Richard D. Phillips states in his interesting update following the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) General Assembly: “At the heart of our division on this subject is whether or not to define same-sex attraction (SSA) as a morally neutral status that does not require repentance. PCA progressives seem to have asserted such a sub-category beneath sinful desire (essentially adopting the pre-Reformation concept of concupiscence).”
I’m trying really hard, but I can’t for the life of me think of a definition of concupiscence that anyone in the Reformed or Presbyterian tradition would not consider to be sin. According to Reformed (and even Catholic) doctrine, Original Sin is sin. (Concupiscence, too.) Any Presbyterian should understand that given the clarity of our confessional standards on the subject:
Westminster confession of Faith (1646), IV. Of the Fall of Man, Sin, and the Punishment Thereof
v. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
But maybe those Westminster divines were suffering from Puritan Brain Syndrome. Lest we think a contrary view that original sin and/or concupiscence are not in themselves sin, has a place in Reformed doctrine, let us see how soundly other Reformed Confessions proclaim that original sin is sin:
French Confession of Faith (1559)
XI. We believe, also, that this evil [original sin] is truly sin, sufficient for the condemnation of the whole human race, even of little children in the mother’s womb, and that God considers it as such; even after baptism it is still of the nature of sin,
39 Articles (1572), Article IX, Of Original or Birth Sin
And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized: yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
Belgic Confession, (1619), Article 15, Of the Doctrine of Original Sin
[Original Sin] is therefore so vile and enormous in God’s sight that it is enough to condemn the human race
Phillips mentions pre-reformation sources. What would Aquinas say on the subject of whether concupiscence toward sodomy is sin?
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, “Whether Original sin is concupiscence?”
Augustine says (Retract. i, 15): “Concupiscence is the guilt of original sin.” (Aquinas, Objection)
Aquinas: Reply to Objection 1, …so far as it trespasses beyond the bounds of reason, it is, for a man, contrary to reason. Such is the concupiscence of original sin.
Reply to Objection 2 …Therefore original sin is ascribed to concupiscence, as being the chief passion, and as including all the others, in a fashion.
Reply to Objection 3 …for [concupiscence] clouds and draws the reason, as stated above. Hence original sin is called concupiscence
Some appetite (Aquinas), inclination or proclivity toward sin, lying below the level of desire, must be characterized as sin. On first reaction, one wonders if PCA progressives are raising Pelagius from the grave. But on second thought, even Pelagius would have considered an inclination or proclivity to desire to commit sodomy to be sin (by imitation not by nature.) Does anyone in the PCA believe in sin?
High Plains Parson 