If concupiscence were sin, reformers would be right

[scriabin]

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.

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?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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.

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?

Concupiscence is our attraction or inclination towards sin of the flesh, concupiscence itself is not sin. After Baptism no sin, of any kind, remains in the soul. As St. Paul says we are re-born, a new creation, not “re-furbished.”

 

[Angainor]

Let me ask you this:

Does a being possessing concupiscence belong in heaven?

If no, then that demonstrates that concupiscence in and of itself is a disqualification for entrance into heaven.

A being that possessed concupiscence requires salvation even if, by some chance*, never happened to have an occasion to commit an actual act of sin.

*Something way out of the ordinary. Say a person was born in a coma, grew up, woke up from the coma for two minutes, then died.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

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.

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?

I didn’t think that concupiscence was in the evangelical vocabulary because the theology I often encounter is that the we cannot be sinless while on earth.

Concupiscence is the inclination to sin it is not in and of itself sin.

It does remain after baptism though the stain of the sin of Adam does not. Though the penalty for a sin may be cleansed and forgiven the temporal punishment for it remains.

An example would be if you physically damaged your hand for punching someone who forgives you for your violent act because you repented. Though you are forgiven of your act your hand is still damaged. Sin is death to the flesh and forgiveness does not make the flesh immortal.

CCC:
405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.” 2 Tim 2:5.

Because we are sinners doesn’t mean we have to commit sin.

We can sin accidentally by weakness or intentionally by choice.
Both are sin though obviously the choice to sin would be make one more culpable of the sin.

Ignorance of the law is not and excuse even though the Lords Mercy prevails over our weakness.

We are called by the Lord to resist the temptations to sin.

It takes an act of the will and the help of Gods grace to succeed in resisting and mortifying our concupiscence.

CCC:
2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” (Gal 5:16,17,24; Eph 2:3. )

Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.

978 "When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them. . . . Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil "

You can find here:
“Reconciliation and A Biblical Portrait of Sin”
that may contain the scriptures your seek or you might try searching the footnotes of the CCC.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

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?

Two good passages of Scripture are:3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

6 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.”

8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
Genesis 3
This passage is very important. It occurs RIGHT AFTER the fall in Gen 3. Here it is clear Cain felt the urge to sin, but it wasnt a sin unless he actually acted upon it, which he willfully did.
Another famous one:12Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.
13When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
James 1
This again shows that the mere temptation to sin is not sin, nor is it God tempting you. And in the end it is you who willfully give in and sin.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Let me ask you this:

Does a being possessing concupiscence belong in heaven?

If no, then that demonstrates that concupiscence in and of itself is a disqualification for entrance into heaven.

A being that possessed concupiscence requires salvation even if, by some chance*, never happened to have an occasion to commit an actual act of sin.

*Something way out of the ordinary. Say a person was born in a coma, grew up, woke up from the coma for two minutes, then died.

Once perfected, we will no longer be tempted or have any tendency to sin. A person born in a coma, could be Baptized while in the coma, and would go to Heaven if they died two minutes after waking up.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I didn’t think that concupiscence was in the evangelical vocabulary because the theology I often encounter is that the we cannot be sinless while on earth.

I think Christ showed it was possible by example.

Concupiscence is the inclination to sin it is not in and of itself sin.

Who is right?

Concupiscence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In theology, concupiscence refers to the orientation or inclination or innate tendency of human beings to do evil. It is derived from the Latin word concupiscentia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence

Concupiscence
In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.
newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

Because we are sinners doesn’t mean we have to commit sin.

Which means it is possible, however unlikely, to live a sinless life.

We can sin accidentally by weakness or intentionally by choice.

Sin is a conscious choice. “for sin, being the free and deliberate transgression of the law of God, can be only in the rational will;”

Ignorance of the law is not and excuse even though the Lords Mercy prevails over our weakness.

Those who can claim true ignorance are shrinking in number. Doubtless the whole world knows about Jesus Christ.

It takes an act of the will and the help of Gods grace to succeed in resisting and mortifying our concupiscence.

NewAdvent:

From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature.

Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.

Not to suggest you are completly wrong, I think NewAdvent is more accurate.

"Hence the distinction of concupiscence antecedent and concupiscence consequent to the consent of the will; the latter is sinful, the former is not. "

I think the distinction is important which seems to slightly vary from what I read in yours. To concentrate on the natural inclination toward good rather than evil.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Sin is a conscious choice. “for sin, being the free and deliberate transgression of the law of God, can be only in the rational will;”

Granted, the point I meant to make was that we are not always up to the task to mortify our concupisence and as a reasult sin from that weakness though I suppose it is still a choice as you say. Thanks be to God for his Mercy. May we never fail to turn to his Merciful help in time of temptation. Mercy that will over come the weakness of the flesh in its war with the spirit.

Not to suggest you are completly wrong, I think NewAdvent is more accurate.

Though I tried to speak a bit with my own fallable tongue I was not wrong.

Your quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia is out of context as its completed with the rest of that definition:

But the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained

 

[Angainor]

Angainor:

Say a person was born in a coma, grew up, woke up from the coma for two minutes, then died.

A person born in a coma, could be Baptized while in the coma, and would go to Heaven if they died two minutes after waking up.

I agree. He would go to heaven because he was justified.

But what would his state have been if he wasn’t baptized? He didn’t get a chance to perform an act of sin. Is he fit for heaven?

I say no because a person with a tendency to sin is not fit for heaven. They wouldn’t belong there. They need to be justified.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

I agree. He would go to heaven because he was justified.

But what would his state have been if he wasn’t baptized? He didn’t get a chance to perform an act of sin. Is he fit for heaven?

I say no because a person with a tendency to sin is not fit for heaven. They wouldn’t belong there. They need to be justified.

You are correct. He would retain the stain of original sin but at the same time not be culpable of sin.

We cannot insult Gods Mercy. The church doesn’t condemn him and neither would God.

He would just get a minute in purgatory to remove that stain.

This is why the Church as always viewed Purgatory as Gods Mercy.

 

[Angainor]

Angainor:

Say a person was born in a coma, grew up, woke up from the coma for two minutes, then died.

He would just get a minute in purgatory to remove that stain.

This is why the Church as always viewed Purgatory as Gods Mercy.

That’s it then. Doesn’t this demonstrate that the evangelical reformers were right?

It was the concupiscence alone that disqualified him from heaven. If it wasn’t for God’s merciful gift of a minute of purgatory, he would be barred.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

That’s it then. Doesn’t this demonstrate that the evangelical reformers were right?

It was the concupiscence alone that disqualified him from heaven. If it wasn’t for God’s merciful gift of a minute of purgatory, he would be barred.

First, which evangelical reformers do you mean? Luther?

and no I do not think the protest is correct because concupiscence in and of itself is not a sin.

If the man you mention is not baptized then the stain of origninal sin remains. How is he to be admitted to heaven with such an imperfection? He cannot.

Purgatory purges the stain of that original sin. Its speculation on my part how God accomplishes that.

It has nothing to do with the condition of concupiscense.
Your inclination to sin is no more a sin than is your inclination to heterosexuality.

 

[Angainor]

If the man you mention is not baptized then the stain of origninal sin remains. How is he to be admitted to heaven with such an imperfection? He cannot.

I completely agree.

I am confused. Isn’t “sin” more or less “that what keeps you out of heaven”?

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Do Lutherans, Greeks and Roman Catholic believe in baptism of infants?

I think we all do.

Do we all agree that an infant that dies goes to Heaven?

I think we all agree on that.

Those are honest questions.

I do not know the answers for all Lutherans, nor am I certain of the Greek Orthodox teaching.

This much I know Biblically, it God’s love poured into our new hearts that saves the infant and adult.

The details are too great for me to comprehend.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

I completely agree.

I am confused. Isn’t “sin” more or less “that what keeps you out of heaven”?

Sin seperates us from God.

Sin repented of doesn’t.

Doubt in Gods mercy may impede our hourney to heaven. We must choose him with the free wills he gave to us.

Refusal to serve will keep us out of heaven and was the act of envy that brought death into the world.

1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere “to the end” and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for “all men to be saved.” She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:

Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end.

 

[scriabin]

Let me ask you this:

Does a being possessing concupiscence belong in heaven?

To a Catholic this question doesn’t really make sense because when a person dies concupiscence no longer tests the soul.

Another way to phrase your question might be: “Does a being possessing anger belong in heaven?”

Dead people don’t possess anger. They are immediately judged for the anger they had **while alive **and are witheld from heaven because of the punishment due to this anger while they were alive, not because the dead person’s soul still “posesses anger.”

In a similar way, when a person dies his concupiscence is no more, and Lutherans believe he should be held accountable for the concupiscence he had** while alive **because you think it was a sin.

We Catholics believe the inclination to sin is not a sin because it lacks a ‘free will’ assent to these inclinations (see CatholicDude’s post for biblical evidence that sin needs a free will assent)-- so no punishment would be needed for a person **who only had concupiscence while alive **and never actually committed a sin.

Instead of using hypothetical cases such as these to attempt to philosophize your way into showing that concupiscence is actually a sin, I think Protestants typically should refer to Romans’ calling concupiscence “the law of sin” as greater evidence for this belief. (Romans 7:17-23)

 

[Angainor]

In a similar way, when a person dies his concupiscence is no more, and Lutherans believe he should be held accountable for the concupiscence he had** while alive **because you think it was a sin.

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.

no punishment would be needed for a person **who only had concupiscence while alive **and never actually committed a sin.

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.

 

[scriabin]

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

No more sin, no more good works, no more chance to act, no chance to repent of past sins.

At the moment of death we will be judged for what we did in this life, good and bad.

Paul describes the concupiscence of the flesh in Romans: “Who will deliver me from this body of death?” “the law of death that dwells in my members”

We won’t have our bodies to fight against us. Our inclinations to follow the “desires of the flesh” (Galations 5:16) won’t be there because our flesh won’t be there.

The moment of death is the time for particular judgement based on what we have done while alive.

Or, to put it another way, how can there be an inclination to sin when we can’t sin? We’re dead, it’s over.

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!

 

[cor]

Someone above seemed to suggest that temporal punishment for sin can remain after a valid baptism. That is not correct. Baptism removes all punishment for sin. What can remain are temporal consequences of sin. Here’s what the CCC says:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins,** as well as all punishment for sin**.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68

The sacrament of confession is however different. In confession, temporal punishment for sin can remain whereas in baptism (and according to private revelation) in the Divine Mercy Sunday special grace, it does not.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Someone above seemed to suggest that temporal punishment for sin can remain after a valid baptism. That is not correct. Baptism removes all punishment for sin. What can remain are temporal consequences of sin. Here’s what the CCC says:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins,** as well as all punishment for sin**.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68

The sacrament of confession is however different. In confession, temporal punishment for sin can remain whereas in baptism (and according to private revelation) in the Divine Mercy Sunday special grace, it does not.

Ah, good catch.

Would you agree then that concupiscence is the temporal consequence or original sin?

Do you not see the consequence as the temporal punishment sometimes?

Lacking strong faith and Love for the Lord and from a humanistic view point wouldn’t this be good reason to avoid sin?

In a disordered “fear of the Lord” that is.

Thanks.