Concupiscence & Total Depravity
(Original Sin, Part 5)
Welcome Back to Revell’s Ruminations!
It has been quite awhile since I have posted, and even longer since I wrote on the topic of Original Sin. We have covered a lot in this series so far: What we do not mean by Original Sin, the distinction between Human Nature and Sin Nature, the relationship between Original Sin and the Divine Image, and the Loss of Original Righteousness. And now we come to part 5. Although we’ve touched on it in previous posts, we have not really drilled down on the term “Total Depravity.” In essence, this is just the term we use to talk about the positive damage that original sin brought into the world - the destruction that sin wrought on mankind. Original sin did not only deprive us of righteousness, it pervasively corrupted humanity as well. But first let’s set the stage by defining an important term that caused quite a stir during the Reformation.
Concupiscence
We simply don’t use this word anymore (except in highly specialized theological circles). But the word concupiscence communicates the reality that fallen humanity has the inclination to sin. One effect of the fall is that humans are born with a tendency towards sinful thoughts, words, and actions. The question arises how far to press the distinction between inclination to sin and sin itself.
During the Reformation, the Reformed and Lutherans generally agreed that even the inclination to sin is sinful. Conversely, the Roman Catholic Church pressed the distinction further, stating that the inclination to sin is not always sin. In the case of those who have been born again, concupiscence remains but it is not properly called sin.1 The Roman Catholic leaders who gathered at the Council of Trent sought to use this category of concupiscence to define what happened at the fall. On this understanding, original sin left humanity weakened and inclined towards sin - but it did not leave them in a state of total depravity.2 Original sin did not corrupt individual humans in all their parts and capacities. Simply put, the Council of Trent was not willing to declare that original sin left humanity positively corrupt and unable to do good. Instead, they left this ambiguous, stating that humanity was changed “for the worse,” and they put more weight on what humanity lost in the fall.3 But if humans are only in a state of weakness and inclination to sin, then that means they can cooperate with God’s grace from the beginning. Such a view of fallen humanity is much too optimistic, and contrary to the Scriptures. For Rome, God’s grace in Christ is indeed necessary to save and purify sinful humans, but the Reformed doctrine of total depravity (and total inability)?? To many Roman Catholic theologians this was a grave exaggeration at best, or a disastrous slide towards Manichaeism and Gnosticism at worst.4
Total Depravity (or Complete Corruption)
William Ames succinctly defines original sin as “a habitual deviation of the whole nature of man, or a turning aside from the law of God.”5 The all-encompassing manner in which the Scriptures describe the sinful state of man led the Reformed beyond concupiscence. Moreover, given human sinfulness and human inability to do good apart from God, such inclination to sin could not somehow be a morally neutral category. The reality of the fall means that “humans have lost the free inclination of the will toward the good,” says Bavinck.6 But what has humanity gained? What’s the positive element of original sin apart from mere concupiscence?
Humans in their fallen state have been corrupted in all their parts. Although sinfulness is a specifically moral category, it infects every human and touches every part of human life. Every human is born with this corruption and enslavement to sin. It is inherent from birth, not something that develops later on. The will, the intellect, the emotions, and even the physical body have been negatively effected by the fall. Our thoughts, words, actions, motivations - all of these are sin-stained. This is why we use the term “Total” depravity. Not only our decision-making, but even our pre-cognition, has been corrupted by sin. Our inordinate physical appetites, distorted desires, and self-centeredness are obvious evidence of our diseased state. But even our emotions, which often seem out of our control, evidence various concentrations of sinfulness - whether that be animalistic rage or more subversive feelings of discontent and ungratefulness. And the seemingly uncontrollable nature of our moral missteps and failures points us to the doctrine of total depravity.
In this state of sin apart from Christ, humans cannot choose the good by faith, according to God’s law, and for His glory. Fallen humanity outside of Christ is enslaved to sin, totally unable to do what is truly good for the right reasons. We are filled with sins, both chosen and seemingly unchosen. I say “seemingly” because God does not force humans to sin, and natural liberty remains. No one is forcing sinful humans to sin. However, those free sinful choices are made in a condition of captivity to sin. Everyone has reflected on a past sin with a sense that the choice was made unwillingly. Given its power over us, it seems reasonable to even personify sin although it does not have an existence of its own. Everyone feels their own sinful predispositions, and that inclination towards sin is already sinful.
The only remedy for our sin is the person and work of Jesus Christ. In Christ, we remain sinful, though we are forgiven and we now have the ability to do good. Christians can say no to sin because of the work of the Holy Spirit. We become less depraved in sanctification, though we do not attain perfect purity and holiness until we get to heaven. Even a mature Christian cannot totally rid himself of sinful predispositions. God breaks the power of sin in the lives of Christians. Sin no longer enslaves those who have been united to Christ by faith. But their depravity is still total in that sin continues to infect every part of their life. The infection should weaken over time, but the virus of sin is not totally inoculated in this life.
We’ve defined total depravity, and in previous posts we’ve referenced Scriptures relating to original sin. But how strong is the evidence in favor of this Reformed understanding? Next time we’ll look to Ames and Bavinck again as we collect a large amount of Scripture, and closely analyze a few of the more significant passages that support the Reformed doctrine of total depravity.
The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Translated by H.J. Schroeder (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 2011), 23.
John W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge: Belknap, 2013), 114-15.
The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Schroeder, 21.
Refer back to Part 1 of this series for more on this.
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 121.
William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 120.