The Sin of Concupiscence - Response to Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621)

 

Argument #1 - Baptism takes away sin; but it does not take away concupiscence, therefore concupiscence is not sin.

Response: Baptism does indeed take away sin in respect of its guilt (and this is not done ex opere operato, but only when the recipient has a genuine faith in Christ and is regenerated), but not in respect of sin’s presence and existence in the soul, since as is seen from many passages of Scripture, the believer still has a struggle against indwelling sin in the process of sanctification (Rom. 7:14-25; Gal. 5:17; James 3:2). As Augustine says “Carnal concupiscence is remitted, indeed, in baptism; not so that it is put out of existence, but so that it is not to be imputed for sin. Although its guilt is now taken away, it still remains until our entire infirmity be healed by the advancing renewal of our inner man, day by day, when at last our outward man shall be clothed with incorruption.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1.28)

Argument #2 - Concupiscence is the result and punishment of original sin. Therefore, it is a part of original sin itself. 

Response: Sin is often the punishment of sin. Such was the case with the heathens whom God gave over to a reprobate mind and to the sins of homosexuality, as a punishment (Romans 1:18-32). As Augustine says “In like manner, the concupiscence of the flesh against which a good spirit lusts is not only a  sin, because it is disobedience against the dominion of the mind—as well as punishment for sin, because it has been reckoned as the wages of disobedience—but also  a cause of sin, in the failure of him who consents to it or in the contagion of birth.” (Against Julian, 5.3)

Argument #3 - Concupiscence, if by it means the motions of sin which the mind resists, is not itself sin. 

Response: This is an obvious case of begging the question. Any lusting after an unlawful object is wrong and sinful, but such is the nature of concupiscence. Therefore it is sin. Bellarmine objects that it cannot be considered sin, since it is not the power of the regenerate to not possess such a faculty. But the formal reason of sin is anomia, not what Bellarmine alleges. Add on to that, that his reasoning could equally apply to show that original sin is not sin, since it is not in the power of the unregenerate to not possess it. 

Argument #4 - If concupiscence is sin, and remains justified, then Christ has not genuinely freed us from sin, but only imputatively. 

Response: Christ has freed us not only from the guilt of sin, but also from its dominion and power. We are freed also from the presence of sin, but this is through a process. It is certainly true that Christ could in one moment free us from sin entirely and make us completely holy here in this life. Oh, if it were true! Yet, in His wisdom He permits to wage war against the flesh and concupiscence in order that we might be constantly receiving anew for sanctification, and that we would be leaning on Him in all things.