Concupiscence Is Truly Sin

As to the first, they deny that concupiscence or tinder is prohibited by the law of God because they do not consider it to be a sin. … But the orthodox think concupiscence is both properly sin and is prohibited by the law.

Now who can believe that Paul would so often and so expressly have called that sin, if it was not true sin and properly so called, but only because it flowed from sin and inclined to sin (as the Council falsely maintained)?

So far is it from being lawfully inferred from this that lust is not sin that by necessary consequence its sinfulness can thence be elicited. The effect ought to correspond with the cause; nor could lust bring forth actual sin unless it is itself sin.

He, then, who admits not that all the desires of the flesh are sins, and that that disease of concupiscence, which they call a stimulus, is a fountain of sin, must of necessity deny that the transgression of the law is sin.

We hold that all human desires are evil, and we charge them with sin not in as far as they are natural, but because they are inordinate, and inordinate because nothing pure and upright can proceed from a corrupt and polluted nature.

Those who maintain that concupiscence is not sin, are wont to found on the passage of James, "Then, when lust has conceived, it bringeth forth sin," (James 1:15). But this is easily refuted: for unless we understand him as speaking only of wicked works or actual sins, even a wicked inclination will not be accounted sin. But from his calling crimes and wicked deeds the fruits of lust, and also giving them the name of sins, it does not follow that the lust itself is not an evil, and in the sight of God deserving of condemnation.

The Reformed on the contrary state that all concupiscence, which certainly inclines toward evil, is sin, insofar as (1) all such concupiscence is against the law (Rom. 7:7) and thus is lawlessness, in which sin fully consists (1 John 3:4).

This very thing cannot be conceived, how something by way of an internal habit could be the cause of sin and not be sin. An internal cause inclining to act well is good.

The Apostle himself in Rom. 6 & 7 shows quite openly that concupiscence is sin properly so called: for not only does he often call it sin, but not good, evil, to be held in hatred, fighting against the law of God, to be crucified, mortified, and destroyed, and rendering that man miserable in whom it resides.

Moral corruption fighting against the law, for the crucifying and mortifying of which Christ himself died on the cross, if it be not properly sin, then Scripture has not explained to us what the property of any habitual sin is.

Whatever differs from the norm of the law is sin: but concupiscence in the regenerate differs from the norm of the law. Therefore.

Concupiscence, although it is without doubt born in us, is both an evil and sin; for we are not to judge according to nature, but according to the law whether a thing be sin or not. Whatever is opposed to the law is sin, whether it be born in us, or not.

Falsely, therefore, do the Papists remove it from the number of sins and reckon it among the works of God.

Nor does original sin cease to be sin because it was committed by us neither voluntarily nor knowingly; for it is enough that τὸ ἄνομον [to anomon, the lawless thing] is in our nature

Every spark of fire is fire, and will burn; so is every thing of the law of sin, the last, the least of it, -- it is enmity, it will poison, it will burn. … Mortification abates of its force, but doth not change its nature. Grace changeth the nature of man, but nothing can change the nature of sin. Whatever effect be wrought upon it, there is no effect wrought in it, but that it is enmity still, sin still.

Once more, it is named, "lust" or "concupiscence"; which is sin itself, and the mother of all sin

Bellarmine says that this inordinate concupiscence is not properly sin. What then? Shall we say it is improperly called sin, even though in the very principles of nature it chains and restrains man like a ferocious beast? Is this credible? Let Bellarmine believe such absurdities—we do not.

It is to be distinguished from natural concupiscence, that which God sowed in our nature, such as the concupiscence for food and drink, by which our bodies are nourished.—Evil concupiscence of itself is sin, even if the consent of the will be not added.

Since the precept about not coveting is general, it ought to be extended to all depraved and inordinate concupiscence, original and habitual as well as actual—whether this is determinate and voluntary or still indeterminate and only titillating. This is true in order that the perfect purity and holiness of the lawgiver may be noted (which will suffer not even the smallest taint of depraved concupiscence in man, but demands righteousness and holiness of every kind).

God therefore commands a strong and ardent affection, an affection not to be impeded by any portion, however minute, of concupiscence. He requires a mind so admirably arranged as not to be prompted in the slightest degree contrary to the law of love.

This corruption of nature is here forbidden, for it is truly and properly sin, Rom. 6:12 and 7:17. It is the flesh that lusteth against the Spirit, Gal. 5:18; and if sin, it must be contrary to and forbidden by the law.

Observe the holiness and perfection of God's law, which forbids the first motions and risings of sin in the heart. The laws of men take hold of actions; but the law of God goes further—it forbids not only sinful actions—but sinful desires.

On the contrary, as we think concupiscence is evil in its root and forbidden by the law, so also as to all the acts and motions springing from it, whether they follow or precede the formal consent of the will.

Such motions are not consistent with the holiness and purity which God demands from us and the required perfection of loving God with the whole heart and all the strength; therefore they cannot but be depraved and lawless (anomoi).

We again regard it as sin whenever man is influenced in any degree by any desire contrary to the law of God; nay, we maintain that the very pravity which begets in us such desires is sin.

The Reformed on the contrary state that all the acts of concupiscence, even the primary-first, are sins, because the contrary opinion is: (1) contrary to the express words of the apostle (Rom. 7:7); (2) contrary to the express demand of the law (Ex. 20:17); (3) contrary to the force and strictness of the law, which under the penalty of an eternal curse demands the most exact obedience (Matt. 22:37; Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10), and therefore condemns all concupiscence.

Accordingly, it is not valid to say: (1) it begets sin, therefore it is not sin. For a man, because he begets a man, does not cease to be a man; indeed, as we have said, it is sin by the very fact that it begets sin.

It is illicit, not only to give consent to evil, but also to have an inclination, or propensity to such consent: because all our powers ought to be carried toward the good.

We must here observe, that not only are corrupt and disordered inclinations sins, but the thinking of evil, in as far as it is connected with an inclination and propensity to pursue it, or with a desire to practice it, is sin.

The inmost thoughts of the heart, and the first motions of concupiscence therein, though not consented unto, much less actually accomplished in the outward deeds of sin, and all the occasions leading unto them, are directly forbidden in the law.

Fifth, the last commandment of lust forbids the first motions to sin that are before consent. … Again, the philosophers knew that lust with consent was evil, even by the light of nature. But Paul, a learned Pharisee, and therefore more than a philosopher, knew not lust to be sin that is forbidden in this commandment [Rom. 7:7]. Lust therefore that is forbidden here, is without consent.

First, therefore, we must resist suggestion, or thoughts: which are either ascending, from the tinder of concupiscence, or descending, suggested from elsewhere. The former are not without fault

Lust in the bud; that is, the first risings of lust, even before the consent of the will to them; the first openings of particular lusts, sometimes not regarded nor noticed, and so neither approved nor disapproved; and sometimes checked in their very rising, Rom. 7:15. But however it be, they are sins here forbidden, though the Papists will not allow them to be so

If that law demands perfect conformity to the image of God, then these impulses of evil are clearly sinful. … The Protestant doctrine which pronounces these impulsive acts to be of the nature of sin is confirmed by the consciousness of the believer. He recognizes as evil in their own nature the first risings of malice, envy, pride, or cupidity.

These, whatsoever the Papists say to the contrary, as soon as ever they do but begin to heave and stir in our breasts, are truly sins; and do, in their measure, pollute and defile the soul: for the soul of man is like a clear mirror, upon which if you only breathe, you sully it, and leave a dimness upon it

But Protestants also believe that lust or concupiscence in the regenerate, as including a remaining tendency towards what is sinful, and the first or earliest motions of this tendency in the heart, though not deliberately consented to and followed out, is itself truly and properly sinful.

Accordingly, 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.

Sin, however, though it ceases to reign, ceases not to dwell in them. … We admit that these remains, just as if they had no existence, are not imputed, but we, at the same time, contend that it is owing to the mercy of God that the saints are not charged with the guilt which would otherwise make them sinners before God.

Now although by regeneration we hold that the guilt and pollution of original sin is taken away as to dominion (because it is neither imputed to them anymore for condemnation, nor does it reign in them), yet we deny that it is absolutely taken away as to existence and whatever holds the relation of sin in it.

It is one thing that there should be no condemnation in the renewed; another that they are worthy of condemnation and of hatred. The former Paul states in Rom. 8:1 because actual guilt is removed by the grace of justification, but not the latter.

That concupiscence does not condemn the regenerate, comes to pass by an accident, which is the grace of God, which does not impute it to the faithful. This, however, does not occur in this way, as though concupiscence were no sin; for other sins in like manner do not condemn the regenerate, not because they are no sins, but because they have obtained the pardon of them through Christ.

The commanding power of the law in positive precepts and prohibitions, which justified persons are subject unto, does make and constitute all their unconformities unto it to be no less truly and properly sins in their own nature, than they would be if their persons were obnoxious unto the curse of it.

Indeed it remains till death, and it is sin considered in itself, so long as it remains, but it is not imputed unto the person: and in that respect is as though it were not; it being pardoned.

That which lusts against the spirit, and by lusting tempts, and in tempting entices and draws the heart to sin, is for nature sin itself: but concupiscence in the regenerate lusts against the spirit, Gal. 5. 17. … And therefore it is sin properly: such as the fruit is, such is the tree.

We teach that the guilt of sin as to its legal being is entirely taken away, so that the obligation to punishment is removed, and the power obligating to condemnation; but sin remains as to its real being, and physical inherence.

This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated (1 John 1:8, 10; Rom. 7:14, 17–18, 23; James 3:2; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20); and although it be, through Christ, pardoned and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin (Rom. 7:5, 7–8, 25; Gal. 5:17).

The corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated (Rom. 7:18, 23; Eccl. 7:20; 1 John 1:8); and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin (Rom. 7:23–25; Gal. 5:17).

What does the tenth Commandment require? That not even the least inclination or thought against any commandment of God ever enter our heart, but that with our whole heart we continually hate all sin and take pleasure in all righteousness (Rom. 7:7–8).

Q. 86. What is forbidden in the tenth commandment? A. The tenth commandment forbids all discontentment with our own estate (1 Kings 21:4; Est. 5:13; 1 Cor. 10:10), envying or grieving at the good of our neighbor (Gal. 5:26; James 3:14, 16), and all inordinate motions and affections to anything that is his (Rom. 7:7–8; 13:9; Deut. 5:21).

We believe that through the disobedience of Adam original sin is extended to all mankind; which is a corruption of the whole nature and a hereditary disease, … and which produces in man all sorts of sin, being in him as a root thereof, and, therefore, is so vile and abominable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind. … Not that they should rest securely in sin, but that a sense of this corruption should make believers often to sigh, desiring to be delivered from this body of death.