Note: This article was written before the author’s conversion to Orthodoxy.
Joe Heschmeyer of the Shameless Popery blog recently wrote an article which asserts that Reformed Theology is implicitly heretical as it turns Jesus Christ into a sinner. As the resident “Protestant objector” in the comments section of the website, along with having a website with the words “Reformed Theology” right in it, I feel compelled to write a rebuttal to his article.
Before I embark on this, first a note about me: while stereotypically I can be classified as “reformed” or a “Calvinist,” I must admit I have not read a great deal of Calvin. While I enjoy a steady diet of James White and R.C. Sproul via audio and video, I have read none of their books. The vast majority of my reading is simply the Bible. Most of my extra-biblical “joy reading” is the Church Fathers, especially Augustine. I have honestly dabbled much more extensively in Aquinas than anything of Calvin’s. So, I am classified as a Calvinist simply because the doctrines which I argue are consistently found in the Bible, and elucidated in Christian tradition, happen to be called “Calvinist” today. As for Calvin, I really do not understand the man all that well.
That being said, onto Joe’s article. He begins:
In theology, the term for this post-Fall inclination towards sin is “concupiscence.” Man finds in himself simultaneously:
- A wound that can only be healed by Christ, and a hunger that can only be satisfied by Him; and yet
- An inclination towards evil, leading to various temptations to fill that void with some good other than God
We can all agree on this, let’s move on.
Some Christian heresies, like Pelagianism and Modernism, have gone awry by failing to take concupiscence seriously….But there’s an opposite error as well: to exaggerate concupiscence. And it’s this error that Reformed Christianity, commonly called Calvinism, falls into. Calvinism tends to exaggerate the severity of concupiscence (treating it as sin, rather than mere temptation) as well as its pervasiveness (treating man as nothing more than concupiscence).
Here, Joe sets his sights on the doctrine of “total depravity.” Allow me to simply put forward what Paul said in Rom 7:19-20:
For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
So, the inherent presence of a sinful nature, referred to in Paul’s language as “the flesh,” is a persistent and real problem as it causes man to sin. Man’s will is deficient to do anything about it, as Calvinist doctrine dictates. Where is our victory? “Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Rom 7:24-25)
Augustine, who Joe quotes in support of the correct notion that being tempted is not sin because sin requires assent of the will, elsewhere shows us there is a bit more to the picture (that Joe leaves out.) “For the good is incomplete when one lusts, even although a man does not consent to the evil of lust,” writes Augustine in Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book I, Chapter 19. Augustine continues in the next chapter, “[H]e [Paul] had said, ‘ringing me into captivity’
in the flesh, not in the mind; in emotion, not in consent; and therefore ‘bringing me into captivity,”‘ because even in the flesh there is not an alien nature, but our own.
Augustine continues:
For when he says also, Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Romans 7:24 who can deny that when the apostle said this he was still in the body of this death? And certainly the wicked are not delivered from this, to whom the same bodies are returned for eternal torment. Therefore, to be delivered from the body of this death is to be healed of all the weakness of fleshly lust, and to receive the body, not for penalty, but for glory (Chapter 23).
Hence, in Rom 7 and Augustine’s exegesis, even when Godly men such as the Apostles did not consent to such lusts (Chap 26), simply not consenting is not good enough. Man, in his nature, is flawed and needs deliverance. Those not healed look forward to eternal torment. In Christ, though the flesh is still there the flesh is done away with as “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50). We are resurrected as heavenly, spiritual (yet physical) bodies.
Now, all of this seems like a really long aside, but what I am trying to show is that Joe and Calvin are speaking past each other. The meat of Calvinism is that man, in his very nature is flawed and this is visible in concupiscence which ultimately manifests itself in sin. It is for this reason that Paul literally writes that “sin dwells in me.” It isn’t “mere concupiscence,” so one may say, “So what? Concupiscence hasn’t damned anybody!” Nothing can be farther from the truth! As Augustine recognized reading Paul, concupiscence must be done away with or man will be damned. Jesus Christ brings deliverance from the condition, even from those who have not consented to it’s lusts.
Joe continues:
Calvin can fall into the basic Christological heresy of denying Christ’s sinlessness.
Key word is “can.” Let’s see if he does…
For Calvin, on the other hand, merely being tempted to sin is a sin.
In support of this conclusion, Joe quotes Calvin saying, “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 gravity which begets in us such desires is sin” (Joe’s emphasis).
Interestingly enough, it is where Joe’s emphasis stops that reveals where Joe does not understand Calvin’s point. “[T]he very gravity which begets in us such desires is sin.” Not being a Calvin expert (but having a decent handle of Rom 7), the term gravity is being used just like we would say, “The problem is at it’s core, X, Y or Z.” Calvin is saying that sin is at the core of concupiscence. This is exactly what Paul says in Rom 7:20. So, it is a true point, a point which Joe misses and then objects to certain imagined ramifications of the idea that mere temptation is supposedly sin to a Calvinist.
In opposition to Joe’s caricature of John Calvin’s Christology and reduction of temptation as sin, it is of particular interest that Calvin explictly denies Joe’s argumentation. As if he anticipated an article on ShamelessPopery.com would be written about him some day, when commenting on Matt 4:2 he writes:
But, at first sight, it appears strange, that Christ was liable to the temptations of the devil: for, when temptation falls on men, it must always be owing to sin and weakness. I reply: First, Christ took upon him our infirmity, but without sin, (Hebrews 4:15.) Secondly, 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.
So, clearly Calvin did not regard temptation as sin, but he like Paul knew that man’s temptation to sin is not purely from his nature, but also from the flesh. In the flesh dwells sin. The inclinations of the flesh are called concupiscence. That is the necessary connection, the same connection that Joe does not make.
Joe continues:
What’s the point in resisting temptation, if by being tempted you’re already guilty?
Because the Spirit compels us to resist temptation. Joe might resist temptation in order to avail himself from judgment. In my view, I resist temptation because by faith in Christ I have His Spirit. In short, I resist temptation because I have been availed from judgement.
Interestingly enough, that is exactly the answer Paul gives in Rom 7:24-25 and Rom 8:1. Paul, the man who admits to sinning (specifically coveting, Rom 7:7), has deliverance not because he can completely stop. He wants to, but he cannot. He has deliverance, because Jesus Christ died for Him and resurrected, thereby delivering him from death!
Joe: In Book II, Chapter I of Institutes, he calmly explains that God hates unborn children, because they (like all of us) are seed-beds of sin, odious and abominable to God…
Yet, the church fathers like Augustine and Prosper of Aquataine taught that all unbaptized infants go to hell. If God is not punishing sin in these infants, then why do they go to hell? Better question: Why baptize infants if their sin was not a serious affront to God? What would they need to be delivered from?
As Augustine details in the first few pages of the Confessions, the inherent sin in a human being is readily apparent early on. Augustine concludes, “The only innocent feature in babies is the weakness of their frames, the minds of infants are far from innocent” (Confessions, Chapter 1, Chap 11). The fact that Augustine locates guilt in the mind and teaches that infants will, if not regenerated, go to hell, makes it pretty clear that he is far closer to Calvin on the issue than Joe.
Joe continues:
[Calvin] he tries to explain Christ’s prayer [“let this cup pass…”] in the Garden, he can only account for it by assuming that Christ momentarily forgot about our salvation, and had to be rebuked (by Himself) for it…
I underlined the words “forgot” and “rebuked,” because they are loaded and not used by Calvin. Calvin writes that the prayer was not “premeditated” and “leaving out view the divine purpose.” This means Jesus was speaking in accordance with His emotions.
Aquinas concurs in the Summa Theologica: “And, indeed, such was Christ’s obedience, for, although His Passion and death, considered in themselves, were repugnant to the natural will, yet Christ resolved to fulfill God’s will with respect to the same” (Part 3, Question 47, Article 2).
Christ was righteous in all His ways. Though weighed down by temptations and emotions, He did not for a moment yield to them because He is God after all. Calvin calls this an “immediate…correction.”
In short, as Augustine points out, “Christ thus as man shews a certain private human will…[T]hough God’s will is other, this is permitted to human frailty” (Quoted in Aquinas Study Bible).
Joe can just as easily read the word “forgot” and “rebuked” into Augustine’s discussion of Jesus’ “human frailty.” However, we know that is not what Augustine meant and nothing in what Calvin wrote would lead us to conclude the same.
Joe continues his conspiracy theory that Calvin thinks Jesus had a momentary lapse in divinity and said something sinful:
He hadn’t intended to pray, and quickly corrected Himself. Commenting on the next verse, Calvin says that “We see how Christ restrains his feelings at the very outset, and quickly brings himself into a state of obedience.”
Yet, simply read how Calvin explains himself:
When the dread of death was presented to his mind, and brought along with it such darkness, that he left out of view every thing else, and eagerly presented that prayer, there was no fault in this. Nor is it necessary to enter into any subtle controversy whether or not it was possible for him to forget our salvation. We ought to be satisfied with this single consideration, that at the time when he uttered a prayer to be delivered from death, he was not thinking of other things which would have shut the door against such a wish.
Joe takes offense at this, because it appears to entertain the notion that Jesus could have forgotten something. Calvin appears not to think that such an idea is serious, but is insistent in his assertion that Jesus’ human nature and inherent mortal limitations resulted in a guiltless outburst of anguish.
This gets into a whole issue of whether Jesus Christ, in the human flesh, is omniscient. Most Protestants don’t believe He was. I am unsure of the Catholic position, but I would align myself more with Aquinas and say that when Jesus Christ exhibits Kenosis, He is exhibiting His human nature and condescending Himself to man, but not necessarily shedding omnisicience or anything of the sort. Calvin writes, “There would be no impropriety, therefore, in saying that Christ, who knew all things, was ignorant of something in respect to his perception as a man.” I wouldn’t go that far, but I am not even sure if that is considered heretical to Joe.
Joe sums up his discussion with the idea that Jesus being sinful is “an inherent part” of Calvinism. In Calvinism, “Christ can’t be both sinless and man.”
However, did Joe prove any of these points? Not from Calvin, nor other Reformed thinkers. In fact, he had to pain himself to twist Calvin’s interpretations to make it fit this sort of idea that Calvin explicitly rejects. The evidence simply is not there.
In this whole discussion on concupiscence, I think what Joe needs to do is exegete the relevant passages in Rom 7. In my humble view, this is at the very heart of the controversy.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Thanks for writing this, Craig; I enjoy reading your conversations with Joe. One follow up question for you.
You indicate above that you do not think that temptation is sin. (I’m assuming this from where you write: “Augustine, who Joe quotes in support of the correct notion that being tempted is not sin because sin requires assent of the will…”) I would agree, and would say the Bible requires this view. Hebrews 4:15, for example, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet he did not sin.”
Clearly there’s a distinction here between temptation and sin. So if I’m reading Joe correctly, his argument is that Calvin conflates this distinction, which necessarily leads to a heretical view of Christ, and contradicts Hebrew 4:15. You say, in contrast,
“So, clearly Calvin did not regard temptation as sin, but he like Paul knew that man’s temptation to sin is not purely from his nature, but also from the flesh. In the flesh dwells sin. The inclinations of the flesh are called concupiscence. That is the necessary connection, the same connection that Joe does not make.”
I’m having trouble understanding how you are using these terms here. For example, what is the difference between man’s “nature” and his “flesh?” Likewise, what is the difference between “inclinations of the flesh” and “temptation?”
Like you, I haven’t studied much Calvin (my Reformed reading has primarily been Wayne Grudem), but it does seem to me that Calvin intentionally distinguishes himself from Augustine in the passage that both you and Joe cite (Institutes Book IV, Chapter 4). And the point that Calvin uses to distinguish the two of them is that of the will.
“The difference apparently between him and us,” Calvin writes, is that “[Augustine] says that it [i.e. concupiscence] only becomes sin when…the will yields to the first desire. 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 gravity which begets in us such desires is sin.”
He writes “We again regard…” in order to say, “We *in contrast* regard…” Meaning, in contrast to Augustine, Calvin says that the will need not yield to an “influence of any degree” in order to be sinful. That same “influence in any degree” is itself sinful.
I guess I’m wondering if you’re distinguishing somehow between temptation and concupiscence in some way I’m not getting. Sorry for the long post, hope that all made sense.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Jordan, thank you for your thoughtful response. Being that I am not an university trained theologian, I might be hitting the intellectual limits of my abilities to address this question. However, I will try my best and by God’s grace I’ll give you a sufficient answer.
“You indicate above that you do not think that temptation is sin.”
Correct. It is worth noting that Calvin explicitly says the same thing, as I already quoted.
“So if I’m reading Joe correctly, his argument is that Calvin conflates this distinction, which necessarily leads to a heretical view of Christ…”
Yes, this is Joe’s view, even though Calvin’s stated view explicitly contradicts this (hence my reply to Joe.)
Me: “So, clearly Calvin did not regard temptation as sin, but he like Paul knew that man’s temptation to sin is not purely from his nature, but also from the flesh. In the flesh dwells sin. The inclinations of the flesh are called concupiscence. That is the necessary connection, the same connection that Joe does not make.”
You: “I’m having trouble understanding how you are using these terms here.”
Understandably so, which is why I brought Augustine into the conversation. We know that Calvin did not believe temptation itself is sin, because temptation according to Calvin “is justly reckoned a weakness of human nature…But this weakness would not be sinful, were it not for the presence of corruption.” Because in Jesus there is no corruption, then His weaknesses are not tinged with sin.
The fact that the Bible, Augustine, Calvin, and I are all using different terms to define the same things, it gets awfully confusing unless you digest what Romans 7 says, and then apply that to Augustine’s and Calvin’s treatments of concupiscence.
I want to be clear that I am not endorsing gnostic heresy, but Rom 7 tells us that there is a spirit-flesh duality within saved individuals like Paul. The spirit of the man delights in the Law, because of the workings of the Holy Spirit upon it. Yet, sin literally resides in the flesh, giving the man with the Holy Spirit the inclination to do what he actually does not want to do. It is as if the spirit of the man and his flesh do battle, though metaphysically the flesh has already “lost the war” because God has already accounted the man as righteous. So, the strivings are temporary, because God “will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory” (Phil 3:21) upon the resurrection of the dead.
To summarize, in the Scripture there is “spirit” and “flesh.” “Sin” literally “dwells” in the flesh, according to Rom 7:20.
Calvin uses different terminology. “Human nature” according to Calvin IS what the Bible calls the “flesh.” The “corruption” which Calvin says is inherent in human nature, which Joe takes issue with, is the “sin” that “dwells” in that “flesh.” When we decode the words Calvin is using, and how he is using them, what we find is an accurate rendition of what Rom 7 is talking about.
As for Joe’s worldview, Rom 7 simply does not fit. In Joe’s language, what Calvin calls “human nature” and what the Bible calls “flesh,” he calls “concupiscence.” According to Joe, there is no sin at the center of concupiscence, and to say that this is so would make mere temptation sin. However, what we can now see is that Joe cannot account for the fact that in the “flesh” “dwells” “sin,” as the Bible would put it. Joe says there is no sin in the flesh, where the Bible says there is.
It’s like a shell game which is why it’s so confusing. We keep switching out the word “flesh” for something else, so it gets lost in the jumble what exactly our theological terms are. I think Joe has made this error, and because he has done so, he has radically misunderstood parts of Calvin. He is unable to understand why Calvinism can maintain that a temptation itself is not sin, while having temptations at the very heart of them is sin.
This is why I quoted Augustine to show that Calvin’s view on this point is orthodox. Augustine adds another word to the mix: “weakness.” Weakness, to Augustine, is human nature according to Calvin, which is flesh according to Paul. However, all of the men are in agreement that weakness/human nature/the flesh must be done away with because “the corruptible [the flesh] must put on the incorruptible [the heavenly body]” (1 Cor 15:53). Man cannot stay in a state of corruption/weakness/human natureness/fleshiness.
However, in Joe’s view, concupiscence is not the evidence of internal corruption. It sounds all, “rah, rah, go human race!” but it radically departs from the Scripture, as well as Augustinian and Calvinistic theology which accurately restate what the Scripture says concerning the matter.
“For example, what is the difference between man’s “nature” and his “flesh?””
I hope I answered that in the above, the answer is nothing, they are the same thing. It is worth pointing out that Christ had a human nature, but it was not corrupted like the rest of human nature. So, Christ’s human nature is perfect human nature while man’s is human nature tainted with Adam’s sin.
” Likewise, what is the difference between “inclinations of the flesh” and “temptation?””
Great question. Temptation itself can exist without the existence of “the flesh,” and we can see in Jesus. However, the rest of us who experience temptation have it arise from a MIXTURE of human frailty (like Jesus) BUT ALSO the sinfulness inherent in our flesh. Christ only experienced the former, while we always experience BOTH.
I used caps above, because I think it makes clear the key difference between Calvin (and Augustine, and the Bible) and Joe, concerning the topic. I’m not yelling 🙂
“…it does seem to me that Calvin intentionally distinguishes himself from Augustine in the passage that both you and Joe cite (Institutes Book IV, Chapter 4).”
True, which is what Joe seizes upon. It is clear the Calvin thinks he got his idea from the Bible, as he does not credit Augustine. However, he could have been unaware of the Two Letters to the Pelagians, or simply forgot that Augustine exegeted Rom 7 in a fashion that lent credibility to his conclusion. Calvin did not have a NewAdvent.org to quickly search through! So, I think Joe and Calvin made the same mistake: they thought that Augustine disagreed with Calvin. My point is that Augustine has a view of the “flesh” (i.e. “[human] weakness”), which ultimately does not work with Joe’s view of human nature.
Let me know if I made good sense of any of this, or just a bunch of nonsense!
God bless,
Craig
Thanks for taking the time to give such a detailed answer, Craig. I think I am following you much better now. Let me attempt a summary of your view.
“Human nature,” “concupiscence,” and “the flesh” are all synonymous terms for a corrupted human inclination toward sin. “The flesh” is the biblical term for this inclination.
“Temptation” occurs:
1. When an another being, such as a person or demon, tried to persuade us to sin.
2. When the inclinations of our flesh cause us to consider sin.
This temptation leads to the guilt of sin under either of the following conditions:
1. The person yields to the temptation and chooses to sin.
2. The corruption of the “flesh” is present in a person.
Because Jesus never chose to yield to temptation, he was not guilty of sin under condition one. And because “in Jesus there is no corruption, then His weaknesses are not tinged with sin.” So he was not guilty under condition two.
Is that a correct statement of your view so far?
If so, I have a couple of follow up questions. I’m still having trouble with something you wrote in your response, so I want to make sure I’m following you.
****Question 1*****
You write: “So, clearly Calvin did not regard temptation as sin, but he like Paul knew that man’s temptation to sin is not purely from his nature, but also from the flesh.”
(Here it seems like you are treating “nature” and “flesh” as different things.)
I asked in response, “What is the difference between man’s nature and his flesh,” to which you responded: “I hope I answered that in the above, the answer is nothing, they are the same thing.”
I’m trying to figure out how to reconcile those two statements with each other. Would it be fair to refer to “human nature” as the uncorrupted state of man while “the flesh” is the corrupted state of man? This seems like what you are trying to get at by adding that Jesus had a human nature, but it was not corrupted like ours is.
******Question 2******
In response to my question: “What is the difference between ‘inclinations of the flesh’ and ‘temptation?'” you write:
“Great question. Temptation itself can exist without the existence of “the flesh,” and we can see in Jesus. However, the rest of us who experience temptation have it arise from a MIXTURE of human frailty (like Jesus) BUT ALSO the sinfulness inherent in our flesh. Christ only experienced the former, while we always experience BOTH.”
How do you read Hebrews 5 in the light of this? Again to quote it: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet he did not sin.”
It’s the “in every way, just as we are” part that doesn’t seem to match up with your view that Christ only experienced a part of the temptation that we experience, or experienced it in a different way then we do.
*****Closing Thoughts********
Much of this seems to tie into exactly what Paul is talking about in Romans 7. For example, you say that “‘Sin’ literally ‘dwells’ in the flesh, according to Rom 7:20.”
But I’m not sure what the word “literally” actually means here. We’re probably getting into dicey linguistic and philosophical territory here, but I feel like your view is tied to this statement. And I honestly am not sure what the statement even means. Which doesn’t mean it’s meaningless, of course; I’m not trying to imply that.
As a personal aside, Romans 7 is the first passage I ever read of Scripture that I felt like God actually touched my life. Rereading it now, there are still times when I’m not sure exactly what it means. “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” God bless and thanks again for your thoughtful responses.
“1. The person yields to the temptation and chooses to sin.
2. The corruption of the “flesh” is present in a person.
Because Jesus never chose to yield to temptation, he was not guilty of sin under condition one. And because “in Jesus there is no corruption, then His weaknesses are not tinged with sin.” So he was not guilty under condition two.
Is that a correct statement of your view so far?”
Yes, very good summary.
“****Question 1*****
You write: “So, clearly Calvin did not regard temptation as sin, but he like Paul knew that man’s temptation to sin is not purely from his nature, but also from the flesh.”
(Here it seems like you are treating “nature” and “flesh” as different things.) ”
Good point. I am using the dichotomy that Calvin/Aquinas/Augustine point out that Jesus CHrist had a human nature. Human nature itself is not necessarily sinful, but all of those who inherited the sin of Adam have a tainted human nature that in effect is “the flesh.” Usually the term “nature” refers simply to the flesh, but here I was showing the difference between untained human nature and tainted human nature.
“Would it be fair to refer to “human nature” as the uncorrupted state of man while “the flesh” is the corrupted state of man?”
Yes, you anticipated my response.
“******Question 2******
In response to my question: “What is the difference between ‘inclinations of the flesh’ and ‘temptation?’” you write:
“Great question. Temptation itself can exist without the existence of “the flesh,” and we can see in Jesus. However, the rest of us who experience temptation have it arise from a MIXTURE of human frailty (like Jesus) BUT ALSO the sinfulness inherent in our flesh. Christ only experienced the former, while we always experience BOTH.”
How do you read Hebrews 5 in the light of this?”
I interpret “every way” as he has experienced in a sensory a way all the same temptations. Christ dealt with food, money, the opposite sex, and everything we deal with. He was well aware what man finds wrongly enjoyable in these things. This is “human frailty.” However, at no point, did he give into or entertain temptation, nor have have the inclinations to do so. Us human beings always have the inclinations to do so, even when we reject temptation, because we have “the flesh.” Jesus doesn’t.
“It’s the “in every way, just as we are” part that doesn’t seem to match up with your view that Christ only experienced a part of the temptation that we experience, or experienced it in a different way then we do.”
I would disagree. Jesus obviously did not internalize temptation the way we do, or feel the tugs and doubts in the heart that try to deceive us to give into temptation. So, there is a psychological element absent in Jesus’ feeling of temptation, not because He was not tempted in the same exact ways, but because He did not have an additional element of the inclinations of the flesh.
I think you are conflating the flesh with temptation, and because of this it is hard to imagine how Christ can be tempted in every way we have been. However, when you realize that they are two different things, it becomes conceivable that Jesus Christ can be tempted exactly the same way, but not have any battle against the flesh, nor deal with its latent nature as we do.
“But I’m not sure what the word “literally” actually means here. We’re probably getting into dicey linguistic and philosophical territory here, but I feel like your view is tied to this statement.”
Let me try to put it plainly. Sin metaphysically exists in your body right now. Sin is not merely an act. Though an act of the will differentiates a non-sinful act from a sinful acts, Paul in Rom 7:20 is referring to sin in the sense that it exists as a force within the man. So, sin is both a sort of act, and a metaphysical quality within a man (i.e. his “flesh.”) This is why Calvin can say that man is depraved as a sort of default position, because essentially, that’s what the logical conclusion of Rom 7:20 is.
Augustine appears to recognize this because he explicitly considers his battles with temptations, even when he does not really even yield to them, sin in Book X of the COnfessions, and he views that the flesh must essentially be done away with even for those that have not sinned willfully.
“And I honestly am not sure what the statement even means.”
Maybe you should start with finding possible explanations and seeing which of them make sense.
“As a personal aside, Romans 7 is the first passage I ever read of Scripture that I felt like God actually touched my life.”
Cool! The first time God touched my life was hearing Augustine being read.
God bless,
Craig
Thanks again for the reply. I think we are getting somewhere now. And just as an aside, I wanted to thank you for your commitment to ecumenism, and actually engaging with other believers in a charitable way. I expect it might feel like people are ganging up on you over on Joe’s blog, but I quite appreciate the effort you put forth. We need more people throughout the church that are willing to do the kind of hard work that you are doing.
You indicated that the following summary that I gave was a good summary of your view. To requote it:
“Temptation leads to the guilt of sin under either of the following conditions:
1. The person yields to the temptation and chooses to sin.
2. The corruption of the ‘flesh’ is present in a person.”
With this summary in mind, I agree with your interpretation against Joe’s, that this idea does not necessarily lead one to deny either Christ’s humanity or his perfect holiness. This is an altogether different question than whether or not the idea is true, of course.
After rereading your original post and our responses, however, I’m now confused by one additional thing that you said. And then I also have some follow up thoughts.
****The Thing I’m Confused About*******
In affirming the summary I gave above, you indicated that temptation leads to the guilt of sin both 1. when a person yields and 2. when the corruption of a person’s flesh is present.
In the original post, you write the following:
“Augustine, who Joe quotes in support of the correct notion that being tempted is not sin because sin requires assent of the will, elsewhere shows us there is a bit more to the picture (that Joe leaves out.)”
I’m trying to reconcile these two ideas that you are affirming. In the original post, you indicate that temptation is sin only when a person gives an “assent of the will.” But in affirming my summary, you also indicate that a temptation is sin when a person does not give assent of the will. In that second case, it is sin because of the corruption present in their flesh. Would you now rephrase that first statement in light of what we have discussed? Or is there a way in which you mean that first statement that you think is consistent with condition two of my summary?
Would it be fair to say that the first statement (temptation is only sin when it is given assent) is really only applicable to Jesus? (Or Mary, if you believe in the Immaculate Conception, not sure what your views are there.) It seems in every other case the second condition would apply, rendering the temptation sinful.
Take the example that Joe gives in his article. Here, Augustine is defending those who were raped from the charge of sin, arguing instead that any who had not assented with their will were still pure. Yet under the second condition of my summary, it seems they are guilty. Another being is trying to persuade them to sin (temptation), and the corruption of the flesh is present in them. So that temptation would be sinful under my summary, though Augustine does not seem to draw this same conclusion.
****Random Follow up Thoughts****
1. I have never really encountered the idea that “Sin metaphysically exists in your body right now.” and is not an act. Are there other places or thinkers that you could direct me to that articulate that idea? I’d be interested in reading more. There are a lot different ideas about “original sin” of course, so I’m wondering if you’re referring to some conception of that?
2. The idea that sin has some sort of ontological existence in its own right doesn’t seem particularly Augustinian to me. Again, you seem to have read more of him than me, so please direct me to the reading if you’re able. What I’ve read of Augustine is that he tends to view evil and sin as specifically not having a being in their own right: “Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name ‘evil.'” (The City of God, XI, Ch. 9). Not sure if the two of you are talking about the same thing, though, I’d have to do more thinking about that.
3. You quote Chapter 23 of Augustine’s *Against Two Letters of the Pelegians,* where Augustine is doing some exegesis of Romans 7. I read recently that Augustine actually changed his view on Romans 7 later in his life and wrote about it in his Retractationes. Just wanted to offer that as an FYI, if you weren’t already aware. It may be worth reading and thinking about.
4. I agree with you that “the flesh” as we’ve discussed it here, is corrupted enough in its own right that it may (I emphasize may) indeed condemn a person to hell if they are not saved from it through Christ. The case of infants here is a difficult one, and I tend to take the Catholic Church’s view that we can do little but entrust such souls to God, and remain silent on what we do not know, confident that both love and justice will be perfectly served. With that said, I don’t see the connection between such flesh and the sinfulness of temptation as described in condition two of my summary. It does not seem to me that the Bible is teaching that this flesh renders all temptation sinful. Perhaps you could point me to a place where you address this that I overlooked, or make it more explicit.
Again, thank you for your patience and time.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
“And just as an aside, I wanted to thank you for your commitment to ecumenism, and actually engaging with other believers in a charitable way.”
Thank you very much. Please pray for me that God may give me humility, wisdom, and most importantly love in this.
“2. The corruption of the ‘flesh’ is present in a person.”
I am quoting the above, because I will be quoting Aquinas at length who speaks of a very similar idea.
“In affirming the summary I gave above, you indicated that temptation leads to the guilt of sin both 1. when a person yields and 2. when the corruption of a person’s flesh is present.”
Correct to the extent that with the latter you cannot go to heaven, though it does not impute someone with the same kind of guilt (infants likely are imputed less guilt, though I am more Augustinian in the mindset that I hardly consider them innocent. You already said this much later in your reply, so I think from a working standpoint we are really close on what we’re espousing. The fact that you also say there aren’t any Christological problems shows that we have ironed out any difficulties that Joe pointed out. Let’s continue with your reply.
“But in affirming my summary, you also indicate that a temptation is sin when a person does not give assent of the will. In that second case, it is sin because of the corruption present in their flesh. Would you now rephrase that first statement in light of what we have discussed? Or is there a way in which you mean that first statement that you think is consistent with condition two of my summary?”
It is difficult, because the former we know is true from a rational viewpoint and the latter we know is true from an explictly Biblical one. It is implicit in the Scripture that sin requires an act of the will, so I will not deny it. However, Paul finds latent sin in a person as essentially damaging to the will and something that must be done away with, and is in Jesus Christ ultimately.
So, I don’t think either idea contradicts another, though they are not on the surface easily workable. Pardon me then if I make a gross simplification, borrowing from the example Augustine uses. A person who is raped, who through physical and/or psychological stimuli becomes aroused does not incur the guilt of fornication. HOWEVER, the existence of arousal in such a case is evidence of a defect in nature that Paul calls sin, so in of itself it IS sin…just not the sin of fornication.
I will get into more detail later why i think Augustine and Aquinas would share this understanding.
“Would it be fair to say that the first statement (temptation is only sin when it is given assent) is really only applicable to Jesus? (Or Mary, if you believe in the Immaculate Conception, not sure what your views are there.) It seems in every other case the second condition would apply, rendering the temptation sinful.”
No, because temptation is not sin. The inclination that desires the temptation is at its core “sin,” but it is not the sin that we would be committing if we gave into temptation. For example, if a beautiful woman walks by, I deal with the struggle of knowing she is beautiful and knowing I want to look at her sexually. Yet, I also have a desire for obedience, and so I do not give in to temptation. Now, another man sees the women, looks at her, and then lusts after her in his heart. The latter man commits the sin of lust and has an essential defect in his nature that is, in its essence, sin. Myself in this situation, share the same defect but not the sin of lust.
“Augustine is defending those who were raped from the charge of sin, arguing instead that any who had not assented with their will were still pure. Yet under the second condition of my summary, it seems they are guilty.”
Augustine has a similar discussion about concupiscence in Book X of the Confessions. He essentially details how he battles against the desires to sleep with women in his dreams, enjoy art, and enjoy the taste of food…all of which he sees as idolatry. By the definition Joe gives, Augustine would not be sinning as he does not really given consent to any of them. Yet, Augustine says of himself in Chapter 70:
“Terrified by my sins and the load of my misery, I had resolved in my heart, and meditated flight into the wilderness; but You forbade me, and strengthened me, saying, therefore, Christ died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them. 2 Corinthians 5:15 Behold, O Lord, I cast my care upon You, that I may live, and behold wondrous things out of Your law. You know my unskilfulness and my infirmities; teach me, and heal me.”
It is a very Rom 7:24-25 answer to the dilemma. In the answer, he calls his bouts with concupiscence “sins.” Hence, my view is that Augustine understood that being raped was not fornication, but that the will is damaged and sinful and must be dealt with, even in the Apostles.
“1. I have never really encountered the idea that “Sin metaphysically exists in your body right now.” and is not an act. Are there other places or thinkers that you could direct me to that articulate that idea?”
Aquinas has a very thorough discussion, one which would place him between Joe and myself (though I view him closer to me of course 😉 ) Here’s a link: https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/romans/st-thomas-aquinas-on-romans/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5/chapter-6/chapter-7
I’ll quote two parts I find important: “It should be noted that sin is said to dwell in man, not as though sin were some reality, since it is a privation of good, but to indicate the permanence of this kind of defect in man”
“First, therefore, he proves that sin dwelling in man does the evil which man commits. This proof is clear when the words are referred to a man in the state of grace, who has been freed from sin by the grace of Christ. Therefore, as to a person in whom Christ’s grace does not dwell, he has not yet been freed from sin. But the grace of Christ does not dwell in the flesh but in the mind; hence it is stated below (8:10) that “if Christ is in us, the body is indeed dead because of sin, but the spirit lives because of righteousness.’’ Therefore, sin, which the desire of the flesh works, still rules in the flesh… he conc1udes that sin, which functions against reason’s will, holds sway over man.”
I can also point you to the following from Augustine who says that those who do not give consent to sin are not sinless like Christ:
“It is one thing to fulfil the command, You shall not covet; Exodus 20:17 and another thing, by an endeavour at any rate after abstinence, to do that which is also written,You shall not go after your lusts. Sirach 18:30 And yet one is quite aware that he can do nothing of all this without the Saviour’s grace. It is to work righteousness, therefore, to fight in an internal struggle with the internalevil of concupiscence in the true worship of God; while to perfect it means to have no adversary at all. Now he who has to fight is still in danger, and is sometimes shaken, even if he is not overthrown; whereas he who has no enemy at all rejoices in perfect peace. He, moreover, is in the highest truth said to be without sin in whom no sin has an indwelling—not he who,abstaining from evil deeds, uses such language as Now it is no longer I that do it, but the sin that dwells in me. Romans 7:20” (Chapter 72, On Nature and Grace)
“2. The idea that sin has some sort of ontological existence in its own right doesn’t seem particularly Augustinian to me.”
Augustine in the above said sin has an indwelling, and in the first letter against the Pelagians in Chapter 24 he treats it as a tangible “weakness” (his words.) So, I think he had some concept of it, as does Aquinas. It is my opinion that Aquinas does not “go all the way” because he has a deficient definition of evil (“evil is the absence of good.”) Now, that definition is an Augustinian one, but it is philosophical and not Biblical, and I think it originates from Book 7 of the Confessions. I just don’t think anyone can uphold such a definition when being punched in the face. Further, it is irrational. Good can simply be the absence of evil just as evil can be the absence of good. I disagree with the definition on Biblical and philosophical grounds, it doesn’t hold water.
“3. You quote Chapter 23 of Augustine’s *Against Two Letters of the Pelegians,* where Augustine is doing some exegesis of Romans 7. I read recently that Augustine actually changed his view on Romans 7 later in his life and wrote about it in his Retractationes.”
I cannot pass comment unless I see what he actually said about it in that book. Further, Augustine can be pitted against Augustine. The man had his inconsistencies. I think that even if he later in life took a view, or earlier in life took another, it doesn’t make either by necessity wrong. Rather, it shows that the Biblical and philosphical evidence for both are compelling, though Augustine as he matured found one obviously more compelling than the other.
“4. I agree with you that “the flesh” as we’ve discussed it here, is corrupted enough in its own right that it may (I emphasize may) indeed condemn a person to hell if they are not saved from it through Christ.”
Like I said earlier, if we have this understanding, much of everything else is immaterial.
“It does not seem to me that the Bible is teaching that this flesh renders all temptation sinful.”
But this is not the Calvinist position. Calvin’s position, to put it harshly, is that every single act, even breathing, is tainted with sin because sin resides in a person. It is an important concept as it gives us another view of how broad and all encompassing God’s grace is, but it is not useful for practical admonishments towards moral excellence. Hence, I view there is a place for Augustine’s practical discussion on sin, and Augustine’s other more esoteric discussions on the nature of the flesh and concupiscence.
God bless,
Craig
Hello Craig,
Okay, thank you for that clarification. I was thinking you meant that the inner corruption of a man causes that man to be guilty of particular sins on each instance of temptation, such that if a person was tempted by lust in a particular instance, he would be guilty of that particular lust in that particular instance.
I’m glad we’ve found some common ground here. There are a lot more fun things to talk about in your previous comment, but I will have to get to that in another time or place. I’m neck deep writing my next book at the moment, so I will leave our discussion here. I look forward to talking with you more in the future.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
On a personal note, are you an author and what are you writing about?
Yes, I am. I write sci-fi, fantasy, and humor, though there’s probably a nonfiction book in my future at some point.
If you’re interested, you can find my first book, The Towers, on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Towers-Jordan-Jeffers/dp/1493727427
I had a column on McSweeney’s for a time called Speaking for All Christians Exactly Like Me: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/columns/speaking-for-all-christians-exactly-like-me
And my (badly outdated) website is just jordanjeffers.com.
The book I’m currently working on is a sequel to The Towers, since I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to write a stand alone fantasy book these days. If you end up reading anything I’d be interested to hear what you think.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Sadly I am not sure if I will get time to read fiction in the near future, but I will definitely contact you if the circumstances change. I have written two novels a few years back with my brother…both of them real bad and unpublished, but of course we thought they were real great 🙂 I was gunning for a Dante’s Inferno for the 21st century.
God bless,
Craig
Hi Craig
I see you try to claim that Calvin calls this “an immedediate correction”. Can you explain what an immediate correction is for a an all perfect Devine being?
I already quoted Aquinas and Augustine to show what he might have meant. “Christ thus as man shews a certain private human will…[T]hough God’s will is other, this is permitted to human frailty” (Quoted in Aquinas Study Bible). So, it is traditionally explained as the display of the human will contrary to the divine will.
Elsewhere on a different topic Calvin writes, “There would be no impropriety, therefore, in saying that Christ, who knew all things, was ignorant of something in respect to his perception as a man.”
I do not agree with him on this and I do not know where the RCC stands on the issue.
Thanks Craig…also, you have me reading St Augustine. I think it’s interesting how Aquinas’ writings are pitched in a scholastic sense, and Augustine more accessible. Thanks!
Good posts, Craig. I am a Catholic who knows plenty of Reformed Christians (had a roommate for three years that was Reformed) and I frequent Joe’s Shameless Popery blog. However, I think this one got away from Joe a little bit. My (limited) reading of Calvin and through my conversations with my Reformed friends I never have believed Reformed folks thought that being tempted was sinning. When I read Joe’s post this was news to me (temptation = sin) although I agree with his objections about total depravity which I think are on point. To that point, from the com boxes on the Shameless Popery site I’m still not clear where you stand on that. A poster by the name of deltaflute repeatedly asked your view on this and you would not give a yes or no but kept quoting somebody – so, like deltaflute I conclude you are somewhere in between total depravity and semi-depravity (?). You might think this is ok but I’ve never heard of it (however defined). I’m not trying to start an argument – just didn’t understand. Thanks for throwing out a contrarian viewpoint charitably.
If you read the comments section, you might have your answer elaborated upon. Thanks for the response!
Thank you for responding to this, I was going to but I see that you sufficiently responded to this claim. I found this post a little careless on his part, his site is probably the best Catholic apologetics site I’ve ever seen, so I was surprised at this blunder.
Thanks for your comment!