(Ron) Definition of Inerrancy

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>Jeff:

>But what value was Jesus' sinlessness if he was in fact unable to sin?

>Do we praise the fig tree for growing figs, or the beaver for its dams?

>There is some value in Jesus if he was truly a human being with human

>desires, who could have sinned but didn't---but what value is there in

>a Jesus who doesn't sin because it's impossible for him to do so?

>

>Jeff

>PS On a side note, what is "lust" if it is not temptation to sexual

>sin?

>-- 

>\/ jepler@inetnebr.com http://www.linux.org/ (0|1(01*0)*1)+

>

>If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.

>

>

RON
  It is not a sin to be tempted. As the NT indicates somewhere, "Jesus 
was tempted in all ways as we are." That's why I have no trouble with 
the concept of Jesus being TEMPTED sexually or otherwise. The fact is He 
did not give in to the temptation or entertain the thought. 
  "Lust" according to my lexicon is an "evil and inordinate desire to 
possess someone or something. A natural appetite in its depraved state. 
A hostile motion (spiritually or physically) toward an object for 
seizing or repelling. 
  For example, it is not lust if one were to find someone of the 
opposite sex attractive sexually. After all God did cause us to 
reproduce in this way. It becomes lust when you direct it toward someone 
inappropriate, such as another person's spouse, and entertain the 
notion, fantasizing about it for instance. I don't think you can lust, 
at least in the Biblical sense, for your own spouse. That notion is the 
product of the influence of pagan greek dualistic (ant-material) thought 
on Christianity. It's not scriptural. 

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

• Previous message: (Ron) A Look at What Ron Is Evading
• Next message: (Ron) Definition of Inerrancy
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]