D. Concupiscence or Sin
D. Concupiscence or Sin
Peter Martyr agrees with Rome on the fact that those who have been justified continue to have concupiscence, that is, Christians still possess an inclination toward evil despite the indwelling presence of the Spirit.1094 His opposition to Rome on this point centers on the question of the status of concupiscence. Is concupiscence simply an inclination to sin, or does the inclination itself constitute sin? Vermigli chooses the latter, recognizing sin as an ongoing obstacle to fellowship with God, which only the imputation of Christ’s righteousness can remedy.1095 By contrast, the Council of Trent, in its “Decree on Original Sin,” unequivocally opted for the former.1096 In the words of the Catholic Catechism,
Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us “holy and without blemish,” just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is “holy and without blemish.” Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life. This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.1097
It is interesting to note that this is another place where the Catholic Newman revised his position in conformity to the teaching of Rome. Accordingly, in his third edition (1874), he qualifies his original statement that “since we are ever falling into sin and incurring God’s wrath,”1098 by noting that, “If by ‘sin’ is meant grievous sin, those who are in the grace of God need not ever be falling into it; and if lighter sins are meant, these do not bring us back again under ‘God’s wrath.’”1099
The question of the status of concupiscence continues to be a point of contention between contemporary Catholics and Protestants. Dulles explains why this is the case.
Trent unequivocally taught the reality of the transition from unrighteousness to righteousness that occurs in justification. It denied that grace consists merely in God’s favor or in the nonimputation of sins. . . . For this reason Catholics remain to this day somewhat nervous about the formula, simul iustus et peccator, which might suggest that we are justified only in hope or in a purely nominalistic way that leaves us internally untouched.1100
This study has not ascribed the doctrine of simul iustus et peccator to Peter Martyr’s teaching, since he does not actually employ the phrase. However, we agree with James who makes a compelling case that, despite Martyr’s reticence in explicating the formula, the concept is alive and well in his theology.1101 In light of this, the anthropology of the JD, in keeping with Trent, differs from Martyr and the Reformed tradition insofar as it regards concupiscence as not strictly sin in the “proper sense” and not meriting “the punishment of eternal death.”1102 At the same time, the JD upholds the Lutheran simul in a way that affirms that we are “totally sinners” according to the law, while also recognizing that a Christian’s inclination to sin is also ruled by Christ to the extent that “Christians can in part lead a just life.”1103 Disagreement on this subject became a point of contention that resulted in continued clarification in the annex, in which a mutually agreeable balance was sought. This balance highlighted the reality of spiritual renewal (2 Cor 5:17) while simultaneously requiring Christians to pray “God, be merciful to me, a sinner” (Luke 18:13).1104 To this extent, at least, Catholics and Protestants have a synoptic view.