Adam & Logic

[fhansen]

Yes we are educated to gain knowledge (not sure about wisdom! ha) to turn ourselves back to God, back to what the first two humans once had in the beginning.

I don’t think so. Had they possessed the knowledge of God, at least the knowledge we’re to be growing in now, I doubt they’d have turned from Him. They didn’t yet understand that apart from Him they could do nothing John 15:5–while with Him all things are possible Matt 19:26. They hadn’t yet come to love, as we should, as justice demands, which only comes as we place our faith in, then our hope in Him. This, Adam rejected. I’ve quoted St Basil of Cesarea before and I’ll quote him now to maybe shed light on the way humans need to be transformed.

**If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.

**

 

[simpleas]

catechism of the catholic church, second edition, paragraphs 404-405

ccc 397.

 

[grannymh]

Following the logic of Adam as explained in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.* This is my reply to the posts with distortions about Adam and Original Sin.

I will not deny that Original Sin is about obedience to God as clarified in Genesis 2: 15-17. I will not deny that Adam freely chose to disobey God in Genesis 3:6. I will not deny Adam’s knowledge in Genesis 2: 15-17 I will not deny Adam’s rational spiritual soul. I will not deny that Original Sin shattered the relationship between humanity and Divinity. I will not deny the knowledge that was Adam’s which made him entirely responsible for his disobedience. I will not deny that the seriousness of Original Sin necessitated a Divine Reconciler. I will not accept the weird speculations about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which lead to the eventual denial of Original Sin and attacks on God’s love.

 

[fhansen]

I thought disobedience was the cause of O.S and we were never actually separated from God.

Disobedience is the sin that caused the separation. The continued state of that separation is the chief aspect of the state of OS which is transmitted to all of Adam’s descendants.Terms such as the “loss of sanctifying grace”, or the “loss of original holiness and justice” in the paragraphs granny quoted, as well as “death of the soul” in paragraph 403, speak to the loss of God’s life in us. This is the “lost” condition Jesus came to redeem us from, the salvation of the lost sheep by the Good Shepherd who reconciles man with God so communion may take place again, as always intended, as we partake of His divine nature. This is what it means to be “born again” or “born from above”, no longer dead but raised to newness of life.

 

[simpleas]

I don’t think so. Had they possessed the knowledge of God, at least the knowledge we’re to be growing in now, I doubt they’d have turned from Him. They didn’t yet understand that apart from Him they could do nothing John 15:5–while with Him all things are possible Matt 19:26. They hadn’t yet come to love, as we should, as justice demands, which only comes as we place our faith in, then our hope in Him. This, Adam rejected. I’ve quoted St Basil of Cesarea before and I’ll quote him now to maybe shed light on the way humans need to be transformed.

**If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.

**

yeah, that’s what made me think it was unbelievable that if A&E had knowledge of God, grace holiness, self mastery, why would they have even considered trying to have more?

CCC IV Man in Paradise 374-379 pretty much confirms they had it. But they also had the freedom of will to choose to reject it.

I agree we are being transformed if we continue to remain with God in all that is good, and the more we do the less likely we will choose to sin.

 

[fhansen]

yeah, that’s what made me think it was unbelievable that if A&E had knowledge of God, grace holiness, self mastery, why would they have even considered trying to have more?

CCC IV Man in Paradise 374-379 pretty much confirms they had it. But they also had the freedom of will to choose to reject it.

I agree we are being transformed if we continue to remain with God in all that is good, and the more we do the less likely we will choose to sin.

377 The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

This is an interesting paragraph because, while A&E were free from the “triple concupiscence”, one of which is “self-assertion”, it seems that Adam still managed to assert himself- in his disobedience.

 

[simpleas]

Disobedience is the sin that caused the separation. The continued state of that separation is the chief aspect of the state of OS which is transmitted to all of Adam’s descendants.Terms such as the “loss of sanctifying grace”, or the “loss of original holiness and justice” in the paragraphs granny quoted, as well as “death of the soul” in paragraph 403, speak to the loss of God’s life in us. This is the “lost” condition Jesus came to redeem us from, the salvation of the lost sheep by the Good Shepherd who reconciles man with God so communion may take place again, as always intended, as we partake of His divine nature. This is what it means to be “born again” or “born from above”, no longer dead but raised to newness of life.

Yeah cool, thanks for that.

Adam lost Original holiness, death of the soul, yet he was only wounded? If he was only wounded, to me he was still with God, still has a soul, but needs to turn back to God willingly.

 

[fhansen]

In Genesis 2:15-17 Adam was given a command: he knew God’s will. However, he obviously still lacked faith in, hope in, and, most importantly, love for, God. He failed to take God at His word.

I’d bet he’s repented by now, just my guess tho.

 

[fhansen]

Yeah cool, thanks for that.

Adam lost Original holiness, death of the soul, yet he was only wounded? If he was only wounded, to me he was still with God, still has a soul, but needs to turn back to God willingly.

Yes, the spark of divine life, the image of God, wasn’t totally eradicated, just obscured, overridden, denied in us. And He allowed the division that took place to result in our no longer being subjugated to Him.

 

[simpleas]

Following the logic of Adam as explained in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.* This is my reply to the posts with distortions about Adam and Original Sin.

I will not deny that Original Sin is about obedience to God as clarified in Genesis 2: 15-17. I will not deny that Adam freely chose to disobey God in Genesis 3:6. I will not deny Adam’s knowledge in Genesis 2: 15-17 I will not deny Adam’s rational spiritual soul. I will not deny that Original Sin shattered the relationship between humanity and Divinity. I will not deny the knowledge that was Adam’s which made him entirely responsible for his disobedience. I will not deny that the seriousness of Original Sin necessitated a Divine Reconciler. I will not accept the weird speculations about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which lead to the eventual denial of Original Sin and attacks on God’s love.

Plenty of grin’s on here Grannymh…

Did anyone ask you to deny any of the above? I’m not trying to be smart, but we are trying to discuss and understand Genesis 1-3 and revelation genuinely.

What weird speculations are you referring to?

 

[Aloysium]

377 The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

This is an interesting paragraph because, while A&E were free from the “triple concupiscence”, one of which is “self-assertion”, it seems that Adam still managed to assert himself- in his disobedience.

The temptations that were initially only possible through an external agency have become a part of us.
Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food (covetousness for earthly goods) and pleasing to the eye (pleasures of the senses), and also desirable for gaining wisdom (self-assertion) . . .
We said “yes” to them; “no” to God and what is truly good for us.

 

[simpleas]

377 The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

This is an interesting paragraph because, while A&E were free from the “triple concupiscence”, one of which is “self-assertion”, it seems that Adam still managed to assert himself- in his disobedience.

Yeah, I think they had all the sense’s which we have now, but because of self mastery being unimpaired, their sense’s were always turn to goodness. They however were deceived into thinking they could become God, the source of all this goodness, but as they were only human it would never have worked…as we know.

 

[grannymh]

This thread now has three axioms which will eventually lead to the logical conclusion that Adam and Eve are the two, real, sole, fully-complete human parents of all humankind.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts with humans.
3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.

Question

What would be the problems associated with axiom 3?

The first three chapters of Genesis

Since there is an ongoing discussion about Adam in the first three chapters, what points from that discussion would apply to the Catholic doctrine of monogenism, only two first parents of humankind? (CCC, 390;* CCC*, 289)

.

 

[fhansen]

The temptations that were initially only possible through an external agency have become a part of us.
Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food (covetousness for earthly goods) and pleasing to the eye (pleasures of the senses), and also desirable for gaining wisdom (self-assertion) . . .
We said “yes” to them; “no” to God and what is truly good for us.

I’m not sure. The self-assertion referred to here is what’s called the “pride of life” by St John in his second letter, verse 2:16, where he also identifies the other two of the three-fold concupiscence. Pride or self-assertion manifests itself in our world regularly to the extent that we’re arrogant, self-righteous, manipulative, controlling, self-seeking, unloving, boastful, etc, really the opposite of the qualities used to describe love in 1 Cor 13 incidentally. Anyway, the three traits of triple concupiscence are considered to be “inordinate desires” resulting in our loss of control over otherwise “ordinate” desires, a loss of control which itself resulted from disobedience of God as man rejected being subjugated to Him.

 

[davidv]

I’d submit that if Adam truly knew God then he would’ve loved Him-and never turned away from Him. As it is he lacked the spiritual maturity to truly know and value God and His love, to simply value God as he should. I’d also submit that Adam sent us all-himself included- reeling into a world which was meant by God to be much more formative in nature than punitive or even reformative.

The plan of salvation since that time has included the education of humankind, to gain the knowledge and wisdom to turn ourselves back to God, via grace, as we’re wise enough to become willing; to reverse, so to speak, Adam’s decision within us all, one at a time. The effective absence of God in this life, the lack of* communion *between man and Him that prevails here, has as its purpose our learning of our need for Him, of our lost condition without Him, especially when combined with the work of our “Finder”, the Good Shepard, who demonstrated, when the time was ripe in history-when we approached the appropriate “grade level”-the existence, trustworthiness, and love of God in no uncertain terms: who shows us the way back to Him.

I think Adam had much to learn-and that’s the biggest part of our ‘journey to perfection’.

I believe this reflects a false view of the nature of humanity. Knowledge does not make anyone immune from sin. In fact sin is the deliberate choice to to do what is known to be wrong.

God’s grace is what is needed to avoid sin. Repentance and the practice of the virtues gain us the actual graces needed, not knowledge. Knowledge may lead to better understanding, but not necessarily more holiness

 

[fhansen]

I believe this reflects a false view of the nature of humanity. Knowledge does not make anyone immune from sin. In fact sin is the deliberate choice to to do what is known to be wrong.

God’s grace is what is needed to avoid sin. Repentance and the practice of the virtues gain us the actual graces needed, not knowledge. Knowledge may lead to better understanding, but not necessarily more holiness

Knowledge can help us not to reject grace-which in Catholicism is always resistible. Thrown into a relative pigsty we have the opportunity to turn here, like Prodigals, running back to the Father where all goodness flows from. Knowledge in no way makes us immune the failure of the Law to justify us makes clear. God uses our lives, our circumstances, to draw us back to him, by grace but but not also without our consent. Adam fell, for whatever reason. We must rise, with help but without coercion.

 

[davidv]

Knowledge can help us not to reject grace-which in Catholicism is always resistible. Thrown into a relative pigsty we have the opportunity to turn here, like Prodigals, running back to the Father where all goodness flows from. Knowledge in no way makes us immune the failure of the Law to justify us makes clear. God uses our lives, our circumstances, to draw us back to him, by grace but but not also without our consent. Adam fell, for whatever reason. We must rise, with help but without coercion.

To me, it is clear in Genesis that the “whatever reason” did not include lack of knowledge. God clearly laid out what was expected and what the consequence of failure was.

 

[fhansen]

Adam knew what God expected of him. He failed to respect God’s command. Any ideas why?

 

[davidv]

Adam knew what God expected of him. He failed to respect God’s command. Any ideas why?

Genesis 3 records several reasons:

"But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die.”

“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

" the woman saw that the tree was good for food,

“and that it was a delight to the eyes,”

“and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise.”

 

[grannymh]

To me, it is clear in Genesis that the “whatever reason” did not include lack of knowledge. God clearly laid out what was expected and what the consequence of failure was.

Adam’s full knowledge and full freedom of choice are very clear in Catholic teachings. Also clear is the nature of humanity which was Adam’s nature. (CCC, 1730) The difficulty is that some, not all, teachers and preachers are finding interesting ways to excuse Adam and in the long run attack the Catholic doctrines of Original Sin and the divinity of Jesus Christ. (last sentence, CCC, 389) Because for decades, Catholic education has lacked the complete teaching of Original Sin, for a number of secular reasons, many, not all, Catholics are succumbing to the idea that Adam is a kind of symbol of some kind of truth and everyone can pick their own kind of truth.

What is sad is that some, not all, Catholics are unaware of the dangers of this or that personal interpretation of both Scripture and doctrines.

When I thought about post 782, the nasty thought which came to mind is that multiple interpretations of Adam and Original Sin would mean multiple Adams. And, yes, I have come across the idea of multiple original sins, one each to each person.
Fortunately, God created one Adam. I wonder if God did that because of the obvious necessity to have one truth about Christ. Reference is Romans 5: 12-21