31 May 2018

Three Things as I Prepare to Leave on Vacation



by Phil Johnson

  1. Regarding the previous post, let me underscore my answer to an objection that keeps coming up. One of my critics on Twitter stated it as succinctly as anyone. He wrote, "Attraction and lust aren't the same thing. [Therefore] your proposition collapses entirely."

    I'm aware, of course, that the words attraction and lust have different shades of meaning. Not every attraction entails lust. Attraction is the action or capacity of eliciting interest, affection, sympathy, fascination, or some similar eager response. It's possible—even desirable—to be attracted to things that are altogether holy and good, or even morally neutral, without being guilty of lust.

    Lust is a sensuous appetite or desire that is inherently sinful—or one that leads to sin. To explain the idea of lust in the sense Scripture uses the word, it is any desire or affinity for something that God has forbidden. "All that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world" (1 John 2:16).

    In short, you cannot define lust without the idea of attraction. What distinguishes a neutral attraction from a sinful one is both the object of desire and the source of your inclination. To desire what God forbids is a sin, full stop. And such desires are "not from the father." This is never treated as an ambiguous or murky concept in Scripture.

  2. On an entirely different topic, several people have already eagerly responded to my call for potential Pyroposts and/or regular contributors to this blog. I haven't had time to reply to any of them yet, so if you submitted something and haven't heard back from me, please don't read my lack of response as apathy or negativity—at least not yet. It's been a terribly busy week. I am trying to clear my desk and calendar. Friday night I'm taking the redeye to NYC with Darlene and our eldest granddaughter for a rare week of pure vacation. I intend to evaluate contributors' submissions when I return.

    The upside is that if you intend to submit an potential blogpost and haven't done so yet, you have at least a week of breathing room. And if you submitted but wish to revise your submission, you have time for that, too.
    Here are some guidelines and caveats for potential contributors:
    • I don't intend to furnish reviews or critiques of articles that are submitted for consideration. That would be too time consuming.
    • If I decline to post your submission, it doesn't necessarily mean I didn't like it or didn't agree with you. There are lots of fine blogposts out there that just don't fit PyroManiacs tonally or stylistically.
    • Our tone and styles have been so far-ranging, you may wonder what I'm looking for. Here's a list:
       
    1. It needs to be something I would agree with entirely.
    2. It needs to be crisp and riveting, not turgid or lackluster.
    3. Specifically, it needs to have elements of wit, passion, controversy, or high interest. For the purposes of this blog, it's better to be provocative or even comical than tedious or pedantic.
    4. Above all, you need to demonstrate amazing writing ability and sharp verbal skills.

    Suppose you write a discourse on the doctrine of eternal generation that is completely accurate. I like the topic. The doctrine is certainly an important one. And it's an issue that many people are ignorant of or misunderstand completely. The topic would seem to be good fodder for a Pyropost. Nevertheless, if your writing style is dry or merely academic, even if you explain the doctrine in a totally orthodox and biblical way, it's probably not going to be something I would post here. There are several sound, conservative blogs out there publishing that kind of thing. We want PyroManiacs to stand out, not blend in.

  1. I do intend to start posting the weekly Spurgeon excerpts in a few weeks. Kerry Allen has offered to help supply material. I intend to take him up on it.
Phil's signature

15 comments:

Fred Butler said...

One final caveat for future contributors: Make sure your articles are NOT corn pone or pot-likker in nature.

Thanks

Michael Coughlin said...

Thanks for that explanation. I guess I’ll keep my boring time over at ThingsAbove.Us, and just troll comments here.

Also glad to have Sunday Spurgeon back. Really loved that.

And thanks for the definitions offered. They are foundational to the discussion and very helpful - as I don’t think they are as readily understood as you may think or hope.

Michael Coughlin said...

Good point.

ADieL said...

Brother can you also please define temptation and explain how it relates to sin. If a person has been tempted to sin, has he sinned already, or can sin still be avoided? Thank you

Joe Meyer said...

......Listen Phil! Your not going anywhere! Get back HERE!!

TP SockPuppet said...

Fred Butler: Make sure your articles are NOT corn pone or pot-likker in nature.

Actually, the blog could have stood more of that back in "the good old days." Sez I.

Carry on. :-)

Kerry James Allen said...

TP Sock puppet? Hmmmm...

Matt Stutzman said...

I have the same question raised above about temptation and sin.

Phil Johnson said...

I'll plan to answer the "temptation" issue with a full blogpost when I return from Gomorrah.

A. Castellitto said...

I wonder if we can make a distinction between attraction and sexual temptation... Why must attraction have to default to a sexual inclination... Why must it always go there? https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/08/against-obsessive-sexuality

Frank Turk said...

So ... hard ... not ... to ... comment ...

...

...

...

...

!!!

Frank Turk said...

This blog needs to add a commenting rule that Michael Coughlin can no longer comment, "Good post," or any of its cognates.

He knows why. This is why we can't have nice things.

A. Castellitto said...

2 points....


1. we are that totally depraved.... this point is continuously missed with these endeavors (revoice).... too many support groups for our 'special' sins.... and this one is really crossing the line.....

2. the history of 'sexual identity' is a troublesome one...... RCC gets plenty wrong, and if they miss point #1 the link I post is to no effect.... but I think this guy may be on to something here....

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

A. Castellitto said...

Yes, once our sin and evil desire is apparant it should be mortified, not encouraged or publically touted.... If we wrestle we should wrestle but not as part of a spectical or event

Andrew Lindsey said...

In the good old days, this post would have hundreds of comments by now, and we'd be discussing pterodactyls.