We’ve had a look at what John Calvin has to say about desire (concupiscence). It is worth widening out our look at the Reformed tradition.
The Westminister Confession
The Westminster Confession’s 6th chapter is all about sin. I note that in the version I’ve got in front of me, the term concupiscence doesn’t appear in the main text but only in a footnote where it is used in place of “sinful passions” (NIV & ESV) in Romas 7:5. [1] The key statement is at article 5:
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. [2]
Corruption refers to the affect of original sin on Adam and his descendants. The point then is to do with indwelling sin and so the point made is that sin has an ongoing impact on the believer. There is a “now and not yet” dimension to our post conversion nature. On the one hand, Christ’s atonement means that we are no longer under condemnation and that Christ goes so far as to put to death our sin. That is one perspective on our situation. However, from another perspective the sin is still there. We know this reality and both Romans 7-8 and 1 John 1 and 3 recognise this.
It is worth noting that the Westminster Confession does not go so far as to say that all desire is definitely sin and certainly does not talk about temptation. However, the point that “all motions thereof” are sin suggests that desire could be and indeed I would argue indicates that it would be likely to be considered sin. However, caution is still required in my opinion because, aa we have noted previously, there is a complexity to how desire functions. Certainly, I would not take any suggestion from this that temptation is desire.
It is also fascinating to look at how the Westminster Confession is treated in some circles. Kevin DeYoung even goes so far as to preach a sermon on this chapter, working through the text of the Confession. Although technically his Biblical text is James 1:12-15, by starting with an exposition of the Westminster Confession, this becomes the lens through which James is read. In fact, we are reading James 1:12-15 through the lens of DeYoung’s fallible interpretation the Westminster Confession, a fallible text itself.[3] What we are seeing is that there are question marks even about those interpretations.
The 39 Articles
The Church of England’s 39 Articles are often recognised as a Reformed document. Here’s what article 9 has to say about Original Sin:
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, ,(which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.[4]
Notice again that there is a recognition that indwelling sin has a continuing affect on the believer. Here, concupiscence is explicitly referred to. Whilst the authors talk about “concupiscence and lust”, they talk in the singular about them “hath of itself the nature of sin.” This suggests that we are not meant to be thinking of two different categories. I would suspect that lust is seen as a significant aspect or example of concupiscence though the problem is broader than sexual lust and refers to all cravings or illicit desires.
The 39 Articles insist that concupiscence has the nature of sin, though exactly what is meant by that is left undefined. Does it mean that every desire experienced and every temptation encountered are themselves sinful acts?
Turretin
One of my favourite Reformed works is Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Here, he sets out a lengthy set of propositions concerning God, humanity and Christian belief before affirming, denying or distinguishing them. They are worth a read if only for a grounding in robust, logical thinking when doing theology.
Turretin says that
“Concupiscence is used either philosophically and means the same as concupiscible appetite or theologically and popularly in which sense, evil propensities of the will belong to it.” [5]
In other words, Turretin understands it to refer to “the flesh” or “sinful human nature.” Again, it is associated with indwelling sin. It is worth observing, that contra the Roman Catholic position he sees it as an act of the will. This is probably not to distinguish voluntary from involuntary desire but rather by removing the higher/lower self distinction, we recognise that all of our desires are in some sense willed. We cannot excuse ourselves from them. In defining concupiscence this way, Turretin is following Augustine whom he says used the term to refer to Original Sin.
Turretin agrees with other Reformers and Confessions in going against the Roman Catholic view that believers no longer sin in this way:
“Now the concupiscence is sin not only in the unbelieving and unrenewed but also in believers and the renewed (whatever the papists may assert who hold that it can be called a weakness and disease of nature and a depravation, the effect of sin and the cause of sins, but deny that it has the relation of sins, but deny that it has the relation of sin properly so called).” [6]
Turretin also understands James 1:12-15 to be talking of concupiscence not only to be the cause of sin but sin in and of itself. [7] This does raise the question as to whether we agree with his interpretation of James 1. However, again, it is worth noting that he has already determined that he is talking about indwelling sin and about lust/evil desires.
Conclusion
It is certainly the case that a significant body of Reformed thinking classifies concupiscence as sin. The outstanding question though is as to whether or not contemporary references to desire and temptation are intended to refer to concupiscence as understood by Calvin, Turretin, the WCF and the 39 Articles.
My suspicion is that people are talking a little at cross purposes about linked but subtly different things. It is important therefore for those who are arguing that our desires and temptations are not in themselves sin have carefully thought through how they handle the question of ongoing indwelling sin. Do they have a place for this in their doctrine of humanity?
Those who have been quick to suggest that those who have argued against calling temptation and desire sin also need to give careful consideration to what is happening before leaping to conclusions. When people like John Stevens in his book, “The Fight of your life” or speaking from the perspective of organisations like Living Out seek to distinguish desire, temptation and sin from each other, are they talking about concupiscence as the reformers understood i. In other words are they talking about the ongoing affect of original sin as indwelling sin?
It is worth noting too that the Reformers and current pastoral thinkers are perhaps trying to do two different things. Just as we might be looking for Scripture to do things it is not attempting to do, the same may well be true of historical theologies. It seems to me that the Reformers at the stage are less interested in practical pastoral advice about how to understand your desires and how to respond to temptation (not that they do not consider these matters in the wider scheme of things) and more interested at this point in understanding the nature of original sin and total depravity.
[1] Westminster Confession of Faith, 6.v. Westminster_Confession.pdf
[2] Westminster Confession of Faith, 6.v. Westminster_Confession.pdf
[3] When Desire Destroys | Clearly Reformed
[4] Thirty Nine Articles of Religion
[5] Turretin, IX.Xi.ix.
[6] Turretin, IX.Xi.xx.
[7] Turretin, IX.Xi.xxii.
Faithroots 