There’s an interesting little phrase in the Thirty Nine Articles, it appears in article 9 which discusses original sin. In full, the article says:
“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.”[1]
The phrase is used to describe concupiscence and lust and it is that concupiscence has “the nature of sin. The phrase also reappears in article 13.
“Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”
The question has recently been asked as to whether this means that the 39 Articles are saying that concupiscence is sin. My response would be cautious here, I would suggest that we need to think carefully both about what we mean by “concupiscence” and what we mean by “sin”. In other words, if you were to ask the question to the drafters, they might say “yes” but then might want to do some careful distinguishing if they were to hear what is being heard when the words concupiscence and sin are used in the current debate.
I’ve talked in more detail about our understanding of what desire is in previous articles and the need to understand that complex anatomy of desires. So, I want to focus here on the question of sin. Too much of recent conversation has focused in on whether or not specific desires and inclinations are sin and need to be repented of or temptations to be resisted with a focus on narrow categories. Yet, when you look closely at the article, you will realise that it isn’t addressing that kind of question.
The article is dealing specifically with the question of original sin and how it affects us both as fallen sinners and redeemed believers. The main point is a response to Pelegianism and I guess would include in that the kind of semi-Pelagianism that characterised the Roman Catholic position that Protestants/The Reformers were challenging. The articles are clear that we don’t simply sin by following Adam’s example, just as we are not justified by following Christ’s example. Rather we are born with a sinful nature and the result of that nature is that that we have a bias towards sin including lust (where I take lust to have that wider sense of craving rather than a narrow focus on sexual lust). This then feeds into article 13, before we believe, even our attempts at good works arise from that sinful nature.
This leads to a question about what happens following conversion? There have at times been some suggestions in some traditions that either at conversion or through some second, later spiritual experience, we are completely freed not just from the penalty of sin but from its very presence. The Article therefore goes on to state that even after conversion, there is an infection, or that there is continued indwelling sin. Where then is our lust, or concupiscence in the sense of wrong desires coming from? The answer is that it is not to do with our new life in Christ but to do with our old fallen nat
And that is as much as the article says. It isn’t attempting to answer our modern questions and as a result perhaps does not say a whole load of things that people are looking for it to say or claiming it says. In fact, it (and the reformers generally) might be seem to say less that we do about the current question. However, there is a sense in which they say more. This means, I think that we would do well to pursue their arguments where they take us, digging deeper and it also means that we also have to do a bit more work at answering the contemporary question.
Faithroots 