Protestantism vs. Catholicism on Concupiscence

Ajouté : 2026-05-09

[00:00:00]everybody doing. Hope you're having a fantastic day. It is Wednesday, May 6th, and tonight I wanted to discuss with you guys a topic that I think is one of the topics in theology that is most fraught with equivocation, with misunderstanding.

[00:00:16]And it could be very easy if you don't start from a systematic understanding of the topic. It'd be very easy to fall prey to a lot of Protestant rhetoric against Catholic teaching on these points. And this topic is the topic of concubisence because really concupisence is an illdefined term. It's a term where when we discuss theological topics and the issue of concupisence or is concupisence a sin or a lot of these different questions related to concupisence basically everybody defines the term kind of how they feel like it or really everyone kind of defines the term based on whatever their you know their vibes are telling them when they hear the word concubisence or they see it described for the first time. But in theology when we have this discussion over concubisence and the sinfulness of concubisence, you have to remember that we are talking about something very very precise. And once you actually explain the definition of the term concupisence, the moral value of concubisence, the different divisions or distinctions between different types of concubisence, once we actually have a systematic understanding of concubisence, we're actually going to be able to understand the doctrine and understand how the Catholic teaching on this point, especially the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on this point is actually very clear. It's actually something which fits in a lot of puzzle pieces with different points of theology that you might know about. And when it comes to this topic, there's there's nothing and I I emphasized this in the beginning, there's nothing so important as starting with some good divisions and some good definitions of terms. Because if you don't start with that and you just start trying to read willy-nilly into this without actually thinking about the meaning of the terms that you use, you're going to really fall into a lot of trouble here and you're going to fall into various errors. sometimes errors against the faith, sometimes just, you know, silly mistakes that are going to actually, especially when it comes to the issue of concubisence. It's going to be something that is going to really affect the way you think about the spiritual life, the way you think about your relationship to God, the necessity of repentance, a lot of different issues because the really the doctrine of concupisence and this is kind of a important historical point to bring up from the beginning. The doctrine of concubisence was explicitly formed as a cor uh as a sort of related dispute within the dispute around original sin.

[00:02:50]And the reason that it it arose on this point was during the Pelagian crisis, there were certain authors who did not adequately understand the corruption that is passed down from Adam, the corruption that's passed down to his children. And really a lot of this ended up taking a spiritual form. One of in my mind the best spiritual works written in the history of the church on continents by St. Augustine is actually kind of an extended application of the doctrine of concubisence to the spiritual life. A lot of the later controversies in the 420s that took place uh near the end of the life of St. Augustine with Julian was actually over this doctrine of concupisence and specifically actually how concubisence relates to our teaching on marriage and the morality of certain acts uh surrounding marriage. Right? So when it comes to the doctrine of concupisence it is very important. It's foundational when we're talking about the doctrine on original sin or the doctrine on baptism. We're talking about the spiritual doctrine of the church.

[00:03:57]when we're talking about the the teaching on marriage and how we view marriage uh how we view heaven the resurrection of the body uh the botific vision the mercy of God right the justice of God a lot of these different doctrines are actually going to resolve into very important questions surrounding the doctrine of concubisence so since it is something which is uh so fraught with errors from the beginning I kind of wanted to start with a precise a simple But precise definition of exactly when Catholic authors talk about concubisence, what is actually meant by it? Because in the broadest possible sense, we can even talk about something uh like the love of concupisence, right?

[00:04:39]The love of concubisence is something which is not necessarily uh going to be something which is immoral, right? It's something which is a delight in possessing something. So obviously you can have a delight in possessing God, right? So that's obviously not the sense in which when we talk about a very negative way of speaking about concubisence we're obviously not talking about simply the delight that we have in something.

[00:05:02]Rather specifically when we're talking about concubisence we mean those motions of the soul and this is actual concubisence but we talk about habitual concubisence as well those motions of the soul towards sensible delights or towards sensible pleasures. So obviously in this way if we just talk about the most general sense right the motions of the soul towards sensible delights this isn't something that's going to have really a moral character right because sensible delights this is something which these motions of the soul can go towards a good object they can go towards a bad object they can go towards an indifferent object right these are these are motions of the lower faculties these are not motions yet we're not talking about the relationship between the will and these emotions of sensible delight. So for example, we could talk about a motion of concubisence towards water. You know, if you're really thirsty and you want to drink water and then you drink water and you have enjoyment in the cold water that you're drinking in the broadest possible sense, this is a motion of concupisence towards water, right? So when we when we get into this idea of concubisence and the sinfulness of concubisence and and whatever else the divisions between various different types of concubisence we're really going to distinguish between multiple different types of motion. That's going to be very very helpful for understanding this doctrine.

[00:06:27]So we distinguish between second motions second first motions and first first motions. Okay. So these are three different types of motions of concubisence. They're all called concubisants. Uh they're all called motions of sensuality, if you kind of want to put it like that. They're all called concubisants, but obviously once we get into how these terms are defined, it's going to be pretty obvious that the moral character, the moral value of each of these is going to differ. So, we're going to need to investigate this a lot more closely than just having, you know, pre-baked formulas of concubisence isn't sinful or saying, you know, concubis is sinful or whatever else. You know, we need to actually have a little bit more precision when we're talking about this problem. So, the first first motion, these are also sometimes called natural motions or uh amongst church fathers are sometimes called blameless passions, especially when we talk about christologology. These first first motions, these are basically going to be solely biological realities. So for example, hunger and thirst. We don't have any sort of control of the will.

[00:07:35]These don't enter the moral sphere. You can't really control these emotions. You have a motion towards water when you're thirsty. You have a motion towards food when you're hungry. These biological realities, they don't at all enter into this direct sphere of the will, right?

[00:07:52]You can't just will really hard yourself not to be hungry or will really hard yourself not to be thirsty or anything like that. So these first first motions or natural motions that come from a mere sort of biological reality these merely come from the way in which our body is constituted. These obviously and even the reformed are going to agree with us on this. These first first motions are obviously not at all sinful in any sense. Okay. But then we have second motions. And second motions are those motions of the will sometimes called consequent passions. These motions of the will are going to be motions of you know motions of the passions are going to be motions of the passions that are directed and ordered by the will. So obviously we also can't give a universal judgment on these either right because if you have a motion of the passion that is directed by the will towards a good sensible object or towards a reasonable sensible object this isn't going to be something that is just automatically sinful. Right? If you have uh let's say you uh you have an act of the will that directs the hand you know the hand's an irrational agent part of the body. If you direct the hand towards helping somebody then obviously your hand is participating in that good character of the will. The will which has ordered it towards a good end. But if you use your hand to kill somebody unjustly that is if you use your hand to kill somebody unjustly then obviously your hand is used as an instrument of the will towards an evil end. So when it comes to these second motions, these consequent passions, these second motions and consequent passions that are directed and ordered directly by the will, these things, they're going to take upon themselves the character of the will's action. So these can be mortal sins, these can be venial sins, these can be meritorious, these can be acts of natural justice, right? There's nothing stopping it. Whatever the will can extend to, the will can use the passions to extend to as well. Although obviously this is something which is under the influence of the will. But these so these two right there the ones the first first motions that are sort of just natural motions and don't enter into the caveat of the moral sphere doesn't enter into the will whatever these are going to obviously not be what we're talking about when it comes to concupisence in the sinfulness of concupisence. second motions kind of. I mean, in a way, we're talking about these when it comes to concubisence, but not really. I mean, it's not really going to be these second motions that are the super controversial ones. Everybody is going to agree that if you order your passions to an evil end, then it's going to be evil. And that if you order your passions to a good end, then it's going to be good. So for example, when it comes to Christ, when it comes to Adam, Christ and Adam, they both they had both of these types of passions. They had both of these these blameless passions, these first first motions, natural motions, whatever you want to call them. They had these motions and then they also had these second motions, right, that are ordered and directed by the will. But then we have an interesting category between these two. These are sometimes called second first motions or motions of sensuality. And this is going to be where a lot of the controversy is when it comes to these. Sometimes these are just called first motions of sensuality.

[00:11:34]Um sometimes these are simply called motions of concubisence or actual concubisence or whatever else. And really what this is going to come from is these are going to be those motions that happen in the soul in those lower faculties in the sens sensible appetites. These are going to be motions of the appetites towards sensible goods which the will in principle can control.

[00:11:59]Right? So we have all of these motions of the soul that the will can in principle control. And there's the question okay if the will can in principle control these motions of the soul these motions of cubisence these second first motions it does this enter in the moral sphere can we talk about sin or merit or whatever else being in these second first motions because man was not created with these second first motions with these inordinate passions these inordinate motions right man was not created with these Adam he had control over all of his passions. There were not even passions that were uh said to be preleim or beside the law. These the passions that he had were all directed by reason. So they were they were reasonable. They were ordered towards their proper ends. Right? The the higher faculties were ordered to God. The lower faculties were ordered to the higher faculties. And there was a sort of command and order which was preserved initially in man. So when it comes to Adam, he didn't have these.

[00:13:05]Rather, these are an effect of original sin. Original sin caused us to lose this primordial order between the various faculties of our soul. We lost this order. And because we lost this order, now in the words of St. Paul, the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit lusts against the flesh. We have some sort of disorder. we have some sort of uh you know we have all these motions within us towards these sensible objects that are disordered these disordered motions that are against how we ought to act and there's the question okay if we have these motions is there a way in which we can talk about these motions being sinful and the answer that St. Thomas gives is probably quite surprising to you what St. Thomas says is that St. Thomas says that it is a command of the law. Thou shalt not covet. This is something that St. Augustine he brings up again and again and again. We have this command of the law that says thou shalt not covet. And our faculties are our our higher faculties are able to restrain the lower faculties in individual motions to frustrate them. Right? We're it's we're able to in one sense, you know, you can consent to these motions and obviously consenting to an inordinate motion is is is very bad and this is going to be sinful to the degree in which the motion is disordered and you know all of those other conditions. Uh you have consenting to the motions, you have uh simply ignoring the motions, right? You have just permitting them or at least you know having a sort of negative relationship to them of not actually stopping them. Then you have vigilantly stopping them. You have you know overpowering them the the spirit lusting against the flesh. Right? In that way we are by grace overcoming these passions and we are mortifying the flesh so that these inordinant passions are stopped.

[00:15:06]And since we have this command what St. Thomas says, "Since we have this command to actually overcome these passions and since we have at least the uh the physical ability to overcome these passions individually, what he says is that if you fail in this precept, if you fail to actually overcome those passions, those second first motions, motions of sensuality, motions of concubisence that are in the moral order, if you fail to do this, then you are sinning." And this is quite surprising, right? Because when you have this this motion of uh anger, let's say that arises, motion of lust, and you mortify the flesh, you overcome it, you stop it right in its tracks, and you uh you know, you're able to destroy this and stop this like is possible by grace uh you know, in in the baptized. If in the regenerate you're able to do that, then this is a meritorious act, right?

[00:16:06]This is uh something that you know certain enemies of the church were actually condemned for is saying that you know if you have this motion and you overcome it and stop it that this is not a meritorious act. This is actually something which is uh still sinful. So if you have that right there right you overcome the motion of concubisence then that is a merit you know you've done a meritorious action because it's within the moral order right and a lot of the enemies of this doctrine uh certain Catholics even who are enemies of this doctrine that second first motions that are you know not mortified that these are somehow uh not sinful this is what these people will say uh how would we have merit you know how would we have merit In this case, if we weren't coming uh if we weren't overcoming something which was inordinate, if we weren't making an act that was in the moral sphere, it doesn't even make sense. So, if we permit this motion or if we are somehow lazy or we are, you know, not adequately vigilant over our faculties so as to overcome this motion, then we are sinning. This motion of cigubisense in that way is a sin. Now, what kind of sin is it? Because obviously with the second motions that we talked about, it's quite easy, right? Or even consenting to these motions, it's quite easy to actually just okay, we can apply the principles of Catholic moral theology and the distinction between mortal venial sin and imperfections and whatever. We can actually look and see how these play out, right? We can look and see and divide and distinguish upon the basis of those um, you know, of those different principles. It's not that hard to actually do this. But when it comes to these motions of concupisence, these second first motions, motions of sensuality, you know, whichever way you kind of want to cut it, whichever way you want to speak about this, we have this question, okay, how how sinful are these? Are these mortally sinful? Are these venally sinful? And this is something that was at one time disputed among Catholic theologians. Uh some would say that these are merely venially sinful in the baptized but maybe in the unbaptized they are mortally sinful right this was a dispute that was going on but what St. Thomas says, he gives a pretty simple answer. He says, well, when it comes to the God is not a respector of persons.

[00:18:31]When it comes to the unbaptized and the baptized, he is not going to judge one more harshly than the other when it comes to the moral quality of the act.

[00:18:41]If it's a mortal sin and it's forgiven, then it's a mortal sin and it's forgiven. If it's a venial sin and unforgiven, it's a venial sin and unforgiven. But ultimately, that is still a mortal sin. That is still a venial sin. So when it comes to these acts these uh according to St. Thomas, they are only venally sin uh sinful for a very important reason. And the important reason for this is to think about what is actually the extent of the sensible faculties. Because when we talk about mortal sin, mortal sin is the aversion from God. There's two aspects to it. The aversion from God and the attachment to creatures. So we have removed ourselves from our last end. But when it comes to venial sins, venial sins are simply inordinate attachments to to created goods. It doesn't require that we actually turn away from our last end. So if we're keeping those definitions in mind of mortal and venial sin, it's actually pretty easy to answer this question. It's very, very easy to answer this question because how far can the sensible faculties go? Well, the sensible faculties, they're not like the the higher faculties of the intellect and will that can actually contemplate the end and that can actually turn us away from our end. Rather, the the sensible faculties, they they're only proportion to sensible goods. So, they can only draw us to created goods. They don't have in their scope the ability to have some sort of formal aversion to God. Right? That that's not possible when it comes to these motions of concubisence. So, what St. Thomas says is that when it comes to these motions, they can only they can only bring about this inordinate attachment to creatures.

[00:20:21]They can't bring about this formal aversion from God. Therefore, when it comes to these second first motions of sensuality, these motions of concubisence, they're only going to be able to be venial sins. They're not going to be able to be mortal sins. And this leads us actually to an interesting discussion because St. Thomas he brings up the question I kind of mentioned it earlier this question of whether concupisence and by this we could mean habitual concupisence or we can mean acts of concupisence or we can really mean a lot of different things whether concupisence in the baptized or in the regenerate is as sinful or is mortally sinful or whether in the unbapt they are mortally sinful like is there is there a way in which we talk about these as being mortally sinful. And here we need to be really careful because I just defined mortal sin in a certain way, right? Which is the the formal aversion from God is last end, which is going to somehow necessarily exclude us from the botific vision. Whereas when it comes to venial sins, they're not going to require formal aversion from God as a last uh from the last end. But the attachment to creatures that that's sort of like the formal essentual principle difference between the act that we call mortal sin and the act that we call venial sin. But not all uh authors are going to have that very formal and essential distinction between the two.

[00:21:54]Sometimes when we talk about mortal sin in a sort of broad sense in certain ages of the church, they sometimes used mortal sin for simply that which is given eternal punishment. I went over this in an article I think a few weeks or maybe a few months ago, but there is a way in which we speak about venial sins being mortal sins. And that sounds really weird, but when it comes to those who go to hell, think about it like this. Those who go to hell and uh you know they're reprobate, they ultimately go to hell and they're getting punished in hell. Are they getting punished only for original sin? No, obviously not. Are they getting punished only for mortal sin? Obviously not. They're also getting punished for their venial sins. So when it comes to those in hell, they're getting punished for all the sins they ever committed, whether original or actual, whether mortal or venal. So when it comes to the those who die without charity, when it comes to those who die outside of a state of grace, they are eternally punished for their venal sins, it's not like there's some point, unless you're a Scotas, but that's sort of a different question. It's not like you have some individual who's in hell uh who has venial sins, who has the the obligation to punishment for these venial sins. It's not like eventually these get remitted. That would be crazy.

[00:23:14]Remission only comes through Jesus Christ and is only communicated to us by his passion. And when it comes to those individuals in hell, it's not like they're going to have the merits of Christ communicated to them in a small degree just to overcome their venial sins. That that would be absolutely ridiculous. So one if we simply if or if we only defined mortal sin as that which is punished in hell or that which in some way we can talk about it meriting in in the case of venial sin per accidents but meriting eternal punishment. Sure in that sense we can talk about venial sin as somehow being eternally punished or we can even talk about it as mortal but we need to be very careful about that language. We can't stretch that too far. So in this question about concubisence and unbelievers, this leads us to a very very interesting question because when it comes to concubisence in unbelievers, this is going to be something those second first emotions, those are going to be uh if they die in that state, punished eternally in hell. Right? So we kind of talk about it in terms like that. But we can even come to an uh a more interesting question and this is going to get us into our teaching on original sin and its relationship to concupisence.

[00:24:29]One if we just kind of talk about concupisence in terms of like the intrinsic disorder of the soul that's passed down from Adam to all of those children of Adam, you know, outside our Lord and the blessed virgin. Right? If we just talk about concubisence in this sense, if we just talk about the inherent or intrinsic disorder that is passed down from father to son and is present even in children as a habitual disorder. Like if we were just talking about concubisence in that sense, is there a way in which we can talk about you know the the guilt of concubisence or guilt or the the sort of concubisence with its guilt or you know these sort of formulations? Yes, we we can actually talk about that. So the reason for this and St. Thomas he talks about this in a ci liiberal question in his commentary in Romans then in demo malo and a lot of the toists are going to talk about this in detail and really this is a a very petristic doctrine this is something which in my mind is very clear uh in the writings of St. Augustine which I could go over in a different place different time different episode. So when it comes to uh cubisence in the terms of like an inherent disorder there's sort of two principles when it comes to the sinfulness of original sin or the the obligation to punishment when it comes to original sin or the guilt of original sin if you kind of want to frame it in that way. When it comes to original sin, there is both going to be on the one hand the inherent disorder that is present within us. And on the other hand, there is also going to be its attachment with or its inclusion in Adam. There's going to be an aspect of, you know, voluntarity. There's going to be an aspect of moral union with Adam.

[00:26:18]That's going to be an aspect of original sin. And on the other hand, uh the inherent disorder within us, that's also going to be an aspect of original sin.

[00:26:28]And what's really difficult here is there are theologians who emphasize one or the other aspect to the inclusion of the other. And really a lot of times we tend to focus on the one rather than the other, but the both need to come together. And really the toistic solution and his reading of St. Augustine, they're they're very much going to bring these two aspects together.

[00:26:49]So on the one hand some overextend the inherent quality or the inherent disorder so much as to make the sole basis of the guilt of original sin this inherent quality that's passed down from parent to child. So what they would say is they would say this sort of inherent quality that is passed down to us to where we are in a like state as Adam.

[00:27:14]This is the sole and exclusive and adequate basis to where there is inseparably united with this inherent disorder. There is attached the eternal guilt or the damnable guilt that is present on the sole basis of this disorder. Now there was a lot of difficulties with this and how we are going to relate this to a lot of other doctrines concerning sin and concerning the basis for the guilt of sin and concerning how sin is punished. But basically that is the impetus of one side of the overextension right there.

[00:27:51]Right? They're going to make the sole inadequate foundation the inherent quality in the the unbaptized the unregenerate is going to be that aspect right there.

[00:28:03]And then on the other hand there are others and what they will try to do is they will try to react very harshly against this first crowd and they will uh kind of step into the opposite error.

[00:28:15]So rather than having any sort of role or inclusion for the inherent quality which is passed down which we can call uh the fom picatch or the tinder of sin we can call it habitual concubisense we can call it just concubisence whatever you want. You know what they will say is they will say well it's actually this inclusion in Adam that sort of takes the takes the cake and that is the the the sole formal adequate uh aspect of original sin right there. So that what original sin becomes the guilt of original sin becomes is it becomes an imputation of Adam's personal sin an imputation of uh you know the guilt that was incurred to us. So on the one hand we have the the aspect of inclusion in Adam that is going moral union with Adam or the decrees of God or however you want to phrase it. On the one hand, there are some that overexaggerate that aspect of how we talk about the guilt of original sin. And on the other hand, we have this other aspect that is the inherent quality. And the issue with uh emphasizing the second one, while the first one we can talk about it is, you know, this is silly, ridiculous, there's a lot of, you know, very ridiculous um conclusions that we can draw from this, whatever. Talk about that. Really the second one is more damaging and it's kind of more fundamental in how it corrupts the Catholic doctrine because on that first one what we have is we have the question of okay we have somebody who has concubisence they have uh you know this has been derived from Adam habitual concubisence this disorder that is present within us and from this disorder flows all of these motions of concubisense that just come out and in some cases they are mortif ified by grace and in this case it's meritorious in other cases they are you know permitted we have we have that but this concupisence is something which is present both in the unregenerate and in the regenerate. So if there was a a way in which there was an inseparable aspect of guilt, there was an inseparable aspect of an obligation to eternal punishment with this habitual concubisence as such.

[00:30:37]Then when it comes to the individual before and after baptism and before and after the loosing from concubisence that happens at baptism and the forgiveness of the the guilt of concubisence and uh however else you want to phrase it during this aspect there is no sort of uh reason or foundation for before and after the the the inclusion or non-inclusion of uh guilt right there.

[00:31:04]that that right there there's no transition that happens at justification that that's the issue. So that even after justification there is uh you know the inclusion of damnable guilt in somebody. So if you make the the sole formal adequate basis for simply the habitual disorder in the soul or even those the habitual disorder with those motions flowing from it or however else you want to phrase it. If you make that the sole and adequate basis, then you're going to fall into those issues. And hence, a lot of the condemnations of the church on these points, I didn't make mean to put that in square scare quotes, but a lot of the condemnations of the church on this point actually are condemnations of views that would tend to make the sole adequate basis an inherent quality, right? And that would cause a lot of difficulties. But on the other hand, if you uh you know make it solely a part of the decree right there, there's sort of no way in which we can explain uh you know some sort of union with Adam and actually the loss of gifts and the uh the communication of corruption to the children which come from Adam. Right?

[00:32:17]You need both aspects together. So to unite these aspects is to say that there is a certain if we consider concubisence in itself, right? If we just kind of abstract from all considerations and consider merely a habitual inclination.

[00:32:34]Consider just in itself, right? Rather than considering with no con uh let's take away consent of the will. Let's take away resistance. Let's take away all of these uh these aspects and just consider a habitual inclination. Well, a habitual inclination is not an actual sin. So, we're not even talking about the category of mortal or venial sin right there. And then if we talk about the the second first motions kind of abstracted in the same way, we can talk about this as somehow being from sin and inclining to sin. And if we kind of add in the consideration of the will and we speak of this as a non-mortified act that is uh you know it's just the the flesh lusting against the spirit but the spirit doesn't lust against the flesh so as to mortify it. This is going to be something which is in itself you know just considered abstractly you know in its sort of bare essence with no sort of attached qualities to it. This is going to be something which is in itself a venial sin. Right?

[00:33:33]But when it comes to reality, in reality, this is not the way in which we are going to talk about original sin because as I've went over before, when it comes to concubisence, concubisence is going to have this uh this sort of attachment to original sin, right? It is going to uh be something which is annexed to original sin. It's going to have its origin in original sin. It's going to have this origin in Adam and in the voluntary act of Adam. it's going to have these attachments and originations and annexations that are going to be present with it. So in a similar way uh I'm just making an analogy here but the the way in which this happens metaphysically is slightly distinct but in a similar way as we talk about you know venial sins as being mortal because of the uh the punishment which is per accidents due to it in so far as it is present in a subject that will never have the remission of venial sin. In a sort of analogous way when it comes to concupisence, concubisence has this attachment to inclusion in Adam. It has this attachment with union in Adam. It has this origination in Adam. And it has this attachment with the decree that joins the individual to Adam. And this decree that joins the individual to Adam is going to be the basis for the culpability of the individual before God. This is important. Both aspects need to be considered both the inherent quality and the inherent corruption that comes from our first parents and then also that uh you know union that moral union with Adam that are going to that's going to be very much based upon the uh the act of God right and this is not in the uh in the realm of mortal sin because mortal sin is uh an actual sin a sin of action if you kind of want to put it like that it's going to be a motion but here we're just talking about the inherent habitual corruption that is present the the corruption of concubison.

[00:35:36]So when it comes to these individuals we can talk about you know the the damnability of concubisence. We can talk about um the condemnation of concubisence and the condemnation of the flesh but it's not going to be a uh this is not going to be a condemnation which is due to a habit. Like what would that even mean? It's not a condemnation which is due to a a second first motion of concubisence. Like how do we even talk about that? Rather, it is a the condemnation which is due to original sin. So it doesn't receive a new condemnation. It receives that exact same condemnation to original sin. So when there is the non-imputation of Adam's sin that happens at the moment of regeneration, when there is the forgiveness and loosening of these bonds that happened with regeneration, there is going to be the removal of the culpability of concubisence because it's losing that aspect of moral union with Adam. We're taken from the headship of Adam. We are placed under the headship of Christ. So uh you can read about uh again this is probably this may sound very very confusing. You may have never heard of this before and a lot of this is uh really to explain these kind of down to uh their principles down to sort of the foundations. So if you want to read more about this and kind of understand this in more detail uh you can check out the article that I released earlier today. The whole thing is for free. I I didn't put a pay wall or anything on it. I would just ask that you uh subscribe to the Substack and you know if you really enjoy it become a paid subscriber. Paid subscribers to my Substack are awesome or you know become a patron at patreon.com/millitantoish.

[00:37:13]That's awesome. If you really want to understand this in a lot more detail, you have to understand the teaching on original sin and the role of moral union with Adam and the ways in which we talk about the imputation of Adam's sin to us and think about how uh concubisence in us or the inherent disorder within us is related or has its culpability not from uh the habit as such or not from the motion from the uh from the faculty as such from the lower faculty as such but due to its union uh g garers its uh its culpability due to the union with its attachment uh to the imputable sin of Adam and this is where it garers its aspect of voluntarity as the later theologians will talk about. Well, I hope this was helpful. I know that this was a lot more dense and a lot more complicated than usual videos. But that's all that I have for you. Remember to like, subscribe, share and everything like that. Remember uh to read the article and as always, God bless.