In respect of the doctrine of original sin and its consequences in man,
he not only magnifies enormously the strength of the concupiscence
which remains after baptism, without sufficiently taking into account
the spiritual means by which it can be repressed, but gives the most
open expression to his belief that concupiscence is actually sin;
it is the persistence of original sin, rendering every man actually
culpable, even without any consent of the will. The “_Non concupisces_”
of the Ten Commandments—which the Apostle emphasises in his Epistle
to the Romans, though in another sense—Luther makes out to be such a
prohibition that, by the mere existence of concupiscence, it is daily
and hourly sinfully transgressed. He pays no attention to the theology
of the Church, which had hitherto seen in the “_Non concupisces_”
a prohibition of any voluntary consent to a concupiscence existing
without actual sin.
His attack on free will is very closely bound up with his ideas on
concupiscence.
“Concupiscence with weakness is against the law ‘Thou shalt not
covet,’ and it is deadly [a mortal sin], but the gracious God does not
impute it on account of the work of salvation which has been commenced
in [pardoned] man.” “Even a venial sin,” he teaches in the same
passage, “is, according to its nature [owing to human nature which is
entirely alienated from God], a mortal sin, but the Creator does not
impute (‘_imputat_’) it as mortal sin to the man whom he chooses to
perfect and render whole.”[506]
He makes various attempts to deduce from concupiscence the absolute
want in the will of freedom to do what is good. There is not the
slightest doubt that he does deny this freedom, though, on the other
hand, he grants so much to liberty in his admonitions concerning
predestination (see below, p. 219) that he practically retracts his
denial. The position he takes up with regard to grace ought to be a
test of what he actually held: did he look upon grace as in every case
irresistible? But on this very point he is as yet indisposed to commit
himself as he will not hesitate to do later, to a positive, erroneous
“yes.” In short, though he stands for a denial of liberty, he has not
yet seen his way to solve all the difficulties.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account