Are sexual desires inherently sinful?

"Desire" and "lust" are really the same word, as may be seen from many passages. For example, the word translated "lust" in the above scripture is the same as that in Phil. 1:23 (and a number of other places), where it could only be rendered "desire." It is the thing longed for that characterises the nature of the feeling cherished. If the object of the craving is good, according to God, then it is a holy desire. Thus the Lord Himself uses the word in question when He says to His disciples, "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer." (Luke 22:15.) When the object, on the other hand, is evil, then the desire for it is "lust." Hence the apostle employs the word when he speaks of the "lusts of our flesh." (Ephesians 2:3.) There is consequently an important distinction to be noted. "Lust," as James teaches, has its origin in ourselves (chapter 1:14), but holy "desire" is the fruit of the action of the Spirit of God in the believer.

N. No. The proper translation of that passage is not, of his lusts; but, of his desires.

A. Your distinctions are deplorably subtle and dangerous. Thus men play with poison. It is in vain that I look for this difference; for the word which you translate desire, is the same Greek word which Paul employs in Romans 7 to express the lust by which he had been convinced of sin. And pray observe, it is there said that sin produced lust (v. 8). It is true that when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin as an act; but it is just as true that sin, which is in our nature, produces all sorts of lusts. With your definition of sin, which it totally anti-scriptural, you may indeed reason on the subject; but you will find yourself constantly in opposition to the declarations of God's word. Temptation may, doubtless, be distinguished from sin. When I abhor the evil, and the new man rejects with indignation that which Satan presents, or, it may be, flattery, it is a temptation and not a sin. But lust in me is always sin. I do not say it will be imputed to me; but that is solely and absolutely because of the blood of Christ. But the "new man" judges it as sin. Woe is me, if I do not judge it!

N. But Christ had desires.

When I abhor the evil, and the 'new man' rejects with indignation that which Satan presents, it is a temptation, not a sin. But lust in me is always sin. It will not be imputed to me; but that is solely and absolutely because of the blood of Christ. The new man judges it as sin.

The synod then goes on, and fully admits that concupiscence still remains, but it is not sin, unless we consent to it: and further, “this concupiscence which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as being a truly and properly sin, in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin. And if any one is of a contrary opinion, let him be Anathema.” (Page 24.) Is not this dreadful? The Catholic Church sets itself confessedly against the inspired apostle, nay, against God. Their curses would rest on the apostle for having a different opinion from themselves. God says lust is sin. They do not call it so. If any one is of a contrary opinion, let him be accursed. Christ declares the contrary. He says to lust is to commit sin in the heart. (Matt. 5:28.) Paul says, “But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence;” and after full deliverance in Christ he says, “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” (Rom. 7:8, 25.) The flesh in regenerate Paul is thus called sin. The apostle John, speaking of the regenerate surely, says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8.) Well, says the Holy Synod, we do not call it sin; and if any one does, let him be accursed. Yes, God, and Christ, and Paul, and John all come under the curse by this dreadful decree. And this is called “Holy Synod!” And does not every true Christian mourn over his inward corruptions, his evil nature so prone to commit sins — the root from which all the sins grow? And does he not confess it to God as sin, and abhor it? Holy Church says, we curse him if he does. How low had Rome sunk, when she could issue such a decree! Oh, Lord, deliver Thy people from her.

When we judge things according to our state, we are always under the law, in one way or another. The law gives the duties of our relations, but when it says, "Thou shalt not covet"; then it touches the root, the seat of evil in the heart. Nevertheless, the law does not say that man is lost; only the result is, that we cannot fulfil it. Some people quote James 1:14-15, and pretend that "concupiscence" is not "sin," unless the will consent to it; but in this passage sin is outward sin; whilst, instead, in Rom. 7:8, it is sin which works "concupiscence" and here sin is the cause and the root.

This is the doctrine. Now for the conclusions that may be deduced from it. Is the law, then, sin, that we are withdrawn from its authority? By no means. But it gave the knowledge of sin, and imputed it. For the apostle says, that he would not have understood that the mere impulse of his nature was sin, if the law had not said, Thou shalt not covet. But the commandment gave sin occasion to attack the soul. Sin, that evil principle of our nature, making use of the commandment to provoke the soul to the sin that is forbidden (but which it took occasion to suggest by the interdiction itself, acting also on the will which resisted the interdiction), produced all manner of concupiscence. For, without the law, sin could not plunge the soul into this conflict, and give the sentence of death in it, by making it responsible in conscience for the sin which, without this law, it would not have known. Under the law lust acted, with the conscience of sin in the heart; and the result was death in the conscience, without any deliverance for the heart from the power of concupiscence.

The law was given to man in the flesh (already a sinner); and the New Testament teaches us very clearly that God did not give it in the thought that man could keep it. The carnal mind pretends to do so; but the word tells us, that the law of God was given to convince man of sin by the discovery that he did not keep it; so that sin might become by the commandment exceeding sinful. The law entered, says the apostle, that the offence might abound. Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence; for without the law sin was dead. (Rom. 7:8.) Remark here, that sin produces concupiscence or lust. When the law had said, Thou shalt not covet, then Paul knew sin. 'The strength of sin is the law,' says the same apostle elsewhere. (1 Cor. 15:56.) God's purpose then, in giving the law, was to convince man of the sin which was in him. There was no thought that man could or would keep it.

A. In one sense that is true; but that, by no means, establishes the principle upon which you lay so much stress, that God commands nothing but what may be accomplished. The law was given to man in the flesh, and the New Testament teaches me, very clearly, that God did not give the law in the thought that man could keep it. The carnal mind pretends to do so; but the word tells me that the law of God was given to convince man of sin, by the discovery that he did not keep it, so "that sin might become by the commandment exceeding sinful." The law entered, says the apostle, that the offence might abound. Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin is dead; Rom 7:8. Remark here, in passing, that sin produces concupiscence or lust. When the law had said, Thou shalt not covet, then Paul knew sin. "The strength of sin is the law," says the same apostle elsewhere; 1 Cor. 15: 56. I gather, therefore, that in giving the law, God's purpose was to convince man of the sin which is in him; and not, as you say, with the thought that man could and would keep it.

Romans 6 treats entirely of living to God, not of justification. "The law," we read, "entered that the offence might abound," chap. 5:20. "Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace," chap. 6:14. "Wherefore, my brethren, ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God," chap. 7:4. "For without the law sin was dead; but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died" (vv. 8, 9.) In 1 Corinthians 15:56, "The strength of sin is the law." Now here, especially in the passages cited from Romans, the question is not justification, but dominion of sin over us, or ours over sin. The apostle takes pains to say all he can for the law; it is not the cause of sin. The cause is concupiscence, but while under law, concupiscence has dominion over us, nay, the motions of sin are by the law. Such is the positive testimony of the apostle. Although it would be quite false to say the law is the cause of sin, yet sin has dominion wherever a man is under it. Being delivered from the law is necessary to bringing forth fruit to God. Such deliverance is as needed for this as for justification. The strength of sin is the law. It is, even if grace be there, the ministration of death and condemnation.*

But that this may be before our eyes, I will quote some scriptures, that we may see that this is no light subject nor strained assertion: "As many as are of the works of the law are under a curse." "The law entered that the offence might abound." Mark the word entered (παρεισῆλθε). It was a principle, a system, a way of dealing that came in. "Sin shall not have dominion over you, because ye are not under the law, but under grace." "The sting of death is sin; the strength of sin is the law." "I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Is the apostle speaking of the ceremonial law? Far from it; he is speaking of the law in its moral nature and essence. He says, "I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet (lust)." And when he had said that sin should not have dominion over us, because we are not under the law, he immediately adds, "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?" shewing that the introduction of the notion of the ceremonial law has no place at all here. Nor is it justification he is speaking of here; but serving sin, or the contrary. No; he treats the whole question of law in a way totally different, and contrary to that in which it is treated in much evangelical teaching. I continue: "Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence." "Sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good, that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." Is this ceremonial law? It is a principle on which God placed man "four hundred and thirty years after the promise," which "was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made." But now the seed is come to whom the promise was made, and "now we are delivered from the law." What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God has done in another way. How we are delivered from the law, so as not to allow sin, I shall speak of presently.

5 I am now shewing that scripture treats the question of law in another way from what I am here examining. Before faith came, we were kept under the law; but after that faith came, we were no longer under the schoolmaster. If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it unto Abraham by promise. The law was added. Further, if there had been a law given which could have given life, righteousness should have been by the law. "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin." "I, through law," says the apostle, "am dead to law, that I might live to God." "If I am led of the Spirit, I am not under law." "Ye are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ, that ye might be married to another." It is "the ministration of death written and engraven on stones." How is it possible, if law could be used as the moral law, by which a Christian is bound, that the apostle should say, "Wherefore, my brethren, ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ?" It would be, as Paul says, making Christ the minister of sin. Let it not be attempted to be said, Oh, but he is speaking of justification by works of law: he is doing nothing of the kind. His words are, "Ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that ye might bring forth fruit unto God." Being dead to the law is the way to bring forth fruit. So in Galatians: "I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." If I would bring forth fruit and live to God, I must be dead to law. Law is a principle on which we cannot live to God any more than we can be justified. No doubt, we cannot be justified by works of law; but there is much more than that. It condemns us positively if we are under it. It "works wrath." It cannot give life: but that is not all; it is a ministration of death — is found to be unto death. It is "the strength of sin." By it, as an occasion, sin works in us all manner of concupiscence — bringing forth fruit unto death. The motions of sin are by the law. It makes sin exceeding sinful. Is all this scripture, or is it not?