Children before the Fall?

[tafan]

Sure.

If Eve only had sinned, Adam would not have been punished, nor their kids. M

I’m not sure why you think they should be??

The punishment for original sin was not to take anything away from man due to his nature. It was a removal of the special gifts God had bestowed on man at the first creation.

A very good analogy for original sin is as follows:

There was a wealthy vineyard owner who grew the most prized grapes in the country. He sold his uncultivated land to a family. Then, he agreed to give them cuttings from his vineyard, so that they could prosper by growing the same prized grapes. But this gift did not come without strings, because the prosperity of the vineyards depended on the quality if the grapes, the family was required to properly cultivate and care for their vines and sell only the best grapes. The family did so and prospered. But after a few years, they grew lazy and started ignoring their responsibilities. Soon, the quality of grapes lapsed, threatening the reputation of all grapes of that type. As agreed, the original vineyard owner withdrew the gift and destroyed the family’s vines. They and their descendants lost their livelihood.
The vineyard owner took nothing away from the family that was their right (ie the land, they purchased), he only took back the extraordinary gift of the right to grow his brand of grapes. In doing so, he “punished” the family’s descendants.

Likewise, God did not take away from man anything due to man based on his created nature. God punished man by taking away the special, supernatural gifts He had given to mankind at creation.

So the transmission of original sin is not directly biological. But it does affect all mankind due to their origin (ie being the descendants of Adam).

I see no reason why the timing of the births of Adam’s children would have any bearing on any of this. If you think God would not have been justified in removing those supernatural gifts from children born prior to the fall (assuming they existed, which I strongly doubt), why would He be justified in removing those gifts to children born after the fall? What is the difference? You have yet to answer this question.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The punishment for original sin was not to take anything away from man due to his nature. It was a removal of the special gifts God had bestowed on man at the first creation.

A very good analogy for original sin is as follows:

There was a wealthy vineyard owner who grew the most prized grapes in the country. He sold his uncultivated land to a family. Then, he agreed to give them cuttings from his vineyard, so that they could prosper by growing the same prized grapes. But this gift did not come without strings, because the prosperity of the vineyards depended on the quality if the grapes, the family was required to properly cultivate and care for their vines and sell only the best grapes. The family did so and prospered. But after a few years, they grew lazy and started ignoring their responsibilities. Soon, the quality of grapes lapsed, threatening the reputation of all grapes of that type. As agreed, the original vineyard owner withdrew the gift and destroyed the family’s vines. They and their descendants lost their livelihood.
The vineyard owner took nothing away from the family that was their right (ie the land, they purchased), he only took back the extraordinary gift of the right to grow his brand of grapes. In doing so, he “punished” the family’s descendants.

Likewise, God did not take away from man anything due to man based on his created nature. God punished man by taking away the special, supernatural gifts He had given to mankind at creation.

So the transmission of original sin is not directly biological. But it does affect all mankind due to their origin (ie being the descendants of Adam).

I see no reason why the timing of the births of Adam’s children would have any bearing on any of this. If you think God would not have been justified in removing those supernatural gifts from children born prior to the fall (assuming they existed, which I strongly doubt), why would He be justified in removing those gifts to children born after the fall? What is the difference? You have yet to answer this question.

Thanks for the explanation I better understand your point now. That makes sense with your view of original sin.

The problem I see though is that it removes the free will of man. It makes it all on God and his imputation of punishment on men who were most likely following his commands.

Similarly, with your theory, would not the entire host of angels fallen when Satan rebelled.

Instead only those who chose themselves over God fell from grace.

@Blue Horizon

I completely reject some idea that Eden is not on earth.

God created the earth as a home for man. The church had taught unequivocally that we were not existent before our physical conception on earth.

Also, the Bible even tells us where on earth Eden is. If it wasn’t in earth they would say so. Instead they told us where it is.

Which by the way is most likely underwater now .

 

[fred_conty]

“I see no reason why the timing of the births of Adam’s children would have any bearing on any of this. If you think God would not have been justified in removing those supernatural gifts from children born prior to the fall (assuming they existed, which I strongly doubt), why would He be justified in removing those gifts to children born after the fall? What is the difference? You have yet to answer this question.”​

My answer to that would be that parents cannot give to their children what they don’t have.
So if the DNA is good, the children will have good DNA, but if bad DNA, then the children will inherit that. The same for wealth. The children participate in wealth while the parents live, and inherit the wealth when they die.

Now in the case of Adam’s children, the blessings inherited by their children would have been those which Adam had. But since Adam lost those blessings, then the children do not have them since this is a generational thing tho not physical.

So in the case of children being born to Adam before his fall, they would have had those blessings already since they are generational. And after the fall, there is no reason to believe that they would have been deprived of them since they did nothing to loose them.

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

 

[tafan]

Thanks for the explanation I better understand your point now. That makes sense with your view of original sin.

The problem I see though is that it removes the free will of man. It makes it all on God and his imputation of punishment on men who were most likely following his commands.

Similarly, with your theory, would not the entire host of angels fallen when Satan rebelled.

Instead only those who chose themselves over God fell from grace.

.

My view of original sin, that the punishment was the privation of the supernatural gifts bestowed on man before the fall, but not removal of anything man had by the right of his created nature, is the ver consistent with the Church’s teaching.

I do not see how free will comes into play. Those hypothetical children born before the fall and those born after the fall would have the same free will. Again, I ask, unless one holds that original sin is passed biologically from man to his descendants, for instance via DNA, why does the timing of the births matter?

 

[Jon_S_1]

My view of original sin, that the punishment was the privation of the supernatural gifts bestowed on man before the fall, but not removal of anything man had by the right of his created nature, is the ver consistent with the Church’s teaching.

I do not see how free will comes into play. Those hypothetical children born before the fall and those born after the fall would have the same free will. Again, I ask, unless one holds that original sin is passed biologically from man to his descendants, for instance via DNA, why does the timing of the births matter?

Can you answer why the angels were treated differently?

 

[tafan]

“I see no reason why the timing of the births of Adam’s children would have any bearing on any of this. If you think God would not have been justified in removing those supernatural gifts from children born prior to the fall (assuming they existed, which I strongly doubt), why would He be justified in removing those gifts to children born after the fall? What is the difference? You have yet to answer this question.”​

My answer to that would be that parents cannot give to their children what they don’t have.
So if the DNA is good, the children will have good DNA, but if bad DNA, then the children will inherit that. The same for wealth. The children participate in wealth while the parents live, and inherit the wealth when they die.

Now in the case of Adam’s children, the blessings inherited by their children would have been those which Adam had. But since Adam lost those blessings, then the children do not have them since this is a generational thing tho not physical.

So in the case of children being born to Adam before his fall, they would have had those blessings already since they are generational. And after the fall, there is no reason to believe that they would have been deprived of them since they did nothing to loose them.

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

Up until the last paragraph, you seem to be saying the same thing as I have been saying, and then you seem to reverse your position. Please clarify.

 

[tafan]

Can you answer why the angels were treated differently?

I fail to see why angels are relevant to this conversation. They do not procreate, they are all created by God. So there are no angels born of other angels. Satan was not the first angel through which all other angels descended. But as with man, God did not punish the angels by taking away anything due them based on their created nature. But the punishment of angels was certainly individual.

Angels also have a fixed will, they made the choice between good and evil once and for all.
Angels are treated differently than men in a myriad of ways, all proper do their very different nature.

I will reword my question that you seem to be avoiding. If all mankind descended from Adam, and if God revoked the supernatural gifts he gave to the mankind through Adam, why does it matter if the children were born before the fall or after the fall unless one holds that the transmission of original sin is purely biological in the identical way that genes are transmitted?
Again, I will say that my analogy of the vineyard owner and the family who bought his land is very accurate. It is our inheritance of those gifts that we lost, that is why we are fallen, and that is why it would have affected all children of Adam.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I fail to see why angels are relevant to this conversation. They do not procreate, they are all created by God. So there are no angels born of other angels. Satan was not the first angel through which all other angels descended. But as with man, God did not punish the angels by taking away anything due them based on their created nature. But the punishment of angels was certainly individual.

Angels also have a fixed will, they made the choice between good and evil once and for all.
Angels are treated differently than men in a myriad of ways, all proper do their very different nature.

I will reword my question that you seem to be avoiding. If all mankind descended from Adam, and if God revoked the supernatural gifts he gave to the mankind through Adam, why does it matter if the children were born before the fall or after the fall unless one holds that the transmission of original sin is purely biological in the identical way that genes are transmitted?
Again, I will say that my analogy of the vineyard owner and the family who bought his land is very accurate. It is our inheritance of those gifts that we lost, that is why we are fallen, and that is why it would have affected all children of Adam.

No I am not avoiding.

You say God deals with angels individually, humans individually at judgement, but before the fall he judged humans collectively.

That is inconsistent and I see no support for such a position.

As to your question of passing of sin. I must side on the side that it is somehow linked to our physicality as much as our spirituality. We are physical creatures. We are not pure spirit. Our bodies are part of us. They are so essential to is that we believe they will be raised up and glorified. So yes, original sin is as much linked to our biology as our spirituality. This seems to be supported in scripture by the curse put on Adam and Eve that life would be hard in their bodies, and that their bodies, would die.

I wonder if you are holding this position because you believe humans evolved over time and so there were many humans with Adam and Eve.

I too believe that, but I believe God breathed into only Adam and Eve making them truly human as we know it and like God instead of animals.

So I don’t think you need to hold your position to be a theistic evolutionist if that’s where your at.

 

[tafan]

No I am not avoiding.

You say God deals with angels individually, humans individually at judgement, but before the fall he judged humans collectively.

That is inconsistent and I see no support for such a position.

As to your question of passing of sin. I must side on the side that it is somehow linked to our physicality as much as our spirituality. We are physical creatures. We are not pure spirit. Our bodies are part of us. They are so essential to is that we believe they will be raised up and glorified. So yes, original sin is as much linked to our biology as our spirituality. This seems to be supported in scripture by the curse put on Adam and Eve that life would be hard in their bodies, and that their bodies, would die.

I wonder if you are holding this position because you believe humans evolved over time and so there were many humans with Adam and Eve.
…
.

To answer why I hold to this view, it is because it is the way I was taught, by very good Catholic teachers. Original sin is a state, which is inherited.

My believes have nothing to do with evolution. Although I will admit my analogy came from an article about original sin and evolution I have recently read. As to evolution, call me a skeptic. And I cannot accept evolution as the answer to the origin of all things as the materialists hold. At the same time, I am certainly no type of “young-earth” or fundamentalist creationist so prominent in protestant circles around here. All that is a side issue, as are angels.

Back to angels, there is absolutely no reason that angels and humans should be treated equally by God, we know for a fact they are not. Completely different natures. Angels exists as spirits only, outside of time and the universe, they do not learn, their intellect and will is fixed. Their “test” was different. Their means of deciding good and evil was different. All due to their nature. The response to their decision, by God, had to also be different.

God did not judge humans collectively with respect to original sin. That is completely wrong. Original sin is the state we find ourselves in (prior to Baptism of course) due to our loss of inheritance of the supernatural gifts bestowed on Adam and Eve by God.

You should do some research on original sin, IMO. Have an open mind.

First of all, I would refer you to the blog I mentioned earlier. In particular read the last two sections “The Fall of Man” and the “Hereditary Stain”.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

A couple of quotes:

In short, the penalty of original sin was a privation, not a positive harm inflicted on human beings but rather the absence of a benefit they never had a right to or strict need for in the first place but would have received anyway had they not disobeyed. And it wasn’t the prospect of pitchforks and hellfire that Adam’s descendents had to look forward to because of what Adam did, but rather the privation of this supernatural gift.

Similarly, we inherit the penalty of original sin, not in the sense that we’ve got some “original sin gene” alongside genes for eye color and tooth enamel, but rather in the sense that the offer of the supernatural gifts was made to the human race as a whole through their first parent acting as their representative. Inheriting this penalty from Adam is more like inheriting your father’s name or bank account than it is like inheriting his looks or his temperament.

Other pertinent information:

From the Catechism

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. 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.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin **does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s **descendants. **It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, **but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Boldness added by me

From the Summa (note the explanations which are insufficient have to do with the physical transmission).

But all these explanations are insufficient.
…
Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first parents; even as in civil matters, all who are members of one community are reputed as one body, and the whole community as one man.

 

[fred_conty]

tafan,in regards to:

“… after the fall, there is no reason to believe that they would have been deprived of them since they did nothing to loose them.”

“of them” refers to the supernatural and preternatural gifts.
Supernatural gifts would include faith, hope, charity, sanctifying grace, and the moral virtues.
Preternatural gifts would have been excellence in intellect and body, infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality.

May our Father bless and keep you.

 

[Jon_S_1]

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. 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.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is a misrepresentation of what Aquinas said.

(Boldness added)

OK…can you advise exactly what statement of mine you mean by 'this" and a clear paraphrase of what you believe Aquinas actually meant in this regard?

It would be helpful if you could source your Aquinas extract.
Thanks.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Again, I ask, unless one holds that original sin is passed biologically from man to his descendants, for instance via DNA, why does the timing of the births matter?

Tafan that is exactly my point.

The Church teaches that Original sin is passed down from one human to another via the biological mechanism of the propogation of the species (ie by normal reproduction).

However the Church teaches that original sin is really about the loss a gift superadded to human nature and not really a damaging of basic human nature itself. That seems to rule out a DNA approach.
And even though this gift is not intrinsic to human nature, its loss is propogated as if it were part of biological human nature and therefore communicated to progeny in exactly the same way - via reproduction.

Therefore it would seem that progeny conceived and born before the Fall, at least according to this Church teaching, would not have this gift retro-actively taken away at a later time.

Your model is a retributive justice Kingly explanation.
I am not saying it is not possible - its just that the Church has not formally adopted this explanation wrt the transmission of Original sin to all men outside of Eden as far as I know.