Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity

[Richca]

I tend to agree with you, that in fact Aquinas already understood more of what Reeves is emphasizing than perhaps Reeves describes in the Zygon essay. For example, not only did Aquinas distinguish between primary and secondary causation, Aquinas also distinguished between contingent events and other events. Another example Aquinas used was of a debtor and creditor happening to encounter one another at a market, without either intending or planning to meet each other there. It’s similar to your example of the farmer discovering buried treasure in a field. I’ll quote Stephen Barr’s essay “Chance, By Design” as Barr explains what Aquinas had to say about it:

Similarly, most things happen in accordance with natural randomness and therefore with natural probabilities, such as coin tosses coming out heads 50 percent of the time …
In either case, whether or not things unfold in accordance with natural randomness and natural probabilities, it is God who in the vertical sense is causing them to happen that way. As St. Thomas put it, “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity, happens infallibly and of necessity; [whereas those things that divine providence conceives should happen from contingency], happen by contingency.” By itself, the doctrine of divine providence only tells us that everything unfolds in accordance with God’s plan. It does not tell us what that plan is, either in its general features or in its particular details. It does not tell us the mix of law and chance, or of necessity and contingency, that God chose to use in his plan."

For the entire essay, see
inters.org/files/Barr-Chance-Design.pdf

Concerning whether the Will of God imposes necessity on the things willed by Him, this is what St Thomas says about necessary and contingent causes (ST, Part I, Q. 19, art. 8):

"On the contrary, All good things that exist God wills to be. If therefore His will imposes necessity on things willed, it follows that all good happens of necessity; and thus there is an end of free will, counsel, and all other such things.

I answer that, The divine will imposes necessity on some things willed but not on all. The reason of this some have chosen to assign to intermediate causes, holding that what God produces by necessary causes is necessary; and what He produces by contingent causes contingent. This does not seem to be a sufficient explanation, for two reasons.

First, because the effect of a first cause is contingent on account of the secondary cause, from the fact that the effect of the first cause is hindered by deficiency in the second cause, as the sun’s power is hindered by a defect in the plant. But no defect of a secondary cause can hinder God’s will from producing its effect.

Secondly, because if the distinction between the contingent and the necessary is to be referred only to secondary causes, this must be independent of the divine intention and will; which is inadmissible. It is better therefore to say that this happens on account of the efficacy of the divine will. For when a cause is efficacious to act, the effect follows upon the cause, not only as to the thing done, but also as to its manner of being done or of being. Thus from defect of active power in the seed it may happen that a child is born unlike its father in accidental points, that belong to its manner of being. Since then the divine will is perfectly efficacious, it follows not only that things are done, which God wills to be done, but also that they are done in the way that He wills. Now God wills some things to be done necessarily, some contingently, to the right ordering of things, for the building up of the universe. Therefore to some effects He has attached necessary causes, that cannot fail; but to others defectible and contingent causes, from which arise contingent effects. Hence it is not because the proximate causes are contingent that the effects willed by God happen contingently, but because God prepared contingent causes for them, it being His will that they should happen contingently."

 

[cfauster]

Concerning whether the Will of God imposes necessity on the things willed by Him, this is what St Thomas says about necessary and contingent causes (ST, Part I, Q. 19, art. 8):

"On the contrary, All good things that exist God wills to be. If therefore His will imposes necessity on things willed, it follows that all good happens of necessity; and thus there is an end of free will, counsel, and all other such things.

I answer that, The divine will imposes necessity on some things willed but not on all…Since then the divine will is perfectly efficacious, it follows not only that things are done, which God wills to be done, but also that they are done in the way that He wills.

Now God wills some things to be done necessarily, some contingently, to the right ordering of things, for the building up of the universe. Therefore to some effects He has attached necessary causes, that cannot fail; but to others defectible and contingent causes, from which arise contingent effects. Hence it is not because the proximate causes are contingent that the effects willed by God happen contingently, but because God prepared contingent causes for them, it being His will that they should happen contingently."

Beautiful wisdom. Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

The good thing about the previous posts is that not only did they stretch my mind, they brought me deeper into our wonderful Catholic religion. I do hope that Richca and cfauster will continue to discuss interesting important issues.

In the meantime, I have been reviewing what has been accomplished in this thread and what still needs to be accomplished. Thus, I would like to present this topic which needs additional discussion added to what has been said.

From OneSheep, post 378

Hi Granny,

Perhaps you may recall this quote:

“True love does not eliminate legitimate differences, but harmonizes them in a superior unity, which is not imposed from the outside, but gives shape to the whole from inside,”

Pope Benedict

So, if we take quotes from the two popes together, we can admit that there are legitimate differences, and neither Pope is saying that those with legitimate differences should not be incorporated in the Church.

Here is the pertinent quote from post 378.
“True love does not eliminate legitimate differences, but harmonizes them in a superior unity, which is not imposed from the outside, but gives shape to the whole from inside,”

Pope Benedict

While true love can have a crowd of appropriate meanings, it would be safe to say that “true love” in the blue quote, is an action of God. “Superior unity” in the blue quote realistically could be God’s gift to the Catholic Church. Here, seems to be, is a realistic reference to legitimate differences from the position of the Catholic religion.
“a superior unity, which is not imposed from the outside, but gives shape to the whole from inside,”
Please note:
There is no way I can give an “official” interpretation of the blue quote. Instead, I will use bit of creative imagination based on general principles of the Catholic religion.

Because Jesus Christ is founder and head of the Catholic Church, there is a superior unity which proclaims and protects Divine Revelation. St. Paul is definitely concerned about unity within the Church in 1 Corinthians 1: 10-13. “Is Christ divided?” is the key question. The answer is no because of chapter 14, Gospel of John.

Acts chapter 15 is another example of “legitimate differences” causing havoc. As the Church moved through its first centuries, it is apparent that the “legitimate differences” on major Divine Revelation increased. The attack on the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity (Arianism) was proposed as legitimate by some, not all, Catholics. With the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit, Arianism was set aside as a heresy because of chapter 14, Gospel of John, and Acts 2: 1-4.

Today, the realistic approach to legitimate differences is to honestly recognize the philosophical principle of non-contradiction. A Catholic doctrine, divinely revealed and properly defined and declared, does not permit both a yes statement and a no statement as one doctrine. All the discarded differences involved in preparing a Catholic doctrine do not necessarily have to be proclaimed as an individual heresy. Often some of the denials are indirectly attached to prominent heresies.

What I am thinking, in my own way, is that the blue quote is not saying that all interpretations of Divine Truth need to harmonize or melt into a one-size fits all doctrine. That would be going against the responsibility of the Pope. What I am hearing in the blue quote is that all the various beautiful descriptions by the early Church Fathers, Doctors, and Saints can be various ways of understanding the one truth of Divine Revelation.

To get an understanding of this, read *CCC *20-21 which explains the use of small print. Also, look for one’s favorite source of truth in the CCC Index of Citations which starts on page 689.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . the blue quote is not saying that all interpretations of Divine Truth need to harmonize or melt into a one-size fits all doctrine. That would be going against the responsibility of the Pope. What I am hearing in the blue quote is that all the various beautiful descriptions by the early Church Fathers, Doctors, and Saints can be various ways of understanding the one truth of Divine Revelation. . .

Growing in one’s relationship with God, one comes closer to the Truth. What is important is to discover that truth to which the various interpretations point, rather than trying to force them into some artificial harmony.

There is a reality which we call humanity. We can understand ourselves as one body in Christ and more scientifically as a human species. The religious view comes closer to describing the truth of who we are in spite of the fact that it speaks nothing of anatomy, physiology or DNA. Science would do well to incorporate the religious understanding, but that seems unlikely to happen any time soon. One obvious improvement would be in having an explanation as to why in the animal kingdom there are very many similarities between related species, where humanity stands alone like a giant redwood among grasses when it comes to life on earth. Cutting to the chase, polygenesis is incompatible with the teachings of the Church which reveal the truth of our origins.

 

[cfauster]

Growing in one’s relationship with God, one comes closer to the Truth. What is important is to discover that truth to which the various interpretations point, rather than trying to force them into some artificial harmony.

There is a reality which we call humanity. We can understand ourselves as one body in Christ and more scientifically as a human species. The religious view comes closer to describing the truth of who we are in spite of the fact that it speaks nothing of anatomy, physiology or DNA. Science would do well to incorporate the religious understanding, but that seems unlikely to happen any time soon. One obvious improvement would be in having an explanation as to why in the animal kingdom there are very many similarities between related species, where humanity stands alone like a giant redwood among grasses when it comes to life on earth. Cutting to the chase, polygenesis is incompatible with the teachings of the Church which reveal the truth of our origins.

Much I appreciate there.

Indeed, true religion and true science both independently confirm that we humans are one species!

A century (and more) ago, some found polygenesis appealing because they wanted to believe that different human races had completely independent origins, as if different races essentially constituted different species.

But the Bible’s - and Christ’s - clear messages that we all share a common origin and a common identity are mirrored by modern DNA analysis showing that:1) we are truly one biological species, not multiple related species of extant (currently living) humans, 2) genetic diversity does exist between human individuals even of the same race, and it’s about as much diversity as between people of different races, 3) any minor genetic differences that might correlate with race are overwhelmed by the much greater genetic diversity between human individuals even of the same race, 4) some other (non-human) species of organisms have greater intraspecific (within-species) genetic diversity than do humans, while others species have less than we find in the human species.

Finally, regarding now-extinct species related to the ancestors of modern humans, those fossils are few in number and analysis of their DNA is in its infancy. In any case, regardless however many related species might have once populated the earth, Homo sapiens itself has been just one species throughout human history, as far as I can tell.

 

[cfauster]

I base my assertion that humans have been one species throughout our history without denying that archaic, extinct hominins thought to be distinct species (e.g. Neanderthals) interbred with (pre-?)humans. I was merely agreeing with Aloysium, and adding the related point that Judeo-Christian scriptures and modern science both find racial differences among humans to be insignificant.

A good overview of science research on hominins, including results coming from sequencing the best-preserved Neanderthal DNA, can be found at
Becoming human, Part 3: Paleogenomics and the tangled web of human speciation

 

[Hunho]

Grannymh, in the first post in this thread you said you wanted to look at “the original relationship between the first human lovingly known as Adam and his Divine Creator.” Now by both inclination and professional training I’m a historian and a researcher. So I went back to the Catechism to see what Catholic doctrine specifically says about that “original relationship.”(1) According to CCC 375 “our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life”".
(2) According to CCC 376 and 377 “By the radiance of this [original] grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, he would remain in the state of "original justice”:

a) man would not have to suffer or die,
b) man would possess an inner harmony of the human person, a mastery of self in which he was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to:

i) the pleasures of the senses,
ii) covetousness for earthly goods, and
iii) self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.
c) the first couple possessed a harmony between man and woman, and finally
d) the there was a harmony between the first couple and all creation.
​

(3) And, according to CCC 377 and 378 “God offered man from the beginning the “mastery” over the world…” and, as a sign of man’s familiarity with God, God placed him in the garden of Eden, to live and “to till it and keep it”. That work was not yet a burden, but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.
​

This is what, by disobeying God’s explicit command, the first couple threw away.

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, in the first post in this thread you said you wanted to look at “the original relationship between the first human lovingly known as Adam and his Divine Creator.” Now by both inclination and professional training I’m a historian and a researcher. So I went back to the Catechism to see what Catholic doctrine specifically says about that “original relationship.”
(1) According to CCC 375 “our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life”".
(2) According to CCC 376 and 377 “By the radiance of this [original] grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, he would remain in the state of "original justice”:

a) man would not have to suffer or die,
b) man would possess an inner harmony of the human person, a mastery of self in which he was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to:

i) the pleasures of the senses,
ii) covetousness for earthly goods, and
iii) self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.
c) the first couple possessed a harmony between man and woman, and finally
d) the there was a harmony between the first couple and all creation.
​

(3) And, according to CCC 377 and 378 “God offered man from the beginning the “mastery” over the world…” and, as a sign of man’s familiarity with God, God placed him in the garden of Eden, to live and “to till it and keep it”. That work was not yet a burden, but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.
​

This is what, by disobeying God’s explicit command, the first couple threw away.

Thank you for putting that together in one spot. Sometimes we have to see everything as one thing in order to completely understand what happened.

I usually start thinking about the original relationship between humanity and Divinity as God the Creator being divine and Adam the creature as not being divine. This time seeing the words, “sign of man’s familiarity with God,” I wonder about various meanings of familiarity. I wonder if we, in our busy lives, think about our own familiarity with God. Would it be the same as Adam’s? Or what would be the difference?

On the other hand, I wonder how God’s divinity can be explained. I don’t mean all the words which start with omni. Is His relationship unique with Adam?

 

[Richca]

Thank you for putting that together in one spot. Sometimes we have to see everything as one thing in order to completely understand what happened.

I usually start thinking about the original relationship between humanity and Divinity as God the Creator being divine and Adam the creature as not being divine. This time seeing the words, “sign of man’s familiarity with God,” I wonder about various meanings of familiarity. I wonder if we, in our busy lives, think about our own familiarity with God. Would it be the same as Adam’s? Or what would be the difference?

 

[grannymh]

"An alternative definition of original sin holds that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory for the acquisition of conscience. In this definition, mankind is not stained in any way by any deed, but instead misdeed is a result of our God-given drives and capacities limited by blindness and unawareness.

"In this alternative, Christ, as God incarnate, shows us God’s unconditional and constant forgiveness, a forgiveness “before always”, as depicted from the Cross. Christ comes in order to be a model of redemption from our fears, our wants, our resentments, all the trappings of our nature. In so doing He redeems the world in the call to love one another in the same way, to love and forgive without condition, creating the Kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven. Word does not become incarnate to change God’s mind about man, but comes to change man’s mind about God.

“This alternative does not ascribe to Modernism or Arianism, especially when they disrespect or defy the value, place, and validity of the standard definition of original sin. This alternative is not a better or worse alternative, only one that stands upon a somewhat different tradition set forth by various saints and early writers in the Church.”

Gentle Readers

This is a red flag.

One needs to be careful when reading about “An alternative definition of original sin”
presented by OneSheep. It contains anti-Catholic teachings. In addition, there is the avoidance of some necessary Catholic teachings.

Certainly, Jesus Christ offered us the peace of the Catholic Church as a way to deal with our fears, our wants, our resentments, all the trappings of our nature. And it can be said that Jesus Christ redeemed the world as in John 3: 16-17.

Here is what our gentle readers need to consider.

Those familiar with the major Catholic Church Councils know that many alternative proposals (legitimate views) regarding Original Sin, etc., were offered by various saints and early writers in the Church. This is the place where our gentle readers have to remember that the wisdom of the Holy Spirit guided each formulation of a Catholic doctrine. The alternatives to Divine Revelation were discarded. Even though some unnamed public authors and teachers are renewing or re-inventing some discarded alternatives, these are not Catholic teachings. Even though some modern alternatives to Original Sin and Adam have been presented, these are not Catholic teachings.

All of us need to be on our guard because some of the lovely alternatives can draw people away from some fundamental truths; for example, mortal sin and free will such as exemplified in the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[OneSheep]

Granny Dear! Did you forget to invite me to the party? I’m sorry I haven’t been reading your thread, I have been quite busy with my own, as you know.

Today, the realistic approach to legitimate differences is to honestly recognize the philosophical principle of non-contradiction. A Catholic doctrine, divinely revealed and properly defined and declared, does not permit both a yes statement and a no statement as one doctrine.

There are principles more important than this. The principles of love, forgiveness, and Eucharist are more important. Yes and No can be allowed for to accommodate the fact that people are at different places in their walk with God. Specifically, equating God with conscience is normal and natural, and should not be grounds for exclusion from doctrine. On the other side, a spirituality that transcends the compulsion to punish all wrongdoing is what Jesus ultimately calls us to, so it should not be thrown out either.

Gentle Readers

This is a red flag.

One needs to be careful when reading about “An alternative definition of original sin”
presented by OneSheep. It contains anti-Catholic teachings. In addition, there is the avoidance of some necessary Catholic teachings.

Certainly, Jesus Christ offered us the peace of the Catholic Church as a way to deal with our fears, our wants, our resentments, all the trappings of our nature. And it can be said that Jesus Christ redeemed the world as in John 3: 16-17.

Here is what our gentle readers need to consider.

Those familiar with the major Catholic Church Councils know that many alternative proposals (legitimate views) regarding Original Sin, etc., were offered by various saints and early writers in the Church. This is the place where our gentle readers have to remember that the wisdom of the Holy Spirit guided each formulation of a Catholic doctrine. The alternatives to Divine Revelation were discarded. Even though some unnamed public authors and teachers are renewing or re-inventing some discarded alternatives, these are not Catholic teachings. Even though some modern alternatives to Original Sin and Adam have been presented, these are not Catholic teachings.

All of us need to be on our guard because some of the lovely alternatives can draw people away from some fundamental truths; for example, mortal sin and free will such as exemplified in the first three chapters of Genesis.

I want to thank you, Granny, for taking this discussion off the other thread, as it was not on topic there.

I am going to ask the same question there, though, that I did here. What did I write that was contrary to Church teaching? Please be very specific.

There is a difference between contrariness and legitimate differences. Two alternatives can stem from deeper realities. Two deeper realities can stem from a single reality.

Here are the two deeper realities: 1. There is unconditional love and forgiveness. 2. Our natural conscience functions, in part, on non-forgiveness.

That single reality, Granny, is Love, which underlies the two other realities.

That should give you plenty to chew on.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Today, the realistic approach to legitimate differences is to honestly recognize the philosophical principle of non-contradiction. A Catholic doctrine, divinely revealed and properly defined and declared, does not permit both a yes statement and a no statement as one doctrine.

Granny Dear! Did you forget to invite me to the party? I’m sorry I haven’t been reading your thread, I have been quite busy with my own, as you know.

There are principles more important than this. The principles of love, forgiveness, and Eucharist are more important. Yes and No can be allowed for to accommodate the fact that people are at different places in their walk with God. Specifically, equating God with conscience is normal and natural, and should not be grounds for exclusion from doctrine. On the other side, a spirituality that transcends the compulsion to punish all wrongdoing is what Jesus ultimately calls us to, so it should not be thrown out either.

I want to thank you, Granny, for taking this discussion off the other thread, as it was not on topic there.

I am going to ask the same question there, though, that I did here. What did I write that was contrary to Church teaching? Please be very specific.

There is a difference between contrariness and legitimate differences. Two alternatives can stem from deeper realities. Two deeper realities can stem from a single reality.

Here are the two deeper realities: 1. There is unconditional love and forgiveness. 2. Our natural conscience functions, in part, on non-forgiveness.

That single reality, Granny, is Love, which underlies the two other realities.

That should give you plenty to chew on.

OneSheep,

In your church, is there one God or a variety of gods?

I ask this because of your reference to the principle of love, the principle of forgiveness, and the principle of the Eucharist as being more important than the philosophical principle of non-contradiction which happens to refer to the fact that a true God cannot be both the almighty God and, at the same time, be subservient to three principles.

By the way, in the Catholic Church, the Eucharist is not a “principle.” The Catholic Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep,

In your church, is there one God or a variety of gods?

Granny, you must be kidding,

I say the same creed you do. Just one God, that is all there is dear.

I ask this because of your reference to the principle of love, the principle of forgiveness, and the principle of the Eucharist as being more important than the philosophical principle of non-contradiction which happens to refer to the fact that a true God cannot be both the almighty God and, at the same time, be subservient to three principles.

God is Love. The deepest principle is Love.

Principle: a fundamental source or basis of something.

By the way, in the Catholic Church, the Eucharist is not a “principle.” The Catholic Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

Eucharist: The source of our communion. A fundamental source.

One needs to be careful when reading about “An alternative definition of original sin” presented by OneSheep. It contains anti-Catholic teachings.

Now, are you going to explain what I am saying that is contrary, specifically, or are you going to apologize for your uncharitable comments? Or, is making false accusations not in your list of rules of conscience?

Put up or clam up, Granny. You know I love you, but I am not going to tolerate your insults.

P.S.: I have forgiven.

God Bless.

 

[OneSheep]

What Ratzinger says (official English translation by Boniface Ramsey, OP):

      "In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins. The account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading [mistakeable] and imprecise term 'original sin.' What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one’s relative are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?
     "Finding an answer to this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. It must once again be stressed that no human being is closed in upon himself or herself and that no one can live of or for himself or herself alone. We receive our life not only at the moment of birth but every day from without--from others who are not ourselves but who nonetheless somehow pertain to us. Human beings have their selves not only in themselves but also outside of themselves: they live in those whom they love and in those who love them and to whom they are 'present.' Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives--themselves--only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly a human being means to be related in love, to be of and for. But sin means the damaging or the destruction of relationality. Sin is a rejection of relationality because it wants to make the human being a god. Sin is loss of relationship, disturbance of relationship, and therefore it is not restricted to the individual. When I destroy a relationship, then this event--sin--touches the other person involved in the relationship. Consequently sin is always an offense that touches others, that alters the world and damages it. To the extent that this is true, when the network of human relationships is damaged from the very beginning, then every human being enters into a world that is marked by relational damage. At the very moment that a person begins human existence, which is a good, he or she is confronted by a sin-damaged world. Each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the very start, damaged in relationships and does not engage in them as he or she ought. Sin pursues the human being, and he or she capitulates to it."

–Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, ‘In the Beginning…’, pp. 71-73

Now, I am posting this as an example of another way of looking at “original sin”. I don’t completely agree with this example. Because 1. If sin is wanting to make people a god, then that would be a god that rejects relationships. That is not the God we know. 2. A person can indeed behave in the world as he or she ought, even if the world is a relational mess. I do agree that we “inherit” a relational mess.

What we also inherit is a capacity to be blind, be motivated to get the things that we innately desire, and have fears and many other emotions, as well as a conscience that compels us to punish wrongdoing. We are also born ignorant. With all of that “nature” going on, people get hurt. As far as I am concerned, all of these add up to a capacity to do evil, and we can include these in what we call “original sin”.

That said, the question is “Why are some people and even groups of people so adamant about their version of original sin?”

A: People’s notions of original sin are often the crux of faith itself. If the individual’s faith depends on a particular definition of original sin, then a threat to the definition is threat to faith itself.

As for me, I am not married to a particular definition. My faith does not depend on any writings concerning original sin.

 

[Aloysium]

I heard no insults in granny’s comments.
She is noting, with a certain anxiety, that you are distorting the teachings of the church.
I am of the same opinion.
You have a particular hang-up about forgiveness.
Jesus died for our sins because sin brings evil into ourselves and the world, while damaging our relationship with God. .
That which is evil cannot remain on the journey to God, it has to die.
He took on our evil and dying to it, Jesus freed us from its consequences.
When we choose to harm another, we do so in recognition of the aim of the act.
Where a psychotic individual takes another’s life thinking that person is an alien being, he may not be held responsible for his actions.
When one abuses another, there may be explanations, but no excuse. What has been done, has been done. No ignorance here.

 

[Aloysium]

Just read the Ratzinger post. Pope Benedict is an amazing man. Wow! How he can write.

 

[grannymh]

From earlier post 402.
Gentle Readers

This is a red flag.

One needs to be careful when reading about “An alternative definition of original sin” presented by OneSheep. It contains anti-Catholic teachings. In addition, there is the avoidance of some necessary Catholic teachings.

Now, are you going to explain what I am saying that is contrary, specifically, or are you going to apologize for your uncharitable comments? Or, is making false accusations not in your list of rules of conscience?

Put up or clam up, Granny. You know I love you, but I am not going to tolerate your insults.

P.S.: I have forgiven.

God Bless.

The anti-Catholic teachings begin the “An alternative definition of original sin” presented by OneSheep in post 318. The reality, not an allegory, of Adam is what is taught in the Catholic Church. In Catholic teachings, Original Sin is not a simple misdeed limited by blindness and unawareness. Original Sin is a real serious free-willed action which destroyed the original relationship between Divinity and humanity. This primeval event marked the whole of human history.

The avoidance of the State of Mortal Sin in the following paragraph gives the impression that there is nothing a sinner has to do in order to be in the State of Sanctifying Grace. With no qualifications like the Catholic teaching on repenting, humans can reject God, via mortal sin, until the cows come home with no guilt. The unconditional and constant forgiveness, a forgiveness “before always,” attacks human nature by sidestepping the spiritual soul and the Catholic teachings on intellect and will.

From OneSheep, post 318.
"An alternative definition of original sin holds that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory for the acquisition of conscience. In this definition, mankind is not stained in any way by any deed, but instead misdeed is a result of our God-given drives and capacities limited by blindness and unawareness.
"In this alternative, Christ, as God incarnate, shows us God’s unconditional and constant forgiveness, a forgiveness “before always”, as depicted from the Cross.

 

[cfauster]

This morning I’ve read many posts not only in this thread but even more in another thread on the related topic of whether one can knowingly and willingly reject God, and if so, how.

I had previously ignored that other thread but this morning I went there to better understand the current conversation in this thread, which seems to be continuing, to some extent, the conversation from the other thread. The two threads certainly relate, because the situation of each human person throughout history is related to the original relationship between God and our earliest ancestors, the original humans.

Certainly our understanding of:

• human good and evil,
• being made in the image of God yet not being God,
• having free will and of being loved by God and yet being in bondage to sin and death,
  these tie together both threads.

Both threads also contain discussions of the person and work of Jesus Christ, and of our salvation/redemption from sin.

I appreciate the honest and vigorous discussion, and I can feel the tension between the desires for inclusion and fellowship and acceptance of all people on the one hand and the desire for truth and clarity and correctness of doctrine on the other hand. People care about these things, even if they disagree. These things matter a lot, hence they arouse such active conversation.

Lutherans and other Christians debate these things too, of course.

What I appreciate about the defense of Roman Catholic doctrine - most of which Lutherans too hold, by the way - is the need to preserve precious, life-changing truth. It’s not that anyone has a corner on the whole truth, but there really does seem to be a consensus when it comes to some really important basic realities, and I see everyone appropriately striving to guard against losing sight of the essentials.

We might not agree on the details, but I think we agree that God loves all and desires all to be saved. I think we agree that Christ makes salvation possible for us, even if we can’t agree on exactly how.

I’ve learned a lot from C.S. Lewis. I don’t agree with everything he wrote. I suppose, given that he was not Catholic, some of his theology might vary from Catholic theology, but maybe not much. Anyway, here’s something C.S. Lewis wrote that helps me grapple with the meaning of taking up one’s cross and following Jesus:

"Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a kind of death, isn’t something God demands of you before he’ll take you back and which he could let you off if he chose: it’s simply a description of what going back to him is like.”
What Christians Believe, p. 55.

Finally, P.H. Brazier analyzed C.S. Lewis’ views on sin, atonement, and salvation and had this to say (in part) in “C.S. Lewis on Atonement: A Unified Model and Event, the Drama of Redemption” published this year in The Heythrop Journal, Vol. 56, pp. 285-305:

“Lewis attempted to rationalize atonement theories in his apologetics and philosophical theology; however, he is at his most successful in unifying the various theories, or component parts of the theories, in his analogical narrative: it is like this, this is how it happened, and this is how it could have happened … Lewis merges the Classic model and the Latin model, into a story, the drama of atonement, but each has a separate identity. Because the theory is worked out in time, in sequence, the elements from these two theories make sense if each element becomes a moment of time, each has its role in time… But does Lewis’s technique of simply putting together components from diverse atonement theories create a unified account of how salvation works? As a story, as a drama acted out in real time, with conflicting parties/persons, it does begin to make sense as a unified theory. Atonement is part of life; it is acted out in time, in life. Life is a narrative, not a theory. A life is eventually defined by death, by culmination and completion. The disparate parts of a life come together eschatologically; God crafts lives as He crafted the atonement—we will understand as we are understood (1 Cor 13)…God willed that the creature knew the risks (Gen. 3) and was free to choose, and was not coerced into choosing one way or the other. Therefore God did not author the evil, the Fall. But God did author the nature of the creation, the laws it is governed by, and the creature, which had the free will to choose. God also authors the way out of condemnation, the way out of hell, by taking the responsibility onto God’s self on the Cross… As Lewis noted with regard to the Fall: ‘a new kind of man—a new species, never made by God, had sinned itself into existence’ … Atonement releases humanity from its bondage to Lucifer, the fallen angel, the devil: this resets the human condition to its pre-Fall state—humanity can be for God, or against God, our beliefs and actions, our faith, ethics and morals, demonstrate our loyalty and allegiance. The Last Judgment decides who we are for. Election is in effect wide open: grace is resistible, judgment is final—there is no election outside of faith. We hold our election and from what we have established, our ownership, and therefore our salvation, in our hands at every moment of every day (subject to the ever-present prevenient action/influence of the Holy Spirit). Once we repent and accept in faith our forgiveness, atonement is achieved … the event, the drama of atonement and salvation, is the actuality, is real, more real … than all theories about how it works so that the theories will never measure up to the reality. Therefore story, narrative, is perhaps the only creative form that can begin to present a unified theory or model of how atonement works.”

Peace.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, cfauster,

Thank you for addressing the two threads, and thank you for an objective “side opinion”. I am going to pick and choose for brevity sake.

This morning I’ve read many posts not only in this thread but even more in another thread on the related topic of whether one can knowingly and willingly reject God, and if so, how.

I had previously ignored that other thread but this morning I went there to better understand the current conversation in this thread, which seems to be continuing, to some extent, the conversation from the other thread. The two threads certainly relate, because the situation of each human person throughout history is related to the original relationship between God and our earliest ancestors, the original humans.

Certainly our understanding of:

• human good and evil,
• being made in the image of God yet not being God,
• having free will and of being loved by God and yet being in bondage to sin and death,
  these tie together both threads.

So, to understand the “current conversation” Granny and I have more or less complete agreement on the first 2-and-a-half bullet points above. I find the “bondage to sin” part not what I observe about the human condition.

What does “bondage to sin” mean to you? To mean, it means “inclination”, and I do not observe this inclination. I see “capacity to do evil”, there is a difference.

I appreciate the honest and vigorous discussion, and I can feel the tension between the desires for inclusion and fellowship and acceptance of all people on the one hand and the desire for truth and clarity and correctness of doctrine on the other hand. People care about these things, even if they disagree. These things matter a lot, hence they arouse such active conversation.

Lutherans and other Christians debate these things too, of course.

In the Lutheran circles are there also accusations of “anti-Lutheran” flying around, or are the faithful more charitable?

What I appreciate about the defense of Roman Catholic doctrine - most of which Lutherans too hold, by the way - is the need to preserve precious, life-changing truth. It’s not that anyone has a corner on the whole truth, but there really does seem to be a consensus when it comes to some really important basic realities, and I see everyone appropriately striving to guard against losing sight of the essentials.

We might not agree on the details, but I think we agree that God loves all and desires all to be saved. I think we agree that Christ makes salvation possible for us, even if we can’t agree on exactly how.

The “need to preserve” can also create minds closed to the action of the Spirit. It is fear that closes minds to alternatives, when they appear to be a threat. However, faith is what drives away all fear. There is nothing to fear in alternatives. The Spirit guides, always.

I’ve learned a lot from C.S. Lewis. I don’t agree with everything he wrote.

I found C.S. Lewis in the Anselmian camp, but leaning into more of a depravity-approach. He does occasionally make some comments that hint openness to alternatives. I never found C.S. Lewis far from fire-and-brimstone, but I have not read enough of his works to make a solid conclusion.

I suppose, given that he was not Catholic, some of his theology might vary from Catholic theology, but maybe not much. Anyway, here’s something C.S. Lewis wrote that helps me grapple with the meaning of taking up one’s cross and following Jesus:
"Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a kind of death, isn’t something God demands of you before he’ll take you back …

This hints at unconditional love and forgiveness…

and which he could let you off if he chose: it’s simply a description of what going back to him is like.”
What Christians Believe, p. 55.

The idea of “letting someone off” means that there is something held against man, that man owes a debt to God. This is Anselmian. It does not indicate unconditional love, it seems to limit God’s mercy. God’s unlimited mercy and love, to me, is much more an “essential belief”.

…he is at his most successful in unifying the various theories, or component parts of the theories, in his analogical narrative: it is like this, this is how it happened, and this is how it could have happened … Lewis merges the Classic model and the Latin model, into a story, …

Therefore God did not author the evil, the Fall. But God did author the nature of the creation, the laws it is governed by, and the creature, which had the free will to choose. God also authors the way out of condemnation, the way out of hell, by taking the responsibility onto God’s self on the Cross…

…Once we repent and accept in faith our forgiveness, atonement is achieved …

These words may or may not indicate an Anselmian approach, it depends on the use of “condemnation”. If this relays a narrative that God condemns man, then it again indicates a wrathful God, one who demands payment. There is certainly a place for this “organic” theism: “I did bad things so God is mad at me.”

In addition, the definition of “atonement” comes into play. If “atonement” is a payment that changes the way God looks at man, then it leans Anselmian. If “atonement” is “at-one-ment”, that is, Christ gives us the awareness to realize that God fully, unconditionally embraces his loved creation, then that is more like the approach that Pope Benedict illustrated, as well as others. The incarnation happened in order to change man’s mind about God.

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

catholica.com.au/ianstake/016_it_print.php

Peace.

Thank you, God’s peace be with you. Have a restful Sabbath.

 

[OneSheep]

From earlier post 402.
Gentle Readers

This is a red flag.

One needs to be careful when reading about “An alternative definition of original sin” presented by OneSheep. It contains anti-Catholic teachings. In addition, there is the avoidance of some necessary Catholic teachings.

Hopefully gentle readers will see your “red flag” for what it is: pointing and condemning. Do not judge, Granny. You are not the voice of the hierarchy. Nothing I have said contradicts core beliefs and teachings, see below.

Readers: If you see someone raising a “red flag”, forgive her. She intends well. Her own beliefs are within Catholic teaching, but she is very closed-minded about variation. God does not call us to be closed-minded. Faith drives out all fear… and anger.

The anti-Catholic teachings begin the “An alternative definition of original sin” presented by OneSheep in post 318. The reality, not an allegory, of Adam is what is taught in the Catholic Church. In Catholic teachings, Original Sin is not a simple misdeed limited by blindness and unawareness. Original Sin is a real serious free-willed action which destroyed the original relationship between Divinity and humanity. This primeval event marked the whole of human history.

Please provide evidence of a “destroyed relationship” I cannot find it in the CCC. The OT tribes of Israel still had a relationship with God. It was not destroyed. Shall I put up a red flag? No, I understand what you are saying, even though your wording is extreme.

The avoidance of the State of Mortal Sin in the following paragraph gives the impression that there is nothing a sinner has to do in order to be in the State of Sanctifying Grace. With no qualifications like the Catholic teaching on repenting, humans can reject God, via mortal sin, until the cows come home with no guilt. The unconditional and constant forgiveness, a forgiveness “before always,” attacks human nature by sidestepping the spiritual soul and the Catholic teachings on intellect and will.

That was the “impression” you got, Granny. Here is the impression I want you to receive: God loves and forgives unconditionally. Nothing we can do will change that or alter that. If a person does not repent from sin, then they are slaves to the sin, which is not the “eternal life” that Jesus came to invite us to.

From OneSheep, post 318.

"An alternative definition of original sin holds that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory for the acquisition of conscience. In this definition, mankind is not stained in any way by any deed, but instead misdeed is a result of our God-given drives and capacities limited by blindness and unawareness.

"In this alternative, Christ, as God incarnate, shows us God’s unconditional and constant forgiveness, a forgiveness “before always”, as depicted from the Cross.

Okay, Granny, try again. So far you haven’t picked out anything anti-Catholic. Indeed, unless you can find something from the CCC that says “destroyed relationship”, your own words are a bit colored. Anselm, maybe?

And that is the most curious thing, Granny, the first “alternative” I gave was the Anselmian approach, which was the one criticized by Pope Benedict. I agree with Pope Benedict’s criticism but not his closing-off of the Anselmian approach. You appear to be accepting it whole-heartedly, criticizing an alternative that was closer to Benedict.

Here is the “first alternative” I presented, which was criticized by Cardinal Ratzinger:

“I can provide two alternatives, both acceptable, IMO. I have decided, (tentatively) to name the first view the “organic” view. This is the view that man is depraved or somewhat depraved, that God is/was angry at us and we did not deserve anything but the worst, or certainly not a good life or an afterlife. This theology I am coining “organic” because it is very human to feel guilt, very natural, and we are all a bit superstitious in terms of acts of nature (storms, earthquakes, etc.) it makes some sense to conclude that God, in His anger, is out to punish us. In this alternative, Jesus comes to save us, to free us from what we deserve by “taking the hit” from the cross; like a sacrificial lamb offered to appease God, a “debt was paid”. This is Christ’s incarnation that serves to change God’s view toward man.”

Your lack of criticism of this alternative implies that you agree with this. Is that true?

If you see the reason for the cross in this approach, i can accept it. It is the view I used to have, and I do not consider it “anti-Catholic”, even though it is not the view I have today.

Please, Granny, try to be charitable. Your embracing of charity would be indicated by not pointing at my writing and saying “anti-Catholic”. I know you mean well, but does fear have a grip on you?

Peace, sister. Forgive me. Pray for me. Do not judge me.​