the corrupt nature, the first risings of the sin that dwelleth in us, and the beginnings of all the sin that is committed by us: this is that lust which, he says, he had not known the evil of, if this commandment, when it came to his conscience in the power of it, had not shown it to him, Rom_7:7. God give us all to see our face in the glass of this law, and to lay our hearts under the government of it!
Henry and Wesley are saying the exact same thing using almost the exact same wording.
Even in Barnes you misquoted:
As the sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments forbid us to injure our neighbor in deed, the ninth forbids us to injure him in word, and the tenth, in thought. No human eye can see the coveting heart; it is witnessed only by him who possesses it and by Him to whom all things are naked and open Luk_12:15-21. But it is the root of all sins of word or deed against our neighbor Jam_1:14-15.
This is saying that a coveting heart is the root of act and word against our neighbors. By this logic, your concept of erotic fantasy, if indeed it is coveting as you assert, should result in a word or deed against our neighbor. If this were the case, then every single person who has masturbated would have sinned similarly against the person their fantasy is focused on in word or deed. This clearly is not the case.
Your attempt at using commentaries to debunk the article only serves to debunk your own position because of how you misused them. The commentaries reinforce how the article defines lust and add an opinion about where coveting comes from. Nowhere is their opinion backed in Scripture. Even if it was, you engage in that attitude of discontent every single time you buy something.
Many men who become enslaved to erotic fantasies and masturbation have a hard time enjoying sex with their wives.
This is sin addiction, which is not equivalent to masturbation. You will not find a single credible psychologist who will tell you that masturbation causes sin addictions, they will link it back to an overactive sex drive, some failure to get a specific need met, or a traumatic event that skews their perception of the world. Obviously becoming addicted to most things is sinful because we are to exercise self control. This is a red herring that detracts from your argument because masturbation does not lead to sex addiction.
If you don't believe me, Google "Does masturbation make it harder to enjoy sex with your wife?", and read all of the posts by men concerned about their ability to perform or enjoy their spouse and wondering if it is related to the fact that they touch and look at porn.
That is inadmissible if you are attempting to establish something as sin, which you are. All you do here is provide the opinions of men who share the same opinion you do: an appeal to popularity. The Bible, not man, establishes what is and is not sinful.
I could go all day but I'll stop here. I think that most would agree that having a thought which tempts you to lust or covet is not sin but acting upon that thought to actually lust or covet is sin.
This is another appeal to popularity. 'Lots of people agree with me, so I must be right' is not a valid argument and saying that lots of people agree with you is irrelevant information.
I think most reasonable people would also agree that erotic fantasies by their very nature are either lustful or covetous.
Here you imply that anyone who disagrees with your statement is unreasonable and thereby stupid or illogical. This is nothing but a conditional statement meant to manipulate your opponent into falling into the trap you set up for them.
It should also be clear at this point that although Matthew 5:28 may mean to actually intend to act upon the thoughts, the tenth commandment is clearly talking about ones thoughts and any volition here is directed at ones making a choice to entertain covetous thoughts, not to break one of the other commandments.
...and here you go right back to your earlier straw man argument that the author was talking about desiring to break another commandment.
In sum, your addition to your earlier post contains little to no additional information that assists your argument that masturbation, or the thoughts surrounding it, are sinful.