Jump to content

Concupiscence

From Catholicism Wiki
St. Augustine explored and used the term "concupiscence" to refer to sinful lust.

Concupiscence (from Late Latin concupīscentia, from the Latin verb concupīscere, from con-, "with", here an intensifier, + cupere, "to desire" + -scere, a verb-forming suffix denoting beginning of a process or state) is an ardent longing, typically one that is sensual.[1] In Christianity, particularly in Catholic and Lutheran theology, concupiscence is the tendency of humans to sin.[2][3]

There are nine occurrences of concupiscence in the Douay-Rheims Bible[4] and three occurrences in the King James Bible.[5] It is also one of the English translations of the Koine Greek epithumia (ἐπιθυμία),[6] which occurs 39 times in the New Testament.[7]

Involuntary sexual arousal is explored in the Confessions of Augustine, wherein he used the term "concupiscence" to refer to sinful lust.[8]

Jewish perspective

In Judaism, there is an early concept of yetzer hara (Hebrew: יצר הרע for "evil inclination"). This concept is the inclination of humanity at creation to do evil or violate the will of God.[9] The yetzer hara is not the product of original sin as in Christian theology, it is a drive toward pleasure, property or security that can lead to evil if uncontrolled.[10]

In Judaism, the yetzer hara is a natural part of God's creation, and God provides guidelines and commands to help followers master this tendency.[11] This doctrine was clarified in the Sifre around 200–350 CE.[12] In Jewish doctrine, it is possible for humanity to overcome the yetzer hara. Therefore, for the Jewish mindset, it is possible for humanity to choose good over evil and it is the person's duty to choose good.[13]

Augustine

Involuntary sexual arousal is explored in the Confessions of Augustine, wherein he used the term "concupiscence" to refer to sinful lust.[8] He taught that Adam's sin[14] is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[15][16] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnāta (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[17] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[18] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[19] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libīdō) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[20][21] In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit.

Pelagius

The main opposition came from a monk named Pelagius (354–420 or 440). His views became known as Pelagianism.[22] Although the writings of Pelagius are mainly in fragments, the eight canons of the Council of Carthage (418) provided corrections to the perceived errors of the early Pelagians.[23] Pelagianism gives mankind the ability to choose between good and evil within their created nature.[24] While rejecting concupiscence, these views rejected humanity's universal need for grace.

Catholic teaching

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that Adam and Eve were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice" (CCC 375, 376 398), free from concupiscence (CCC 377). The preternatural state enjoyed by Adam and Eve afforded endowments with many prerogatives which, while pertaining to the natural order, were not due to human nature as such. Principal among these were a high degree of infused knowledge, bodily immortality and freedom from pain, and immunity from evil impulses or inclinations. In other words, the lower or animal nature in man was perfectly subject to the control of reason and the will subject to God. Besides this, the Catholic Church teaches that our first parents were also endowed with sanctifying grace by which they were elevated to the supernatural order.[25] By sinning, however, Adam lost this original "state", not only for himself but for all human beings (CCC 416).

According to Catholic theology, man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right: the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, and the vision of God in the next life. God the Father, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and in consequence from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth.[26]

As a result of original sin, according to Catholics, human nature has not been totally corrupted (as opposed to the teachings of Luther and Calvin); rather, human nature has only been weakened and wounded, subject to ignorance, suffering, the domination of death, and the inclination to sin and evil (CCC 405, 418). This inclination toward sin and evil is called "concupiscence" (CCC 405, 418). Baptism, the Catechism teaches, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God. The inclination toward sin and evil persists, however, and he must continue to struggle against concupiscence (CCC 2520).

Today, the Catholic Church's teaching on original sin focuses more on its results than on its origins. As Cardinal Ratzinger had intimated in 1981,[27] and as Pope Benedict XVI clarified in 2008: "How did it happen? This remains obscure.... Evil remains mysterious. It is presented as such in great images, as it is in chapter 3 of Genesis, with that scene of the two trees, of the serpent, of sinful man: a great image that makes us guess but cannot explain what is itself illogical."[28]

Methodist teaching

The Wesleyan–Arminian theology of the Methodist Churches, inclusive of the Wesleyan-Holiness movement, teaches that humans, though being born with original sin, can turn to God as a result of prevenient grace and do good; this prevenient grace convicts humans of the necessity of the new birth (first work of grace), through which he is justified (pardoned) and regenerated.[29] After this, to willfully sin would be to fall from grace, though a person can be restored to fellowship with God through repentance.[29][30] When the believer is entirely sanctified (second work of grace), his/her original sin is washed away.[29] Methodist theology firstly distinguishes between original sin and actual sin:[31]

Original sin is the sin which corrupts our nature and gives us the tendency to sin. Actual sins are the sins we commit every day before we are saved, such as lying, swearing, stealing.[31]

It further categorizes sin as being "sin proper" and "sin improper".[29] Sins proper (or sin, properly so called) are those that are committed freely and willfully, which result in a loss of entire sanctification.[32] Sins improper (or sin, improperly so called) are those in the "category of benign neglect, fruits of infirmity (forgetfulness, lack of knowledge, etc)".[29] In traditional Methodist theology, these (improper) sins are not classified as sins, as explained by Wesley, "Such transgressions you may call sins, if you please: I do not, for the reasons above-mentioned."[33] John Wesley explains the matter like this:[34]

"Nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of a known law of God. Therefore, every voluntary breach of the law of love is sin; and nothing else, if we speak properly. To strain the matter farther is only to make way for Calvinism. There may be ten thousand wandering thoughts, and forgetful intervals, without any breach of love, though not without transgressing the Adamic law. But Calvinists would fain confound these together. Let love fill your heart, and it is enough!"[34]

Although an entirely sanctified person is not free from temptation, "the entirely sanctified person does have the distinct advantage of a pure heart and the fullness of the Holy Spirit's presence to give strength in resisting temptation."[35] If a person backslides through sin proper but later returns to God, he or she must repent and be entirely sanctified again, according to Wesleyan-Arminian theology.[36]

Comparison of the Catholic view with Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican views

The primary difference between Catholic theology and Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican theologies on the issue of concupiscence is whether it can be classified as sin by its own nature. The Catholic Church teaches that while it is highly likely to cause sin, concupiscence is not sin itself. Rather, it is "the tinder for sin" which "cannot harm those who do not consent" (CCC 1264).[37]

This difference is intimately tied with the different traditions on original sin. Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican theology holds that the original prelapsarian nature of humanity was an innate tendency to good; the special relationship Adam and Eve enjoyed with God was due not to some supernatural gift, but to their own natures. Hence, in these traditions, the Fall was not the destruction of a supernatural gift, leaving humanity's nature to work unimpeded, but rather the corruption of that nature itself. Since the present nature of humans is corrupted from their original nature, it follows that it is not good, but rather evil (although some good may still remain). Thus, in these traditions, concupiscence is evil in itself. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England state that "the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin".[38]

By contrast, Catholicism, while also maintaining that humanity's original nature is good (CCC 374), teaches that even after this gift was lost after the Fall, human nature still cannot be called evil, because it remains a natural creation of God. Despite the fact that humans sin, Catholic theology teaches that human nature itself is not the cause of sin, although once it comes into contact with sin it may produce more sin.

The difference in views also extends to the relationship between concupiscence and original sin.

Another reason for the differing views of Catholics with Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans on concupiscence is their position on sin in general. The Magisterial Reformers taught that one can be guilty of sin even if it is not voluntary; the Catholic Church and the Methodist Church, by contrast, traditionally hold that one is guilty of sin only when the sin is voluntary.[39][40] By the Catholic position that one's attitudes are acts of will, sinful attitudes are voluntary. By the magisterial reformer view that these attitudes are involuntary, some sins are involuntary as well. Reformed theology distinguishes original corruption from actual transgressions, while also treating both the corruption and its motions as sin.[41]

Aquinian concept of passion

Thomas Aquinas in his 13th-century work Summa Theologiae described two divisions of passion: the concupiscible (pursuit/avoidance instincts) and the irascible (competition/aggression/defense instincts). With the former are associated the emotions of joy and sadness, love and hate, desire and repugnance; with the latter, daring and fear, hope and despair, anger.[42]

Islam

Al-Ghazali in the 11th century discussed concupiscence from an Islamic perspective in his book Kimiya-yi sa'ādat (The Alchemy of Happiness), and also mentioned it in The Deliverer from Error. In this book, amongst other things, he discusses how to reconcile the concupiscent and the irascible souls, balancing them to achieve happiness. Concupiscence is related to the term "nafs" in Arabic.[43]

See also

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

In its widest acceptation, Concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end. But the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratifications independently of the understanding and without regard to the good of the higher faculties. Hence desires contrary to the real good and order of reason may, and often do, rise in it, previous to the attention of the mind, and once risen, dispose the bodily organs to the pursuit and solicit the will to consent, while they more or less hinder reason from considering their lawfulness or unlawfulness. This is concupiscence in its strict and specific sense. As long, however, as deliberation is not completely impeded, the rational will is able to resist such desires and withhold consent, though it be not capable of crushing the effects they produce in the body, and though its freedom and dominion be to some extent diminished. If, in fact, the will resists, a struggle ensues, the sensuous appetite rebelliously demanding its gratification, reason, on the contrary, clinging to its own spiritual interests and asserting it control. "The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh."

From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature. Nor have the inordinate desires (actual concupiscence) or the proneness to them (habitual concupiscence) the nature of sin; for sin, being the free and deliberate transgression of the law of God, can be only in the rational will; though it be true that they are temptations to sin, becoming the stronger and the more frequent the oftener they have been indulged. As thus far considered they are only sinful objects and antecedent causes of sinful transgressions; they contract the malice of sin only when consent is given by the will; not as though their nature were changed, but because they are adopted and completed by the will and so share its malice. Hence the distinction of concupiscence antecedent and concupiscence consequent to the consent of the will; the latter is sinful, the former is not. The first parents were free from concupiscence, so that their sensuous appetite was perfectly subject to reason; and this freedom they were to transmit to posterity provided they observed the commandment of God. A short but important statement of the Catholic doctrine on this point may be quoted from Peter the Deacon, a Greek, who was sent to Rome to bear witness to the Faith of the East: "Our belief is that Adam came from the hands of his Creator good and free from the assaults of the flesh" (Lib. de Incarn., c. vi). In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; no was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty. By the sin of Adam freedom from concupiscence was forfeited not only for himself, but also for all his posterity with the exception of the Blessed Virgin by special privilege. Human nature was deprived of both its preternatural and supernatural gifts and graces, the lower appetite began to lust against the spirit, and evil habits, contracted by personal sins, wrought disorder in the body, obscured the mind, and weakened the power of the will, without, however, destroying its freedom. Hence that lamentable condition of which St. Paul complains when he writes:

I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Rom., vii, 21-25)

Christ by His death redeemed mankind from sin and its bondage. In baptism the guilt of original sin is wiped out and the soul is cleansed and justified again by the infusion of sanctifying grace. But freedom from concupiscence is not restored to man, any more than immortality; abundant grace, however, is given him, by which he may obtain the victory over rebellious sense and deserve life everlasting. The Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially Luther, proposed new views respecting concupiscence. They adopted as fundamental to their theology the following propositions:

  • Original justice with all its gifts and graces was due to man as an integral part of his nature;
  • concupiscence is of itself sinful, and being the sinful corruption of human nature caused by Adam's transgression and inherited by all his descendants, is the very essence of original sin;
  • baptism, since it does not extinguish concupiscence, does not really remit the guilt of original sin, but only effects that it is no longer imputed to man and no longer draws down condemnation on him. This position is held also by the Anglican Church in its Thirty-nine Articles and its Book of Common Prayer.

The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin. Later on Pius V, by the Bull "Ex omnibus affictionibus" (1 Oct., 1567), Gregory XIII, by the Bull "Provisions Nostrae" (29 Jan., 15798), Urban VIII, by the Bull "In eminenti" (6 March, 1641), condemned the propositions of Bajus (21, 23, 24, 26), Clement XI, by the Constitution "Unigenitus", those of Quesnel (34, 35); and finally Pius VI, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" (28 Aug., 1794), those of the Synod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were not supernatural but due to human nature. (See GRACE, JUSTIFICATION, SIN.) JOHN J. MING

References

  1. Back to citation "Concupiscence – Define Concupiscence at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
  2. Back to citation Malloy, Christopher J. (2005). Engrafted Into Christ: A Critique of the Joint Declaration. Peter Lang. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-8204-7408-3. “The Annex offers the following description of the Catholic notion of voluntary sin: "Sin has a personal character and as such leads to separation from God. It is the selfish desire of the old person and the lack of trust and love toward God." The Annex also offers the following as a Lutheran position: Concupiscence is understood as the self-seeking desire of the human being, which in light of the law, spiritually understood, is regarded as sin." A comparison of the two descriptions, one of sin and one of concupiscence, shows little if any difference. The Catholic definition of voluntary sin includes the following elements: selfish desire and lack of love. Those of the Lutheran conception of concupiscence are selfish desire, lack of love, and repeated idolatry—a sin which, as stated in the JD, requires daily forgiveness (JD, 29). The Catholic definition of sin appears quite similar to the Lutheran definition of concupiscence.”
  3. Back to citation Coleman, D. (11 October 2007). Drama and the Sacraments in Sixteenth-Century England: Indelible Characters. Springer. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-230-58964-3. “Trent defines concupiscence as follows: Concupiscence or a tendency to sin remains [after baptism, but] the catholic church has never understood it to be called sin in the sense of being truly and properly such in those who have been regenerated, but in the sense that it is a result of sin and inclines to sin (667*).”
  4. Back to citation Wisdom 4:12, Romans 7:7, Romans 7:8, Colossians 3:5, Epistle of James 1:14, James 1:15, 2 Peter 1:4, and 1 John 2:17.
  5. Back to citation Romans 7:8, Colossians 3:5 and I Thessalonians 4:5.
  6. Back to citation "epithumia" is also translated as wish or desire (or in a biblical context, longing, lust, passion, covetousness, or impulse). See wikt:επιθυμία.
  7. Back to citation Matthew 5:29–30, Mark 4:19, Luke 22:15, John 8:44, Romans 1:24, Romans 6:12, Romans 7:7,8, Romans 13:14, Galatians 5:16,24, Ephesians 2:3, Ephesians 4:22, Philippians 1:23, Colossians 3:5, 1Thessalonians 2:17, 1Thessalonians 4:5, 1Timothy 6:9, 2Timothy 2:22, 2Timothy 3:6, 2Timothy 4:3, Titus 2:12, Titus 3:3, James 1:14,15, 1Peter 1:14, 1Peter 2:11, 1Peter 4:2,3, 2Peter 1:4, 2Peter 2:10,18, 2Peter 3:3, 1John 2:16(twice),17, Jude 1:16,18, and Revelation 18:14.
  8. Back to citation occurrence 8.0 Back to citation occurrence 8.1 Greenblatt, Stephen (June 19, 2017). "How St. Augustine Invented Sex". The New Yorker.
  9. Back to citation Jacobs, Joseph; Executive Committee of the Editorial Board. "Yeẓer Ha-Ra'". The Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12 June 2026.
  10. Back to citation Umbarger, Matthew W. (2023). "Yeṣer ha-Raʻ and Original Sin". Religions. 14 (6): 733. doi:10.3390/rel14060733.
  11. Back to citation Spiegel, Ethan. "The Birth of the Good Inclination". My Jewish Learning. Retrieved 12 June 2026.
  12. Back to citation "Sifré to Deuteronomy". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 12 June 2026.
  13. Back to citation "Genesis 4:7 with Rashi". Chabad.org. Retrieved 12 June 2026.
  14. Back to citation Augustine taught that Adam's sin was both an act of foolishness (īnsipientia) and of pride and disobedience to God of Adam and Eve. He thought it was a most subtle job to discern what came first: self-centeredness or failure in seeing truth. Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Sed si disputatione subtilissima et elimatissima opus est, ut sciamus utrum primos homines insipientia superbos, an insipientes superbia fecerit (Contra Julianum, V, 4.18; PL 44, 795). This particular sin would not have taken place if Satan had not sown into their senses "the root of evil" (radix mali): Nisi radicem mali humanus tunc reciperet sensus (Contra Julianum, I, 9.42; PL 44, 670)
  15. Back to citation ORIGINAL SIN Archived 2021-02-25 at the Wayback Machine- Biblical Apologetic Studies – Retrieved 17 May 2014. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire", sexual desire and all sensual feelings resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.
  16. Back to citation William Nicholson – A Plain But Full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England... (Google eBook) page 118. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
  17. Back to citation ODCC 2005, p. Original sin.
  18. Back to citation Thomas Aquinas explained Augustine's doctrine pointing out that the libido (concupiscence), which makes the original sin pass from parents to children, is not a libido actualis, i.e. sexual lust, but libido habitualis, i.e. a wound of the whole of human nature: Libido quae transmittit peccatum originale in prolem, non est libido actualis, quia dato quod virtute divina concederetur alicui quod nullam inordinatam libidinem in actu generationis sentiret, adhuc transmitteret in prolem originale peccatum. Sed libido illa est intelligenda habitualiter, secundum quod appetitus sensitivus non continetur sub ratione vinculo originalis iustitiae. Et talis libido in omnibus est aequalis (STh Iª–IIae q. 82 a. 4 ad 3).
  19. Back to citation Non substantialiter manere concupiscentiam, sicut corpus aliquod aut spiritum; sed esse affectionem quamdam malae qualitatis, sicut est languor. (De nuptiis et concupiscentia, I, 25. 28; PL 44, 430; cf. Contra Julianum, VI, 18.53; PL 44, 854; ibid. VI, 19.58; PL 44, 857; ibid., II, 10.33; PL 44, 697; Contra Secundinum Manichaeum, 15; PL 42, 590.
  20. Back to citation Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Quis enim negat futurum fuisse concubitum, etiamsi peccatum non praecessisset? Sed futurus fuerat, sicut aliis membris, ita etiam genitalibus voluntate motis, non libidine concitatis; aut certe etiam ipsa libidine – ut non vos de illa nimium contristemus – non qualis nunc est, sed ad nutum voluntarium serviente (Contra Julianum, IV. 11. 57; PL 44, 766). See also his late work: Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem imperfectum opus, II, 42; PL 45,1160; ibid. II, 45; PL 45,1161; ibid., VI, 22; PL 45, 1550–1551.
  21. Back to citation Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes (in French). Paris. p. 104.
  22. Back to citation "Pelagius". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 12 June 2026.
  23. Back to citation "Canons of the Council of Carthage (417 or 418) on sin and grace". Early Church Texts. Retrieved 12 June 2026.
  24. Back to citation "Pelagianism". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 12 June 2026.
  25. Back to citation "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Garden of Eden". Newadvent.org. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
  26. Back to citation "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin". Newadvent.org. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
  27. Back to citation ""Cardinal" Ratzinger denies Original Sin". Novus Ordo Watch. Retrieved 2017-04-24.
  28. Back to citation "General Audience of 3 December 2008: Saint Paul (15). The Apostle's teaching on the relation between Adam and Christ | BENEDICT XVI". w2.vatican.va. Retrieved 2017-04-24.
  29. Back to citation occurrence 29.0 Back to citation occurrence 29.1 Back to citation occurrence 29.2 Back to citation occurrence 29.3 Back to citation occurrence 29.4 Whidden, Woodrow W. (18 April 2005). "Adventist Theology: The Wesleyan Connection". Biblical Research Institute. Retrieved 30 June 2019.
  30. Back to citation Long, D. Stephen (1 March 2012). Keeping Faith: An Ecumenical Commentary on the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith in the Wesleyan Tradition. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-62189-416-2.
  31. Back to citation occurrence 31.0 Back to citation occurrence 31.1 Rothwell, Mel-Thomas; Rothwell, Helen (1998). A Catechism on the Christian Religion: The Doctrines of Christianity with Special Emphasis on Wesleyan Concepts. Schmul Publishing Co. p. 49.
  32. Back to citation Brown, Allan (1 June 2008). "Questions About Entire Sanctification". God's Bible School and College. Retrieved 3 September 2020. “The only way a person can "lose" ("reject" is a better term) his entire sanctification is through willful sin or unbelief (which is also sin).”; Whidden, Woodrow W. (18 April 2005). "Adventist Theology: The Wesleyan Connection". Biblical Research Institute. Retrieved 30 June 2019; Trinklein, John (1 August 2016). "Holiness Unto Whom? John Wesley 's Doctrine of Entire Sanctification in Light of The Two Kinds of Righteousness". Concordia Seminary. Retrieved 30 June 2019.
  33. Back to citation Wesley, John (1872). The Works of John Wesley., Third Edition., vol. 11. London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room. p. 396.
  34. Back to citation occurrence 34.0 Back to citation occurrence 34.1 Wesley, J. (1872). The Works of John Wesley (Third Edition, Vol. 12, p. 394). London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room.
  35. Back to citation Burnett, Daniel L. (15 March 2006). In the Shadow of Aldersgate: An Introduction to the Heritage and Faith of the Wesleyan Tradition. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-62189-980-8.
  36. Back to citation Brown, Allan P. (1 June 2008). "Questions About Entire Sanctification". God's Bible School & College. Retrieved 17 June 2019. “Does an entirely sanctified person who rebels against God but later comes back to Him need to be entirely sanctified again? We do know that a person can rebel against God and later turn back in repentance and then be "re-saved." Answer: Yes. To come back to God is the action of a backslider having his re in need of continual cleansing. The verb "cleanses us" is a present indica-relationship with God restored. After the restoration, one must walk in the light and obey Romans 12:1 and offer himself a living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice to God. This can be done only by a person in right relationship with God.”
  37. Back to citation Catechism of the Catholic Church, New York: Doubleday Publications, 1997
  38. Back to citation Church of England (1562), "Articles", Common Prayer, archived from the original on 2015-03-16, retrieved 2016-03-16
  39. Back to citation "Catechism of the Catholic Church". The Holy See. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. paras. 1857–1860. Retrieved 12 June 2026.
  40. Back to citation "What We Believe". Church of the Nazarene. Article V. Sin, Original and Personal. Retrieved 12 June 2026.
  41. Back to citation "The Westminster Confession of Faith". Ligonier Ministries. chapter 6, sections 4–6. Retrieved 12 June 2026.
  42. Back to citation Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 23, A. 1, C. 2. Retrieved 14 February 2026.
  43. Back to citation "The Alchemy of Happiness Index". Sacred-texts.com. Retrieved 27 October 2014.

Bibliography

Works cited

  • Cross, Frank L; Livingstone, Elizabeth A., eds. (2005). Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford: University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.

Further reading

  • Adams, Robert Merrihew (1999). "Original Sin: A Study in the Interaction of Philosophy and Theology". In Ambrosio, Francis J. (ed.). The Question of Christian Philosophy Today. Perspectives in Continental Philosophy. New York: Fordham University Press. pp. 80ff.
  • Komonchak, Joseph A; Collins, Mary; Lane, Dermot A., eds. (1987). The New Dictionary of Theology. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier. p. 220.
  • Smith, Adam (1759). Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence. Vol. 1 The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Part VII Section II Chapter I Paragraphs 1–9, Adam Smith's recounting of Plato's description of the soul, including concupiscence.
Retrieved from "https://catholicism.wiki/index.php?title=Concupiscence&oldid=62754"