Through a Glass Darkly

Perhaps the most intriguing passage in all of St. Paul’s writings is his description of an inner struggle in Romans 7.

“For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.” (Romans 7:18-20)

This is just a snippet from a passage that often seems tortuous to read. It describes the incredible frustration of doing something that you actually didn’t want to do. But if you didn’t want to do it, why did you do it? It clearly says that there is more going on within us than simple willing.

This is a passage that, for me, undermines the claims of an unfettered freedom of the will, or the exaltation of the will to the key position within our lives. There is something, St. Paul reasons, that seems to stand between who I am and my ability to actually access that reality. St. Paul concludes, “It is sin that dwells within me.”

Now, you might think you know what that means – but the meaning is far from obvious. The worst conclusion to draw is the notion of a “sin nature” (a horrible theological error). A “nature” (by definition) is “what a thing is.” If we have a “sin nature” then we not only sin – we are sin. This is blasphemous. Sin is extraneous to what it is to be human – it is a parasite.

Thanks for posting. I found Fr.Freeman's thoughts on this to be very interesting and edifying.

In the Catholic Tradition, St Paul's words point to what is called "concupiscence." It is not exactly a "sin nature" (which as Father correctly points out cannot be inherent in human nature) but more of a disordered condition existing within man which is a result of the Fall. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines and explains it as follows:

CONCUPISCENCE: Human appetites or desires which remain disordered due to the temporal consequences of original sin, which remain even after Baptism, and which produce an inclination to sin (1264, 1426, 2515).

CCC 1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68
67 Council of Trent (1546): DS 1515.
68 2 Tim 2:5.

CCC 1426 Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us "holy and without blemish," just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is "holy and without blemish."13 Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life.14 This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.15
13 Eph 1:4; 5:27.
14 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1515.
15 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1545; LG 40.

CCC 2515 Etymologically, "concupiscence" can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the "flesh" against the "spirit."302 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.303
302 Cf. Gal 5:16,17,24; Eph 2:3.
303 Cf. Gen 3:11; Council of Trent: DS 1515

Under this line of thought, I would tend to see Father's identification of "toxic shame" as a result or consequence of concupiscence-- one of many, in fact.

Again, thanks for sharing. Have a peaceful and blessed day.

The worst conclusion to draw is the notion of a “sin nature” (a horrible theological error). A “nature” (by definition) is “what a thing is.” If we have a “sin nature” then we not only sin – we are sin. This is blasphemous. Sin is extraneous to what it is to be human – it is a parasite.

You forget that with the first sin human nature was changed and became something unnatural. I believe even Fr. Seraphim Rose said as much.

And btw, for all you Calvinists out there, if this rejection of "sin nature" is the position of true, authentic, historic Xianity (not that anyone can get you to believe that), why was a new religion needed in the first place?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.