“Concupiscence” isn’t a word most people use every day. Even trained pastors and theologians who are more familiar with the term may be confused about its meaning. For many, the word brings to mind Augustine’s battles with lust or our contemporary debates about human sexuality. For these reasons, many think of concupiscence only as a term for illicit sexual desire. Merriam-Webster’s definition—strong desire, especially sexual—reinforces this usage.
But in Christian theology, concupiscence isn’t just about sex. The term applies more broadly to disordered inclinations and desires that are wrongly bent in any way—whether they be greedy, lustful, unfairly prejudiced, or selfishly biased. Church history shows us how embracing a Reformed understanding of desire can help Christians today.
Sin or Not? Augustine’s View of Concupiscence
For much of church history, the debate around concupiscence centered on this question: Does God hold people guilty for illicit desires even if they don’t act on them?
Augustine of Hippo’s early study of Scripture led him to answer this question in the affirmative. He taught that our illicit thoughts, desires, and actions incur guilt regardless of our will and intent. Why? They’re evidence of our participation in the original sin of Adam and Eve. Augustine wrote, “All that a man does wrongfully in ignorance, and all that he cannot do rightly through what he wishes, are called sins because they have their origin in the first sin.”
The term ‘concupiscence’ applies broadly to disordered inclinations, thoughts, and desires that are wrongly bent in any way—whether they be lustful, unfairly prejudiced, or selfishly biased.
In his later debates with Pelagius, Augustine made clear that because of the corruption of humanity’s sinful desires, we can only do good by God’s grace. But he didn’t stop there. His teaching on baptism complicates his doctrine of concupiscence. Augustine wrote that “concupiscence itself is not sin any longer, whenever [baptized Christians] do not consent to it.”
Scholars throughout history have debated what Augustine meant by this statement. Latin doesn’t possess a distinction between active “sin” and “sinfulness.” The term peccatum can carry either meaning, making it difficult to determine what Augustine intended. But since Augustine’s time, the Roman Catholic Church has taught that baptism removes original sin. They’ve maintained that disordered desires that arise in baptized Christians don’t become sin until we act on them. By Martin Luther’s time, some medieval theologians even taught that disordered lusts should be welcomed by believers as opportunities to exercise virtue through resisting them.
We Remain Sinful: The Reformers’ View of Concupiscence
The Reformers saw the Catholic view as dangerous and contrary to God’s Word. They were convinced illicit desire remained sin and continued to incur guilt in believers even after Christian baptism. The King James (KJV) translation of Colossians 3:5 reflects their view (cf. Rom. 7:8, 1 Thess. 4:5). The KJV translators used the English phrase “evil concupiscence” to translate Greek terms our modern versions read as “evil desires.” Paul says that evil desires—along with “sexual immorality, impurity . . . and covetousness”—are “earthly” and should be understood as idolatrous at the core.
In Luther’s 1537 Smalcald Articles, he argued that the Catholic Church’s failure to name concupiscence as sin led them to a corresponding misunderstanding of repentance. Though illicit desires may arise in believers prior to and apart from a conscious act of the will, they stand, argued Luther, as evidence of our old sinful connection to Adam (Eph. 4:22). As such, they shouldn’t be allowed to fester; they must be “put to death” (Col. 3:5; cf. Matt. 5:21–30).
The Reformation confessions that came after Luther followed his lead (see Augsburg, Belgic, Thirty-nine Articles, Heidelberg, Westminster, and Second London Baptist). With their statements on concupiscence, these confessions made three points clear:
1. Christians aren’t sinful because we intentionally sin. Rather, we sin because we’re born sinful; even before we act, our hearts are bent toward evil.
2. It’s not just unbelievers who are held guilty for concupiscence. No, even Christians, while simultaneously justified, are sinners. What Paul calls the “old man” is, though defeated, still present with us.
3. So it’s not just the unconverted who must battle against sinful desires and thoughts; believers must actively confront their inner corruption too.
Why Does the Doctrine Matter Today?
What are the implications of the Reformation understanding of concupiscence for believers today?
1. The doctrine reminds us no one is innocent before God.
In a culture that celebrates being “true to yourself,” it’s easy to assume every person’s expressive identity, or inner bent, is natural and morally neutral (and perhaps even positively good), but this runs contrary to Scripture. Jesus made clear that uncleanness doesn’t begin with outward actions but comes from the heart (Mark 7:21; cf. Rom. 7:18, 23–25). “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way” (Isa. 53:6). We’re all guilty and morally culpable before God both within and without—both for desires bidden and unbidden.
2. It encourages us to confess illicit thoughts and desires, even when unwanted, as sin.
Whatever our view of the conflicted self in Romans 7, we should all attest that conflicting desires still war within us after salvation. Knowing the right actions to take and actually desiring or willing to take them are still two different things for us. Even if a person doesn’t battle sexual lust, sins like greedy covetousness, lust for power, and selfish prejudice still lurk in the recesses of our thoughts and attitudes so even the faithful cry out, “Who can discern his errors?” (Ps. 19:12). “Who can understand [the heart]?” (Jer. 17:9).
It’s not just the unconverted who battle sinful desires and thoughts; believers must actively confront their inner corruption too.
But though we may admit we’re sinners, most of us are tempted to evade and excuse our sin. We may even justify our desires, convincing ourselves we’ve done no wrong. However, the Bible doesn’t pull punches with sinful thoughts and wants. In Romans 1, for example, Paul explicitly describes both same-sex sexual activity (“exchanged”/“gave up natural relations,” vv. 26–27) and same-sex sexual desire (“consumed with passion,” v. 27) as sin. Whatever the particulars of our inner temptations, we must agree with God about their sinfulness. We must give our illicit desires the same labels he does.
3. By exposing everyone’s inner bent toward sin, the doctrine humbles us, encourages honesty, and cultivates compassion in us for fellow sinners.
Believers who are pursuing obedience to Christ still experience temptation due to corrupted desires. Some may even feel crushed by disappointment because the desires are unrelenting. This should lead us to lament our internal bent toward sin, give thanks for the Spirit’s presence renewing our hearts, pray eagerly for the Spirit’s work, and seek (where possible) to root out sinful desire from our lives, knowing that as we do, we’re not alone in the battle.
When we adopt a deeper (and more biblically defensible) definition of concupiscence, we’re recognizing that the corrupting effects of the fall affect everyone. The reality of remaining sin in believers should corporately humble us, encourage us to walk in honesty and transparent fellowship with one another (1 John 1:7), and give us empathy for fellow sinners who carry sinful desires and selfish thoughts just as we do. The reality of concupiscence should motivate us to listen to the challenges and admonitions of others because, though we may not want to admit it, they may better see sinful patterns and prejudiced ideas to which we’re blind.
4. By teaching us to name our sin, this doctrine gives us hope for growth in Christ.
Paul wants Christians to be aware of their remaining sin, but he doesn’t want us to think we’re trapped. He calls us to mortify our sinful nature again and again until we reach glory (Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:5ff.). How do we do this? We don’t obfuscate about our sin but regularly call the “old man” by his name in confession.
It’s hard to confess greedy desires. And in some contexts, it’s not helpful to publicly confess sexual lust or bitterly prejudiced thoughts and attitudes. For this reason, our churches do well when we provide safe spaces where individuals who battle wrong desires and thoughts can be honest about their sin and receive assurance of God’s forgiveness. Though it may initially feel like a punch to the gut to name the old Adam’s continuing influence on our desires and thoughts, such honesty is ultimately the way of true repentance and ongoing cleansing in Christ (1 John 1:7, 9).
In these four ways, a more faithful doctrine of concupiscence can help our churches. It may feel counterintuitive. But, by God’s grace, recognizing and confessing the ways sin has corrupted our desires is a path toward empathy, compassion, and Christian hope.