# Is concupiscence sin in the Reformed world?



## RamistThomist (Jun 12, 2018)

Is concupiscence sin in the Reformed world?

This is something I was thinking of in light of the current Revoice arguments for spiritual friendships.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Jun 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is concupiscence sin in the Reformed world?
> 
> This is something I was thinking of in light of the current Revoice arguments for spiritual friendships.



I heard Drs. Duncan, Ferguson, and Sproul discussing this. Against Rome, they agreed it was sin. Their definition wasn't limited to sexual sin, however. They were using it more broadly. It was in a Q&A session in the 2004 conference, A Portrait of God.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 12, 2018)

Here's a good article from Scott Clark on the subject: Concupiscence: Sin and the Mother of Sin

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 4


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is concupiscence sin in the Reformed world?
> 
> This is something I was thinking of in light of the current Revoice arguments for spiritual friendships.


Isn't this tied into view on Original Sin and infant baptism removing that, per Roman Church?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Isn't this tied into view on Original Sin and infant baptism removing that, per Roman Church?



No. The Reformers modified the earlier view on concupiscence. Rome tended to suggest that man's unfallen nature in the garden was morally problematic and needed a super-added gift of grace. The Reformers cut that off at the knees.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 12, 2018)

This might be helpful. Turretin, in his second volume, has an entire chapter dedicated to this (the 21st chapter).

“What concupiscence is prohibited by the tenth precept? Are the incipient motions sins? We affirm”

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 12, 2018)

Thanks. I am in a Neo-Calvinist group on Facebook that is soft on stuff like the Revoice conference and I needed to get clear on concupiscence regarding same sex desires.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 12, 2018)

While Revoice would not have been close to his radar back then, Durham has a fairly packed chapter on the tenth commandment in his lectures on the ten commandments (out of print from NP but a new edition is in RHB's hands to come out later this year; meantime there are old editions online).

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Thanks. I am in a Neo-Calvinist group on Facebook that is soft on stuff like the Revoice conference and I needed to get clear on concupiscence regarding same sex desires.



It is quite astonishing to note how many otherwise conservative people are confused on this issue.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## earl40 (Jun 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is concupiscence sin in the Reformed world?
> 
> This is something I was thinking of in light of the current Revoice arguments for spiritual friendships.



In much of the "reformed world" many take the idea that a strong sinful desire is not a sin based on..."Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

Notice how the lust precedes sin above? I think this thinking is from a bad hermeneutic and not connecting James with The Sermon on the Mount.

Concupiscence is an area that has a nuances many refuse tackle, in that some strong desires (concupiscence) are not sinful in of themselves.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2018)

Quote from Owen:

Now, what is it to be tempted? It is to have that proposed to a man’s consideration which, if he close withal, it is evil, it is sin unto him. This is sin’s trade: Ἐπιθυμεῖ—“It lusteth.” It is raising up in the heart, and proposing unto the mind and affections, that which is evil; trying, as it were, whether the soul will close with its suggestions, or how far it will carry them on, though it do not wholly prevail. Now, when such a temptation comes from without, it is unto the soul an indifferent thing, neither good nor evil, unless it be consented unto; but the very proposal from within, it being the soul’s own act, is its sin.

— Owen, Temptation and Sin, 194 (Owen’s Works Vol. 6)

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 14, 2018)

Poole, Henry, Cartwright, and Calvin

https://purelypresbyterian.com/2017/07/14/misconceptions-about-desire-and-temptation-james-114-15/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Physeter (Jun 15, 2018)

I have always understood Concupiscence to be a strong lust for something. I have alway understood it to be sinful as well. Am I missing something?


----------



## earl40 (Jun 15, 2018)

Grumman Tomcat said:


> I have always understood Concupiscence to be a strong lust for something. I have alway understood it to be sinful as well. Am I missing something?



Concupiscence strictly speaking is any strong desire...like Jesus wanting to follow The Father.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2018)

Here is Shedd on concupiscence.

https://negatingthevoid.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/concupiscence-in-shedd/


earl40 said:


> Concupiscence strictly speaking is any strong desire...like Jesus wanting to follow The Father



Usually concupiscence is tied with epithumia, which has sinful connotations.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## SRoper (Jun 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Quote from Owen:
> 
> Now, what is it to be tempted? It is to have that proposed to a man’s consideration which, if he close withal, it is evil, it is sin unto him. This is sin’s trade: Ἐπιθυμεῖ—“It lusteth.” It is raising up in the heart, and proposing unto the mind and affections, that which is evil; trying, as it were, whether the soul will close with its suggestions, or how far it will carry them on, though it do not wholly prevail. Now, when such a temptation comes from without, it is unto the soul an indifferent thing, neither good nor evil, unless it be consented unto; but the very proposal from within, it being the soul’s own act, is its sin.
> 
> — Owen, Temptation and Sin, 194 (Owen’s Works Vol. 6)



Wow, that's a really good distinction. It also helps to explain how Christ could be tempted yet without sin.



Grumman Tomcat said:


> I have always understood Concupiscence to be a strong lust for something. I have alway understood it to be sinful as well. Am I missing something?



The Roman Catholic position is that concupiscence tends towards sin but is not sinful itself. I've noticed that something like this view has been assumed (perhaps unwittingly) by some of the [celibate] gay Christian advocates.


----------



## sc_q_jayce (Jun 15, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Here is Shedd on concupiscence.
> 
> https://negatingthevoid.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/concupiscence-in-shedd/
> 
> ...



What do you think about the word in Luke 22:15?

καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Ἐπιθυμίᾳ *ἐπεθύμησα *τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ’ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν·

And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. (ESV)​


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 15, 2018)

There are but two or three instances where the term _epithumia_ does not have a negative cast. In these instances, Jesus and Paul are trading on the intensity of the language, they are making a strong rhetorical point and using this term in an "uncommon" manner. It's probably fair to call it hyperbole; though with the perfect Jesus, there is no danger of a "sinful flesh" impulse in him.

So Jesus expresses in Luke 22:15, or Paul in Philippians. 1:23, an "almost" _inordinate _desire, so strong is it felt. Practically out of control with passion (which if it were so, is contrary to the fruit of the Spirit, self-control). That's why we should regard such use as hyperbole. 1 Thessalonians 2:17 (Paul again) has the same thrust, with this added note: that this vehemence of feeling could be judged as having supplied Satan (mentioned in the next v) an angle of attack (becoming frustrated by his hindrance of them).

Generally, the term--being rendered as lust and passion--does indicate the natural connection to sinful flesh, and a polluted desire.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2018)

sc_q_jayce said:


> What do you think about the word in Luke 22:15?
> 
> καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Ἐπιθυμίᾳ *ἐπεθύμησα *τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ’ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν·
> 
> And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. (ESV)​



Sure. Shedd notes that some desires are natural and innocent. And since celebrating Passover is obeying God's law, this was a good desire. Other desires arise from within from a bent will. I think that is what Owen and Shedd mean by epithumia.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sc_q_jayce (Jun 16, 2018)

Thanks y'all! I've been trying to contrast epithumia, coveting, lust, and understanding where concupiscenece all fits in so I appreciate the replies.

Still, I'm trying to get at the nuances between concupiscenece and temptation. It seems that at the end of the day, what differentiates them is our corrupted nature.

Calvin's commentary on Matthew 4:2 states something like this:

But the whole difficulty lies in the first point. How was Christ surrounded by our weakness, so as to be capable of being tempted by Satan, and yet to be pure and free from all sin? The solution will not be difficult, if we recollect, that the nature of Adam, while it was still innocent, and reflected the brightness of the divine image, -- was liable to temptations. All the bodily affections, that exist in man, are so many opportunities which Satan seizes to tempt him.

It is justly reckoned a weakness of human nature, that our senses are affected by external objects. But this weakness would not be sinful, were it not for the presence of corruption; in consequence of which Satan never attacks us, without doing some injury, or, at least, without inflicting a slight wound. Christ was separated from us, in this respect, by the perfection of his nature; though we must not imagine him to have existed in that intermediate condition, which belonged to Adam, to whom it was only granted, that it was possible for him not to sin. We know, that Christ was fortified by the Spirit with such power, that the darts of Satan could not pierce him.​It seems to me that Calvin can say temptation in us leads to sin because we have already been corrupted. But Jesus, whose body was of man but without the taste of corruption, could be tempted and yet not sin.

I was also reading a blog from Kevin DeYoung on the topic and it gives a different conclusion than Calvin. 

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/temptation-is-not-the-same-as-sin/

If being tempted was in itself a mark of wickedness, we could not confess that Jesus Christ “in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). It is possible to experience profound temptations to sin while still being blameless from that sin.​
But I think I'm tracking... epithumia is connected to sin because of who our first parents were and who we still have inside of us.

Is that right?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 16, 2018)

If you recognize corruption as not only "rot" but the tendency to rot, then (I think) it's plain to see what the ordinary human problem is when it comes to our desires, our inclinations. According to our (rotten/rotting) flesh, those are sinful, just as much as the *result* of the tendency.

Now, if you have an uncorrupted thing, flesh even, if corruption has not gained any hold, then whatever forces act on it (such as nature presents to things subject to entropy) do not work this destruction. As long as the pure body effectively resists the force, countering its corrosive qualities by its own superior strength and capacity, then corruption cannot begin. There is no _concupiscence, _no tendency to corruption. An upright moral whole is not natively subject to entropic forces.

So, when we _by the Spirit _and *not* _by the flesh _resist sin, in that sense by the power of Christ and to that degree we may be blameless. We're blameless insofar as God regards our resistance as his own work in us, and his Son's work; it is our effort by dint of union with Christ. It may be his power eclipses practically any taint of our own making.

But whatever proceeds from us in ourselves--that remains just as worthless and even blameworthy as ever. I'm not sure but, that KDY is merely speaking in respect to an ideal situation, and one that Jesus alone truly exemplified. The blamelessness of the Psalmist is ultimately only one of degree and union with the Mediator, or else perfectly demonstrated only by the Mediator when he sings those words himself upon his Incarnation.

The reality of Jesus' temptation has been stated thus: that he could know and feel the attraction of what was proffered in the test; while Satan's attack could not be finally successful, thanks be to God, due to who Jesus was. To be a "real" temptation did not require the possibility of his failure, but only an alternative with some plausible advantage; to be overcome by reliance on the Word and Spirit.

Furthermore, it has been stated that only the person who has vanquished temptation has felt its fullest power and known its true danger. Everyone who falls to temptation has given in before the tempter gave up. Our Savior was ever faithful, even unto death.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 28, 2018)

"So I would like to begin to make amends here by discussing concupiscence in more detail."

https://calvinistinternational.com/2018/06/28/concupiscence-sin-gay-christianity-desire-orientation/

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Cedarbay (Jun 28, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> "So I would like to begin to make amends here by discussing concupiscence in more detail."
> 
> https://calvinistinternational.com/2018/06/28/concupiscence-sin-gay-christianity-desire-orientation/


What a challenging read. I signed up for this blog and hope to navigate the very interesting topics there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 28, 2018)

Cedarbay said:


> What a challenging read. I signed up for this blog and hope to navigate the very interesting topics there.


I do wish he had relied on someone other than Davenant, a man whose views related to hypothetical universalism have raised many questions and debate.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## SRoper (Jun 29, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I do wish he had relied on someone other than Davenant, a man whose views related to hypothetical universalism have raised many questions and debate.



Well, the author is a director of the Davenant Institute.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 29, 2018)

SRoper said:


> Well, the author is a director of the Davenant Institute.


Yes, he is.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 3, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yes, he is.



From said author's twitter account today (I give credit where credit is due).

"Original sin has an internal principle and we know that such corruption is opposed to the law of God and righteousness, even if we do not acquire it by our own choice. Thus, it is voluntary." ~Peter Martyr Vermigli
Commentary on Aristotle's' Nicomachean Ethics, pg. 400

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 5, 2018)

From Denny Burk and Rosaria Butterfield:



> The current debate about gay Christianity traces back to a centuries-old dispute between Protestants and Catholics about the doctrine of man and the doctrine of sin. Roman Catholics do not regard involuntary desire for sin (i.e., “concupiscence”) to be sinful. Reformed Protestants do.



http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/07/22066/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SRoper (Jul 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> From said author's twitter account today (I give credit where credit is due).
> 
> "Original sin has an internal principle and we know that such corruption is opposed to the law of God and righteousness, even if we do not acquire it by our own choice. Thus, it is voluntary." ~Peter Martyr Vermigli
> Commentary on Aristotle's' Nicomachean Ethics, pg. 400



Wow, it is not obvious how the second sentence follows from the first. Please show your work, Peter Martyr Vermigli!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 13, 2018)

SRoper said:


> Wow, it is not obvious how the second sentence follows from the first. Please show your work, Peter Martyr Vermigli!



When Reformed Scholastic writers used the word voluntary (or voluntas), they had in mind the entire range of desires (sort of like dispositions). The liberum arbitrum was the actual faculty which does the desiring.

So when Vermigli says that it is voluntary, he means our whole dispositions for which we are already accountable.

Since part of the definition of original sin is "corruption of our whole nature," therefore any desire that flows from that corruption is sinful.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 14, 2018)

Sorry I am late to the party. Sort of off topic, but spiritual friendships...from what I have read it seems to be an inescapable emotional marriage in name to a 'bestie' or whatever without physical intimacy. Has anyone else seen that in the description or am I weird and the only one?
It is one thing to say that desires are not sinful but, promote a proxy intimacy...I am at a loss of words...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 15, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I do wish he had relied on someone other than Davenant, a man whose views related to hypothetical universalism have raised many questions and debate.



From what I can gather, John Davenant's Hypothetical Universalism is within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy confessed at Dort and Westminster, which tolerated a range of opinion within generic Calvinism. I personally believe that HU is illogical (and I am too big a follower of John Owen and Francis Turretin to ever accept it), but such views do have a respectable Reformed pedigree.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

