Book Review : Ruined Sinners to Reclaim: Sin and Depravity in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective

By Mark Powell

Every so often a volume comes along which is something of a game-changer on an issue. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Crossway, 1991) is one such example. In a similar vein, Ruined Sinners to Reclaim (Crossway, 2024) also sets a new standard in this regard. David and Jonathan Gibson have brought together the top evangelical scholars in their fields to explore the issue of sin. And they leave no stone unturned as they explore the topic historically, Biblically, theologically and pastorally. This truly is a remarkable achievement.

Due to the length and breadth of the book—it’s just short of a thousand pages—it’s difficult to know where to begin. There are many notable chapters. For instance, section IV on ‘Sin and Depravity in Pastoral Practice’ contains standout contributions from David F. Wells, Daniel Strange, James N. Anderson, Heath Lambert, and R. Albert Mohler.

In the light of present controversies, chapter twenty-one by ‘The Heart Wants What It Wants: A Protestant Assessment of the Doctrine of Concupiscence’ by Steven Wedgeworth, is most opportune. Wedgeworth gives a brilliant historical summary of the doctrine, tracing it through Augustine, Luther, the Council of Trent and Reformed Scholasticism, and then shows its significance for today.

This is particularly pertinent when it comes to questions around same-sex attraction. As Wedgeworth explains:

So then, what of the debates around “LGBTIQ” or “Side-B” Christianity, as it has become known in some circles? Again, concupiscence would apply to any and all inordinate or disordered desires. Such desires are an effect of original sin, and their earliest motions are themselves a species of actual sin. The desires themselves and internal temptations, not merely the outward actions, are sinful. This also applies to the matter of “orientation.” Mark Yarhouse explains that a homosexual or “gay” orientation means an “enduring same-sex attraction…when same-sex attraction is strong and persists over time.” He distinguishes this from particular same-sex attractions themselves, as well as from any particular social or political “identity” that a person may choose to claim. Orientation is, thus, a prior tendency or inclination. The doctrine of concupiscence is immediately relevant to these same categories. The particular attractions would be clear forms of lust, specific and actual motions of concupiscence, even to the point of being sorts of active or actual sins. The ongoing orientation, however, would be more like the “habit” or “propensity” toward the evil lusting. It would therefore be considered the “tinder” of sin in the Catholic system or “abiding” sin in the Protestant system—in either sense, it would be concupiscence. The challenge for the Christian struggling with an orientation of same-sex attraction would be for the individual so affected to mortify such sin, to make sure that it remains “reigned-over” sin rather than “reigning-over-sin”, to use Luther’s and Ursinus’s categories. If not acted upon, such an orientation would still be understood to be sin, but sin forgiven in Christ. If it were acted upon (even mentally), however, it would become a new actual sin, in need of new repentance.’

Wedgeworth’s orthodox explanation and careful application of the doctrine of the concupiscence is helpful. Unfortunately, an increasing number of evangelical theologians have watered down the doctrine of concupiscence in various ways. Some examples include Sam Allberry[1], Wesley Hill,[2] and Ed Shaw.[3]

Even the Sydney Anglican Doctrine Commission—chaired by Dr. Mark Thompson—has taken a similar position on the subject. As they state in their 2022 report:

6.5.     Although same-sex sexual attraction is a result of the Fall and a manifestation of concupiscence (and so has the nature of sin), having a propensity for such attractions should not be equated with the commission of actual sin.

6.6.     For this reason, the commonly asked question – Is same-sex sexual attraction sinful? – requires a careful response. The desire for same-sex sexual intimacy is an inclination toward evil, has of itself the nature of sin, and is deserving of God’s wrath (Art. IX). As a result, the Christian person who experiences such desire ought to wish ‘nothing less than the nonexistence of these very desires’ and ‘to assert [their] freedom against it.’[4] However, the propensity to be sexually attracted to someone of the same-sex is not in and of itself actual sin. For such a propensity to become a sinful act, it would need to be expressed in actuality, either through lustful intent (Matt 5:28) or sexual activity.[5]

7.3.     However, those who have a propensity to be sexually attracted to members of their own sex are not, by mere virtue of this, actively and consistently perpetuating sin in their lives. This propensity is not something that demands repentance but is something to be lamented and from which we seek to be liberated.

Mark Thompson contributes a chapter in Ruined Sinners to Reclaim on ‘The Bondage of the Will: Luther versus Erasmus’, but it contains no mention of the doctrine of concupiscence.

It is significant that the editors write in their introductory chapter, “‘Salvation Belongs to the Lord’: Mapping the Doctrine of the Total Depravity of Human Creatures” the following statement which seems to undermine the stance taken by the Sydney Anglican Doctrine Commission:

‘…to distinguish, and then to separate, “emotional attraction” (what others might call “propensity” or “inclination”) toward sin from sin itself is wrongly to separate what is rightly distinguished. Being attracted to sin and sinning are distinct but inseparable parts of the sin-guilt complex. Genesis 6:5 is clear that our sinful nature corrupts all the way down to thoughts and inclinations of the hear, which are described as only evil continually.’[6]

This is an important point, because the highly nuanced distinction between sinful desires and a propensity to those desires is not a valid one. The SADC is trying to introduce a theological and pastoral concession where none exists. For as soon as there is a propensity to sin, therein is the evidence of concupiscence, that is, a sinful desire which itself should be ‘lamented’ and which we should also seek to be ‘liberated’ from. As Matthew P.W. Roberts explains in response to the SADC report:

This has led some writers on the topic to significant misunderstandings, in which statements which rightly distinguish between actual sin and concupiscence are taken to mean by that distinction that concupiscence is not sin. An example is in the Sydney Anglican Diocesan Doctrine Commission report on the Doctrine of Concupiscence of 2022: “…having a propensity for such attractions should not be equated with the commission of actual sin…actual sin only occurs when we fail to resist temptation and allow ourselves to be enticed by our own desires (Jas 1:14-15). Therefore, while we are right to lament our fallen condition, we are not called to repent of temptation but to resist it.” (6.5). The first two clauses are formally correct, but the “therefore” of the final clause indicates that the authors have misunderstood what “actual sin” means. Furthermore, the final clause contradicts the report’s own clear earlier statement that concupiscence “is fully deserving of God’s wrath and damnation” (4.4). The report as a whole fails to distinguish both between internal mental acts and concupiscent desire, and between internal and external temptation…These are serious failures which undermine its whole treatment of the subject.[7]

The Temptation of Christ and Ourselves

What should be of real concern is the growing tendency of reformed evangelicals to affirm the novel category of same-sex orientation, which is not in and of itself sinful. For example, even the well-respected reformed theologian John Frame has stated:

‘…if homosexual orientation is simply a strong pattern of temptation, it is not wrong in itself. Temptation is not sin.’[8]

While still holding to the orthodox doctrine of concupiscence (i.e. “disordered desires”) as well as the sinfulness of same-sex behaviour, these evangelicals appeal to the temptation of Jesus (Heb. 2:18, 4:15),[9] arguing that Jesus was ‘tempted’ yet remained without sin. Hence, in the same way, Christians can experience a “temptation” or “propensity” to same-sex temptation which is distinct from concupiscence.

However, the parallel with Jesus is not a valid one since the Messiah, Jesus, who is both fully God and fully man, did not have a fallen, sinful nature. This is where the chapter by Mark Jones on the sinlessness of Christ is pertinent. Because Jesus was unable to sin, He was not affected by sinful temptations in the same way we are.[10] But rather than take away from Christ’s role in assisting believers when they are tempted, Jones argues that Christ’s sinlessness actually helps.

A helpful analogy might be going to a tutor who has always received full marks in exams compared to one who has consistently failed. The perfect tutor is of greater assistance because he knows what success entails—both in the discipline of study as well as knowledge. The failed student can empathise with being lazy or not understanding the subject material properly, but that is all.

Conclusion: This is a must read

Ruined Sinners to Reclaim is an important work. And it will definitely be the standard reference for many years to come. This review has barely scratched the surface as to why a volume such as this is so needed. The doctrine of sin is immensely practical, especially involving the ethical issues facing Christians today in preaching the Gospel to those who identify as being LGBTIQ.

But the doctrine of concupiscence also has a profoundly pastoral application. Recently, I was discussing the issue with a friend in ministry who wrote this:

I now understand why the Reformers went to the stake (literally) over this issue…it is not only that our sinful desires are sin but we desire to sin, we want to sin. This is something that is helpful pastorally as it goes to the heart and depth of sin and moves us to our need for a saviour big enough to deal with such depravity. In Christ, who justifies me, we have such a mighty Saviour and I see more clearly my need to wholly rely upon Him…not only have I experienced His forgiveness but the more I confess and declare my hatred for my desire to sin the more it is truly being put to death within me.  Whereas in the past I would say to myself ‘you must resist these desires’ I now confess them, and by God’s grace they are shrinking.  

This is ultimately what the authors of Ruined Sinners to Reclaim would hope to achieve: a Holy Spirit wrought conviction of sin leading to repentance and saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (John 16:8).

_______________________________________________________________

[1] Sam Allberry, Is God Anti-Gay? And Other Questions about Jesus, the Bible, and Same-Sex Sexuality (The Good Book Company, 2023).

[2] Wesley Hill, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality (Zondervan, 2016).

[3] https://www.livingout.org/resources/podcasts/36/is-same-sex-attraction-inherently-sinful-questions-no-one-wants-to-answer-4

[4] See Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1:30; Oliver O’Donovan, “Chastity,” The Furrow 36, no. 12 (1985), 731.

[5] Emphasis added.

[6] Page 8. The Gibsons go on to state, “WSC Q&A 14 is instructive here: “What is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God” (emphasis added). To be attracted to sin is to lack conformity to the law of God, and thus is sin. Also, as Gen. 6:5 indicates, to distinguish between propensity and desire is to make a distinction without a difference.” Footnote 25, page 8.

[7] Matthew Roberts, ‘The Pastoral Value of the Reformed Doctrine of Concupiscence’, Ad Fontes (Winter, 2024), 17. Emphasis added.

[8] John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008), 760. Somewhat surprisingly, none of the authors in Ruined Sinners to Reclaim interacts with or responds to Frame’s position, even though it is well-known.

[9] For an excellent analysis of this issue see Matthew P. W. Roberts, Pride: Identity and the Worship of Self (Christian Focus, 2023); Matthew Roberts, ‘The Pastoral Value of the Reformed Doctrine of Concupiscence’, Ad Fontes (Winter, 2024).

[10] Mark Jones, ‘“Distinguished Amongst Ten Thousand” – The Sinlessness of Christ’, in Ruined Sinners to Reclaim: Sin and Depravity in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective (Wheaton: Crossway, 2024), 790-796. Jones later concludes, “Our confession that Christ is and was sinless is not a confession that he was a successful Pelagian who managed to overcome from within. Rather, even the possibility of Christ sinning is, by virtue of his identity, an ontological impossibility.” 799. See also, John McClean, https://theologyinteralia.net/2019/08/22/christ-and-temptation/; Denny Burk, ‘Is Homosexual Orientation Sinful?’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 58.1 (2015), ‘We err if we project our own sinful response to temptation onto Jesus. We often respond to temptation with a desire for evil. And our giving in to temptation can snowball into temptations arising from our own lusts. But Jesus never responded to temptation like that. Is temptation the same thing as sin? No, not necessarily. But let us not think that our frequent attraction to evil ever had a parallel in Jesus’ heart. It did not.’ 107.

Originally published on the AP website: https://ap.org.au/2024/06/29/book-review-ruined-sinners-to-reclaim/