fhansen
Oldbie
I believe the Reformers, generally speaking, equated concupiscence with the state of original sin, something like having a “sin nature”. Catholicism denies this, seeing concupiscence as the “tinder for sin”, a result of original sin but not the essence of it as that would make it impossible for man to combat. As it is, fallen man is not changed in nature or totally depraved but weakened in will, attracted to lesser, created things over the Creator, with little control over his natural desires and appetites to the extent that he’s not in a state of full subjugation to and communion with God, a relationship structured on love.I think most Christians would say that temptation, in and of itself, is not sin. However, I came across a contrary view regarding temptation held by John Calvin. Calvin, who usually agrees with virtually anything Augustine says, takes a different view of temptation.
"Content to designate it with the term "weakness," he (Augustine) teaches that it becomes sin only when either act or consent follows the conceiving or apprehension of it, that is, when the will yields to the first strong inclination. We, on the other hand, deem it sin when man is tickled by any desire at all against the law of God. Indeed, we label "sin" that very depravity which begets in us desires of this sort" (Institutes III.III.10).
One possibility is that Calvin is being inconsistent. Perhaps in other places he argues that temptation, in and of itself, is not sin but then fails to be consistent in this passage. As it stands, this passage clearly indicates that temptation is sin. In fact, the nature that could possibly sin (i.e. depraved nature) is itself sin, according to Calvin.
That's an odd position to hold, in my opinion. What would make this opinion even more controversial is the implications it has for our Lord's Incarnation. I think the orthodox position is that our Lord was tempted, but did not sin. If Calvin argues that our Lord was tempted, then (based on this passage) he would also have to conclude that our Lord sinned in even being tempted. I seriously doubt Calvin would be comfortable with that conclusion (although, Calvin is comfortable with all kinds of positions that make most folks uncomfortable). So, assuming the above passage is his settled position, Calvin is not being consistent.
At any rate, what do you think. Is being tempted itself a sin?
Those desires, God-created as they are, become harmful, corrupted, disordered, sinful when they become a god or idol in and of themselves. John speaks of this three-fold covetousness in 1 John 2:16,
“For everything in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--comes not from the Father but from the world.”
This is where normal and healthy desires or needs become lust: for pleasure, for wealth/possessions, and for self/glorification, the worldly things that we tend to drool over. So, for example, desire for money and the necessary security it brings is right until it becomes greed or miserliness, the center of our focus where we base our worth and happiness around it. We have control over this, we can resist the temptations and overcome it, with struggle but now with the help of grace:
“So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” Rom 8:12-13
Man is inevitably sinful to the extent that he’s separated or apart from God, the state of being that Adam opted for. The basis of man’s justice or righteousness is communion with God.
Last edited:
Upvote
0