Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[cfauster]

Indeed, we are only creatures. But we are unique creatures, the only species bearing “the image of God.”

I agree that being image-bearers does not mean we are divine, nor that the very first humans were divine.

I agree that communion with God is supposed to be a big part of what it means to bear God’s image.

I agree that sin disrupts that communion.

I agree that the sinless Christ restores the possibility of that communion for us sinners.

 

[fhansen]

And I think that whatever level of communion with God that A & E enjoyed in Eden, it must not have been particularly solid or deep from their perspective. Perhaps they lacked the depth, at that point, to truly appreciate God’s glory, His “value”, so to speak. To become divinized actually entails recognition of and humility before one’s Creator; it’s unattainable by any other means.

At any rate their level of communion was not at all on par with that involved with the Beatific Vision, for example. God’s* drawing* humanity to a higher perfection yet, our cooperation being a crucial ingredient.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . . God’s* drawing* humanity to a higher perfection yet, our cooperation being a crucial ingredient.

We cannot know love if we do not love. The perfect relationship with God the Father is one of loving filial obedience.

 

[fhansen]

We cannot know love if we do not love. The perfect relationship with God the Father is one of loving filial obedience.

Yes, and that’s what He’s drawing us to; we obey *because *we love. Adam lacked that apparently.

 

[Richca]

Thanks. Yes humans are God’s creation, I am thinking that humans are made with a spiritual connection to the one God, this does not make them God, but gods, just as Jesus said.
If they had all the “tools” they needed they were pretty equipped and so there was no need to want to be like God, well that’s how I would think as a person living in this part of human history, On the other hand, if they were on a level close to God ( divine) yet not quite there, I can see how they would want to be like God, all powerful etc.

God had to assume human nature in order to bring us back to the light, if they were not of divine nature to begin with, why would God need to send his son as a human to repair the relationship? Jesus was without sin, A&E were also without sin to begin with. I know Jesus obeyed, as he was sent by the father to do so. A&E disobeyed and so lost the relationship, Jesus being man and God restores the relationship, but if A&E were not divine at the beginning, how could the relationship be broken in such a way that we became spiritually and physically dead, if we are only creatures?

Would appreciate thoughts on this.

Thanks

As the Catholic Church teaches, the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace which was bestowed on Adam and Eve at their creation and which we receive in baptism and which God infuses into our soul is what makes us partakers of the divine nature. Sanctifying grace is not the divine nature itself but a created supernatural gift, a participation and likeness of the divine nature which elevates our human nature to a supernatural level and which inheres in our souls. The catechism of the Council of Trent calls it a quality that inheres in our souls and the CCC#2000 calls it an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition [infused by the Holy Spirit] that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by His love. Along with sanctifying grace, God infuses into our souls the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, infused moral virtues, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. All these enable us to know and love God as He knows and loves himself. With the gift of sanctifying grace, the Trinity also comes and makes their abode in us as Jesus said and thus we are able to have an intimate relationship with the uncreated God. Grace is divided into created and uncreated. Created grace are gifts such as sanctifying grace that God infuses into our souls and becomes a part of our being. Uncreated grace is the Trinity itself whom is the end of our existence and our happiness and of whom we hope to see one day in heaven and be with for all eternity.

 

[fhansen]

As the Catholic Church teaches, the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace which was bestowed on Adam and Eve at their creation and which we receive in baptism and which God infuses into our soul is what makes us partakers of the divine nature. Sanctifying grace is not the divine nature itself but a created supernatural gift, a participation and likeness of the divine nature which elevates our human nature to a supernatural level and which inheres in our souls. The catechism of the Council of Trent calls it a quality that inheres in our souls and the CCC#2000 calls it an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition [infused by the Holy Spirit] that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by His love. Along with sanctifying grace, God infuses into our souls the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, infused moral virtues, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. All these enable us to know and love God as He knows and loves himself. With the gift of sanctifying grace, the Trinity also comes and makes their abode in us as Jesus said and thus we are able to have an intimate relationship with the uncreated God. Grace is divided into created and uncreated. Created grace are gifts such as sanctifying grace that God infuses into our souls and becomes a part of our being. Uncreated grace is the Trinity itself whom is the end of our existence and our happiness and of whom we hope to see one day in heaven and be with for all eternity.

Any ideas on why Adam, with the gift of sanctifying grace, chose to disobey God? We pretty well know what the attraction was, but we also know that Adam was gifted, even to a greater degree than ourselves.

 

[davidv]

Any ideas on why Adam, with the gift of sanctifying grace, chose to disobey God? We pretty well know what the attraction was, but we also know that Adam was gifted, even to a greater degree than ourselves.

Proving the giftedness alone does not prevent sin.

 

[fhansen]

Proving the giftedness alone does not prevent sin.

No, I understand. But the legitimate question IMO, and one that simpleas keeps asking in one way or another, I believe, is ‘why did Adam sin?’ God certainly didn’t create sin/evil, so why did Adam, or Lucifer, rebel/disobey? If, as Richa put it, Adam was given a “supernatural gift, a participation and likeness of the divine nature which elevates our human nature to a supernatural level and which inheres in our souls”, giving him a “stable and supernatural disposition [infused by the Holy Spirit] that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by His love”, then why didn’t Adam do so? Was there something missing in Adam?

 

[davidv]

No, I understand. But the legitimate question IMO, and one that simpleas keeps asking in one way or another, I believe, is ‘why did Adam sin?’

What if the real answers is, only God knows?

God certainly didn’t create sin/evil, so why did Adam, or Lucifer, rebel/disobey? If, as Richa put it, Adam was given a “supernatural gift, a participation and likeness of the divine nature which elevates our human nature to a supernatural level and which inheres in our souls”, giving him a “stable and supernatural disposition [infused by the Holy Spirit] that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by His love”, then why didn’t Adam do so? Was there something missing in Adam?

Every sin is result of something missing, that being, trust in God. This lack is self imposed by the will.

 

[Richca]

Any ideas on why Adam, with the gift of sanctifying grace, chose to disobey God? We pretty well know what the attraction was, but we also know that Adam was gifted, even to a greater degree than ourselves.

Pride is the beginning of all sin (Ecclusiasticus 10:15). Confer, St Thomas Aquinas ,Summa Theologica , Pt.II-II, q.163; Of the First Man’s Sin. I think we also need to remind ourselves that God created us with a free will and free choice. We can freely choose to obey God or not and both alternatives have consequences either for good or ill.

 

[fhansen]

Pride is the beginning of all sin (Ecclusiasticus 10:15). Confer, St Thomas Aquinas ,Summa Theologica , Pt.II-II, q.163; Of the First Man’s Sin. I think we also need to remind ourselves that God created us with a free will and free choice. We can freely choose to obey God or not and both alternatives have consequences either for good or ill.

Yes, St Thomas called pride “inordinate self-love”, I believe. It can be difficult to reconcile how Adam, good as he was in his created status, perfect as he was as to the human nature he was created with, gifted as he was, with presumably a superior knowledge of God, could still have disobeyed God, believing the serpent, preferring himself to God as the catechism teaches. There was still some further perfecting to be done, apparently, and God had that plan in motion from the beginning.

While some do, I really don’t see it as an obstacle, that a created being, obviously less perfect than God, could make foolish choices. But Adam’s limitations should also tend to reduce his culpability, even if they didn’t eliminate it. And then the blame-game begins: was all the suffering in the world caused by God because He didn’t make Adam perfect enough, or was Adam at fault because he *was *made perfect enough but still disobeyed? Or just how blameworthy-to what degree- was Adam? Apparently he was still at least redeemable/salvageable.

 

[Richca]

No, I understand. But the legitimate question IMO, and one that simpleas keeps asking in one way or another, I believe, is ‘why did Adam sin?’ God certainly didn’t create sin/evil, so why did Adam, or Lucifer, rebel/disobey? If, as Richa put it, Adam was given a “supernatural gift, a participation and likeness of the divine nature which elevates our human nature to a supernatural level and which inheres in our souls”, giving him a “stable and supernatural disposition [infused by the Holy Spirit] that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by His love”, then why didn’t Adam do so? Was there something missing in Adam?

No, I don’t think there was anything missing in Adam. This would seem to imply that God created Adam or Eve, the first parents of the human race, imperfect which I don’t think befits God.
After each of the days of creation in Genesis, it says that God saw all he had made and that it was very good. So God made Adam and Eve very good too in harmony with themselves and the rest of creation as well as with the preternatural and supernatural gifts of original holiness and justice. In fact, instead of thinking “was there something missing in Adam,” we could think that God created Adam and Eve so good and excellent that they inordinately loved and desired their own good and excellence to the point of disobeying God from whom they got their good.

 

[fhansen]

In fact, instead of thinking “was there something missing in Adam,” we could think that God created Adam and Eve so good and excellent that they inordinately loved and desired their own good and excellence to the point of disobeying God from whom they got their good.

Yes, but that was bad…

 

[Richca]

Yes, St Thomas called pride “inordinate self-love”, I believe. It can be difficult to reconcile how Adam, good as he was in his created status, perfect as he was as to the human nature he was created with, gifted as he was, with presumably a superior knowledge of God, could still have disobeyed God, believing the serpent, preferring himself to God as the catechism teaches. There was still some further perfecting to be done, apparently, and God had that plan in motion from the beginning.

While some do, I really don’t see it as an obstacle, that a created being, obviously less perfect than God, could make foolish choices. But Adam’s limitations should also tend to reduce his culpability, even if they didn’t eliminate it. And then the blame-game begins: was all the suffering in the world caused by God because He didn’t make Adam perfect enough, or was Adam at fault because he *was *made perfect enough but still disobeyed? Or just how blameworthy-to what degree- was Adam? Apparently he was still at least redeemable/salvageable.

It is written “Do not say: “It was God’s doing that I fell away,”
for what he hates he does not do.
Do not say: “He himself has led me astray,”
for he has no need of the wicked” (Sirach 15: 11-12).

God is not the cause of sin directly or indirectly. We are responsible for our own sins. Adam and Eve were personally responsible for their disobedience and so they were justly punished by God for it. Seeing that God created Adam and Eve in original holiness and justice and their bodies in harmony with their souls, I think their disobedience was probably all the more severe. Being that God is perfectly just and infinitely merciful, the penalties God inflicted on Adam and Eve for their sin and their descendants must be just.
I don’t mean to be bashing Adam and Eve, our first parents, here. I, myself, am a sinner, a great sinner and if I was Adam, I could have done what he did or something worse. I truly believe Adam and Eve belong to the saved. Their fall, of course, is not the end of the story. We sing “O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer.”

 

[fhansen]

It is written “Do not say: “It was God’s doing that I fell away,”
for what he hates he does not do.
Do not say: “He himself has led me astray,”
for he has no need of the wicked” (Sirach 15: 11-12).

God is not the cause of sin directly or indirectly. We are responsible for our own sins. Adam and Eve were personally responsible for their disobedience and so they were justly punished by God for it. Seeing that God created Adam and Eve in original holiness and justice and their bodies in harmony with their souls, I think their disobedience was probably all the more severe. Being that God is perfectly just and infinitely merciful, the penalties God inflicted on Adam and Eve for their sin and their descendants must be just.
I don’t mean to be bashing Adam and Eve, our first parents, here. I, myself, am a sinner, a great sinner and if I was Adam, I could have done what he did or something worse. I truly believe Adam and Eve belong to the saved. Their fall, of course, is not the end of the story. We sing “O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer.”

Yes, I agree. The obvious (to me) question remains tho, if Adam was created with such great justice and goodness, why did he sin? Just because he could? That doesn’t answer the question either, tho.

 

[Richca]

Yes, I agree. The obvious (to me) question remains tho, if Adam was created with such great justice and goodness, why did he sin? Just because he could? That doesn’t answer the question either, tho.

Well, this brings us back to what I posted in #843. Aquinas, following Holy Scripture and Augustine, among other fathers, says that pride was Adam’s sin. Pride is an inordinate desire for excellence and Adam inordinately coveted his own excellence. Gluttony also had a place in the first sin. Aquinas says that Adam’s pride also consisted in coveting God’s likeness. Concerning the fall of the angels, Aquinas says they also sinned through pride as well as envy.

 

[fhansen]

Well, this brings us back to what I posted in #843. Aquinas, following Holy Scripture and Augustine, among other fathers, says that pride was Adam’s sin. Pride is an inordinate desire for excellence and Adam inordinately coveted his own excellence. Gluttony also had a place in the first sin. Aquinas says that Adam’s pride also consisted in coveting God’s likeness. Concerning the fall of the angels, Aquinas says they also sinned through pride as well as envy.

Yes, but where did* ordinance* come from? Why would Adam act in an inordinate manner, or tend towards ordinance, or possess an inordinate trait??

 

[fhansen]

Yes, but where did* ordinance* come from? Why would Adam act in an inordinate manner, or tend towards ordinance, or possess an inordinate trait??

I meant, where did inordinance-or inordinancy-come from? Mr spellchecker got me

 

[fhansen]

Well, this brings us back to what I posted in #843. Aquinas, following Holy Scripture and Augustine, among other fathers, says that pride was Adam’s sin. Pride is an inordinate desire for excellence and Adam inordinately coveted his own excellence. Gluttony also had a place in the first sin. Aquinas says that Adam’s pride also consisted in coveting God’s likeness. Concerning the fall of the angels, Aquinas says they also sinned through pride as well as envy.

OK, one more time; it really didn’t like “inordinance” much. I guess none of us should-that’s the problem! Sorry. OK, I’ll clean it up and even add to it a bit:

Yes, but where did inordinance come from? Why would Adam act in an inordinate manner, or tend towards inordinancy, or possess an inordinate trait? Pride is said, by Aquinas, to be a vice. What’s the origin of this vice from within God’s good creation?

 

[simpleas]

OK, one more time; it really didn’t like “inordinance” much. I guess none of us should-that’s the problem! Sorry. OK, I’ll clean it up and even add to it a bit:

Yes, but where did inordinance come from? Why would Adam act in an inordinate manner, or tend towards inordinancy, or possess an inordinate trait? Pride is said, by Aquinas, to be a vice. What’s the origin of this vice from within God’s good creation?/QUOTE]

---

Thanks all for your post’s.

In part you are right that I ask why did A&E sin. But I was asking could they have been divine. We know it to be answered by the sin of pride. The same sin that satan fell by. Yet satan was not a human creature.( I know he was not divine either, as he was also created by God, he was an angel)

I’m pondering on what A&E could have made of their relationship with their creator. It is far to easy to say they were free from sin, and the effects of the original sin that we know as their decendants, especially death, and then be told they were prideful and wanted to be like God, but without God, when they were only human creatures, who it seems were expected to remain in relationship with God, but had no divine will in order to do it.

If they had a divine will, or something of an angels will, but then refused to obey God that seems reasonable that their relationship with God would be seriously affected to the point that they were no longer subject to his Grace. The fall happens because the parents are no longer in communion with God or each other.

So if they had no divine nature in some form, how would God fairly test their level of temptation?

And your question above (in red) were did their pride come from? They were not created perfect, only good, yet that doesnot explain how a sin that is the effect of the original sin caused the O.S to happen.

Satan would have been aware that being only of human nature they would give into his lie, God would have known this also. Yes, we can say they should have gone back and asked God etc, but they need not have done that because they had sufficent knowledge in which to make an conscious adult decision.

Being sinless with this knowledge is incredible, to say they need to ask God would make them out to be not so clever after all. The fact that they trusted satan over God would suggest their relationship wasn’t as good as it should have.
It basically sounds like humans today, yet we are the ones born after the fall, that until we are baptised, then I believe nothing can separate us from God.

BTW just to add, I believe we all have a freewill to do what we think is correct, to remain in communion with God or not. I’m not blaming A&E, I’m just investigating what it would be like for them as the first, free from sin couple, we don’t have evidence of the actual sin they committed, we know it to be a deed that took place at the very beginning, and so it does leave it open for some speculation, and imagination.