Excellent article that really exposes how original sin has and continues to afflict us in the many temptations we face every day. Thank you to the author.
I would add that ‘human licentiousness’ is too stupid to enter the mind of Jesus. Christ was too intelligent to indulge in thoughts that occupy stupid sinners like us. Like the holy angels Christ has no sinful nature, nor the stupidity to sin in any way.
Thank you Nathan you are doing the work of a confessor of the faith exposing the Christological heresies promoted in our circles. Paulson's teaching that the second person of the Holy Trinity committed sin is the most offensive. But the denial of the Augustinian teaching that sinful desires are sinful is also horrible. Wasn't Rosenberg at one time a Wesleyan? A Nasarene or something.
As the only person named associated with Nathan critiques, I will note that Nathan has refused to engage any of the actual critiques of his view, is lying when he implies I believe the view he critiques, and that his argument is ridiculous on its face. Neither scripture nor the confessions recognize the distinction he initially makes between temptations which are "intrinsically" evil and those which come from in-principle good loves: Augustine argues that *all* temptation is merely perversion of the good, that evil has no "substance" of its own. You need not endorse the Augustinian view to recognize that this bifurcation into special kinds of sins on the basis of a special intrinsic evil is not present in our confessional documents.
The separate distinction between assault and consent of the will is present and important; Nathan is a dishonest interlocutor who repeatedly and intentionally misrepresents others on the basis of a refusal to believe that people he politically dislikes might not be heretics.
To be clear, as I was named, the tweet he links to is not something I was saying I believed; I explicitly noted that it is the kind of argument you could imagine the confessional Lutherans of the 1500s or 1600s actually debating, unlike the drivel in this post, which invents categories that do not exist and misinterprets those that do.
Anyways, there was real debate among historic Lutheran thinkers about exactly which "infirmities" of the human condition Christ did or did not share! You can go read their voluminous arguments, since AI makes all the old German texts immediately readable! Lutheran orthodoxy did not actually arrive at a firm settlement of *exactly* what the line between "infirmity" and "concupiscence" and "consent of the will" may be. I share Nathan's concern there is sometimes fast-and-loose in a way that implies Christ experience sinful concupiscence (he did not, of course); but his reaction is to, in full knowledge, publicly lie about the actual reality of historic Lutheran teaching, namely, that historic Lutheran orthodox dogmatists not only ascribed to Christ "physical" infirmities like hunger or exhaustion, but also, as scripture does, "mental" infirmities, like, well, exhaustion, tiredness, anger, frustration, sadness, grief. The question of how to square this widely shared view of most historic, orthodox, Lutheran theologians with absence of concupiscence is a hard one which, to my knowledge, has not been "solved." Nathan's choice to treat people trying to figure out where a specific modern case falls in that debate as some kind of modern heresy with pastors (and "prominent and influential" voices like... me??? lol) is, I would argue, almost transparently an 8th commandment issue.
I deeply appreciate Ad Crucem's reporting, cherish the work Ad Crucem does in that area, and share the zeal to ensure that orthodoxy rules in our church. I am unsure how giving a pulpit to defamatory men whose whole public presence amounts to slanderous assaults on LCMS pastors to write blog posts that are not in any meaningful sense news or reportage achieves that goal. I look forward to continuing to subscribe to and support the work of Ad Crucem for many years to come, but I hope that work looks more like your reporting and provision of useful tools than this kind of hackery.
Please point everyone to the critiques of my view, if you would be so kind. I am as eager as anybody else to see them.
“[Nathan] is lying when he implies I believe the view he critiques.”
I said: “As shocking as this may sound to some of us, this is evidently the kind of high level discussion that prominent and influential voices in the LCMS feel is appropriate today” and linked to your comment. Given that that comment appeared shortly after the discussion I started regarding the issue, I think it is reasonable for people to read the comment from you that I linked to and come to their own decision.
I talk about the distinction between desires that are intrinsically good and those that are intrinsically evil. Desires that have no good ends — sodomy, bestiality, pedophilia — are rightly called evil, period. Also, this discussion about desires is related to temptation but is not the same thing.
I work hard to be an honest interlocutor. I have done my best not misrepresented anybody. In any case, if someone wants to make accusations like that, they should give a specific example.
I look forward to reading an article from someone that gives a blow-by-blow account of the early Orthodox Lutherans engaging In the kind of Schoolastic debates you suggest we would benefit from in yout tweet.
Lying about the Lutheran orthodox fathers, this history? Confused. What do exhaustion, tiredness, anger, frustration, sadness, grief have to do with concupiscence?
“Nathan's choice to treat people trying to figure out where a specific modern case falls in that debate as some kind of modern heresy….”
A few clarifications from the editorial side, offered without any intention of refereeing a substantive theological dispute, which neither the comment thread nor the publisher's chair is the proper venue to settle.
First, on the linked tweet: Lyman has now stated publicly that the formulation he posted was offered as the kind of question one could imagine the seventeenth-century dogmaticians actually working through, rather than as his own held position. That clarification is on the record and it will be annotated in the article. Readers can weigh it alongside the original post and Nathan's reading of it, and Ad Crucem recognizes it as Lyman’s own account of his meaning. Whether Nathan's citation reasonably tracked the tweet as written is a question on which reasonable readers may differ, but we are prepared to remove it if necessary.
Second, on the decision to publish: Ad Crucem has a relatively liberal contribution policy, allowing contributors to write on contested questions of LCMS doctrine, governance, and practice, and the standard for publication is documentation, specificity, and a discernible argument, rather than agreement with the editor or absence of objection from named figures. That said, this article was returned to Nathan several times for recommended revisions and considerable softening.The characterization of the article as hackery is noted, but respectfully declined.
Third, on the substantive dispute itself: the question of where the line falls between infirmitas and concupiscentia in the human nature of Christ, and whether particular modern formulations within the Synod cross that line, requires long-form treatment. Lyman has identified a real issue, namely, whether the framework of intrinsically evil versus in-principle fully reflects the confessions. Nathan has named a real concern, namely whether contemporary pastoral usage (in limited examples) implies concupiscence in Christ. Both observations warrant a substantive written response. Ad Crucem welcomes any responses on these issues.
Fourth, on the eighth commandment charge: it is serious on both sides of the exchange. The standard Ad Crucem holds for its own reporting is evidence tied to specific statements and specific sources, and that standard applies whether the question is the conduct of a district president, the governance of a congregation, or the theological accuracy of public commentary on Christology.
We are grateful for Lyman's continued readership and support, grateful for Nathan's contribution, and committed to a publication culture in which serious disagreements among confessional Lutherans can be aired in print, answered in print, and judged by readers on the strength of the argument and the weight of the evidence.
Fair enough; as far as I am concerned I am content to leave this issue where it is for now. I am not qualified by knowledge or vocation to be the arbiter of the core theological question, and will be glad to see other more learned voices have that conversation.
Lyman, re: "Augustine argues that *all* temptation is merely perversion of the good, that evil has no 'substance' of its own."
But some perversions are worse than others. They cannot be _tempting_ except to someone who has already consented to less perverted temptations, and thus lowered his defenses, dulled his appetites. That's perfectly consistent with Augustine, and _is_ something you can learn from Scripture. I don't think Nathan is saying that _any_ temptation is motivated by absolute evil, with no admixture of good desire; just that there are many that cannot be _tempting_ except to people who have already fallen.
Re: the connection between "mental infirmities" and concupiscence:
The apathy of tiredness, anger, frustration, and grief are all passions, but not desires, and thus not concupiscence. Concupiscence is desire. Now, if we say that the negative passions are caused by _thwarted_ desire, i.e. the yearning for rest, for a solution, for the company of the lost loved one, then we do have a connection, but you can deal righteously or unrighteously with deprivation, and there can be no question that Jesus did it with perfect righteousness. And Nathan's subject is different anyway, as these examples are all good and natural desires, so that the potential for sin lies only in a bad reaction to the evil of being deprived. The question of a desire for _evil_ things is essentially different.
Sure, but this is sort of a question of types. You can say homosexuality is a desire for an evil thing (since homosexual activity is evil), or call it a distortion of a good thing (sexual desire is in origin good), or call it a thwarting of a good desire (for true marital companionship). Homosexual behavior has a known relationship to unpartnered sex ratios in social groups, hence why homosexual behavior becomes more common when groups of men are kept isolated for long periods of time, etc. No matter the origin it is a sin, but I think saying that homosexual behavior is an intrinsically separate category as other kinds of sexual temptation is a debatable assumption, and gets into a question of what Christ’s hormonal development was like. At that point you get into what I would consider impious speculation, which makes the question quite hard to resolve. But maybe I’m missing something!
When I say hormonal development I of course mean tha questions like “What was it like for Jesus to go through male-typical puberty?” And “Did Jesus experience the physical experiences typical of men with healthy testosterone levels?” Are questions we have no evidence on in scripture and rapidly lead into speculation about things I just do not think it is proper for us to dwell on. This being the case, I am hesitant to accept a typological distinction that rests on assumptions the careful consideration of which is almost certainly impious. As such, I see the argument for homosexual desire being intrinsically different from other kinds of disordered sexual desires as being not extremely persuasive.
I take it as axiomatic that all desire is ultimately aimed at something good, i.e. a thing created by God for a good purpose, even if perversely used or pursued. This includes desires a lot darker than basic homosexual attraction. So I don't see any difference between calling it "a desire for an evil thing" and "a desire for a distorted good thing." All evils are distorted goods, and only distorted souls love them. We are distorted souls; Jesus was not. Everyone in those statistical studies of homosexual behavior was a distorted soul; Jesus was not. We don't have to get into impious details to say that perverted things could not have appealed to Him the way they do to us.
The argument Nathan makes is homosexual desire is *not* just a distortion of a good desire. He explicitly suggests it is a desire for an intrinsic evil. What you take as axiomatic, Nathan rejects. That’s my point. You are agreeing with me, not disagreeing.
This is an important discussion. Thank you, Nathan.
A year or so ago this came up in a Confessional Study group. Was Jesus tempted like we were? Yes and no. I noted that while He is the God-man and is fully man. He does not have evil desires (concupiscence, tinder) like we do, so the appeal of the temptations is not exactly the same for Him as for us. That is unless one wants to blaspheme and ascribe sin to our Lord. This is hard for us to comprehend and indeed is a mystery because we have not similar experience to compare it to as "no one is good, not one (Psalm 14:3). We lack the pure desires, but having the new man and new mind given to us in our conversion, we have the beginning of it and will grow in it albeit incomplete until our Lord comes or we die.
I think your explanation on how if we succumb to temptation we do open the door to newer and other temptations. The "gateway" sin opens up more sin and so on. This of course can be reversed if God grants it, but it is a dangerous thing to indulge in temptation and thus sin. Thanks again, Nathan.
Excellent article that really exposes how original sin has and continues to afflict us in the many temptations we face every day. Thank you to the author.
!!
This is helpful, at least, to me.
I would add that ‘human licentiousness’ is too stupid to enter the mind of Jesus. Christ was too intelligent to indulge in thoughts that occupy stupid sinners like us. Like the holy angels Christ has no sinful nature, nor the stupidity to sin in any way.
Thank you Nathan you are doing the work of a confessor of the faith exposing the Christological heresies promoted in our circles. Paulson's teaching that the second person of the Holy Trinity committed sin is the most offensive. But the denial of the Augustinian teaching that sinful desires are sinful is also horrible. Wasn't Rosenberg at one time a Wesleyan? A Nasarene or something.
Always nice to hear and read good things about my father. Good article (not just because of the glowing review of my dad).
As the only person named associated with Nathan critiques, I will note that Nathan has refused to engage any of the actual critiques of his view, is lying when he implies I believe the view he critiques, and that his argument is ridiculous on its face. Neither scripture nor the confessions recognize the distinction he initially makes between temptations which are "intrinsically" evil and those which come from in-principle good loves: Augustine argues that *all* temptation is merely perversion of the good, that evil has no "substance" of its own. You need not endorse the Augustinian view to recognize that this bifurcation into special kinds of sins on the basis of a special intrinsic evil is not present in our confessional documents.
The separate distinction between assault and consent of the will is present and important; Nathan is a dishonest interlocutor who repeatedly and intentionally misrepresents others on the basis of a refusal to believe that people he politically dislikes might not be heretics.
To be clear, as I was named, the tweet he links to is not something I was saying I believed; I explicitly noted that it is the kind of argument you could imagine the confessional Lutherans of the 1500s or 1600s actually debating, unlike the drivel in this post, which invents categories that do not exist and misinterprets those that do.
Anyways, there was real debate among historic Lutheran thinkers about exactly which "infirmities" of the human condition Christ did or did not share! You can go read their voluminous arguments, since AI makes all the old German texts immediately readable! Lutheran orthodoxy did not actually arrive at a firm settlement of *exactly* what the line between "infirmity" and "concupiscence" and "consent of the will" may be. I share Nathan's concern there is sometimes fast-and-loose in a way that implies Christ experience sinful concupiscence (he did not, of course); but his reaction is to, in full knowledge, publicly lie about the actual reality of historic Lutheran teaching, namely, that historic Lutheran orthodox dogmatists not only ascribed to Christ "physical" infirmities like hunger or exhaustion, but also, as scripture does, "mental" infirmities, like, well, exhaustion, tiredness, anger, frustration, sadness, grief. The question of how to square this widely shared view of most historic, orthodox, Lutheran theologians with absence of concupiscence is a hard one which, to my knowledge, has not been "solved." Nathan's choice to treat people trying to figure out where a specific modern case falls in that debate as some kind of modern heresy with pastors (and "prominent and influential" voices like... me??? lol) is, I would argue, almost transparently an 8th commandment issue.
I deeply appreciate Ad Crucem's reporting, cherish the work Ad Crucem does in that area, and share the zeal to ensure that orthodoxy rules in our church. I am unsure how giving a pulpit to defamatory men whose whole public presence amounts to slanderous assaults on LCMS pastors to write blog posts that are not in any meaningful sense news or reportage achieves that goal. I look forward to continuing to subscribe to and support the work of Ad Crucem for many years to come, but I hope that work looks more like your reporting and provision of useful tools than this kind of hackery.
Lyman,
Thank you for your comments.
Please point everyone to the critiques of my view, if you would be so kind. I am as eager as anybody else to see them.
“[Nathan] is lying when he implies I believe the view he critiques.”
I said: “As shocking as this may sound to some of us, this is evidently the kind of high level discussion that prominent and influential voices in the LCMS feel is appropriate today” and linked to your comment. Given that that comment appeared shortly after the discussion I started regarding the issue, I think it is reasonable for people to read the comment from you that I linked to and come to their own decision.
I talk about the distinction between desires that are intrinsically good and those that are intrinsically evil. Desires that have no good ends — sodomy, bestiality, pedophilia — are rightly called evil, period. Also, this discussion about desires is related to temptation but is not the same thing.
I work hard to be an honest interlocutor. I have done my best not misrepresented anybody. In any case, if someone wants to make accusations like that, they should give a specific example.
I look forward to reading an article from someone that gives a blow-by-blow account of the early Orthodox Lutherans engaging In the kind of Schoolastic debates you suggest we would benefit from in yout tweet.
Lying about the Lutheran orthodox fathers, this history? Confused. What do exhaustion, tiredness, anger, frustration, sadness, grief have to do with concupiscence?
“Nathan's choice to treat people trying to figure out where a specific modern case falls in that debate as some kind of modern heresy….”
I'll stand my ground. Thanks.
+Nathan
Lyman, Nathan, thank you both.
A few clarifications from the editorial side, offered without any intention of refereeing a substantive theological dispute, which neither the comment thread nor the publisher's chair is the proper venue to settle.
First, on the linked tweet: Lyman has now stated publicly that the formulation he posted was offered as the kind of question one could imagine the seventeenth-century dogmaticians actually working through, rather than as his own held position. That clarification is on the record and it will be annotated in the article. Readers can weigh it alongside the original post and Nathan's reading of it, and Ad Crucem recognizes it as Lyman’s own account of his meaning. Whether Nathan's citation reasonably tracked the tweet as written is a question on which reasonable readers may differ, but we are prepared to remove it if necessary.
Second, on the decision to publish: Ad Crucem has a relatively liberal contribution policy, allowing contributors to write on contested questions of LCMS doctrine, governance, and practice, and the standard for publication is documentation, specificity, and a discernible argument, rather than agreement with the editor or absence of objection from named figures. That said, this article was returned to Nathan several times for recommended revisions and considerable softening.The characterization of the article as hackery is noted, but respectfully declined.
Third, on the substantive dispute itself: the question of where the line falls between infirmitas and concupiscentia in the human nature of Christ, and whether particular modern formulations within the Synod cross that line, requires long-form treatment. Lyman has identified a real issue, namely, whether the framework of intrinsically evil versus in-principle fully reflects the confessions. Nathan has named a real concern, namely whether contemporary pastoral usage (in limited examples) implies concupiscence in Christ. Both observations warrant a substantive written response. Ad Crucem welcomes any responses on these issues.
Fourth, on the eighth commandment charge: it is serious on both sides of the exchange. The standard Ad Crucem holds for its own reporting is evidence tied to specific statements and specific sources, and that standard applies whether the question is the conduct of a district president, the governance of a congregation, or the theological accuracy of public commentary on Christology.
We are grateful for Lyman's continued readership and support, grateful for Nathan's contribution, and committed to a publication culture in which serious disagreements among confessional Lutherans can be aired in print, answered in print, and judged by readers on the strength of the argument and the weight of the evidence.
Tim Wood, Publisher, Ad Crucem News
Fair enough; as far as I am concerned I am content to leave this issue where it is for now. I am not qualified by knowledge or vocation to be the arbiter of the core theological question, and will be glad to see other more learned voices have that conversation.
Lyman, re: "Augustine argues that *all* temptation is merely perversion of the good, that evil has no 'substance' of its own."
But some perversions are worse than others. They cannot be _tempting_ except to someone who has already consented to less perverted temptations, and thus lowered his defenses, dulled his appetites. That's perfectly consistent with Augustine, and _is_ something you can learn from Scripture. I don't think Nathan is saying that _any_ temptation is motivated by absolute evil, with no admixture of good desire; just that there are many that cannot be _tempting_ except to people who have already fallen.
Re: the connection between "mental infirmities" and concupiscence:
The apathy of tiredness, anger, frustration, and grief are all passions, but not desires, and thus not concupiscence. Concupiscence is desire. Now, if we say that the negative passions are caused by _thwarted_ desire, i.e. the yearning for rest, for a solution, for the company of the lost loved one, then we do have a connection, but you can deal righteously or unrighteously with deprivation, and there can be no question that Jesus did it with perfect righteousness. And Nathan's subject is different anyway, as these examples are all good and natural desires, so that the potential for sin lies only in a bad reaction to the evil of being deprived. The question of a desire for _evil_ things is essentially different.
Sure, but this is sort of a question of types. You can say homosexuality is a desire for an evil thing (since homosexual activity is evil), or call it a distortion of a good thing (sexual desire is in origin good), or call it a thwarting of a good desire (for true marital companionship). Homosexual behavior has a known relationship to unpartnered sex ratios in social groups, hence why homosexual behavior becomes more common when groups of men are kept isolated for long periods of time, etc. No matter the origin it is a sin, but I think saying that homosexual behavior is an intrinsically separate category as other kinds of sexual temptation is a debatable assumption, and gets into a question of what Christ’s hormonal development was like. At that point you get into what I would consider impious speculation, which makes the question quite hard to resolve. But maybe I’m missing something!
When I say hormonal development I of course mean tha questions like “What was it like for Jesus to go through male-typical puberty?” And “Did Jesus experience the physical experiences typical of men with healthy testosterone levels?” Are questions we have no evidence on in scripture and rapidly lead into speculation about things I just do not think it is proper for us to dwell on. This being the case, I am hesitant to accept a typological distinction that rests on assumptions the careful consideration of which is almost certainly impious. As such, I see the argument for homosexual desire being intrinsically different from other kinds of disordered sexual desires as being not extremely persuasive.
I take it as axiomatic that all desire is ultimately aimed at something good, i.e. a thing created by God for a good purpose, even if perversely used or pursued. This includes desires a lot darker than basic homosexual attraction. So I don't see any difference between calling it "a desire for an evil thing" and "a desire for a distorted good thing." All evils are distorted goods, and only distorted souls love them. We are distorted souls; Jesus was not. Everyone in those statistical studies of homosexual behavior was a distorted soul; Jesus was not. We don't have to get into impious details to say that perverted things could not have appealed to Him the way they do to us.
The argument Nathan makes is homosexual desire is *not* just a distortion of a good desire. He explicitly suggests it is a desire for an intrinsic evil. What you take as axiomatic, Nathan rejects. That’s my point. You are agreeing with me, not disagreeing.
Dr. Phillips:
"I don't think Nathan is saying that _any_ temptation is motivated by absolute evil, with no admixture of good desire..."
True, as I said above in the article. All desire in a sense is a desire for God, the truth, even as we also hate the truth.
This is an important discussion. Thank you, Nathan.
A year or so ago this came up in a Confessional Study group. Was Jesus tempted like we were? Yes and no. I noted that while He is the God-man and is fully man. He does not have evil desires (concupiscence, tinder) like we do, so the appeal of the temptations is not exactly the same for Him as for us. That is unless one wants to blaspheme and ascribe sin to our Lord. This is hard for us to comprehend and indeed is a mystery because we have not similar experience to compare it to as "no one is good, not one (Psalm 14:3). We lack the pure desires, but having the new man and new mind given to us in our conversion, we have the beginning of it and will grow in it albeit incomplete until our Lord comes or we die.
I think your explanation on how if we succumb to temptation we do open the door to newer and other temptations. The "gateway" sin opens up more sin and so on. This of course can be reversed if God grants it, but it is a dangerous thing to indulge in temptation and thus sin. Thanks again, Nathan.
Thanks much Trey. I've been doing my best to begin to understand this more, live this more.