Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[grannymh]

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.

In order not to talk past each other, let’s get on the same page. What would Adam have to be in order to be divine? In other words, what kind of person would he be? Are you using the word “divine” in the same way that one would refer to our divine Creator? Is Adam’s divineness like a God’s? Would Adam have to eat the fruits and plants in the Garden? In my old neighborhood, a boy would tell a girl he is dating that she looks divine.

 

[fhansen]

To try to answer my own question about this inordinacy or inordinateness (I keep butchering that word): The only reason I can come up with is that, in a sense, all creation, while good, is unavoidably disordered by virtue of not being God, by virtue of inherently lacking His perfection. And, when combined with the gift of free will, this less-than-perfection can manifest itself in less-than-perfect choices, resulting in less-than-perfect actions, out of alignment with God’s will, i.e. in sin. We’re here now to learn to make the right choice, to choose God, to learn of our unequivocal need for Him, for obedience to His perfect wisdom. We’re here to learn that we’re not God, that He’s the creator and we’re the created, so that we may come to willingly accept and obey His perfect will, rather than our less-than-perfect one. Or to put it another way, our will is perfected to the degree that it agrees with His.

So man has to kind of come to learn of his less-than-perfection, of his inferiority, in order to be able to *find *his perfection, by turning to God and accepting His perfection in its place, as he comes to recognize his own created status vis a vis his Creator. *Then *order is restored to God’s universe. And this doesn’t happen overnight, even when the issues at hand are understood. Pride keeps raising its ugly head; we keep needing to relearn the lesson, or learn it more deeply, more solidly. In the end we achieve our perfection only in communion with Him, recognizing that we come from Him to begin with, we’re expressions of Him, so to speak, while nonetheless being capable of separation on a spiritual level, and that separation is, itself, the ultimate disorder, first caused by the original sin, and can only mean death to us in the end. Adam’s ordinateness, his perfection, his justice, would come about and even increase only as he had a change of heart, only to the extent that he drew nearer and nearer to God, with His help, rather than remained turned away from Him.

 

[simpleas]

In order not to talk past each other, let’s get on the same page. What would Adam have to be in order to be divine? In other words, what kind of person would he be? Are you using the word “divine” in the same way that one would refer to our divine Creator? Is Adam’s divineness like a God’s? Would Adam have to eat the fruits and plants in the Garden? In my old neighborhood, a boy would tell a girl he is dating that she looks divine.

Yes I know the word divine can be used as an expression of something we see as perfect, even food can be seen as divine!

But this is what I understand it to really mean :

a. Having the nature of or being a deity.

b. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity:

What would Adam have to be in order to be divine?

Made in the image and likeness of God.

*In other words, what kind of person would he be? Are you using the word “divine” in the same way that one would refer to our divine Creator? *

Free from human sin, no because a human is not God.

*Is Adam’s divineness like a God’s? Would Adam have to eat the fruits and plants in the Garden? *

Being made in the image and likeness of God I would have to yes to some degree, although not fully, because Adam is the human creature made by God. Yes indeed.

I know the above may sound ludicrous to some, and I know we are not on the same level as God, but Jesus repaired the broken relationship with God as he was both human and divine, were with Adam, he was only a human with no divine will, which would have enabled him to resist temptation. That’s assuming he had no divine will, but if he did, that makes him more than just a simple human creature not really intune with his God.

After you wrote your post and I asked the divine question I read this :

Christ, the man, was subject to all of this for his human nature was a fallen one, vulnerable to fear, sorrow and pain, and, on the cross, even vulnerable to that sense of abandonment which God reserves for very special souls. He is subject to sinful temptations including those resulting from the extensive passions of our lower nature, which, of course, he shares. Here we distinguish three stages: initial (unchosen) stimulus, contemplating the temptation, surrendering to the temptation. Christ only experienced the unbidden stimulus, then, through his human will, actively attuned to his divine will, rejected the further stages.

It’s from another blog, I’m unsure if it’s allowed that we post other blogs on CAF, but I can link it or post it in PM if anyone is interested.

 

[grannymh]

What would Adam have to be in order to be divine?

**Made in the image and likeness of God. **

To begin. The Catholic Church does not teach that being in the image and likeness of God makes a human divine. Please review post 833.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12956155&postcount=833

I am skipping to the end of post 856 because post 833 should clear up the confusion of the word define (pure spirit) being applied to Adam.

In addition, it is God, Adam’s Creator Who established the relationship between Divinity and humanity. Adam is the creature in this relationship. Adam, because he was a human creature, could not repair a relationship made by the supernatural Creator God. This is why God sent His only Son to reconcile humanity with Divinity. Only Jesus could do this because He is True God and True Man.

The first words of the following “blog” are not Catholic teaching. I put them in bold.

I was tempted to put “our lower nature” in bold because that does not sound like Catholic teaching. Obviously, the Gospel relates Satan’s temptations of Jesus. However, I was not sure if the author was symbolically referring to a lower nature or if the author was indicating that Jesus had a lower nature.

Christ, the man, was subject to all of this for his human nature was a fallen one, vulnerable to fear, sorrow and pain, and, on the cross, even vulnerable to that sense of abandonment which God reserves for very special souls. He is subject to sinful temptations including those resulting from the extensive passions of our lower nature, which, of course, he shares. Here we distinguish three stages: initial (unchosen) stimulus, contemplating the temptation, surrendering to the temptation. Christ only experienced the unbidden stimulus, then, through his human will, actively attuned to his divine will, rejected the further stages.

It’s from another blog, I’m unsure if it’s allowed that we post other blogs on CAF, but I can link it or post it in PM if anyone is interested.

 

[simpleas]

To begin. The Catholic Church does not teach that being in the image and likeness of God makes a human divine. Please review post 833.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12956155&postcount=833

I am skipping to the end of post 856 because post 833 should clear up the confusion of the word define (pure spirit) being applied to Adam.

In addition, it is God, Adam’s Creator Who established the relationship between Divinity and humanity. Adam is the creature in this relationship. Adam, because he was a human creature, could not repair a relationship made by the supernatural Creator God. This is why God sent His only Son to reconcile humanity with Divinity. Only Jesus could do this because He is True God and True Man.

The first words of the following “blog” are not Catholic teaching. I put them in bold.

I was tempted to put “our lower nature” in bold because that does not sound like Catholic teaching. Obviously, the Gospel relates Satan’s temptations of Jesus. However, I was not sure if the author was symbolically referring to a lower nature or if the author was indicating that Jesus had a lower nature.

It did seem strange that the catholic writer in the blog referred to Jesus as having a fallen nature, but when I thought about his temptation, it seems like he was very much like us in feelings etc, and then the obvious outcome of Original sin which is death, and Jesus suffered it all. But he was without sin. I think the writer has no problem believing we crawled out of the water (evolution), but still is very much a practising catholic.

From your post 833 :

The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”

So Adam and Eve being free from sin would not have had divine sonship so that they might have become son and daughter of God? I think of it in this way. They are not God, but had a divine relationship before, in the garden of edan. They were “on their way” to seeing/being complete children of God. They needed to remain in this divine relationship, and because they choose not to, only God could repair it, because man no longer shared in the divine relationship.

I suppose I just thinking that A&E being free from any sin, were in some way supernatural, then when sin enters in, they became less so, because of the broken relationship with the divine spirit.

 

[fhansen]

I suppose I just thinking that A&E being free from any sin, were in some way supernatural, then when sin enters in, they became less so, because of the broken relationship with the divine spirit.

Yes, the hinge point for Adam’s justice/holiness, having more or having less, was his will. But the justice itself is dependent on communion with God, so once that relationship is shattered by Adam’s spurning it, only God can restore the justice, because only God can restore that communion; man is lost. And apparently God deemed it to be good that mankind would spend time in that lost state, in that darkness, preparing and priming him through history until man was ready, the time was ripe for the complete revelation and grace, for the full light, to enter the scene, so that man might now turn, and will rightly.

 

[Richca]

After you wrote your post and I asked the divine question I read this :

Christ, the man, was subject to all of this for his human nature was a fallen one, vulnerable to fear, sorrow and pain, and, on the cross, even vulnerable to that sense of abandonment which God reserves for very special souls. He is subject to sinful temptations including those resulting from the extensive passions of our lower nature, which, of course, he shares. Here we distinguish three stages: initial (unchosen) stimulus, contemplating the temptation, surrendering to the temptation. Christ only experienced the unbidden stimulus, then, through his human will, actively attuned to his divine will, rejected the further stages.

It’s from another blog, I’m unsure if it’s allowed that we post other blogs on CAF, but I can link it or post it in PM if anyone is interested.

St Thomas Aquinas teaches that Christ, the man, was not subject to concupiscence and the inclination to sin which is the revolt of our lower nature and passions against our higher and spiritual nature of intellect and will. Concupiscence is the result of original sin, it is one of the effects we experience in ourselves due to original sin as St Paul says: “For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want” (Galatians 5: 17). But Christ is without sin including original sin. Further, the soul of Christ was full of grace as St John says:
“And the Word became flesh*
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory as of the Father’s only Son,
full of grace and truth” (John 1: 14).

Being full of grace is incompatible with sin or the inclination to sin which is concupiscence. The soul of Christ was also filled with the Holy Spirit. Further, Aquinas says that Christ, the man, had all the virtues including the moral virtues most perfectly. God created Adam and Eve in original holiness and justice which means their lower nature was subject to their higher spiritual nature, they were in harmony with themselves, God, and the rest of creation. Before the fall, Adam and Eve did not experience concupiscence which is an effect of the fall. Now, I don’t think we can admit that Christ, the God-man, the new Adam, was incarnated with a less perfect soul or one infused with less grace than when God created Adam and Eve. However, we do admit that the human nature of Christ did experience other effects of original sin such as being tired, suffering, and of course, death. For Christ assumed a fallen human nature like us in order to heal it. But not a fallen nature in all its effects; for Christ was not conceived with original sin on his soul nor did he experience, as Aquinas says, concupiscence or the inclination to sin, the revolt of the lower passions against the spirit. So, what the author says in the quote you give, namely, “initial (unchosen) stimulous,” which is concupiscence, I think is an error. Aquinas says “although He [Christ] suffered no internal assault on the part of the fomes [concupiscence] of sin, He sustained an external assault on the part of the world and the devil and won the crown of victory by overcoming them.”

 

[simpleas]

Yes, the hinge point for Adam’s justice/holiness, having more or having less, was his will. But the justice itself is dependent on communion with God, so once that relationship is shattered by Adam’s spurning it, only God can restore the justice, because only God can restore that communion; man is lost. And apparently God deemed it to be good that mankind would spend time in that lost state, in that darkness, preparing and priming him through history until man was ready, the time was ripe for the complete revelation and grace, for the full light, to enter the scene, so that man might now turn, and will rightly.

Yes, Adams human will, not a divine will. Only having a human will isn’t the same as having a divine will as we know, yet this human will was meant to stay in communion with the divine will.
Find it difficult to say God deemed it to be good to allow so much pain and suffering of his human creatures and the rest of his creation.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, Adams human will, not a divine will. Only having a human will isn’t the same as having a divine will as we know, yet this human will was meant to stay in communion with the divine will.
Find it difficult to say God deemed it to be good to allow so much pain and suffering of his human creatures and the rest of his creation.

Let us not separate the concept of a rational intellective will. The total human person is designed to share in God’s life. Therefore, God did not deem that the first total human person should commit the Original Sin.

I cannot imagine the source for the error that God deemed it to be good to allow so much pain and suffering of His human creatures and the rest of His creation.

 

[simpleas]

St Thomas Aquinas teaches that Christ, the man, was not subject to concupiscence and the inclination to sin which is the revolt of our lower nature and passions against our higher and spiritual nature of intellect and will. Concupiscence is the result of original sin, it is one of the effects we experience in ourselves due to original sin as St Paul says: “For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want” (Galatians 5: 17). But Christ is without sin including original sin. Further, the soul of Christ was full of grace as St John says:
“And the Word became flesh*
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory as of the Father’s only Son,
full of grace and truth” (John 1: 14).

Being full of grace is incompatible with sin or the inclination to sin which is concupiscence. The soul of Christ was also filled with the Holy Spirit. Further, Aquinas says that Christ, the man, had all the virtues including the moral virtues most perfectly. God created Adam and Eve in original holiness and justice which means their lower nature was subject to their higher spiritual nature, they were in harmony with themselves, God, and the rest of creation. Before the fall, Adam and Eve did not experience concupiscence which is an effect of the fall. Now, I don’t think we can admit that Christ, the God-man, the new Adam, was incarnated with a less perfect soul or one infused with less grace than when God created Adam and Eve. However, we do admit that the human nature of Christ did experience other effects of original sin such as being tired, suffering, and of course, death. For Christ assumed a fallen human nature like us in order to heal it. But not a fallen nature in all its effects; for Christ was not conceived with original sin on his soul nor did he experience, as Aquinas says, concupiscence or the inclination to sin, the revolt of the lower passions against the spirit. So, what the author says in the quote you give, namely, “initial (unchosen) stimulous,” which is concupiscence, I think is an error. Aquinas says “although He [Christ] suffered no internal assault on the part of the fomes [concupiscence] of sin, He sustained an external assault on the part of the world and the devil and won the crown of victory by overcoming them.”

Adam and Eve were like this (in red).

Jesus became one of us, so that would have to mean that he did as a human, experience all humanity, or else he would be a superhuman unable to know what it is to be a human.
To just experience some of what it is like to be human might leave out alot of what we suffer from.
It puzzles me if Jesus was born without the human nature (which is fallen in its nature, effects of the O.S) why would he have suffered the human pain of the cross and the death? Wouldn’t it have been impossible for that to have happened, I know all is possible with God, but to a human, being free from the O.S and it’s effects would mean pain and death would not happen.

 

[grannymh]

Adam and Eve were like this (in red).

Jesus became one of us, so that would have to mean that he did as a human, experience all humanity, or else he would be a superhuman unable to know what it is to be a human.
To just experience some of what it is like to be human might leave out alot of what we suffer from.
It puzzles me if Jesus was born without the human nature (which is fallen in its nature, effects of the O.S) why would he have suffered the human pain of the cross and the death? Wouldn’t it have been impossible for that to have happened, I know all is possible with God, but to a human, being free from the O.S and it’s effects would mean pain and death would not happen.

First, please keep in mind that it is God, the Creator, who established His relationship with His human creature. It is not the reverse.

Second. God’s first human creature is capable of maintaining his human relationship with his Divine Creator because he is in the State of Sanctifying Grace. Genesis 1: 26-27.

Third. As it is said in *CCC *1730-1732, the first total human creature had the freedom to seek God or to abandon God. Because the first human creature could abandon God, he had the ability to break his relationship with God – which is the meaning of Original Sin.

Fourth. Because it is God, not Adam, Who established humanity’s relationship with Divinity, only God has the Divine power to restore this relationship.

Fifth. Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity which means that He is True God and not a superhuman. But, this True God did not commit the Original Sin. Therefore Jesus assumed, not absorbed, human nature. Obviously, God does not become a sinful disobedient God.

Sixth. Jesus, having assumed human nature minus the act of Original Sin, was then capable of repairing humanity’s relationship with Divinity via a complete act of obedience.

Seventh. To understand Jesus’ human suffering and death, we have to look forward to Jesus’ victory over human’s bodily death.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, Adams human will, not a divine will. Only having a human will isn’t the same as having a divine will as we know, yet this human will was meant to stay in communion with the divine will.
Find it difficult to say God deemed it to be good to allow so much pain and suffering of his human creatures and the rest of his creation.

I don’t know about a human vs divine will. We will always have our will. God simply wants us to will as we should, rightly IOW. That’s what we’re here to learn to do, to the best we can. And God, knowing that Adam would fall, with all the consequences for humankind that came about, nonetheless deemed it worthwhile to create. As God is goodnress itself, His actions can only flow from that goodness, i.e. it was better for man, in the end, to be created and fall into a world of strife, pain, and death then to not exist at all, in order to ultimately bring a greater good out of the evil. Goodness is always the the plan with God; He causes nothing to happen, and He allows nothing to happen, without that end in mind.

 

[simpleas]

Let us not separate the concept of a rational intellective will. The total human person is designed to share in God’s life. Therefore, God did not deem that the first total human person should commit the Original Sin.

I cannot imagine the source for the error that God deemed it to be good to allow so much pain and suffering of His human creatures and the rest of His creation.

Being the original free from sin humans, I already class rational intellect ability as standard so to speak.

 

[simpleas]

I don’t know about a human vs divine will. We will always have our will. God simply wants us to will as we should, rightly IOW. That’s what we’re here to learn to do, to the best we can. And God, knowing that Adam would fall, with all the consequences for humankind that came about, nonetheless deemed it worthwhile to create. As God is goodnress itself, His actions can only flow from that goodness, i.e. it was better for man, in the end, to be created and fall into a world of strife, pain, and death then to not exist at all, in order to ultimately bring a greater good out of the evil. Goodness is always the the plan with God; He causes nothing to happen, and He allows nothing to happen, without that end in mind.

By following divine will, with only a human will. That is why the thought of A&E having a divine will comes to mind.
Jesus looked very much like a normal human,but was divine, able to obey the divine, where A&E were unable to follow the divine will because they had only a human will.

From the CCC again :

*The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” *

A&E were partakers of the divine nature, because they were the first humans without sin, they were in communion with God and would have received divine - ship, so that they would become a son and daughter of God.
Is the divine sonship only because of Jesus? They didn’t have this to begin with?

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

Being the original free from sin humans, I already class rational intellect ability as standard so to speak.

Sorry to be so nit-picky. The rational intellective ability along with the freedom to be master of one’s actions are qualities of the spiritual soul which is part of human nature itself. While yes, the spiritual soul is part of the nature of the first two humans----But, the rational intellective ability and free will are also standard in humans in the State of Mortal Sin.

 

[grannymh]

By following divine will, with only a human will. That is why the thought of A&E having a divine will comes to mind.
Jesus looked very much like a normal human,but was divine, able to obey the divine, where A&E were unable to follow the divine will because they had only a human will.

Again, pardon me. It is not necessary for a human, any human, first or tenth, to have a divine will in order to do God’s will.

From the CCC again :

*The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” *

A&E were partakers of the divine nature, because they were the first humans without sin, they were in communion with God and would have received divine - ship, so that they would become a son and daughter of God.
Is the divine sonship only because of Jesus? They didn’t have this to begin with?

Thanks.

I am going to have to leave because I am causing too much trouble. There is a purpose to Genesis 1: 26-27 which is not delayed until the time of Jesus Christ. Jesus named the purpose of both Genesis 1: 26-27 and the Sacrament of Baptism. A bit of common sense should advise that sonship is a relationship between God and a human person. It is possible for God to have this type of relationship right at the beginning of human history. However, Old Testament persons in union with God had to wait until Jesus opened the gates of heaven, that is,He repaired the broken relationship between humanity and Divinity with His obedience.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

By following divine will, with only a human will. That is why the thought of A&E having a divine will comes to mind.
Jesus looked very much like a normal human,but was divine, able to obey the divine, where A&E were unable to follow the divine will because they had only a human will.

From the CCC again :

*The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” *

A&E were partakers of the divine nature, because they were the first humans without sin, they were in communion with God and would have received divine - ship, so that they would become a son and daughter of God.
Is the divine sonship only because of Jesus? They didn’t have this to begin with?

Thanks.

A & E were never divine and will never be divine, nor will we. To partake of divine life means that those who live in the state of sanctifing grace enjoy the presence of God in their souls in a special way that allows them to be adopted sons and daughters, to live in communion with God and to do his will.

Linus2nd

 

[fhansen]

By following divine will, with only a human will. That is why the thought of A&E having a divine will comes to mind.
Jesus looked very much like a normal human,but was divine, able to obey the divine, where A&E were unable to follow the divine will because they had only a human will.

From the CCC again :

*The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” *

A&E were partakers of the divine nature, because they were the first humans without sin, they were in communion with God and would have received divine - ship, so that they would become a son and daughter of God.
Is the divine sonship only because of Jesus? They didn’t have this to begin with?

Thanks.

And yet Adam & Eve sinned. Our wills are attracted to and orient themselves towards whatever we perceive to be the greatest good. A&E apparently hadn’t recognized that yet, in God,while in Eden. They wanted to experiment, perhaps, with seeing if they could find other means of happiness/fulfillment, in other, created goods.

 

[simpleas]

Again, pardon me. It is not necessary for a human, any human, first or tenth, to have a divine will in order to do God’s will.

I am going to have to leave because I am causing too much trouble. There is a purpose to Genesis 1: 26-27 which is not delayed until the time of Jesus Christ. Jesus named the purpose of both Genesis 1: 26-27 and the Sacrament of Baptism. A bit of common sense should advise that sonship is a relationship between God and a human person. It is possible for God to have this type of relationship right at the beginning of human history. However, Old Testament persons in union with God had to wait until Jesus opened the gates of heaven, that is,He repaired the broken relationship between humanity and Divinity with His obedience.

by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship,

This is what Jesus did for us, my question was or should have asked, A&E being free from sin already had this divine sonship? They were in communion with God.

I’m afraid I have just got Jesus’ human nature and divine nature so mixed up, that I’ve confused myself as to what nature A&E really had.

Anyway, thanks for all posts everyone.

 

[simpleas]

And yet Adam & Eve sinned. Our wills are attracted to and orient themselves towards whatever we perceive to be the greatest good. A&E apparently hadn’t recognized that yet, in God,while in Eden. They wanted to experiment, perhaps, with seeing if they could find other means of happiness/fulfillment, in other, created goods.

Being in communion with God would be all the means of happiness/fulfillment they and we would need. Them more so, because they did not have appetites that a fallen free from O.S but suffers the effects of O.S human has.

So we can’t really say they wanted more.

They are a interesting pair.