Cardinal Ratzinger v. Catholic Encyclopedia: Did humanity owe a debt?

[grannymh]

Cool! A double negative! Non-disharmony means harmony!

You have that right. That is why I will I vote for non-disharmony, that is, harmony with the Catholic Church.

Please, if you have a way of harmonizing the two views, offer one.

The easiest way to harmonize two different views is to establish the common denominator. What are the things which naturally tie your two views together? What do you see in your two views that is the same? I see the first real human being in each of your two views.

If you wish to be in harmony with the Catholic Church, will you accept as true that there is one original first real fully-human person known as Adam? This requires a simple yes or no answer.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Bubba, and welcome!

I love this topic and have long struggled to understand the traditional views that are discussed here.

A few quick comments:

1. The “debt”/“payment” metaphor has always seemed problematic to me. In order to have a debt something must be borrowed or otherwise owed. If God is the creditor and man the debtor couldn’t he just forgive the debt?

Well, yes. Not only could He, but it is also His will to do so. In the debt view, God wills to forgive, but He wills that reparations are made first, that a payment be made. This reflects the action of our own conscience, right? People wrong us, and we want them to repent, to say they are sorry and make reparations.

1. There is a natural tension between the concept of God as just and God as merciful. If, for example, I harm you God might forgive me but that doesn’t undo my harm to you. Perhaps this is the “debt to justice”, a payment to each for the other’s sins.

Yes, did you see the “tension” quote from a book I cited? We strive for justice, driven by anger, but if we are angry delivering justice, it is seen as unjust, emotionally charged and irrational. As far as the “other” goes, though, I think that in both views God is in the “other”, in the person to whom we do harm. However, it is true that we sense a debt from each other, also, that needs addressing.

1. God owes us nothing and all that we have is a free gift. On the other hand, there is no debt for a gift (though in some cultures gift giving imposes a debt which requires a gift in return).

1. I’ve never heard of the idea of a debt to Satan; it’s an intriguing thought. But it too sounds like a rationalization.

In both views, God does not owe us. However, if the concept of payment is taken to its extreme, it can be extrapolated that God owes in some ways. From my reading, the debt to satan idea was common in the first few centuries, Augustine was a proponent if I remember right

Ultimately Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross calls out for some explanation. But the traditional one given is unsatisfying.

To me, it serves a purpose that Jesus suffered greatly, so that we can relate to Him when we suffer, we can find comfort in Christ sharing our own suffering. In addition, we can look upon the cross and see that when we sought justice we destroyed, we destroyed what we had automatically dehumanized, but the One dehumanized did not resent us in return, He forgave. The forgiveness was supernatural, and “for they know not what they do” is a guide for our own process of forgiving others. Mary at the foot of the cross is an image of God’s covenant. So much went on there, much to learn from whether or not there was some kind of expiation involved.

So, did Jesus need to die on a cross to pay a debt? Whether the answer is yes or no, the crucifixion was terrible, but the moment itself has value.

Did you see my “very tentative” theory, the attempt to harmonize the two views? It is that God wills that we sense a debt to Him until we have forgiven everyone, including ourselves, at the deepest level,. Once we have done so, we have learned how to love without limitation, simultaneously seeing that God loves us without limitation. The sense of debt that comes from our conscience and guides our behavior becomes obsolete, for love itself, as that which compels us to embrace and nurture all those around us, has supplanted its function.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[copernicus]

What about accepting both views to some degree? The greatest consequence of Original sin was the loss of direct communion with GOD, a direct participation in GOD’s very life of love. By freely separating himself from GOD’s love, man no longer participated directly in the life of GOD. As a fallen creature man had no moral collateral with which to restore the “ordinary” divine life of grace in his soul. In this sense, there was an infinite debt (by man’s standards) that he could not atone for-- It was GOD who created man in a state of grace, and GOD who sustained man in a state of grace, until man decided to “end” this life of grace. As work became hard, as man’s passions became unwieldy, as man’s very physical life would end in death, man understood he was separated from GOD. He recoiled from the consequences, but (some) faithfully were sorry for man’s offense to GOD. As a consequence, GOD dealt with man via an inferior covenant. He accepted man’s sorrow and atonement for sin (in a limited way), and pledged to be with him and help him, and send a Redeemer. GOD worked through this inferior covenant granting grace and power in extra-ordinary ways in anticipation of Him who was to come, until such time some divine act of love would restore man once again to that direct life of grace/life with GOD. A love that is not for oneself (GOD) alone, but for the good sake of the other (man).

The consequences of original sin or the loss of divine life in man’s soul justly required a reparation of some kind. As man was incapable of making this reparation, GOD became man to make this reparation, or using the terminology of the thread, to “pay an infinite debt” by man’s standards, that man could not pay. However, by GOD’s standard’s, I do not believe this debt or required reparation was infinite-- if it were, man would have been eternally doomed spiritually. In addition, man is a finite and contingent being. All of his acts (apart from GOD) are finite. GOD on the other hand is infinite and BEING itself, and is eternally happy in the Triune communion of love. This is where the sheer gratuitous love of the cross comes into play. GOD cannot deny Himself. He willed to share HIS life-giving love with others-- for their own good/well being-- even finite moral creatures such as ourselves. The cross of Christ is a symbol of that pure, self-less love that came down from heaven to “open” the gates of divine life to man once again via a final, perfect, grace-filling covenant. As was possible before, man is free to accept this covenant with GOD or reject it. GOD respects the free decisions of His creatures. Sinning, even venially, is a grave offense against GOD’s dignity. Yet, man’s sin is finite when compared to GOD’s infinite love. The cross was an expression of this deep love of GOD for his moral creatures–a love that is only powerless when HIS moral creatures reject it.

 

[OneSheep]

The easiest way to harmonize two different views is to establish the common denominator. What are the things which naturally tie your two views together? What do you see in your two views that is the same? I see the first real human being in each of your two views.

If you wish to be in harmony with the Catholic Church, will you accept as true that there is one original first real fully-human person known as Adam? This requires a simple yes or no answer.

Hi Granny!

I sent you a PM with my non-simple answer., my non-disharmonious answer. This thread, I repeat, is not about Adam, and I am in communion with the Catholic Church, as are all of the theologians we are talking about.

There are many, many common denominators. The focus of this thread is on the different ways that people see God in terms of “debt”, and finding a means of harmonizing the different ways.

So, please provide a new means to harmonize the views, or comment on my “very tentative” theory in terms of specifics about its plusses and minuses, or be an observer.

Peace be with you, and harmony among all.

 

[OneSheep]

What about accepting both views to some degree? The greatest consequence of Original sin was the loss of direct communion with GOD, a direct participation in GOD’s very life of love. By freely separating himself from GOD’s love, man no longer participated directly in the life of GOD. As a fallen creature man had no moral collateral with which to restore the “ordinary” divine life of grace in his soul. In this sense, there was an infinite debt (by man’s standards) that he could not atone for-- It was GOD who created man in a state of grace, and GOD who sustained man in a state of grace, until man decided to “end” this life of grace. As work became hard, as man’s passions became unwieldy, as man’s very physical life would end in death, man understood he was separated from GOD. He recoiled from the consequences, but (some) faithfully were sorry for man’s offense to GOD. As a consequence, GOD dealt with man via an inferior covenant. He accepted man’s sorrow and atonement for sin (in a limited way), and pledged to be with him and help him, and send a Redeemer. GOD worked through this inferior covenant granting grace and power in extra-ordinary ways in anticipation of Him who was to come, until such time some divine act of love would restore man once again to that direct life of grace/life with GOD. A love that is not for oneself (GOD) alone, but for the good sake of the other (man).

The consequences of original sin or the loss of divine life in man’s soul justly required a reparation of some kind. As man was incapable of making this reparation, GOD became man to make this reparation, or using the terminology of the thread, to “pay an infinite debt” by man’s standards, that man could not pay. However, by GOD’s standard’s, I do not believe this debt or required reparation was infinite-- if it were, man would have been eternally doomed spiritually. In addition, man is a finite and contingent being. All of his acts (apart from GOD) are finite. GOD on the other hand is infinite and BEING itself, and is eternally happy in the Triune communion of love. This is where the sheer gratuitous love of the cross comes into play. GOD cannot deny Himself. He willed to share HIS life-giving love with others-- for their own good/well being-- even finite moral creatures such as ourselves. The cross of Christ is a symbol of that pure, self-less love that came down from heaven to “open” the gates of divine life to man once again via a final, perfect, grace-filling covenant. As was possible before, man is free to accept this covenant with GOD or reject it. GOD respects the free decisions of His creatures. Sinning, even venially, is a grave offense against GOD’s dignity. Yet, man’s sin is finite when compared to GOD’s infinite love. The cross was an expression of this deep love of GOD for his moral creatures–a love that is only powerless when HIS moral creatures reject it.

Thank you, Copernicus, and welcome!

You and I are on the same page, for sure, about accepting both views.

Your post did not have elements of “God does not take offense”, so it does not contain in it a portrayal of the no-debt view. A few posts back I gave a quote from a no-debt view, that God forgives “before always” all of man’s trespasses. Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings also, in the link in my opening, also show in the direction of a non-debt view.

So, yes, bottom line, accepting both views! This thread is about harmonizing beliefs that God does, or does not, take offense. Does God forgive “before always”, or does He not? What is a theology that incorporates both answers?

God Bless your day, and thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[simpleas]

Hi Granny!

I sent you a PM with my non-simple answer., my non-disharmonious answer. This thread, I repeat, is not about Adam, and I am in communion with the Catholic Church, as are all of the theologians we are talking about.

There are many, many common denominators. The focus of this thread is on the different ways that people see God in terms of “debt”, and finding a means of harmonizing the different ways.

So, please provide a new means to harmonize the views, or comment on my “very tentative” theory in terms of specifics about its plusses and minuses, or be an observer.

Peace be with you, and harmony among all.

No fair, we all want to know what your non simple answer was!

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny!

I sent you a PM with my non-simple answer., my non-disharmonious answer. This thread, I repeat, is not about Adam, and I am in communion with the Catholic Church, as are all of the theologians we are talking about.

There are many, many common denominators. The focus of this thread is on the different ways that people see God in terms of “debt”, and finding a means of harmonizing the different ways.

So, please provide a new means to harmonize the views, or comment on my “very tentative” theory in terms of specifics about its plusses and minuses, or be an observer.

Peace be with you, and harmony among all.

You are correct that this thread is not about Adam. I am correct that Adam is a common denominator of the debt vs. no debt issue of this thread.
You are correct that there are many, many common denominators. I am correct in my choice of Adam.

You are correct in post 437 when you posted:
“Please, if you have a way of harmonizing the two views, offer one. Elimination, remember, is not the goal of this thread.”
I am correct in that I see the possibility of harmonizing the two views and I am correct in offering one.

What I will change, so that everyone can retain their own perceptions about Adam, is that I will drop most of the “true” part of Adam and Original Sin which is directly connected with the first human. I cannot drop all the “true” parts of Adam because human nature is often discussed in this thread especially in areas where we talk about forgiving others.

Therefore, I will attempt harmonizing the two views of debt/no debt in the way I believe it can be done.
No one has to accept my beliefs.

To begin.
The first three chapters of Genesis tell the tale of Adam’s relationship with God. Looking at this unique relationship between a human creature and his Divine Creator, we find the means of the relationship in Genesis 1: 26-27.
Post 441 explains
“The focus of this thread is on the different ways that people see God in terms of “debt”, and finding a means of harmonizing the different ways”
Apparently, two of the ways are 1. God demanding payment of a debt. 2. God forgiving the debt.

OneSheep – if there are errors in the way I state things, please give me your suggestions for better words. Thank you.

In both ways, debt/no debt, either Adam has to atone for his debt so God can forgive him. Or Adam does not have to atone because God automatically forgave him in love.
No one else is named. Therefore, Adam connects the two views.

Regarding the debt. The debt has to relate to some kind of thing that is so precious that it could cause God to ask for payment or cause God’s love to override payment.
Genesis 3: 11 indicates that obedience is that precious. The explanation of precious obedience is Genesis 2: 15-17. Disobedience is what will have God asking for reconciliation or God violating Adam’s free will out of love. The proper name for disobedience is Original Sin. Therefore, Original Sin connects the two views.

Is the above somewhat understandable so far?

 

[CrossofChrist]

I’m slowly working my way off CAF (too time consuming when there are blogs to write! ), but here I am again…

I have trouble understanding the language “debt of justice” or “debt to justice”. When there is a debt, there is a creditor. Our own consciences are the primary “creditors” we encounter, right? We can feel we “owe” others for a great many things, and sense a debt to a great many people, and feel very guilty for not returning favors, treating people better, not doing more than we could to help at work, etc. So, is a debt to justice a “debt” to our own conscience? If so, let’s tell it like it is, a debt to ourselves. If it is not a debt to ourselves, is it a debt at all? Perhaps the words “compassion”, “empathetic response” or “acts of love” would be more accurate than use of the word “debt”?

Catechism (emphasis mine):

CCC 2093: Faith in God’s love encompasses the call and the obligation to respond with sincere love to divine charity. The first commandment enjoins us to love God above everything and all creatures for him and because of him.

CCC 2095: The theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity inform and give life to the moral virtues. Thus charity leads us to render to God what we as creatures owe him in all justice. The virtue of religion disposes us to have this attitude.

God’s call to the divine life isn’t a gift that can be discarded without gravely injuring ourselves and gravely offending God. Perhaps the best images we can come up with for how God feels about sin are Jesus weeping (we see this when Lazarus dies because of the effects of sin) and Jesus’ cries of frustration and agony both in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross. He “thirsts”.

So we really do have a debt to justice (insert love in place of justice if you wish, for they are interchangeable with God) to love God, for how does one not have an obligation to love Jesus?

The word “freely” there can be tricky. If God Himself is Love and moved by love, then we can say that God Himself had a “debt of love” to pay to man.

But God loved us before we loved him. God comes first. And his offer of love is also his solution.

We get to the point, again, “what is the nature of that debt?” “How does God feel before this debt of love is paid?” “Does God disfavor Himself if He does not incarnate?”. If such self-disfavor occurs, then this compromises the word “freely”.

God is pure Freedom, and as such he does not depend on or rely upon the world to determine who he is. If God is truly infinite like we say he is, our conceptions of who he is and how he acts will always fall short. At best we can say that he is (fill in the blank), but precisely what he is will always evade us and be too much for us to comprehend. (What I mean to say can be illustrated by referring to the Trinity: God is one God in three Persons–the Holy Trinity. But there is no chance we will ever understand that great Mystery.)

And because of this, it isn’t possible for us to “square the circle”, or to find a way to fully reconcile all these things. Only God can do that.

 

[simpleas]

You are correct that this thread is not about Adam. I am correct that Adam is a common denominator of the debt vs. no debt issue of this thread.
You are correct that there are many, many common denominators. I am correct in my choice of Adam.

You are correct in post 437 when you posted:
“Please, if you have a way of harmonizing the two views, offer one. Elimination, remember, is not the goal of this thread.”
I am correct in that I see the possibility of harmonizing the two views and I am correct in offering one.

What I will change, so that everyone can retain their own perceptions about Adam, is that I will drop most of the “true” part of Adam and Original Sin which is directly connected with the first human. I cannot drop all the “true” parts of Adam because human nature is often discussed in this thread especially in areas where we talk about forgiving others.

Therefore, I will attempt harmonizing the two views of debt/no debt in the way I believe it can be done.
No one has to accept my beliefs.

To begin.
The first three chapters of Genesis tell the tale of Adam’s relationship with God. Looking at this unique relationship between a human creature and his Divine Creator, we find the means of the relationship in Genesis 1: 26-27.
Post 441 explains
“The focus of this thread is on the different ways that people see God in terms of “debt”, and finding a means of harmonizing the different ways”
Apparently, two of the ways are 1. God demanding payment of a debt. 2. God forgiving the debt.

OneSheep – if there are errors in the way I state things, please give me your suggestions for better words. Thank you.

In both ways, debt/no debt, either Adam has to atone for his debt so God can forgive him. Or Adam does not have to atone because God automatically forgave him in love.
No one else is named. Therefore, Adam connects the two views.

Regarding the debt. The debt has to relate to some kind of thing that is so precious that it could cause God to ask for payment or cause God’s love to override payment.
Genesis 3: 11 indicates that obedience is that precious. The explanation of precious obedience is Genesis 2: 15-17. Disobedience is what will have God asking for reconciliation or God violating Adam’s free will out of love. The proper name for disobedience is Original Sin. Therefore, Original Sin connects the two views.

Is the above somewhat understandable so far?

Yes, just this bit…

No one else is named… What about Eve? Also the snake is a big part of the creation story, but I think as a fallen angel there is no atonement to be made.

Thanks.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Yes, just this bit…

No one else is named… What about Eve? Also the snake is a big part of the creation story, but I think as a fallen angel there is no atonement to be made.

Thanks.

Yes, why is it always Adam mentioned when Eve was the* original* sinner?

 

[grannymh]

Yes, just this bit…

No one else is named… What about Eve? Also the snake is a big part of the creation story, but I think as a fallen angel there is no atonement to be made.

Thanks.

Yes, why is it always Adam mentioned when Eve was the* original* sinner?

Good question about Adam.

“By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.”
(Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512; CCC 404)

“Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.”
(Romans 3: 23;* CCC* 399)

The first disobedience refers to the first human person, Adam. Eve is the second human person. It is the original human being Adam who committed the Original Sin.

"The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.”
(Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4.1; CCC 404)

The “debt” refers to Original Sin according to Catholicism. Adam is the only original person. It does not matter who first disobeyed God’s command.

The order of sinners does not changae the responsibility of the original first human.

Therefore, it is appropriate to say that no one else is named in connection with the Original Sin.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you Simpleas and Michael Mayo for your good question about Adam. It finally made me realize a factor in harmonizing that I had totally missed.

Adam can be the common denominator as long as he is the first responsible human being. Being the first is totally unique because others can never be first. Second, but never the first human being.

As I see it now, in order to harmonize debt/no debt, it is going to be difficult to use knowledge about additional humans, that is, current descendants of Adam. Nonetheless, I can imagine that some valuable knowledge about current humans will work as long as we keep in mind that original Adam is responsible for either the debt or no debt.

 

[ynotzap]

Yes, why is it always Adam mentioned when Eve was the* original* sinner?

He should have known better? Adam complained to God about being lonely and God said" I can remedy that but it will cost you an arm and a leg. Adam said “What do I get for a couple of ribs?”

 

[simpleas]

Thank you Simpleas and Michael Mayo for your good question about Adam. It finally made me realize a factor in harmonizing that I had totally missed.

Adam can be the common denominator as long as he is the first responsible human being. Being the first is totally unique because others can never be first. Second, but never the first human being.

As I see it now, in order to harmonize debt/no debt, it is going to be difficult to use knowledge about additional humans, that is, current descendants of Adam. Nonetheless, I can imagine that some valuable knowledge about current humans will work as long as we keep in mind that original Adam is responsible for either the debt or no debt.

Thanks, when you said no one else was named, I was referring to the account in Genesis.

Eve was not a descendant of Adam though, she was made along side him. Adam did not give life to Eve,although I think some believe that he did… both, in my view, are equally responsible for the fall of humankind, in the Genesis account.

Sometimes I think how can we ever know who was made first, male or female, I don’t think it matters, because I tend to think both were created as “one”. Where it falls down is trying to relate to Adam being the more important one who sinned against God, therefore it had to be a male who would be the sacrifice to repair the damage that was done.
Jesus never said anything about Adam being the one who sinned and that is why he came, he talked about God making them in the beginning, and then the lier (satan).
It was evident by then that we were sinners, but we have to have only one as the first human, the first sinner…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’d like to go back to the beginning. Let’s start with the simplest fact: Jesus was crucified and then rose from the dead.

I could be mistaken but I don’t think there as any notion of a debt to be repaid prior to that. What you had was the OT covenant, which was repeatedly broken by the Hebrews. The OT covenant entailed rules and some facility for righting the relationship when the rules were broken (e.g. the temple sacrifices but also, later, repentence). This was atonement.

The Christian Jews struggled to make sense of the crucifixion, it was not what they expected of their Messiah. Nor the Resurrection.

Someone (Paul?) introduced the idea of Jesus crucifixion as a grand atonement for mankind. (Opening the gates of heaven, etc.) All the talk about debt is derived from this, I suspect. I’m not convinced that it is a useful pursuit.

newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

 

[grannymh]

When harmonizing the debt/no debt views, it is essential to go back to the
beginning which is Genesis 1: 26-28.

Since I have already named Adam or the first original fully-complete human person as one of the common denominators for both views, going back to the beginning would include, among many things, the first true man’s nature which would enable him to reach the goal of human life on planet earth.

The human person, being in the image of God his Creator, is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession along with being capable of entering into communion with other persons. The first person whom Adam knew was God Himself. Genesis 2: 15-17. Looking at the positive message of Genesis 2:15-17, we find that the goal of Adam is to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life which is the State of Sanctifying Grace on earth and the Beatific Vision in heaven.

Interestingly, God invites all humankind, but each individual has to respond with faith and love. Information source. Genesis 3: 9-11;* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 355-357; and CCC paragraphs 1730-1732

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

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[cfauster]

Humanity owing a debt is one useful analogy for understanding why we need salvation in Christ, and how Christ’s life, death, and resurrection saves us. But, I think all analogies are imperfect, including the various analogies used in our attempts to understand sin and salvation.

Exactly what was the debt - what was owed? How was the debt incurred, and by whom? Exactly how did Christ satisfy the debt? To whom was the payment owed (by us) and paid (by Christ)?

No doubt some insights can come from trying to answer such questions, but I just don’t want to get caught up trying to square a circle, so to speak, if some of the questions arise simply from the imperfection of the analogy of debt.

From catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=505 comes:
St. Paul wrote the textbook on salvation, but one must be careful of two things. The first is context. In some passages, Paul is clearly talking about membership in the Church; in others, he is referring to eternal life; yet he uses the same root term, which we translate by salvation, save or saved. The second is that Paul frequently shifts between what we may call a “focused” and a “factual” view (here I am following the terminology of an outstanding Scripture scholar, the late Fr. William G. Most).

For example, in the focused view he might talk about the impossibility of being saved under the Law, because the Law qua law has no saving power and does not lead to life. In this focused view, considering the Law as a system, it cannot offer salvation. But in another passage, emphasizing a broader actual, or factual, view of how grace works among men in all ages, St. Paul will teach that many Jews who do not know Christ do in fact attain heaven, and Gentiles also, because regardless of the specific system one finds oneself in, the Holy Spirit is at work, and some form of salvific grace—all of which is available by virtue of Christ—is given. It just doesn’t come through the Law (or, for gentiles) through any particular human belief or practice.

I think Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection save me because Christ offers the only hope for me to return to God. Otherwise, I don’t see how I would have (saving) faith; faith can emerge only, I think, if one knows that God loves.

How did I get so far from God? Here’s something that I think helps me understand why, without Christ, I find myself so “lost in the woods” far from God:
Paul presupposes that Adam is responsible for the entrance of sin into the world; it is the continuing sin of the human race, however, that brings death: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). As for the condemnation of all people resulting from Adam’s sin (verse 18), this could have simply resulted from everyone becoming sinners, and as a result being under condemnation, in the same way that (spiritual) death “has spread to all because all have sinned” (verse 12).
This comes from biologos.org/blog/paul-and-the-fall-whats-it-really-about
And - to respond to recent posts in this thread - “Adam” in the above paragraph could just as accurately have been “Adam and Eve,” I think.

 

[simpleas]

When harmonizing the debt/no debt views, it is essential to go back to the
beginning which is Genesis 1: 26-28.

Since I have already named Adam or the first original fully-complete human person as one of the common denominators for both views, going back to the beginning would include, among many things, the first true man’s nature which would enable him to reach the goal of human life on planet earth.

The human person, being in the image of God his Creator, is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession along with being capable of entering into communion with other persons. The first person whom Adam knew was God Himself. Genesis 2: 15-17. Looking at the positive message of Genesis 2:15-17, we find that the goal of Adam is to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life which is the State of Sanctifying Grace on earth and the Beatific Vision in heaven.

Interestingly, God invites all humankind, but each individual has to respond with faith and love. Information source. Genesis 3: 9-11;* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 355-357; and CCC paragraphs 1730-1732

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

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

You mean spirit? Did Adam “see” God? It makes me think about the O.T and when God came in a vision to the prophets, they most likely saw a being of some kind. But Adam did not see a person, because he and Eve were the only persons.

 

[grannymh]

Humanity owing a debt is one useful analogy for understanding why we need salvation in Christ, and how Christ’s life, death, and resurrection saves us. But, I think all analogies are imperfect, including the various analogies used in our attempts to understand sin and salvation.

I have been posting toward the goal of harmonizing the debt/no debt issue in this thread. Eventually, I will get to debt without using analogy. The debt in the language of Divine Revelation is the result of Adam’s Original Sin. Humanity, that is, the descendants of Adam do not have the personal fault for Original Sin. CCC 404-405 explains this far better than I can.

Exactly what was the debt - what was owed? How was the debt incurred, and by whom? Exactly how did Christ satisfy the debt? To whom was the payment owed (by us) and paid (by Christ)?

The debt or what is owed is simply the restoration of the friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity. Humanity is here involved not as committing Original Sin, but rather receiving the contracted (via human propagation) state of deprivation of Adam and Eve’s Original Holiness. Adam, not us, committed the real Original Sin. However, the natural consequences for human nature persist and summon all of us to spiritual battle. (CCC 405)

The Original Sin debt was incurred when Adam freely scorned his Creator. Adam “chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good.” (CCC 398) The debt of Original Sin was owed by Adam.

We must have been brilliant students in grade school, because it was easy to understand that there is a whale of a difference between Adam and God, between the creature and his Creator. It was obvious that human Adam could not repair the divine relationship which had been shattered by his disobedience. The rest is history.

 

[grannymh]

You mean spirit? Did Adam “see” God? It makes me think about the O.T and when God came in a vision to the prophets, they most likely saw a being of some kind. But Adam did not see a person, because he and Eve were the only persons.

The Blessed Trinity is three persons in one nature–Father, Son, Holy Spirit. (Information source. *CCC *Glossary, Trinity, page 902; *CCC *253 and following)