Romans 7 and Concupiscence

[JMKC]

I’ve been searching for an answer to this for some time now and I’m wondering if anyone has an answer to it. Romans 7:17 says “Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” I’ve been in discussion with a Lutheran friend who points out that in Romans 7, St. Paul continually talks about sin dwelling (or being “housed”) within him. Catholics argue that he is referring to concupiscence however why would he write “sin” if he meant “inclination to sin”? Would arguing this position constitute doing what we say some protestants do with John 6 (i.e. they says that Jesus doesn’t really mean we have to eat His flesh even though those are the words he uses)? Is there any way to answer my friend without saying “well, St. Paul means concupiscence”?

 

[down_under]

push

this is a good question never heard this one. I am wondering if he is referring to the golem syndrome. in one shinning moment smegal had his name back, he was not a slave to the ring any more he had a new master now. and in this he found the courage to push the ring away. he did not start eating good food right away or walking upright these were ingrained habits which would have required lots of time to change. Is this what he is talking about? I am not a scholar I don’t know but it is an interesting point.

it could be that he is saying that he is working on his second conversion. the first is that wonderful grace where you turn you back on serious sin. the second is where you finally put to bed the lessor sins which normally plague the rest of us for the rest of our lives until we meet the Christ.

someone smarter than me who has sources please give this a shot.

 

[rcwitness]

I am young in Catholic Teaching, but to give my thoughts. He is probably talking about our sinful nature, our weakness in the flesh. We are are forgiven of it but is always in conflict with the Spirit. For many like Paul it is our ugly sins that make us realize our grave state, as opposed to the laws of Moses or our parents rules. (Alluded to in the beginning of chapter)

The kindof struggle we will deal with til we are in the total habitat of God.(Heaven)

Oh, i think a world apart from the way Jesus repeatedly explained His flesh and blood are indeed food. Its a doctrine compared to a confession of struggle.

Good question,
Leave it to Paul to exspress such difficult matters!
Michael

Ps, why cant you tell him concupiscience? Wasnt Martin Luthers whole smoke screen in order to get married out of concupiscence? JK!

 

[Nigel7]

“Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” I’ve been in discussion with a Lutheran friend who points out that in Romans 7, St. Paul continually talks about sin dwelling (or being “housed”) within him. Catholics argue that he is referring to concupiscence however

why would he write “sin” if he meant “inclination to sin”?

Because it is that sin that dwells in him which inclines/attracts him towards that sin. He’s identifying the source of his troubles, so to speak. After all, it is ultimately not sins effects on our wills (concupiscence) but rather sin itself which causes us to do those things which Paul is referring to.

 

[thistle]

I’ve been searching for an answer to this for some time now and I’m wondering if anyone has an answer to it. Romans 7:17 says “Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” I’ve been in discussion with a Lutheran friend who points out that in Romans 7, St. Paul continually talks about sin dwelling (or being “housed”) within him. Catholics argue that he is referring to concupiscence however why would he write “sin” if he meant “inclination to sin”? Would arguing this position constitute doing what we say some protestants do with John 6 (i.e. they says that Jesus doesn’t really mean we have to eat His flesh even though those are the words he uses)? Is there any way to answer my friend without saying “well, St. Paul means concupiscence”?

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 17-18. Now then it is no more I that do it: To will good is present with me. These expressions all shew that he speaks of temptations that affect the sense only, the imagination, or the members of the body, but to which the mind and the will give no consent, but retain an aversion to them; and so long they never can be truly and properly sins, which must be with full deliberation and consent. (Witham) — The apostle here means to say, that he knew by experience that evil and not good dwelt within him, according to the flesh. He does not contradict this passage when he says elsewhere, that our members are the temples of the Holy Ghost: (1 Corinthians iii. 6.[16.?] &c.) for good cannot be found in our flesh, inasmuch as it is corrupted by sin; whence our Saviour says, “What is born of flesh, is flesh.” (John iii.) But good is in our body, when our members under the influence of the soul, renewed by the Holy Ghost residing in it, are employed in good works. The meaning of this passage is, that although now healed and renewed by grace, he could have a perfect desire of doing good; yet still on account of the evil of concupiscence dwelling in his flesh, he found not himself able to perform all the good he wished, because concupiscence was always urging him on to evil against his will. (Estius)