If concupiscence were sin, reformers would be right

[Tomster]

That is not what I believe. I believe God is infinitely forgiving. If it was just a matter of forgiving the individual wrongdoings I committed while I was alive, God would forgive them and be done with it.

It is concupiscence itself that keeps people out of heaven. What is a person with concupiscence going to do when he gets there? He doesn’t belong. He would just sin all over again. It is concupiscence that keeps us out of heaven and it is concupiscence that was passed down from Adam & Eve.

You say “when a person dies his concupiscence is no more”. Why? What happened to it?

I agree that when a Christian dies, his concupiscence is no more. I believe his concupiscence will be no more because his nature will be remade at the resurrection. It doesn’t matter if that Christian is a baby or the man born in a coma. their natures still have to be remade at the resurrection. If not, they would still possess the tendency to sin which would just mean their first sin would be in heaven instead of on earth.That’s great, but then what happens to that person? He can’t go to heaven because he has concupiscence. He would mess things up when he got there.

You say “his concupiscence is no more” after death like that is some kind if minor detail hardly worth mentioning. It’s HUGE! That is what it is all about! Us being made fit for heaven.

A preternatural quality belonging to Adam before his fall is of even greater importance than the gift of immortality. Theologically it is called integrity, which, first and foremost, consists in the total absence of concupiscence. In modern English concupiscence is generally understood as applying only to fleshly desire; it is usually restricted to that field wherein it is most violent. But in theological language the word is of much wider application. It indicates any and every motion or impulse of the lower, the sensitive and imaginative, faculties or appetites of man’s nature that is not under the perfect rule and dominion of his higher faculties, reason and will.

continued

 

[Angainor]

I guess it just seemed self-evident that when we die, we’re dead.

I don’t have much to say to that except:"…And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.
Matthew 22:31-33

We’re dead, it’s over.

Sounds dreadful.

Do you think we’ll get hungry too? We won’t feel hunger, we can’t eat! If a glutton were to die in the midst of his unrepented sin of gluttony, he’d have to pay for the sins of gluttony he had committed while still alive–he won’t still be hungry when he’s dead!

There are other methods of disobedience than sins of the flesh.

 

[Tomster]

All our faculties and appetites, even the lowest, are from God and are good in themselves. They tend naturally to find satisfaction in their approptriate acts, and this tendency in itself is good. Above all man’s sensitive faculties stand his reason and his will, his noblest natural endowments, which should govern and direct all his actions if he is to live rightly and worthily as a man. In the possession of these lies essentially his human dignity, by these he is raised immeasurably above all the lower animals. As his highest faculties they have the natural right of dominion over the lower elements of his nature. Experience, however, proves that this dominion is by no means absolute. Our sensitive and imaginative faculties are so quickly and so strongly excited to action that, even when they do not overcome the rational will and lead it captive, as too often happens, they can be dominated and regulated by it only with much effort and often painful striving. “For I do not that good which I will, but the evil which I hate, that I do . . . . For to will is present with me, but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. For the good which I will, I do not; buth the evil which I will not , that I do . . . I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God according to the inward man; but I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin that is in my members.” (Romans 7:15-23).

This unhappy state so vividly pictured by St. Paul is called the state of concupiscence. Every impulse of man’s lower nature not in accord with the dictates of his reason and the urge of his will is a manifestation of concupiscence; it is a proof of the two-sidedness of his nature not yet brought into a perfect oneness or wholeness of activity - a proof, that is, of the abscence of integrity.
Concupiscence is not a sin.

 

[Tomster]

The Remedy

The remedy is the mortification of the senses. As St. Paul tells us, “They that are Christ’s have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences.” (Galatians 5:24) But to crucify the flesh is to fetter, to smother all the impure and inordinate desires we feel in our flesh. To crucify the flesh is likewise to mortify our exterior senses , those channels that put us in contact with things about us and stir within us dangerous desires. The motive, at bottom, giving rise to the obligation of practicing this mortification, is none other than our baptismal vow.

 

[scriabin]

Angainor, you said,

I don’t have much to say to that except:
"…And as for the resurrection of the dead,

Hey, buddy, let’s stay on topic.

You’re quoting a verse about our resurrected bodies (which comes after the Last Judgement at the end of times) to refer to our particular judgement (which occurs immediately after we die) when we are judged according to our deeds. Therefore your rebuttal misses the mark a tad.

Let’s listen to Paul talk about what he believes will happen to us after we die and are “away from our bodies and at home with the Lord.” 2 Cor 5:8

2 Corinthians 5:10 —

“For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he a has done in the body.”

 

[scriabin]

Tomster–

I’m Catholic and agree with you. But just to play the devil’s advocate-- if concupiscence isn’t a sin then why does Paul call it the “law of sin?”

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Tomster–

I’m Catholic and agree with you. But just to play the devil’s advocate-- if concupiscence isn’t a sin then why does Paul call it the “law of sin?”

Speaking from experieince with my own struggle I would say its because of the inclination to sin.

Since concupiscence is only the inclination then we haven’t sinned until we give in to that inclination.

We have to submit to the temptations from our flesh before we have sinned. It is possible to mortify them and resist.

Because some sins seem natural to commit its our knowlege of morality that precludes us from indulging in them.

Humbly seek virtue.

 

[Angainor]

Hey, buddy, let’s stay on topic.

You’re quoting a verse about our resurrected bodies (which comes after the Last Judgement at the end of times) to refer to our particular judgement (which occurs immediately after we die) when we are judged according to our deeds. Therefore your rebuttal misses the mark a tad.

You mean the verse that suggests Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive?

…‘I am [not *will be] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

He is not the God of the dead because Abe and company are alive.

 

[scriabin]

Amen, brother, we will be alive in Heaven.

Again, Angainor, to use the truth that those who have been through their particular judgement and who are now alive in Christ in Heaven (without their resurrected bodies by the way) to imply that we can still sin while dead to our bodies while enduring our particular judgement is to miss the point.

And since you’ve ignored the point I’ll let Paul do the talking:

“For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.”

No more red herring arguments, please. Answer to Paul’s verse.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Since both Catholics and Protestants can see that concupiscence remains in the baptized, how each group defines it determines whether God blots out sin in our souls or merely covers sin with the righteousness of Christ.

For Protestants, since concupiscence is sin and it remains after baptism, this sin “obviously” is merely covered by God’s grace.

That makes God’s grace sound hardly worth mentioning ​

For Catholics, since concupiscence is not sin (since no free will is involved) our souls are pure after baptism, not merely covered over.

What verses in Scripture support the Catholic view that sin must be a free will choice in order for it to be sin?

Sinful acts are not what the doctrine of Calvin (& I think Luther - I’m not certain ) is describing - he was echoing the Book of Job, in not confining the notion of sin to acts of sin - because our sinfulness can be seen rightly only by its contrast with the Holiness of God. As Cardinal Newman said, “We are pleased with ourselves until we look at Him.”​

So our “free agency” or “free will” (they are not synonyms, BTW) to sin, is a side issue - our sinfulness, from which they come, is a symptom of our rebellious & disobedient & imperfectly subdued nature. Sin is not a matter of acts only, but of the poisoned source they come from. To attend to the acts while ignoring their source is a sticking-plaster salvation - our disease is far too serious for a few sticking-plasters to remedy: it’s deadly.

The Reformers call concupiscence sin because “it has the nature of sin, and disposes to sin”. It is sin, even though it is not a particular sinful act. So we are unclean regardless of our intentions, because we have inherited a nature which is depraved & corrupted. (Unless one is to deny that we are all fallen “in Adam” - but if we are “in Adam”, his fall is ours. If someone falls 100 feet to his death, his heart may not have made him stumble & fall, but that doeesn’t mean it’s not staining the ground below: the whole man falls, so the whole man is ruined in what concerns his standing with God. So with the much more terrible fall of Adam - it was the ruin of the entire human race, which was present “virtually” in him as in its ancestor. And as regeneration is a life-long process, the “old Adam” in us is never wholly sanctified. That is the thinking as I understand it. There may be difficulties in squaring it with Trent.

What we call sanctification, Protestant dogmatics calls regeneration (IIRC ); one of the disputes between Catholic & Protestant dogmatics, is over the names & divisions of the “parts” or “stages” in the economy of salvation - so though we often mean the same things, the names differ; which leads to great confusion (This is one of the reasons that Calvinists sometime attack baptismal regeneration - they believe in regeneration as much as we do, but we don’t call regeneration by the same name as they do)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Sinful acts are not what the doctrine of Calvin (& I think Luther - I’m not certain ) is describing - he was echoing the Book of Job, in not confining the notion of sin to acts of sin - because our sinfulness can be seen rightly only by its contrast with the Holiness of God. As Cardinal Newman said, “We are pleased with ourselves, until we look at Him.”​

So our “free agency” or “free will” (they are not synonyms, BTW) to sin, is a side issue - our sinfulness, from which they come, is a symptom of our rebellious & disobedient & imperfectly subdued nature. Sin is not a matter of acts only, but of the poisoned source they come from. To attend to the acts while ignoring their source is a sticking-plaster salvation - our disease is far too serious for a few sticking-plasters to remedy: it’s deadly.

The Reformers (who knew the Bible well) call concupiscence sin because “it has the nature of sin, and disposes to sin”. It is sin, even though it is not a particular sinful act. So we are unclean regardless of our intentions, because we have inherited a nature which is depraved & corrupted. (Unless one is to deny that we are all fallen “in Adam” - but if we are “in Adam”, his fall is ours. If someone falls 100 feet to his death, his heart may not have made him stumble & fall, but that doeesn’t mean it’s not staining the ground below: the whole man falls, so the whole man is ruined. So with the much more terrible fall of Adam - it was the ruin of the entire human race, which was present “virtually” in him as in its ancestor. And as regeneration is a life-long process, the “old Adam” in us is never wholly sanctified. That is the thinking as I understand it. There may be difficulties in squaring it with Trent.

The short answer here is Im almost positive Trent condemns the teaching that concupiscence is sin.

What we call sanctification, Protestant dogmatics calls regeneration (IIRC ); one of the disputes between Catholic & Protestant dogmatics, is over the names & divisions of the “parts” or “stages” in the economy of salvation - so though we often mean the same things, the names differ; which leads to great confusion (This is one of the reasons that Calvinists sometime attack baptismal regeneration - they believe in regeneration as much as we do, but we don’t call regeneration by the same name as they do)

From what I have been told (I dont remember reading the term “regeneration” in major protestant documents) by calvinists is that regeneration comes before justification which results in faith (this is similar to the Catholic teaching of prevenient grace). The calvinists I have talked to dont believe this has an effect on sanctification.

I agree both sides use the same and/or similar terms but either define them differently or order them differently.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The short answer here is Im almost positive Trent condemns the teaching that concupiscence is sin.

Likewise - though whether Trent was condemning that statement as the CC understood it, or as the Reformers did, is a further question. ​

what I have been told (I dont remember reading the term “regeneration” in major protestant documents) by calvinists is that regeneration comes before justification which results in faith (this is similar to the Catholic teaching of prevenient grace). The calvinists I have talked to dont believe this has an effect on sanctification.

I agree both sides use the same and/or similar terms but either define them differently or order them differently.

For your reading pleasure ​

A Discourse of the Efficient Regeneration, by Stephen Charnock
A Discourse of the Word, the Instrument of Regeneration, by Stephen Charnock
A Discourse of the Nature of Regeneration, by Stephen Charnock
The Necessity of Regneration, by Stephen Charnock

Some Reformed Confessions on regeneration: ccel.org/search?qu=Regeneration+&category=fulltext&authorID=schaff&bookID=creeds3

Luther’s “Small Catechism”, Part Four, certainly seems to teach baptismal regeneration: iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-01/luthbook.txt

(Maybe Edwin will comment on this)

Happy reading ! (I hope the links work - if they don’t, pm me)

 

[Angainor]

Again, Angainor, to use the truth that those who have been through their particular judgement and who are now alive in Christ in Heaven (without their resurrected bodies by the way) to imply that we can still sin while dead to our bodies while enduring our particular judgement is to miss the point.

Wow. I said all that?

And since you’ve ignored the point I’ll let Paul do the talking:

“For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.”

No more red herring arguments, please. Answer to Paul’s verse.

It means I’m in trouble. Who can stand?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Likewise - though whether Trent was condemning that statement as the CC understood it, or as the Reformers did, is a further question. ​

That is a good question. I havnt looked into it.

For your reading pleasure ​

A Discourse of the Efficient Regeneration, by Stephen Charnock
A Discourse of the Word, the Instrument of Regeneration, by Stephen Charnock
A Discourse of the Nature of Regeneration, by Stephen Charnock
The Necessity of Regneration, by Stephen Charnock

When dealing with Protestants and regeneration, I like to point out the only time St Paul uses the word is in Titus 3:5, but that is a passage for Baptism. I am going to keep a look out to see if these articles mention Titus 3:5…
Out of 4 articles, the first 3 mentioned Titus 3:5 once, and even then they didnt quote the regeneration part. It is hard to take this Stephen Charnock seriously when he writes multiple articles on regeneration yet wont mention the only verse where St Paul mentions it!

In the last article Titus 3:5 was mentioned 4 times…so I consider that article worth a look. He started off interesting, using Jn 3:5 as his foundation, but suddenly starts attacking the notion the “water and Holy Spirit” can be in reference to Baptism and goes into an anti-Sacramental rant.
As he goes on he gets back on track and a lot of what he said Catholics would agree with. His understanding of regeneration is similar to prevenient grace, the grace which comes first, however He (reformed) sees it as more, he sees it as almost the equivalent of Baptismal regeneration. Funny he later admits Titus 3:5 is talking about Baptism, but his anti-Sacramental inclinations turn it into a mere sign. That was a LONG writing (66 pages!), it took me over an hour just skimming over it.

Some Reformed Confessions on regeneration: ccel.org/search?qu=Regeneration+&category=fulltext&authorID=schaff&bookID=creeds3

Wow, that was a lot of confessions. I looked into the ones I thought were “major confession”. The Westminster kind of talks about it, but not in detail. The Anglican 39 Articles mentions regeneration once but no details. The Hidelburg Catechism mentions it once, relating to Baptism in Titus 3:5. The Lutheran Formula of Concord has some references as well.

Luther’s “Small Catechism”, Part Four, certainly seems to teach baptismal regeneration: iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-01/luthbook.txt

(Maybe Edwin will comment on this)

Both Luther’s Large and Small Catechism reference Titus 3:5 as Baptismal regeneration.

 

[Tomster]

Tomster–

I’m Catholic and agree with you. But just to play the devil’s advocate-- if concupiscence isn’t a sin then why does Paul call it the “law of sin?”

If we were to examine this question simply from what our own reason and experience tell us of life, we might not be justified in making the bold statement that there is no one who can keep the whole of the moral law without the help of God. The sight of so much evil, even among men who believe in God and profess some form of religion, might make us pause, and a analysis of the tendencies of the human heart might make us feel that sooner or later, in one way or another, by sin of the spirit if not by sin of the flesh, men will fail to observe perfectly the dictates of the moral law; but would this justify us in saying universally that without divine grace no man can avoid evil? Probably not; and therefore it is not on appeal to reason, but on the authority of God’s revealed word, that Catholic theology bases its assertion of man’s moral incapacity. And the passage on which we chiefly rely has already been quoted. It occurs in the seventh chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, and requires very careful reading.

continued

 

[Tomster]

In the first chapter of this epistle St. Paul paints in vivid colors the moral degradation in which the pagan world had fallen, and in the seventh chapter he speaks of the wretched condition even of the man who has the advantage of the Jewish Law. That law, he asserts, was an occassion of sin; for by forbidding things, it created a desire for them: “sin taking occassion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence” (Romans 7:8); but it did not give any internal help to compensate. Hence the Jew living under the law finds it impossible to keep altogether from sin. “The good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do” (Romans 7:19). There is only one means of escape; and that is the grace of God (Romans 7:25).

Such is the thought of St. Paul; and the only conclusion which we can draw from it is that without the help of God which comes to us through Christ it is impossible to keep from sin. “The law of of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, has delivered me from the law of sin and death” (Roman 8:2).

continued

 

[Tomster]

On the strength of this teaching of St.Paul, and supported by the authority of earlier Christian writers who in various ways insisted upon man’s natural weakness, the champions of Catholic orthodoxy against the teaching of Pelagius strenuously maintained the necessity of help from God if a man is to keep from sin, and, although the Church has never defined the matter in so many words, there can be no doubt that this is the only true doctrine, and that it would be a grievous error for anyone to deny it. Yet it is open to some serious objections which the Pelagians were quick to seize upon. If we cannot keep the moral law without the help of God, how (it may be asked) can we logically maintain that man is free? Surely, if man MUST sin, he has no freedom in the matter. And if he is not free, but impelled by necessity to evil action, how can he be said to commit sin - since sin implies freedom to abstain from wrong? Pelagius himself put the difficulty in the form of a neat dilemma. “Is sin a thing which can be avoided, or a thing which cannot be avoided? If it cannot be avoided, it is no sin; and if it can be avoided, man can be without it.”

To meet this objection theologians introduce an important distinction between a physical impossiblity and a moral impossibility.

More later. Out of time.