The primary claim of those arguing that concupiscence is sin with the implication that it is sinful to even be tempted is that theirs is the historical position of the church. This will often include a reference to Augustine, although his view doesn’t seem to have been as clear cut. However, the claim is also that this was the historical position of protestant and reformed theology in contrast to how Catholic theology had developed.
So, it is worth looking at how the key reformers including Calvin approached the subject and indeed at how some of the confessions and articles of faith to arise out of the Protestant and Reformed positions saw it. I’ve already referred to Calvin’s commentary on James and this is perhaps a good starting point.
James 1:12-15 says:
12 Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
Calvin distinguishes the trial or temptation of v12 as external temptation from v13 which he considers internal temptation:
Here, no doubt, he speaks of another kind of temptation. It is abundantly evident that the external temptations, hitherto mentioned, are sent to us by God. In this way God tempted Abraham, (Genesis 22:1,) and daily tempts us, that is, he tries us as to what are we by laying before us an occasion by which our hearts are made known. But to draw out what is hid in our hearts is a far different thing from inwardly alluring our hearts by wicked lusts. He then treats here of inward temptations which are nothing else than the inordinate desires which entice to sin. He justly denies that God is the author of these, because they flow from the corruption of our nature.”[1]
On verse 15, he comments:
He first calls that lust which is not any kind of evil affection or desire, but that which is the fountain of all evil affections; by which, as he shews, are conceived vicious broods, which at length break forth into sins. It seems, however, improper, and not according to the usage of Scripture, to restrict the word sin to outward works, as though indeed lust itself were not a sin, and as though corrupt desires, remaining closed up within and suppressed, were not so many sins. But as the use of a word is various, there is nothing unreasonable if it be taken here, as in many other places, for actual sin.[2]
Notice here that Calvin is insistent that desire itself may well be sin. We should not assume that sin is limited to “outward works” or our words and actions. It is possible to sin in our thought life, particularly with regards to lust. The desire itself may actually be sin.
This he contrasts with the Roman Catholic position:
And the Papists ignorantly lay hold on this passage, and seek to prove from it that vicious, yea, filthy, wicked, and the most abominable lusts are not sins, provided there is no assent; for James does not shew when sin begins to be born, so as to be sin, and so accounted by God, but when it breaks forth. For he proceeds gradually and shews that the consummation of sin is eternal death, and that sin arises from depraved desires, and that these depraved desires or affections have their root in lust. It hence follows that men gather fruit in eternal perdition, and fruit which they have procured for themselves. By perfected sin, therefore, I understand, not any one act of sin perpetrated, but the completed course of sinning. For though death is merited by every sin whatever, yet it is said to be the reward of an ungodly and wicked life. Hence is the dotage of those confuted who conclude from these words, that sin is not mortal until it breaks forth, as they say, into an external act. Nor is this what James treats of; but his object was only this, to teach that there is in us the root of our own destruction.[3]
The Catholic view of Concupiscence is set out in the Council of Trent decree on Original Sin:
This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin,[23] the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.[4]
The reference to “the apostle” is to Paul in Romans 5-8. The Catholic position was that concupiscence is not necessarily sin in and of itself for those who are regenerate, although it come be. It relates to sin and is referred to as such, not because it is an actual sinful act but because it is caused by original sin and can cause sin itself.
That the Catholic church seems to be potentially disagreeing with Paul or at least seeking to clarify him should set off a few red lights. This also perhaps indicates that when contemporary authors and preachers argue that desire and temptation are not sin, that they are probably not speaking about the same thing as Paul, the Council of Trent or Calvin.
Trent seems more concerned with desire as lust, in other words, the desire which is entertained in the believer’s mind. It is clear that those who reject the possibility that any desire in and of itself and the initial temptation being sinful would consider lust to be sin and indeed here as well as sexual lust we might include other forms of craving such as greed and covetousness.
As I’ve observed previously, it is helpful to have a feel for the metaphysic behind Catholic thinking. See for example this explanation of 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. To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end. But the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratifications independently of the understanding and without regard to the good of the higher faculties. Hence desires contrary to the real good and order of reason may, and often do, rise in it, previous to the attention of the mind, and once risen, dispose the bodily organs to the pursuit and solicit the will to consent, while they more or less hinder reason from considering their lawfulness or unlawfulness. This is concupiscence in its strict and specific sense. As long, however, as deliberation is not completely impeded, the rational will is able to resist such desires and withhold consent, though it be not capable of crushing the effects they produce in the body, and though its freedom and dominion be to some extent diminished. If, in fact, the will resists, a struggle ensues, the sensuous appetite rebelliously demanding its gratification, reason, on the contrary, clinging to its own spiritual interests and asserting it control. “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.”[5]
As I’ve previously observed, the Catholic view of human nature assumed a higher and lower-self with reason and grace applying to the higher-self. It was there that it was presumed sin could either be acquiesced or resisted. Calvin insists not only that something is sin, even if it does not break out into outward acts but also even if it is suppressed to the lower-self.
At this stage it is worth noting that Calvin has not argued that temptation is sin or that any and every desire is automatically sin from the beginning. However, this is of course, not all that he has to say on the subject: In a sermon on Galatians 5:19-23, he argues:
The Popish doctors display their excessive stupidity by saying that it is not a sin to think evil, or to be tempted, as long as one does not consent to do it. A man could be tempted to wrong his neighbour in some way; he may have a grievance or frustration which makes him want to avenge himself upon the person who has offended him. If the occasion were to arise, he would be delighted. This is not sin, they tell us, unless he has consented to the temptation with resolve. They are only wiping their mouths like whores, or showing their snouts like sows, after they have wallowed in the mire and dirt. A man may murmur against God and be angry with him, and doubt whether God will look after him; he may be troubled by many mistrustful thoughts, so that he cannot find refuge in God; but none of these things are sin according to the Papists. I am not saying that the common herd are the only ones to be deceived in these matters, for all of their schools hold to the doctrine and belief that this is not sin. They do say that all is sin before baptism; but after baptism, all becomes virtuous, however much we may doubt God, or however many grievances we have against him. We may be very impatient with him, or agitated about this matter or that — but we cannot be accused if we have not been moved to practise evil outwardly! In short, if we are inclined to all that God condemns and reproves in his law — all that is unlawful — it is nothing. They are well suited to believe such stupid things! After all, they have made idols and grotesque statues to worship, and now their minds have become darkened as they make merry around their gods, scoffing at us, as at a little child holding forth about righteousness and integrity. We must not, therefore, be surprised if such people behave like this. Because they have falsified the glory of God and destroyed it, they must be completely brutish.
As for us, let us note the words which I have already quoted from the apostle Paul, namely, that the law is spiritual. If we are convicted as rebels against God because of external, visible acts, let us remember that God will find an infinite number, indeed, an abyss of evil desires writhing inside of us, though they are not regarded by men as rendering us guilty. We must, therefore, conclude that in everything and in every way we are drowned in perdition, until God looks in pity upon us, and draws us out. The way to apply this text of Paul’s to our instruction is as follows: inasmuch as we are unaware of the sins that lurk within us, it is necessary for God to come and examine our lives. After this, we will learn to humble ourselves. So then, once we see the sins that are known and evident to all, and which cannot be excused, even in the eyes of little children, may we be led even further to sound out the depths, and acknowledge that all our appetites and thoughts are like many rebellions against God. Yet if each of us were more careful to examine ourselves in this way, we would all surely have occasion to tremble and sigh; all haughtiness and pride would be cast down and we would be ashamed of every aspect of our lives. But we know that each of us turns away as much as we can from any knowledge of our sins; we throw them all behind our backs. God does not forget them; though we may want them to be forgotten, he has to keep them in remembrance. This is what Paul attracts our attention to in this passage.[6]
Here again, it is worth bearing in mind that Calvin is responding to Roman Catholic thinking rooted in the metaphysics I’ve discussed above. The point is that you cannot excuse sin by arguing that it was just in your inner thought life or that you were not consenting to it. Again, this goes against the notion that things happen at the level of the supposed lower-self are excused. Furthermore, it helps us to recognise that it is not enough simply to passively not consent, if in effect that means we go along with the notion of sin, if we entertain and nurture the desire. Indeed, we are required to resist temptation. If we have simply not put it into action just because we have not had the opportunity to do so, then we cannot claim to have resisted temptation. In other words, if Uriah the Hittite had returned home from the frontline early for whatever reason and David had not been able to put his plan to take Bathsheba then this does not mean he would have been blameless.
Calvin also touches upon Concupiscence in his Institutes of the Christian Religion when he says:
“We hold that there is always sin in the saints, until they are freed from their mortal frame, because depraved concupiscence resides in their flesh, and is at variance with rectitude. Augustine himself does not always refrain from using the name of sin, as when he says, “Paul gives the name of sin to that carnal concupiscence from which all sins arise. This in regard to the saints loses its dominion in this world, and is destroyed in heaven.” In these words he admits that believers, in so far as they are liable to carnal concupiscence, are chargeable with sin.”[7]
Again, note here that he specifically talks about “depraved concupiscence” as something that “resides in the flesh” and this this means “there is always sin in the saints” until death. Once again, this does not look like a clear-cut suggestion that the initial desire is sin, that to be tempted is sin. It is however a recognition that the believer continues to have a struggle with sin, and that this includes an internal struggle. As I’ve noted previously, we do need to tease out a little bit more about what Calvin means by this and what contemporary interlocutors mean when they use the language of sin, temptation and desire.
[1] Calvin, John. Commentary on James (pp. 17-18). Ravenio Books. Kindle Edition.
[2] Calvin, John. Commentary on James (p. 19). Ravenio Books. Kindle Edition.
[3] Calvin, John. Commentary on James (p. 20). Ravenio Books. Kindle Edition.
[4] Decree Concerning Original Sin & DECREE CONCERNING REFORM | EWTN
[5] See CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Concupiscence
[6] John Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, trans. Kathy Childress (Edinburgh/Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1997), 542-43
[7] Calvin, 3.3.10.
Faithroots 