Concupiscence

St. Augustine explored and used the term "concupiscence" to refer to sinful lust.
Emblem of the Papacy SE.svg
Part of a series on
Thomas Aquinas
Detail from "Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas over Averroes" by Benozzo Gozzoli (1420–97)
Thomism
Works
People
Related topics

Concupiscence (from Late Latin noun concupiscentia, from the Latin verb concupiscence, from con-, "with", here an intensifier, + cupi(d)-, "desiring" + -escere, a verb-forming suffix denoting beginning of a process or state) is an ardent, usually sensual, longing.[1] In Christianity, particularly in Roman 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 38 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. The yetzer hara is not the product of original sin as in Christian theology, but the tendency of humanity to misuse the natural survival needs of the physical body. Therefore, the natural need of the body for food becomes gluttony, the command to procreate becomes sexual sin, the demands of the body for rest become sloth, and so on.[citation needed]

In Judaism, the yetzer hara is a natural part of God's creation, and God provides guidelines and commands to help us master this tendency. This doctrine was clarified in the Sifre around 200–350 CE. 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 (see: Sifrei on Deuteronomy, P. Ekev 45, Kidd. 30b).

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[9] is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[10][11] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[12] 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.[13] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[14] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) 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.[15] 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.

펠라지우스

주요 반대파는 펠라기우스(354–420 또는 440)라는 승려에게서 나왔다. 그의 견해는 펠라지안주의로 알려지게 되었다. 펠라기우스의 저술은 더 이상 존재하지 않지만, 카르타고 평의회의 8개 카논(418년)은 초기 펠라기우스의 지각된 오류에 대한 수정을 제공했다. 이러한 수정으로부터, 펠라지아인들과 그들의 유대인 상대자들 사이에는 콘큐폴리스의 개념에 대한 강한 유사성이 있다. 펠라지아니즘은 인류에게 창조된 본성 안에서 선과 악 중 하나를 선택할 수 있는 능력을 준다. 이러한 견해는 간결함을 거부하고, 예체르 하라와 유사한 개념을 수용하면서, 인류의 보편적인 은혜에 대한 요구를 거부하였다.

카톨릭의 가르침

가톨릭교회(CCC)의 카테치즘은 아담과 이브가 원래 '성결과 정의의 상태'(CCC 375, 376 398)로 구성됐으며, 결례(CCC 377)가 없다고 가르친다. 아담과 이브가 누리는 뇌전 상태는 많은 특권을 부여했는데, 자연 질서와 관련되긴 했지만, 인간의 본성 때문은 아니었다. 이들 중 주된 것은 고도로 주입된 지식, 육체적 불멸과 고통으로부터의 자유, 악한 충동이나 성향으로부터의 면역이었다. 즉 인간의 하층적 또는 동물적 본성은 이성의 통제를 완벽하게 받고, 의지는 신의 지배를 받는 것이었다. 이 외에도, 가톨릭 교회는 우리의 첫 번째 부모들이 초자연적인 질서로 격상된 은총을 거룩하게 하는 은총을 부여받았다고 가르친다.[16] 그러나 죄를 지음으로써 아담은 자기 자신뿐만 아니라 모든 인간(CCC 416)을 위한 이 원래의 '국가'를 잃어버렸다.

가톨릭 신학에 따르면 인간은 타고난 능력을 잃지 않았다: 아담의 죄로 그는 자신의 본성이 엄격한 권리가 없는 신성한 선물, 즉 자신의 정욕의 완전한 정복, 죽음에서 면제, 은총을 신성화하며 다음 생에 하나님의 비전을 빼앗겼다. 인류가 준 선물이 아닌 하나님 아버지께서는 바라던 그런 조건에 그들을 베푸시며 그들의 보존을 가장의 충성도에 의존하게 할 권리가 있었다. 왕자는 수령자가 충성을 지키는 조건으로 세습적 존엄성을 부여할 수 있으며, 수령의 경우 수령으로부터 이 존엄성을 빼앗고, 그 결과로 그의 후손들로부터 빼앗길 수 있다. 그러나, 아버지가 저지른 잘못 때문에, 왕자가 유죄를 받은 사람의 모든 후손들의 손발을 출생 직후에 잘라버리라고 명령해야 한다는 것은 이해할 수 없다.[17]

As a result of original sin, according to Catholics, human nature has not been totally corrupted (as opposed to the teaching 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, CCC 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).

In this evolutionary era Catholic teaching on original sin focuses more on its results than on its origins. As Cardinal Ratzinger had intimated in 1981,[18] 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."[19]

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.[20] After this, to willfully sin would be to fall from grace, though a person can be restored to fellowship with God through repentance.[20][21] When the believer is entirely sanctified (second work of grace), his/her original sin is washed away.[20] Methodist theology firstly distinguishes between original sin and actual sin:[22]

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.[22]

그것은 더 나아가 죄를 "적절한 죄"와 "적절한 죄"로 분류한다.[20] 적절한 죄(또는 적절하게 부르는 죄)는 자유롭고 고의적으로 저질러져 전체 성화를 상실하게 되는 죄이다.[23][20][24] 부적절한 죄(또는 잘못 부르는 죄)는 '양심적 방치의 범주, 병약함(망각, 지식의 부족 등)'[20]에 속하는 죄이다. 전통적인 감리교 신학에서는 이러한 (악의) 죄악은 웨슬리가 설명한 대로 죄악으로 분류되지 않는다. "그런 죄악은 당신이 원한다면 죄를 죄라고 부를 수도 있다. 나는 위에서 언급한 이유로 하지 않는다."[25] 존 웨슬리는 이 문제를 이렇게 설명한다.[26]

"엄밀히 말하면 죄는 없고, 알려진 하나님의 율법의 자발적인 위반일 뿐이다. 그러므로 사랑의 법칙에 대한 모든 자발적인 위반은 죄악이며, 우리가 제대로 말한다면 다른 것은 아무것도 아니다. 그 문제를 더 긴장시키는 것은 칼뱅주의를 위한 길을 열어주는 것일 뿐이다. 만 가지의 방황하는 생각, 그리고 어떤 사랑의 위반도 없는 망각적인 간격도 있을 수 있지만, 아담의 법칙을 위반하지 않는 것은 아닐 것이다. 그러나 칼뱅주의자들은 기절하여 이것들을 혼동할 것이다. 사랑이 네 마음을 가득 채우게 하고, 그것으로 충분해!"[26]

비록 완전히 신성화된 사람은 유혹에서 자유롭지는 않지만, "완전히 신성화된 사람은 순수한 마음이라는 뚜렷한 이점과 유혹에 저항하는데 힘을 줄 수 있는 성령의 존재의 충만함을 가지고 있다."[27] 만약 어떤 사람이 적절한 죄악으로 뒷걸음질치다가 나중에 신에게 돌아온다면, 그는 회개해야 하고 다시 완전히 신성화되어야 한다고 웨슬리안-아미니안 신학에 따르면,[28]

천주교 관점과 루터교, 개혁교향, 성공회 관점의 비교

추가 정보: 마르틴 루터 § 시물 저스터스 et peccator, 원죄 § 비평과 총체적 타락의 신학

천주교 신학과 루터교, 리폼드교, 성공회 신학의 주요한 차이점은 그것이 그 자체의 성격에 의해 죄로 분류될 수 있느냐 하는 것이다. 가톨릭교회는 죄를 일으킬 가능성은 높지만, 결백함 자체가 죄는 아니라고 가르친다. 오히려 '동의하지 않는 자에게 해를 끼칠 수 없다'(CCC 1264)는 '죄의 땜질'이다.[29]

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".[30]

By contrast, Roman 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. The Scholastics and magisterial reformers have different views on the issue of what is voluntary and what is not: the Catholic Scholastics considered the emotions of love, hate, like and dislike to be acts of will or choice, while the early Protestant reformers did not. 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.

Some denominations may relate concupiscence to "humanity's sinful nature" in order to distinguish it from particular sinful acts.

Sensuality

Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century described two divisions of "sensuality": 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.

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.[31]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ "Concupiscence – Define Concupiscence at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
  2. ^ 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. ^ 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. ^ 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. ^ Romans 7:8, Colossians 3:5 and I Thessalonians 4:5.
  6. ^ "epithumia" is also translated as wish or desire (or in a biblical context, longing, lust, passion, covetousness, or impulse). See wikt:επιθυμία.
  7. ^ 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. ^ a b Greenblatt, Stephen (June 19, 2017). "How St. Augustine Invented Sex". The New Yorker.
  9. ^ Augustine taught that Adam's sin was both an act of foolishness (insipientia) 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)
  10. ^ ORIGINAL SIN- 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.
  11. ^ William Nicholson – A Plain But Full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England... (Google eBook) page 118. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
  12. ^ ODCC 2005, p. Original sin.
  13. ^ 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).
  14. ^ 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.
  15. ^ 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. Cf.Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 104.
  16. ^ "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Garden of Eden". Newadvent.org. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
  17. ^ "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin". Newadvent.org. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
  18. ^ ""Cardinal" Ratzinger denies Original Sin". Novus Ordo Watch. Retrieved 2017-04-24.
  19. ^ "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.
  20. ^ a b c d e f Whidden, Woodrow W. (18 April 2005). "Adventist Theology: The Wesleyan Connection". Biblical Research Institute. Retrieved 30 June 2019.
  21. ^ 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.
  22. ^ a b 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.
  23. ^ 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).
  24. ^ 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.
  25. ^ Wesley, John (1872). The Works of John Wesley., Third Edition., vol. 11. London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room. p. 396.
  26. ^ a b Wesley, J. (1872). The Works of John Wesley (Third Edition, Vol. 12, p. 394). London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room.
  27. ^ 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.
  28. ^ 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.
  29. ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, New York: Doubleday Publications, 1997
  30. ^ Church of England (1562), "Articles", Common Prayer
  31. ^ "The Alchemy of Happiness Index". Sacred-texts.com. Retrieved 27 October 2014.

References

  • Robert Merrihew Adams, "Original Sin: A Study in the Interaction of Philosophy and Theology", p. 80ff in Francis J. Ambrosio (ed.), The Question of Christian Philosophy Today, Fordham University Press (New York: 1999), Perspectives in Continental Philosophy no. 9.
  • Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins, and Dermot A. Lane, eds., The New Dictionary of Theology (Wilmington, Delaware : Michael Glazier, Inc., 1987), p. 220.
  • New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia), "Concupiscence". http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm.
  • Adam Smith, Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence Vol. 1 The Theory of Moral Sentiments [1759]] Part VII Section II Chapter I Paragraphs 1–9, Adam Smith's recounting of Plato's description of the soul, including concupiscence