Where does it say Lust is a sin?

[dies-l]

Obvious, each can study doctrine and come to a different conclusion. It's a wonder we only have a few thousand doctrines.

This is sometimes a struggle for me with understanding the whole sola scriptura doctrine. I think, overall, it's good that there are so many perspectives, because by sharing them we are each forced to reevaluate our understanding of truth, and through the process of reevaluation we come closer to understanding the Truth.

My thought processes lined up with yours for years..through bible college, as a youth minister, ect.
Certain events caused me to question and test my beliefs. One being a young man in our church committed suicide over not being able to beat masturbation. My own experience dealing with MB, ect..(that was long ago) Sadly, the young man sought so hard to beat this, because he thought it adultery as was told it was sin. I can remember dropping to my knees in prayer right after masturbating. I would of course form a plan to beat it "next time"...and of course another next time always came.

I was in a IBC at the times and the teachings lined up with what I now argue against. I see so many youth sincere as they can be at that age, living in guilt over sexuality. Not to mention it was a process they couldn't beat, regardless of all the programs created for them, such as "every man's battle", ect. Not to mention all those condemning them went through the same thing.

I think we have to be careful to say it's sin, but there is grace for it. In the end, it leads more to a guilt complex.
But I'll get into that another another time.

Those that profess to provide psychotherapy for disturb people find that at least half of all emotional disorders are complicated by a kind of devoted, but mistaken religeous piety. There is someting terribly wrong when a whole adult life can be wrecked by guilt feelings caused by ignorant parental disapproval at a teens discovery that he is now sexual due to puberty. Most teens struggle with continual guilt and daily repentance. It ingrains in the mind a process that most take into adulthood. The sexual disorders for Christian adults are too numerous to mention.

I think this so called "purity" produces the nastiest variety of narrowmindedness. Not that this reflects on you, you have a more balanced approach..but the foundation that these desires are sin and that grace is the answer lacks a real workable approach. We need grace, I'm not saying that, but we need to apply grace correctly.

Rest assured, I have children, two in their teens, one 10. Children start masturbating at about 4. It just feels good, there is no sexual thought. The habit is set before puberty..but now that God introduces sexual desire,,,it becomes sin.

To apply grace when needed if fine..to insist it's needed over a continual life long process...is hypocrisy. I'm not say some don't beat sexual desires. Maybe you didn't have this growing up. Maybe you beat masturbation...99% don't and for most it remains a lifelong process and some thoughts are going to be apart of that process. Here is where the church should guide and teach correct sexuality..

I'll come back and debate some more..you've wore me out on this subject tonight. I'll try to be more clear.

To oversimplify a bit, I see two equally destructive trends in the church today. One is to overemphasize sin and "truth" so that people who struggle with sin are made to feel perpetually guilty and shameful until (and this never happens) they finally conquer it. The problem with this extreme is that it leaves people feeling as though God's love for them is somehow conditional upon their ability to acheieve moral perfection. Consequently may believers in churches with such an emphasis are never able to experience the abundant love and grace of God, because they are so caught up in their fear of sinning and thereby "letting God down." Without knowing the facts, I would assume that the kid you knew that committed suicide because of his struggle with masturbation was likely a product of such a belief system.

The other extreme is to overemphasize "grace and mercy", and to minimize sin. Churches with such an emphasis rarely talk about sin, and will even vehemently argue that some things that the Bible labels as sin are not sinful and that sin should be determined almost entirely by the individual's own conscience, so long as a person's actions "don't harm anyone." IMO, this approach is primarily reactionary to the other camp's overemphasis on sin. The problem with this approach, imo, is that stifles spiritual growth by allowing each person to decide for themselves what their definition of truth is, so that the truth is always something that is comfortable for each individual. Such an approach avoids causing people to be uncomfortable. Unfortunately, genuine growth is usually a painful process. By refusing to approach issues that may be uncomfortable, we don't grow.

The better approach, i think, is to avoid both of these extremes and find a healthy understanding of both. Growing requires that we talk about sin, especially those sins that we are all guilty of. But, shame does not facilitate growth. Therefore, before we can really talk about sin, we first need to understand grace. If we don't understand God's unconditional love for each of us, then we have no business sorting through our skeletons. But, once we understand grace and unconditional love, we cannot ever grow into what God calls us to be by sitting back and being "comfortable." So, inevitably we will have to talk about sin. Not only that, if we accept what the Bible teaches, that we are all sinners, we will need to be willing to define sin in such a way that the discussion applies (notice the present tense, never past tense) to each of us. So, for example, if I don't struggle with homosexuality, it does me no good to work through whether it is sinful. But, if I struggle with lust, then this is something I need to work through, and if it is really a struggle for me, it is going to hurt to face the truth if the truth is that it is sinful. This pain, on the other hand, is only productive, if I deal with it in a way that is mindful and accepting of God's grace and unconditional love.

I hope this illustrates meaningfully how I try to view the topic of sin. I think many of the problems that you are concerned with are a result of an overemphasis on sin, but I don't think the correct approach is to do away with such talk altogether, but rather to ensure that our understanding of sin is accompanied by a proper understanding of grace. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. God bless.

 

[Armistead]

This is sometimes a struggle for me with understanding the whole sola scriptura doctrine. I think, overall, it's good that there are so many perspectives, because by sharing them we are each forced to reevaluate our understanding of truth, and through the process of reevaluation we come closer to understanding the Truth.

To oversimplify a bit, I see two equally destructive trends in the church today. One is to overemphasize sin and "truth" so that people who struggle with sin are made to feel perpetually guilty and shameful until (and this never happens) they finally conquer it. The problem with this extreme is that it leaves people feeling as though God's love for them is somehow conditional upon their ability to acheieve moral perfection. Consequently may believers in churches with such an emphasis are never able to experience the abundant love and grace of God, because they are so caught up in their fear of sinning and thereby "letting God down." Without knowing the facts, I would assume that the kid you knew that committed suicide because of his struggle with masturbation was likely a product of such a belief system.

The other extreme is to overemphasize "grace and mercy", and to minimize sin. Churches with such an emphasis rarely talk about sin, and will even vehemently argue that some things that the Bible labels as sin are not sinful and that sin should be determined almost entirely by the individual's own conscience, so long as a person's actions "don't harm anyone." IMO, this approach is primarily reactionary to the other camp's overemphasis on sin. The problem with this approach, imo, is that stifles spiritual growth by allowing each person to decide for themselves what their definition of truth is, so that the truth is always something that is comfortable for each individual. Such an approach avoids causing people to be uncomfortable. Unfortunately, genuine growth is usually a painful process. By refusing to approach issues that may be uncomfortable, we don't grow.

The better approach, i think, is to avoid both of these extremes and find a healthy understanding of both. Growing requires that we talk about sin, especially those sins that we are all guilty of. But, shame does not facilitate growth. Therefore, before we can really talk about sin, we first need to understand grace. If we don't understand God's unconditional love for each of us, then we have no business sorting through our skeletons. But, once we understand grace and unconditional love, we cannot ever grow into what God calls us to be by sitting back and being "comfortable." So, inevitably we will have to talk about sin. Not only that, if we accept what the Bible teaches, that we are all sinners, we will need to be willing to define sin in such a way that the discussion applies (notice the present tense, never past tense) to each of us. So, for example, if I don't struggle with homosexuality, it does me no good to work through whether it is sinful. But, if I struggle with lust, then this is something I need to work through, and if it is really a struggle for me, it is going to hurt to face the truth if the truth is that it is sinful. This pain, on the other hand, is only productive, if I deal with it in a way that is mindful and accepting of God's grace and unconditional love.

I hope this illustrates meaningfully how I try to view the topic of sin. I think many of the problems that you are concerned with are a result of an overemphasis on sin, but I don't think the correct approach is to do away with such talk altogether, but rather to ensure that our understanding of sin is accompanied by a proper understanding of grace. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. God bless.

Good post. I reached my conclusion because I think it's is the balanced biblical truth. I do understand what you are saying. I'm all for sexual morality that lines up with scripture. I have a problem whem men start adding to that and using sex, like fear, as a tool to control others.

The law of love is the defining principle, really the only one that we can use to define sin. Why, because it's constantly stated,, love fulfills all the law, not part, all. Love is action, we should all act on love as much as we can, but that is not the principle that fulfills all the law.. When the law of love is use in the bible, it is connected "to not harming others" This reason this meets all the law, is it's a constant action that all can do. It is a principle of life that walks with us every second.It should be the basis of how we approach every condition. It can work for everyone. Many may choose not do constant acts of love, some may do none, but all can choose not to harm others. The two walk hand in hand, but not harming others fulfills all the law. Just think if all society lived by this principle. This is not an extreme behavior to balance out legalism. It is a command from God on how we deal with sin.

We should apply grace when grace is needed, but we don't make something sinful that's not. We don't create sins that can't be beat, then apply grace constantly to cover it. This just traps people in constant guilt and shame. It's like saying "hail Mary" and go back and do it. Repentance involves change, grace covers all sin.

We basically say to our teens at puberty. "Look, your body is going through changes that will cause you to be sexual.
Sexual thoughts are going to naturally pop into your head. You going to notice the opposite sex. Your going to be walking around with erections that just happen, the opposite sex is going to now excite you. Now, God created this sexuality. The first thought is natural, created by God. but if you have another one or think about what God has put in your mind, it's sin."

Trying not to have sexual thoughts is impossible. Two, it's not biblical. The obvious hard part is when does it become sin or lust. The bible is clear, many things are to be done in moderation. We are not to be drunkards, but we can drink alcohol, ect. There are many cases in the bible relating this. Obvious drunkedness can be harmful, but a drink or two isn't. But we pick out sex and put this impossible standard on it. How do we judge when sex is lust, we judge in based on the law of love..when the thoughts become harmful to ones self or others. Then it's time for another approach. If the church would teach sexuality like that, we could take sexuality back from the world.

 

[lmnop9876]

dies3l, you have blown me away with your depth of insight into this topic, and i think that, sadly, such insights are often the ones that are ignored in favour of a legalistic and moralistic approach to Christ's teachings.

 

[DerSchweik]

Early church father(s).

Gracias Gratia.

 

[galbro48026]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

Where in the scriptures it says that lust is a sin. I know some of the ECF said that, but where in the scriptures is it?

It can be both a sin and not a sin. for example in matt 5:28 below.

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

If you look up that word "LUST" in the greek dictionary it means " Epithumeo"

this word is used 16 times in the new testament for example this word is used as a sinful lust in romans below.

Ro 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

now that word "Epithumeo" is used for a normal desire to have something such as a ministry in god below.

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Now word above is "desire" not the word "lust" but the original word was used for both good and bad. human desire is normal such as food, sex, better job, etc....but if we covet these thing then its bad.
[/FONT]

 

[dies-l]

Good post. I reached my conclusion because I think it's is the balanced biblical truth. I do understand what you are saying. I'm all for sexual morality that lines up with scripture. I have a problem whem men start adding to that and using sex, like fear, as a tool to control others.

The law of love is the defining principle, really the only one that we can use to define sin. Why, because it's constantly stated,, love fulfills all the law, not part, all. Love is action, we should all act on love as much as we can, but that is not the principle that fulfills all the law.. When the law of love is use in the bible, it is connected "to not harming others" This reason this meets all the law, is it's a constant action that all can do. It is a principle of life that walks with us every second.It should be the basis of how we approach every condition. It can work for everyone. Many may choose not do constant acts of love, some may do none, but all can choose not to harm others. The two walk hand in hand, but not harming others fulfills all the law. Just think if all society lived by this principle. This is not an extreme behavior to balance out legalism. It is a command from God on how we deal with sin.

It seems to me that our point of departure here is on the meaning of the word 'love.' You have expressed several times now that you believe that you express love by simply 'doing no harm.' Therefore any action done to another person that does not harm that person is a loving action. I don't believe that this what Jesus meant by love when he gave us the Great Commandment. You seem to suggest that when love is talked about in the Bible it is always concerned with the "do no harm" attitude that you speak of. But, I don't think that this is true.

For example, in Luke 10:25-37, during a challenge by a legalist, after concluding that the whole of the law is the "law of love", Jesus tells the parable of the good Samaritan. In that parable, in addition to the robbery victim, there were four main characters (or character groupings): The first of these are the robbers, and it would seem that you, Jesus, and I would agree that these men did not show love to their victim. The next two were the priest and the Levite, who "did not harm", and in fact did nothing. It would seem that if love merely means to "do no harm", then these two practiced love by not doing anything more to harm the victim. But, Jesus didn't seem to think so. According to the parable, the only character in the parable who complied with the Great Commandment was the Samaritan, who not only avoided causing harm, but was proactive in providing care to the victim. He was the only one who "loved his neighbor as himself."

Another example is in Mt. 19:16-24, where Jesus is questioned by the rich young man. The young man was perceptive enough to realize that merely keeping the negative commands (e.g., do not murder, do not commit adultery, etc.) was not enough . He seems to make the same mistake that you make in assuming that these are proof that he is loving is neighbor as himself. But, Jesus challenges him to go the next step in loving God by commanding him to sell all of his possessions and to follow God. The young man could not accept that teaching. He could accept the legalistic laws of the Pharisees, but he was unwilling to give up everything in order to follow God and to love his neighbor, and Jesus said this would make it near impossible for him to inherit eternal life.

I provide these examples to show that Jesus, when he gave us the Great Commandment, was not interested in just giving us an easy to follow rule that all of us could get right with minimal effort. Instead he was giving us an easy to understand rule that is intensely difficult and that he knew would take most of us a lifetime to get it right. If we understand the Great Commandment the way Jesus did, we always have room to grow in our relationship with God. If we try to reduce it to something that is so easy that we are already close to getting it, we severely limit our growth and fall short of God's plan for us.

So this is where I think our biggest disagreement lies, and to the extent that we disagree as to the meaning of the Great Commandment, it will be difficult to come to any agreement as to any specific applications of it, such as Jesus' statement concerning lust and adultery.

We should apply grace when grace is needed, but we don't make something sinful that's not. We don't create sins that can't be beat, then apply grace constantly to cover it. This just traps people in constant guilt and shame. It's like saying "hail Mary" and go back and do it. Repentance involves change, grace covers all sin.

The problem with this statement is that it assumes that, in trying to apply and understand what Jesus is actually reported as having said, rather than contorting and misinterpreting it to make it easier to follow, I am "creating sins." I would argue that it seems from this statement that you are accusing Jesus of creating sins, in order to cover them with grace. I would argue that if one has a proper understanding of the Great Commandment, it is easy to understand why Jesus wanted us to strive to eliminate sexual lust. When one understands love the way that Jesus does (just look at how He showed His love, it is not hard to understand why lustful thoughts were not consistent with this kind of love.

But, I suppose there is a bigger question that I have. You seem to suggest that the understanding that we are all sinners covered by grace leads only to deeper guilt and shame. I wonder how you come to this conclusion. It would seem to me that, if I struggle with sin, knowing that I am not alone in my struggle and that God's grace is big enough to deal with my sin while I learn to be a more faithful follower, would ease my guilt and shame, rather than making them worse.

We basically say to our teens at puberty. "Look, your body is going through changes that will cause you to be sexual.
Sexual thoughts are going to naturally pop into your head. You going to notice the opposite sex. Your going to be walking around with erections that just happen, the opposite sex is going to now excite you. Now, God created this sexuality. The first thought is natural, created by God. but if you have another one or think about what God has put in your mind, it's sin."

Who says that illicit (i.e., unloving) sexual thoughts (i.e., lustful) are created by God? I don't think I ever said that, and I am sure that the Bible doesn't say that. For a biblical understanding of this, I would look to James 1:13-15, which tells us that God does not tempt us, but that temptation (such as the initial illicit sexual thought) is a result of a man's own evil desire.

Ultimately, it seems that before we can begin to understand each other on the issue at hand, we need to clearly understand the assumptions that we bring into the discussion and where they come from, and we need to identify the assumptions that are contrary to Scripture.

 

[Armistead]

It seems to me that our point of departure here is on the meaning of the word 'love.' You have expressed several times now that you believe that you express love by simply 'doing no harm.' Therefore any action done to another person that does not harm that person is a loving action. I don't believe that this what Jesus meant by love when he gave us the Great Commandment. You seem to suggest that when love is talked about in the Bible it is always concerned with the "do no harm" attitude that you speak of. But, I don't think that this is true.

I haven't said that at all. I have clearly said that love is an action word and that we should do it as much as we can. However, it is not the principle action that fulfills the law of love. Again, when fulfilling all the law is mentioned,,,to do no harm is always mentioned with it.
That's biblical. Yes we are to love as much as possible.
Also, to do no harm isn't as simple as just a stand off approach. It's deeper than that. It actually becomes a
action word.

This can be a confusing question for believers because of the fact that the scriptures say so many diverse things about many diverse aspects of Christian virtue and duty. Moreover, some principles appear to be irrelevant due to the fact that the time, place, and culture were so very different than ours today.

Fortunately, scripture does provide us with a universal, culture-independent, moral principle which should govern all our acts. I call that principle the "the law of love."
The new law of the Lord Jesus Christ is, in a word, the law of love. We are commanded by the Lord to love God, neighbor, and self, and told that this law of love fulfills all of God's moral requirements. A few scriptures will make clear the primacy of the law of love-also called the "law of liberty" and the "royal law" in scripture.

Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest? Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (Matthew 22:36-40).

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:8-10).

You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourselfSo speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty (James 2:8,12).

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:34-35).

The only thing that counts is faith working through love (Galatians 5:6).

You yourselves have been taught by God to love one another (1 Thessalonians 4:9b).

These and many other scriptures highlight the high priority the Lord places upon love. Love is the one moral thread that is consistently woven throughout all Old and New Testament virtue (cf. Deut. 6:5). Scripture makes clear that the one who lives in love fulfills all of God's moral requirements.

Loving God is synonymous with obeying God. As the Lord said,

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love meWhoever does not love me does not keep my words (John 14:15,24).

As we strive to obey the Lord, we demonstrate our love for him. In fact, all our acts of obedience really should be motivated by love. We should wish to reach the level of spiritual maturity where we obey God simply out of a motive of love, and not anything else.


Loving one's neighbor means serving his needs, sacrificing oneself for him, and doing him no harm:
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends (John 15:12-13).

Love does no harm to a neighbor (Romans 13:9-10);

We know love by this: that he [Christ] laid down his life for us-and we ought to lay down our lives for one another. How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses to help? (1 John 3:16-17).

Scripture also teaches that one cannot adequately love God without loving his brother:
If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen (1 John 4:20).


For example, in Luke 10:25-37, during a challenge by a legalist, after concluding that the whole of the law is the "law of love", Jesus tells the parable of the good Samaritan. In that parable, in addition to the robbery victim, there were four main characters (or character groupings): The first of these are the robbers, and it would seem that you, Jesus, and I would agree that these men did not show love to their victim. The next two were the priest and the Levite, who "did not harm", and in fact did nothing. It would seem that if love merely means to "do no harm", then these two practiced love by not doing anything more to harm the victim. But, Jesus didn't seem to think so. According to the parable, the only character in the parable who complied with the Great Commandment was the Samaritan, who not only avoided causing harm, but was proactive in providing care to the victim. He was the only one who "loved his neighbor as himself."

So, the two go hand in hand. In many occasions, to do no harm, requires action. If I saw a brother in need and could help, I have broken the law of love, because I harmed him by not helping. The bible says " If we know to do good and not do it, we sin"

THe principle of love does not negate the many teachings in the bible, it supports them. However, it also frees us from legalism, as clearly in many cases we must each decide on our own concscience.

I'll get into the anger equals murder later. I think we are more together on the issue than you realize.

 

[dies-l]

It seems to me that our point of departure here is on the meaning of the word 'love.' You have expressed several times now that you believe that you express love by simply 'doing no harm.' Therefore any action done to another person that does not harm that person is a loving action. I don't believe that this what Jesus meant by love when he gave us the Great Commandment. You seem to suggest that when love is talked about in the Bible it is always concerned with the "do no harm" attitude that you speak of. But, I don't think that this is true.

I haven't said that at all. I have clearly said that love is an action word and that we should do it as much as we can. However, it is not the principle action that fulfills the law of love. Again, when fulfilling all the law is mentioned,,,to do no harm is always mentioned with it.
That's biblical. Yes we are to love as much as possible.
Also, to do no harm isn't as simple as just a stand off approach. It's deeper than that. It actually becomes a
action word.

This can be a confusing question for believers because of the fact that the scriptures say so many diverse things about many diverse aspects of Christian virtue and duty. Moreover, some principles appear to be irrelevant due to the fact that the time, place, and culture were so very different than ours today.

Fortunately, scripture does provide us with a universal, culture-independent, moral principle which should govern all our acts. I call that principle the "the law of love."
The new law of the Lord Jesus Christ is, in a word, the law of love. We are commanded by the Lord to love God, neighbor, and self, and told that this law of love fulfills all of God's moral requirements. A few scriptures will make clear the primacy of the law of love-also called the "law of liberty" and the "royal law" in scripture.

Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest? Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (Matthew 22:36-40).

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:8-10).

You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourselfSo speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty (James 2:8,12).

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:34-35).

The only thing that counts is faith working through love (Galatians 5:6).

You yourselves have been taught by God to love one another (1 Thessalonians 4:9b).

These and many other scriptures highlight the high priority the Lord places upon love. Love is the one moral thread that is consistently woven throughout all Old and New Testament virtue (cf. Deut. 6:5). Scripture makes clear that the one who lives in love fulfills all of God's moral requirements.

Loving God is synonymous with obeying God. As the Lord said,

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love meWhoever does not love me does not keep my words (John 14:15,24).

As we strive to obey the Lord, we demonstrate our love for him. In fact, all our acts of obedience really should be motivated by love. We should wish to reach the level of spiritual maturity where we obey God simply out of a motive of love, and not anything else.


Loving one's neighbor means serving his needs, sacrificing oneself for him, and doing him no harm:
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends (John 15:12-13).

Love does no harm to a neighbor (Romans 13:9-10);

We know love by this: that he [Christ] laid down his life for us-and we ought to lay down our lives for one another. How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses to help? (1 John 3:16-17).

Scripture also teaches that one cannot adequately love God without loving his brother:
If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen (1 John 4:20).


For example, in Luke 10:25-37, during a challenge by a legalist, after concluding that the whole of the law is the "law of love", Jesus tells the parable of the good Samaritan. In that parable, in addition to the robbery victim, there were four main characters (or character groupings): The first of these are the robbers, and it would seem that you, Jesus, and I would agree that these men did not show love to their victim. The next two were the priest and the Levite, who "did not harm", and in fact did nothing. It would seem that if love merely means to "do no harm", then these two practiced love by not doing anything more to harm the victim. But, Jesus didn't seem to think so. According to the parable, the only character in the parable who complied with the Great Commandment was the Samaritan, who not only avoided causing harm, but was proactive in providing care to the victim. He was the only one who "loved his neighbor as himself."

So, the two go hand in hand. In many occasions, to do no harm, requires action. If I saw a brother in need and could help, I have broken the law of love, because I harmed him by not helping. The bible says " If we know to do good and not do it, we sin"

THe principle of love does not negate the many teachings in the bible, it supports them. However, it also frees us from legalism, as clearly in many cases we must each decide on our own concscience.

I'll get into the anger equals murder later. I think we are more together on the issue than you realize.

I agree with you that "the law of love" aka the Great Commandment should be central to any understanding of Christian morality. I appreciate the fact that you seem to recognize that and see it as a way to keep from becoming embroiled in contentious legalism. The only difference that I am seeing is in our understanding of what it means to love you neighbor as yourself. I believe that those last two words (which I have italicized) call for something deeper than a "do no harm" type attitude. And, I believe that this type of selfless and self-giving love for all people is a commandment, such that when we fail to do so (even if we don't think we are harming anyone) we fall short of God's expectations of us (i.e., sin). I don't say this as an accusatory, "you're going to hell if . . . " type statement, but rather as a moral ideal to which we should hold ourselves, while at the same time realizing that we will likely not achieve that ideal within our lifetime. I believe that we should view morality as a bar that is set high enough that we always have room to improve rather than as a bare minimum of acceptable conduct. I believe that this bare minimum mentality is what irritated Jesus about the Pharisees and unfortunately, it seems to me to be far too prevalent among Christians today (e.g., look at all of the threads in CP&E that are titled "Is x a sin?"). I believe that the Bible teaches we should hold ourselves to such a high standard that we can know that if, in our actions, we are not totally and completely selflessly giving of ourselves to God and to other people, then we are sinning. It seems to me that this standard gets rid of legalism in at least two ways: it gives us all, regardless of our current level of spiritual maturity, something to aim for and it makes it clear to there is no basis for distinction and no basis for us to judge one another, because we are all so far from perfection.

I think you and I do agree with each other more than many Christians do. I think that our disagreement is based on the nuances of the word "love", but it is a positive step that we both seem to see morality as revolving completely around the Great Commandment. And, I think we both see this reality as freeing us from the kind of legalism that was common to the Pharisees and appears to be all too common among many Christians. And, I admit, even though I believe it falls short of God's ideal, that if everyone were to adopt the "do no harm" attitude, the world would be a better place and this would bring joy to the heart of God. It's not a bad goal, but I do believe it falls somewhat short of what Jesus and Paul had in mind when they spoke about "the law of love."

 

[Johnnz]

Who says that illicit (i.e., unloving) sexual thoughts (i.e., lustful) are created by God? I don't think I ever said that, and I am sure that the Bible doesn't say that. For a biblical understanding of this, I would look to James 1:13-15, which tells us that God does not tempt us, but that temptation (such as the initial illicit sexual thought) is a result of a man's own evil desire.

I am not sure that was actually stated or even implied. We are sexual beings, and as such experience sexual thoughts and feelings. Sin is only when we use our sexuality wrongly. Just as not all hunger is gluttony or tiredness is laziness so not all sexual awareness is lust.

John
NZ

 

[dayhiker]

Very good discussion, dies3l and armstead, I too think that love is the key to living the Christian life the way Jesus wants us to live it. The differances in the way you are expressing it is very minor in my reading. So minor that I'd say why even consider that you have a differance.

dayhiker

 

[Armistead]

Very good discussion, dies3l and armstead, I too think that love is the key to living the Christian life the way Jesus wants us to live it. The differances in the way you are expressing it is very minor in my reading. So minor that I'd say why even consider that you have a differance.

dayhiker

I think so...

I will get into more later...but in the end, like hiker says,
it's not much difference.

I'm in no way saying..that doing no harm is the only process that Christians live by, but that it is the common foundation that fulfills all the law.

 

[hypnotism]

He killed himself over MB!?
I sure am glad I never considered MB a sin and so Jesus did not have to kill all those kittens.