Did Adam and Eve have complete dominion of reason over appetite?

[simpleas]

She eats an apple that is good to eat and pleasing to the eye, I’d say that was appetite, it is also good for gaining knowledge of good and evil. It’s all three descriptions that was the temptation, body and soul.

But yeah, she was tempted and went with it, she must have just forgot to use her preternatural gift in her excitement to gain knowledge.

 

[OneSheep]

there are other ways to sin

There are other means by which a human chooses to sin?

And, desiring wisdom…

Yes, and as with all innate desires, desire for wisdom effects reason. Have you ever had your own reason effected by desire for autonomy? for power?

She can’t see, or smell, or taste or touch ‘wisdom’ in the tree!

Except that she knew that the fruit provided “knowledge”, and like the desires for food, etc, the desire comes from within, not without. Desire for knowledge (what it brings) and food (what it brings) are both innate.

That is, the fact that concupiscence did not exist for Adam and Eve until they sinned

That statement is in keeping with the story, but with the exception that the desire for i.e. knowledge, power, and autonomy obviously effected their ability to reason.

Parents give and take; it’s part of responsible parenting.

Perhaps, but parents don’t harm the lives of their children’s children.

We are still up against the theological problem, Gorgias. "Why did God not give Adam and Eve all of the knowledge and wisdom necessary to make the wisest choice? If He, had, the story would have had a much different ending.

Does the notion that there was no “fall” threaten your faith? Did the incarnation depend on man doing something that set up a debt, diminishing our worth in some way? The latter question was addressed by John duns Scotus.

 

[OneSheep]

But yeah, she was tempted and went with it, she must have just forgot to use her preternatural gift in her excitement to gain knowledge.

I love your creativity! You have finally solved the puzzle for all of us.

 

[hergratefulchild]

Does the notion that there was no “fall” threaten your faith?

No, The Devil was a fallen angel who wanted the place of God, he is the father of lies and the great deceiver. Even Eve in her state of grace by being only human could not contend with his mastery of deception. Satan brought about the fall. He received the final and worse punishment, one that would not end in the risen Son.

 

[hergratefulchild]

Yes, and as with all innate desires, desire for wisdom effects reason. Have you ever had your own reason effected by desire for autonomy? for power?

As a disciple of Jesus, desires that are not from God are from the evil one and a temptation to sin.

 

[Gorgias]

She eats an apple that is good to eat and pleasing to the eye, I’d say that was appetite

Right. In other words, her appetite and reason were firing on all pistons. No disorder there.

it is also good for gaining knowledge of good and evil.

Ahh, but that’s not a determination based on sense perception! And therefore, it is not part of the discussion of ‘appetite’!

It’s all three descriptions that was the temptation, body and soul.

I would argue that it was the third – that is, the working of her intellect, that was the deciding factor. After all, if it were the ‘appetite’, then the narrative would have stopped with “good to eat and pleasing to the eye”, right?

There are other means by which a human chooses to sin?

Yes. Precisely. Not from the sensitive appetite, as I’ve been pointing out.

she must have just forgot to use her preternatural gift in her excitement to gain knowledge.

No. Her preternatural gifts allowed her to know that it was pleasing to the eye and good as food. That didn’t fail her. What failed her was her intellect.

I mean, I get it… you’re being snarky here (har dee har har ). But, logically speaking, there’s not a preternatural gift that failed in this context.

desire for wisdom effects reason.

Certainly. “Desire for wisdom” doesn’t proceed from the sensitive appetite, however. And, if you recall, that’s what we’re talking about here.

Except that she knew that the fruit provided “knowledge”

No… she was told – by the serpent who represents the devil in this narrative – that it provides knowledge! Crucial difference!!!

That statement is in keeping with the story, but with the exception that the desire for i.e. knowledge, power, and autonomy obviously effected their ability to reason.

No one is claiming that they didn’t make a mistake. We’re just pointing out that your contention about appetite (that is, sensitive appetite) vis-a-vis reason isn’t well founded.

Perhaps, but parents don’t harm the lives of their children’s children.

The actions of adults have consequences down the line – they affect their children and grandchildren and beyond. That’s neither unjust nor an indication that God is unfair.

Why did God not give Adam and Eve all of the knowledge and wisdom necessary to make the wisest choice? If He, had, the story would have had a much different ending.

Two thoughts:

• They had sufficient knowledge. They just chose to ignore it.
• We don’t know that “the story would have had a much different ending.”

 

[Gorgias]

Does the notion that there was no “fall” threaten your faith?

No.

Did the incarnation depend on man doing something that set up a debt, diminishing our worth in some way?

The debt of sin did not “diminish humanity’s worth.” In fact, the Incarnation is proof that the value of human souls remained dear!

The latter question was addressed by John duns Scotus.

There is a recent thread discussing Scotus’ musings vis-a-vis the relationship of the Fall of Adam and the Incarnation. Scotus suggested that the Incarnation doesn’t ‘depend’ on the Fall, but rather, that it would have happened anyway, in order to bring Man’s relationship with God to its apex.

 

[hergratefulchild]

but rather, that it would have happened anyway, in order to bring Man’s relationship with God to its apex

The Devil brought about the Fall, if not for him it would not of happened

 

[Gorgias]

The Devil brought about the Fall, if not for him it would not of happened

We don’t know that, do we? Something else could have happened, in which they might have chosen sin, right? I mean… it’s possible! So, we can’t say that the devil is the cause of sin – just that he instigated it.

 

[hergratefulchild]

We don’t know that, do we? Something else could have happened, in which they might have chosen sin, right?

Something else? Not in the book?

 

[OneSheep]

I answered this before…

None of this answers the question I proposed, but let me rephrase the question so that you might be able to come up with an answer that addresses it.

Given that God is infinitely beneficent and merciful, for what reason would He give Adam and Eve a “preternatural” state, but in doing so did not give them the information needed to make the wisest choice?" Why would a Father who wants the best for His children do this, especially when the decision was going to lead to harm to all mankind? He could have very well done so, and the results would have been different.

I am not negating faith, Vico. I am challenging premises that lead people to conclude that there is something bad about people or something unmerciful about God. Please remember that I truly believe that the story and its interpretation have its place, but a mature spirituality involves moving past the negativity.

The Gospel is Good News, Vico. The image of God we can see through Christ is redeeming. The image of an unforgiving God is against the theme.

392 393

Do not address the passage I quoted.

Despair (Catechism 1817)

Doesn’t say anything about what is “unforgiveable”

The unforgivable sin is the deliberate refusal to accept God’s mercy and forgiveness (Catechism 1864). Species of it are

• Despair (Catechism 1817),
• Presumption (Catechism 2092),
• Impenitence or a firm determination not to repent (Catechism 1430-33),
• Obstinacy (Catechism 1430-33),
• Resisting divine truth known to be such (Catechism 2089), and
• Envy of another’s spiritual welfare (Catechism 2538, Wisdom 2:24).

Vico, I am quite surprised at you on this. I have never known you to actually misrepresent the CCC, but you have done so glaringly. None of those “Species” represent anything unforgiveable. In fact, CCC 1864 does address unforgiveable sin, but what is really communicated is not that God does not forgive, but that the individual refuses God’s forgiveness. It is an absence of reconciliation.

I don’t know from where you are getting this “Species” comment, but it’s not anything I have seen from the Catholic Church.

 

[OneSheep]

You wrote: “we are absolutely always to give people the benefit of the doubt in whatever they say or do. This is a very good practice, agreed?”
A. No, the Church says that we cannot know with certainty the state of salvation of a soul unless it is divinely revealed. When material sin states occur, it is sometimes necessary to make a determination to avoid giving scandal.

Actually what does give scandal is to say that something that comes from God comes from satan, which is a very unwise perception, born of lack of understanding. You might consider asking a priest about giving people the benefit of the doubt, Vico. It is a matter of charity.

You might want to check this thread, also:Benefit of the doubt and the Catechism?

As well as CCC 2477 and 2478

No, what I posted is also active. God gives actual graces for conversion – this is reinforcement to do what is right coincident with the will of the person.

But did you imply that Pope Francis did not mean it when he said that God always forgives us?

 

[hergratefulchild]

God did not create Adam an Eve with reason… It was not required in Eden. Appetite needed no dominion other than to do as God had asked. The Devil by his crafty deception and lies caused Eve to believe she would be giving a greater gift to Adam than obedience to the word of God. After eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they gained reason and lost communion.

 

[simpleas]

I mean, I get it… you’re being snarky here (har dee har har ). But, logically speaking, there’s not a preternatural gift that failed in this context.

Not snarky, it was an exhausted statement from me.

 

[Gorgias]

Something else? Not in the book?

Well, it’s a moot point, isn’t it, since they did sin!!!

God did not create Adam an Eve with reason

Oh, my. No, I’m afraid you’re quite mistaken, there!

From the Catechism:

Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

And, most directly in answer to your objection:

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 concupiscence that subjugates him… contrary to the dictates of reason.

So, reason and rationality are part of the human nature that all of us – including our first human parents – have received from the very beginning.

After eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they gained reason and lost communion.

No, that is erroneous. Reason isn’t the result of sin – it’s the result of the human nature God gives us!

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “If God was giving them a “preternatural” state, why would He not give them at least the information needed to make the wisest choice?"

I answered it before, so you sould read it. Note that preternatural state is insufficient to describe the situation so your question is not logical.

Species means a kind or sort. Read the Summa Theologiae for species of this six kinds.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3014.htm

That the individual refuses God’s forgiveness - the absence of reconciliation - is the unforgivable sin. You can readily understand, if you need another source for final (name removed by moderator)enitence, Saint Pope John Paul II in Encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem, 46-47):

“Against the background of what has been said so far, certain other words of Jesus, shocking and disturbing ones, become easier to understand. . . . They are reported for us by the Synoptics in connection with a particular sin which is called ‘blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.’ . . . Why is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit unforgivable? How should this blasphemy be understood? Saint Thomas Aquinas replies that it is a question of a sin that is ‘unforgivable by its very nature, insofar as it excludes the elements through which the forgiveness of sin takes place’ (ST 2b:14:3). According to such an exegesis, ‘blasphemy’ does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross. If man rejects the ‘convincing concerning sin’ which comes from the Holy Spirit and which has the power to save, he also rejects the ‘coming’ of the Counsellor . . . If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this ‘non-forgiveness’ is linked, as to its cause, to ‘non-repentance’, in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. . . . Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a ‘right’ to persist in evil—in any sin at all . . . [T]he Church constantly implores with the greatest fervor that there will be no increase in the world of the sin that the Gospel calls ‘blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.’ Rather, she prays that it will decrease in human souls”.

 

[Vico]

…

The clergy are bound by canon law for the sacraments of Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick, to avoid scandal for those in manifest grace sin.

You asked: “But did you imply that Pope Francis did not mean it when he said that God always forgives us?”
A. God always forgives mortal sins that are repented of. He forgives other sins easily as to their guilt, however we still have to suffer the temporal consequences.

 

[OneSheep]

I answered it before, so you sould read it.

Are you not repeating or referring to the words because they do not exist? You have not answered the question, Vico. I cannot find an answer to the question I asked in your posts.

I’ll just accept that you don’t have an answer.

I have an answer: The story of Adam and Eve, and the depiction of God in the story, is all meant to be an allegory of acquisition of conscience. It is not to be taken literally, not in the least.

Species means a kind or sort. Read the Summa Theologiae for species of this six kinds.

Aquinas is not the CCC. Revelation unfolds. Aquinas was on a slippery slope.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a ‘right’ to persist in evil—in any sin at all . . .

Encyclicals do not represent infallible teaching, but I do stand corrected that some Catholics put a slightly broader definition on what is “unforgiveable”. Vico, do you favor a broader definition of what is “unforgiveable”? Have you ever forgiven an unrepentant person?

The fact remains that Jesus forgave the unrepentant from the cross. Any restriction on the forgiveness from God is against the theme of his infinite love and mercy. God’s forgiveness, however, does not mean that a person will ultimately choose the Kingdom.
.

God always forgives mortal sins that are repented of.

If you are implying that God does not forgive sins that are not repented of, this is not what Pope Francis said. You would be changing his statement.

Here is the closest thing he said to condemning the unreptentant, (though he did not):

However the people in the city who refused to trust in the Lord and accept the corrections he gave him cannot receive salvation because they are closed to it, he said, while it is the meek and the humble who trust that will be saved.

This was after an extensive search, Vico, and it upholds what the CCC says. It is not said that God does not forgive, it says that man does not receive or accept.

 

[Vico]

…

This was after an extensive search, Vico, and it upholds what the CCC says. It is not said that God does not forgive, it says that man does not receive or accept.

Four days ago (#410) I answered “A. They had that information.”
You then asked: “They knew that they were making a choice that would hurt their children?”
Then two days ago (#433) I added “If is not and was not necessary to know all the ramifications in order to sin mortally. What is needed fo knowledge is to know the moral character of the act or omission. In this case that was known.”

Then you asked again: “If God was giving them a “preternatural” state, why would He not give them at least the information needed to make the wisest choice?"

Although I posted on that perternatural state being incomplete, for it is the supernatural state that is most significant. Note that the descendents of Adam and Eve do not have the preternatural gifts, however they do have the supernatural gifts with baptism, and can therefore avoid all mortal sin.

God forgives the baptized, even without proper contrition. However, for those that sin mortally after than point, repentance is necessary.

Then you asked again: “If God was giving them a “preternatural” state, why would He not give them at least the information needed to make the wisest choice?"

Although I posted on that perternatural state being incomplete, for it is the supernatural state of constitution that is most significant (giving original justice). Note that the descendents of Adam and Eve do not have the preternatural gifts, however they may have the supernatural gifts of baptism, and can therefore avoid all mortal sin through it. The Catholic Church teaches what assures salvation.

Catechism

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. 60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. 61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. 62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

Yes, if a person is not receptive then there is no intention to manifest charity, which is essential.

 

[Vico]

… It is not said that God does not forgive, it says that man does not receive or accept.

From the Council of Trent CHAPTER IX.

Against the vain confidence of Heretics.

But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ’s sake; yet is it not to be said, that sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, to any one who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins, and rests on that alone; seeing that it may exist, yea does in our day exist, amongst heretics and schismatics; and with great vehemence is this vain confidence, and one alien from all godliness, preached up in opposition to the Catholic Church. But neither is this to be asserted,-that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubting whatever, settle within themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified, but he that believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone: as though whoso has not this belief, doubts of the promises of God, and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.