Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[grannymh]

When there are questions about the spiritual soul, there is also the opportunity to choose either Catholicism or a form of Naturalism. Catholicism insists that the rational soul of a human person is spiritual in accord with Genesis 1: 26-27. General Naturalism would indicate that a soul is reproduced along with blood and guts. Confusion seems to be the name of Satan’s game.

One of the confusions regarding propagation of human nature is the idea that because human nature is an union of soul and body, the soul is transmitted as if it were part of human genetics inherited from Adam. This approach proposes that the soul is simply an extension or an emergence from the developing anatomy, similar to legs and arms forming within the womb and developing into useful extremities following birth. Consequently, the soul-thing is a natural occurrence. Using nature as the source of the soul-thing excludes the participation of the Creator God. When the Creator God is excluded, all kinds of foolish explanations for human life occur.

Obviously, a natural soul, like skin and bones, is easier to understand. Satan chuckles. Instead of knowing everything, the “serpent’s” temptation is to take the easy road, denying pieces of Divine Revelation, because everything cannot be known. The keen difference between Naturalism and Catholicism is that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Those “pieces”, which Satan laughs at, are sufficient to get us into Heaven.

 

[cfauster]

In the Catholic Church, there is no mystery about God being omniscient, that is, all knowing, including exactly how bad Adam’s descendants would sin. It may be a mystery as to how God knew the future, but it is not a mystery whether He knew it! Almighty eternal Divine omniscience is Catholic dogma and metaphysical certitude.

God’s true omniscience can serve as a minor demonstration of the reality of Adam. This is because Catholic teaching is that all humankind is in Adam “as one body of one man”. (Information source: CCC 360; CCC 404; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4, 1.)

The difference between powerful descriptions and Catholic doctrines is the word “perhaps” when referring to a humanly “unfathomable abyss…”

Catholic and other theologians differ on the definition of omniscience. In fact, any unbounded (infinite) concept such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence,* etc.* requires more definition. Here’s an analogy: there are infinite sets of numbers that do not have numbers in common, e.g. odd and even numbers.

I appreciate the need for rigorous systematic theology, but I also appreciate the pastoral and humble approach to metaphysical questions taken by the current and previous two Holy Fathers. As far as I can tell. expressions of “metaphysical certitude” when it comes to describing details about God seems to have been more popular in earlier centuries.

 

[Richca]

When I read how the O.S is transmitted from the words of the CCC, I can understand it on the surface so to speak, not the depth.

It say’s :
St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . the first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

I understand this in a way, but Adam being a human being (body and soul) becomes a fallen nature, he passes this fallen nature onto us, yet only can God give us our souls at the time of our conception, Adam can not, so I don’t see how we inherit Adams fallen nature, because the body and soul are one nature, God can not give us a soul that is fallen.

I have noticed a few non catholic sites that explain their interpretation of how our natures are fallen, only bodily from Adam, and humans are born spiritually dead, but they do not believe a soul is alive in the womb. My point for this is that although the CCC has many words about the soul and transmission of O.S etc, it doesn’t explain it, merely expresses it to be a mystery.

Adam received the supernatural gift of original holiness and justice not for himself alone but it was God’s intention that this gift be transmitted by physical descent or generation to all his posterity since all human beings are derived from Adam as their head. Of course, Adam lost this supernatural gift from God and transmits to all his posterity a human nature bereft of the the gift of original holiness and justice. For the supernatural gift of original holiness and justice is a gift from God not due to human nature as human nature, but it is over and above human nature which is why it is called supernatural.

Now, the Church teaches that original sin is transmitted to all the children of Adam by generation, propagation, or physical descent. For every human being receives his/her nature as being a human being from our first parents Adam and Eve. Though God immediately creates the soul of every human being, our parents supply the matter for our bodies. God infuses the soul shorn of the gift of sanctifying grace into matter which makes up our bodies at our conception shorn of the gift of immortality. So. original sin is transmitted from Adam to all his posterity through our flesh or bodies which bodies are a part of human nature derived from Adam.

Now, as the CCC#404 says, the whole human race derived from Adam is in Adam as one body of one man just as the individual members of the Church constitute the one mystical body of Christ or the individual members of the human race constitute one family or community. So, original sin is transmitted from Adam to the whole human race in the same way, as St Thomas Aquinas says, that a sin is transmitted from the soul or will to the body or to the members of the body. For example, a homicide that a hand commits moved by the will of some person is a sin not of the hand only or of the will only but of the whole man/woman and thus it is called a human sin. So just as the actual sin committed by a member of the body, is not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part of the man/woman; so original sin in a person is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his/her nature from his/her first parent.
(cf. ST Part I-II, Q. 81, Art. 1).

 

[cfauster]

Well, I think I was in error about the current popularity of metaphysical certitude. It’s alive and well today, I guess, at least when it comes to divine foreknowledge. Here are several places where divine foreknowledge is defended by Protestants:

carm.org/what-is-open-theism

normangeisler.net/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/ETS/NeotheismUnorthodoxResponseToGregBoyd.htm

creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=17

cdn.desiringgod.org/pdf/booklets/bgc_foreknowledge_booklet.pdf

Relatively few voices suggest that divine foreknowledge might not be exhaustively complete:

rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-an-open-theist-greg-boyd-questions

opentheism.info

I don’t know why Pope Francis said “The Father knew the risk of freedom; he knew that his children could be lost… yet perhaps not even the Father could imagine so great a fall, so profound an abyss!” in his address at the Holocaust memorial (see news.va/en/news/pope-francis-honors-victims-of-holocaust-at-yad-va )

All I know is that his entire address is beautiful and compelling.

Again, I appreciate the doctrinal treasures that defenders of orthodoxy seek to preserve. There are significant implications that depend upon whether God’s foreknowledge is absolutely exhaustive, or instead is limited to any degree. There are very good reasons to be cautious when speculating about how things look from God’s perspective.

But for me personally, I am not prepared to declare all “open theists” as heretics. Catholic theologian John Haught’s process-informed theology, for example, is in some ways very compelling to me. Some have charged him with being non-orthodox, others have defended him. In any case, I think his heart is in the right place, and he also has some pretty good reasons for his views. Obviously I feel the same way about Pope Francis. I have no idea what he really thinks about the metaphysical details of foreknowledge. I would guess, however, that he too would want to keep people like John Haught “in the fold” rather than declare him unorthodox. For more on Haught’s views, see Craig Baron’s summary at
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2011.00736.x/abstract

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I don’t know why Pope Francis said “The Father knew the risk of freedom; he knew that his children could be lost… yet perhaps not even the Father could imagine so great a fall, so profound an abyss!” in his address at the Holocaust memorial . . . Again, I appreciate the doctrinal treasures that defenders of orthodoxy seek to preserve. There are significant implications that depend upon whether God’s foreknowledge is absolutely exhaustive, or instead is limited to any degree. There are very good reasons to be cautious when speculating about how things look from God’s perspective… . .

I love Pope Francis; he speaks from the heart. As to “the preservation of doctrinal treasures”, I see the problem as arising in those “new and improved” views of God; they are the ones that actually try to pigeon-hole God. I am not a historian nor a theologian, but it seems all the Councils and clarifications by the Church happened after the fact, when views discordant with the Reality of God were introduced. Keeping on topic, would any Papal statement have been necessary had it not been speculated that there were more than two original parents?

 

[simpleas]

When there are questions about the spiritual soul, there is also the opportunity to choose either Catholicism or a form of Naturalism. Catholicism insists that the rational soul of a human person is spiritual in accord with Genesis 1: 26-27. General Naturalism would indicate that a soul is reproduced along with blood and guts. Confusion seems to be the name of Satan’s game.

One of the confusions regarding propagation of human nature is the idea that because human nature is an union of soul and body, the soul is transmitted as if it were part of human genetics inherited from Adam. This approach proposes that the soul is simply an extension or an emergence from the developing anatomy, similar to legs and arms forming within the womb and developing into useful extremities following birth. Consequently, the soul-thing is a natural occurrence. Using nature as the source of the soul-thing excludes the participation of the Creator God. When the Creator God is excluded, all kinds of foolish explanations for human life occur.

Obviously, a natural soul, like skin and bones, is easier to understand. Satan chuckles. Instead of knowing everything, the “serpent’s” temptation is to take the easy road, denying pieces of Divine Revelation, because everything cannot be known. The keen difference between Naturalism and Catholicism is that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Those “pieces”, which Satan laughs at, are sufficient to get us into Heaven.

I’ll assume you are referring to my soul question although you have put it in a general post

The colored in paragraph is not what I have been asking, I follow that the church teaches that the soul is created by God and not the parents. So the soul isn’t a natural occurrence, I believe it is a supernatural occurence.

Although God is creator of all, he gives the human creature that extra source of life, from himself at the time of their creation.

I shall not re-ask the question I have been interested in again, as I’m beginning to sound like a broken record

Can we move the thread in a different direction

 

[cfauster]

…would any Papal statement have been necessary had it not been speculated that there were more than two original parents?

Maybe not. Nonetheless, here’s how Haught defends his approach (taken from the cited article by Baron). Baron writes:

Some of the Christian theological responses to Haught’s theology of evolution have been critical. Haught himself explained it this way: ‘The global message that I hear coming from all of my critics . . . is one that goes something like this: Be careful! You are doing something theologically dangerous. If unchecked, it could turn out to be injurious to the integrity of Christian faith, or it may imperil proper respect for the inaccessible ways to God. Conversation between theology and science can easily end up fusing Christian faith with ill-formed ideas, or with naturalistic ideologies that will diminish the doctrines of creation, redemption and providence’. However, Haught replies that theologians cannot continue to err on the side of caution any more when dealing with science-minded people in the third millennium. The real conundrum he says is with learning how to delicately cut out the rancid materialist philosophical assumptions from the results of empirically based science. The intellectual credibility of theology necessitates that it try to show how all the information gathered from evolutionary studies does not fit into a materialist framework. Theology must work to put evolution into a more intelligible spiritual matrix. Otherwise irrelevancy is right around the corner and unnecessary obstacles to the faith will be raised. Haught exclaims that educated people cannot be expected to ignore facts … for Haught, the negotiation with science requires a reimagining of the God of classical theism away from static categories and toward the embracing of dynamic and dialectical ones.

 

[simpleas]

Adam received the supernatural gift of original holiness and justice not for himself alone but it was God’s intention that this gift be transmitted by physical descent or generation to all his posterity since all human beings are derived from Adam as their head. Of course, Adam lost this supernatural gift from God and transmits to all his posterity a human nature bereft of the the gift of original holiness and justice. For the supernatural gift of original holiness and justice is a gift from God not due to human nature as human nature, but it is over and above human nature which is why it is called supernatural.

Now, the Church teaches that original sin is transmitted to all the children of Adam by generation, propagation, or physical descent. For every human being receives his/her nature as being a human being from our first parents Adam and Eve. Though God immediately creates the soul of every human being, our parents supply the matter for our bodies. God infuses the soul shorn of the gift of sanctifying grace into matter which makes up our bodies at our conception shorn of the gift of immortality. So. original sin is transmitted from Adam to all his posterity through our flesh or bodies which bodies are a part of human nature derived from Adam.

Now, as the CCC#404 says, the whole human race derived from Adam is in Adam as one body of one man just as the individual members of the Church constitute the one mystical body of Christ or the individual members of the human race constitute one family or community. So, original sin is transmitted from Adam to the whole human race in the same way, as St Thomas Aquinas says, that a sin is transmitted from the soul or will to the body or to the members of the body. For example, a homicide that a hand commits moved by the will of some person is a sin not of the hand only or of the will only but of the whole man/woman and thus it is called a human sin. So just as the actual sin committed by a member of the body, is not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part of the man/woman; so original sin in a person is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his/her nature from his/her first parent.
(cf. ST Part I-II, Q. 81, Art. 1).

Thanks for that, although the part colored confuses me, it’s like saying God withholds our union with him while giving us part of himself also.

 

[Aloysium]

If one starts from the premise that there was no actual creation, no involvement by an all-powerful God, and that it all happened by chance. If one puts the crumbs that provide the evidence together in line with these assumptions, is it no wonder that the answer differes from that which has been revealed. I believe this has been argued back and forth, many times, over and over.

 

[Richca]

Well, I think I was in error about the current popularity of metaphysical certitude. It’s alive and well today, I guess, at least when it comes to divine foreknowledge. Here are several places where divine foreknowledge is defended by Protestants:

carm.org/what-is-open-theism

normangeisler.net/articles/Bible/Inspiration-Inerrancy/ETS/NeotheismUnorthodoxResponseToGregBoyd.htm

creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=17

cdn.desiringgod.org/pdf/booklets/bgc_foreknowledge_booklet.pdf

Relatively few voices suggest that divine foreknowledge might not be exhaustively complete:

rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-an-open-theist-greg-boyd-questions

opentheism.info

I don’t know why Pope Francis said “The Father knew the risk of freedom; he knew that his children could be lost… yet perhaps not even the Father could imagine so great a fall, so profound an abyss!” in his address at the Holocaust memorial (see news.va/en/news/pope-francis-honors-victims-of-holocaust-at-yad-va )

All I know is that his entire address is beautiful and compelling.

Again, I appreciate the doctrinal treasures that defenders of orthodoxy seek to preserve. There are significant implications that depend upon whether God’s foreknowledge is absolutely exhaustive, or instead is limited to any degree. There are very good reasons to be cautious when speculating about how things look from God’s perspective.

But for me personally, I am not prepared to declare all “open theists” as heretics. Catholic theologian John Haught’s process-informed theology, for example, is in some ways very compelling to me. Some have charged him with being non-orthodox, others have defended him. In any case, I think his heart is in the right place, and he also has some pretty good reasons for his views. Obviously I feel the same way about Pope Francis. I have no idea what he really thinks about the metaphysical details of foreknowledge. I would guess, however, that he too would want to keep people like John Haught “in the fold” rather than declare him unorthodox. For more on Haught’s views, see Craig Baron’s summary at
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2011.00736.x/abstract

If God’s knowledge is limited in any degree, then God is finite and not infinite which is contrary to Holy Scripture and the entire theological tradition of the Catholic Church as well as dogmatic statements from the Catholic Church such as this from Vatican Council I:

“The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection”

And from Holy Scripture:
“Great is our Lord, vast in power,
with wisdom beyond measure” (Psalm 147:5).

Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable" (Psalm 145:3).

“Or again, if one yearns for wide experience,
she [Wisdom] knows the things of old, and infers the things to come.
She understands the turns of phrases and the solutions of riddles;
signs and wonders she knows in advance
and the outcome of times and ages” (Wisdom 8:2).

Many theological, philosophical, and doctrinal errors would result in the Catholic Church if we do not hold to the truth of God’s omniscience which is infinite and eternal.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for that, although the part colored confuses me, it’s like saying God withholds our union with him while giving us part of himself also.

Here is my personal comment directed to you personally.

It seems to me that if you privately write out for yourself all truths you personally accept about human nature, ------- some of them may possibly help you with your sentence from post 383.
“Thanks for that, although the part colored confuses me, it’s like saying God withholds our union with him while giving us part of himself also.”

 

[cfauster]

If one starts from the premise that there was no actual creation, no involvement by an all-powerful God, and that it all happened by chance …

Haught definitely does not start with such premises. Not at all.

 

[grannymh]

It appears to me that the basic goals of the opening post have been reached. From Post 1. “The ultimate goal is to demonstrate the real existence of Adam and his spouse Eve, which in turn is the foundation for some necessary Catholic doctrines.”
That being said, I encourage the continuation of subsequent discussions. Apparently, the opening proposal has been affirmed. Thus, it is possible for me to retire.

Blessings,
granny

 

[simpleas]

I’m not sure I understand the question. God gives us a soul-and a body for that matter- either way. The parents are sort of incidental co-creators.

I think I’ll have to find some good info on the soul.

The parents being sort of co-creators as you say sounds plausable, but the CCC makes it clear that only God creates the soul - Giving us a soul which then contracts the O,S. So I’ll assume the soul was never in union with God upon it’s “infusion”. The soul would always be lacking in S.G until baptism.

I’m determined to understand this!

Thanks All.

 

[grannymh]

Here is an interesting comment –
I’ll have to find some good info on the soul.

The best information about the spiritual soul, in fact the very original information about the spiritual soul, is found in the logical creation of Adam, himself. This logical explanation for Adam’s necessary spiritual soul is first recorded in Genesis 1: 26-31.

An additional interesting bit of information is that Catholic Church teachings are based on Genesis 1: 26-31. Perhaps that is the underlying reason for various complaints about the first three chapters in Genesis. Yet, on the other hand, the logic of Genesis 1: 26-31 is hard to refute when one accepts the existence of God as Creator.

 

[simpleas]

I haven’t looked into finding some writings on our soul since I wrote that.

If people believe they are not in union with God from conception that’s their opinion. I believe we are in union with God from conception, it’s what we do with that union that is what is important I think.

By union I do not mean as God, or a God or whatever was in Adam and Eve’s mind when they became prideful and desired to be on the same level as God.

My soul glorifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my savior, as the hymn goes.

To glorify God can be done by us all in various ways when we have been given the opportunity to participate in this creation, God gave us the world, our human nature etc in order to live in union with him, us as his children, the creator as our source of life.

 

[grannymh]

I haven’t looked into finding some writings on our soul since I wrote that.

If people believe they are not in union with God from conception that’s their opinion. I believe we are in union with God from conception, it’s what we do with that union that is what is important I think.

By union I do not mean as God, or a God or whatever was in Adam and Eve’s mind when they became prideful and desired to be on the same level as God.

My soul glorifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my savior, as the hymn goes.

To glorify God can be done by us all in various ways when we have been given the opportunity to participate in this creation, God gave us the world, our human nature etc in order to live in union with him, us as his children, the creator as our source of life.

I am glad to see that Adam’s “union with God” is now a point for discussion. One of the reasons Adam has to be the first true human individual at the dawn of human history is because his union with God is unique.

When the words “union with God” are used, we recognize the fact that many peoples (plural intended) from west to east have many different attitudes or meanings as to what actually refers to a person’s union with God.

The opening post is very clear as to the source of basic truths for this thread.
Up front, I use the Catholic Church for basic truths. The source is the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *Please read CCC, 18-22 first for the explanation of smaller print.
Links to Catholic teachings.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

When we take the time to examine the deeper meanings of Adam’s existence, we find that God does specify His meaning of the words “union with God”. Catholic teachings consider “union” as living in free submission to our Maker. With God as partner in friendship, there is no doubt that this relationship is one of everlasting love. Yet, there is an obligation on our part when it comes to remaining in God’s friendship. We need to live in the State of Sanctifying Grace.

Adam was free in that he could choose his own actions. And he was free to choose his own state of being. He had rational intellective powers so that he understood what is taught in Genesis 2:15-17. Because Adam is the original first human being, his “State of Sanctifying Grace” is described as Original Holiness. At this point, we could interject that the concept of one Adam, instead of a population of many adams, [sic] is a practical move on God’s part.

In today’s world, the union with God, or even union with Hindu gods, necessitates a full explanation of what “Union with God” means in the Catholic Church.

Information source. CCC 374-376; *CCC *396; CCC 1730-1732; CCC 1743-1748

 

[simpleas]

I am glad to see that Adam’s “union with God” is now a point for discussion. One of the reasons Adam has to be the first true human individual at the dawn of human history is because his union with God is unique.

When the words “union with God” are used, we recognize the fact that many peoples (plural intended) from west to east have many different attitudes or meanings as to what actually refers to a person’s union with God.

The opening post is very clear as to the source of basic truths for this thread.
Up front, I use the Catholic Church for basic truths. The source is the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *Please read CCC, 18-22 first for the explanation of smaller print.
Links to Catholic teachings.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

When we take the time to examine the deeper meanings of Adam’s existence, we find that God does specify His meaning of the words “union with God”. Catholic teachings consider “union” as living in free submission to our Maker. With God as partner in friendship, there is no doubt that this relationship is one of everlasting love. Yet, there is an obligation on our part when it comes to remaining in God’s friendship. We need to live in the State of Sanctifying Grace.

Adam was free in that he could choose his own actions. And he was free to choose his own state of being. He had rational intellective powers so that he understood what is taught in Genesis 2:15-17. Because Adam is the original first human being, his “State of Sanctifying Grace” is described as Original Holiness. At this point, we could interject that the concept of one Adam, instead of a population of many adams, [sic] is a practical move on God’s part.

In today’s world, the union with God, or even union with Hindu gods, necessitates a full explanation of what “Union with God” means in the Catholic Church.

Information source. CCC 374-376; *CCC *396; CCC 1730-1732; CCC 1743-1748

How you describe Adam here, is just the same as we are.

Adam needed to live in a state of S.G, as do we.

Adam had freewill and a rational mind and so could choose which way he wanted to live. (with God/without God) As do we.

Without falling into the thought of we are all Adam’s and all Eve’s that I’ve heard of, how is Adam or was Adam ever more unique and able to stay in S.G than we are in our state.
Obviously he did not remain in O.H, so apart from being the first ever human created by God, which is a good thing, and unique in itself, his relationship with God doesn’t seem to be anymore unique than ours, he had the same abilities and was unable to “do the right thing”
This is if we think of Adam as a human with a spiritual soul, like us, which we do, and not as a human with a spiritual soul, but some how more superior. Being first created though has a superior ring to it…

 

[Zipply]

Theology must work to put evolution into a more intelligible spiritual matrix. Otherwise irrelevancy is right around the corner and unnecessary obstacles to the faith will be raised.

No, I think irrelevancy is here, now. In a way, the know-nothings are correct, and Haught is wrong - I do not believe this knot can be untied, particularly if no one is officially trying to untie it. People indeed will not accept a religion that claims truth but requires them to ignore facts…but for Catholics I see no alternative.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . his relationship with God doesn’t seem to be anymore unique than ours, he had the same abilities and was unable to “do the right thing”. . .

What I understand you are saying is:

• his relationship with God seems no different than our own.
• we do not each, have a unique relationship with God
• he had the same abilities that everyone has
• he was unable to do the “right thing”
  I must say I do not agree with any of it.

Adam’s relationship to God is closer than mine.
I can’t imagine my having the same physical, mental and spiritual abilities that he had.
I have been given more in some cases and given less in others, in comparison to other people.
Adam was not subject to ignorance nor troubled by concupiscence.
He did not know suffering and would not experience death.
I believe it is made clear that he was able to obey God, but chose not to.