"Eden" the same as "Heaven"? Do Saints have free will/ sin?

[grannymh]

Getting back to the OP.

In my humble opinion, the most innovative suggestion on this thread is to consider Eden and its two residents a fiction.

Obviously, for more than a half century, modernized Christians have been denying the existence of Adam and Eve. The huge variety of reasons for flat out denial as well as for partial denial (forms of polygenism) can appear to be overwhelming as if we are looking at a huge mountain of objections. To whittle down that mountain, Catholics have to have a firm trust, that over the centuries the Church has declared the proper doctrines under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (Refer to the Gospel of John, Chapter 14)

Divine Revelation trumps!

The soft approach to denying the existence of Eden is to claim that the “story” in the first three chapters of Genesis is an allegory of some theological truths. For example, a person can talk about free will and the need for God’s grace at the same that the true origin of human nature is being denied. Free will is an essential faculty of God’s directly created spiritual soul. And obviously, grace flows from the Creator to the created. What guarantees these two truths is that all of us are descended from one person who is referred to as the living Adam. And how do we know this? We accept the fact that God blest the two sole founders of humanity so that they could be fertile and multiply. (Genesis 1: 27-28) By the way, genetic effects associated with incest do need time to develop because they are inherited; yet, their inheritance is not always guaranteed. Mathematically, when one considers the length of female fertility which can be responsible for over lapping generations, there would be a relatively short period for sibling incest which sidesteps the issue of genetic damage.

What makes it essential for Catholics to understand the realty of Adam and Eve, is that without their reality, Original Sin falls prey to some of the teaching errors of the early Protestant Reformers. Thus, one often hears that human nature is a sin machine or that it loves to sin and so on. This comes from one of the early Protestant Reformers who considered that Original Sin totally corrupted human nature. Catholicism teaches that human nature was wounded. It also has a better understanding of Original Sin itself.
(Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355 - 421, including footnotes)

Perhaps the best way for Catholics to understand the reality of Adam and Eve is to seriously consider this sentence found in the Catechism’s paragraphs 355 - 421.

“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

BLUE HORIZON: * I have no problem with the “incestuous” sex provided it wasn’t in the direct (parental line). I believe prohibitions against sex in the collateral line (siblings/cousins) only offends positive law and may be dispensed (as has been done by the Church in cases of royalty).*

UZZIAH1: First, you are wrong. The Incest Taboo is Natural Law. The verses substantiating the existence of Natural Law are Deuteronomy 30:11-14.

Uzziah
Please provide a relevent source to support your personal opinion that all incest is against “Natural Law” (ie always and everywhere). WRT the many historical definitions of “Natural Law” around today whose definition are you using here? Deuteronomy is hardly helpful in this regard. In any case I accept the concept of natural law - you do not need to convince me of that. The problem is which one? I use Aquinas.

What is the FIRST thing Adam and Eve needed after the Originl Sin? Something to cover up their sexual parts.

Ooookkkkkkk…so exactly where is this going wrt incest? I do not understand what you interpret the leafy covering thing to mean and how exactly it applies here.

It’s not “positive law.”

I may be wrong on this wrt the collateral line (as I indicated originally) but I would need you to present sources and a case rather than leave me to trust your insights/word alone.

Actually if the human race’s continuance happened through incest in the parental line (which may be against Natural Law) that is still of no great issue for me either (compared to the Fall this does seem to pale in significance and might even be considered inherently part and parcel of the Fall-out fine-print) . So what? In any case tradition asserts the incest was sibling not parental. It really makes little difference to me and I am not bothered by it intellectually or emotionally.

The following quotes from my sources may be helpful for you:

“St Augustine, followed by many other writers including Thomas Aquinas, acknowledged that the supposedly natural and universal law prohibiting incest, was in fact socially constructed, and thus open to interpretation and alteration by Church authorities.” Incest and The Medieval Imagination, Elizabeth Archibald, 2001. Oxford Uni Press, p.27.

“There is not the same essential unbecomingness attaching to other persons who are related to one another not directly but through their parents: and, as to this, becomingness or unbecomingness varies according to custom, and human or Divine law: because, as stated above (2), sexual intercourse, being directed to the common good, is subject to law. Wherefore, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv, 16), whereas the union of brothers and sisters goes back to olden times, it became all the more worthy of condemnation when religion forbade it.” Aquinas ST 2,2,154,9.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The saints in Heaven CAN sin, by the way, because they retain free will.

Uzziah
Some would say that you yourself have just presented a logical contradiction…if there is even a possibility of sin then that possibility may be actualized, for if the actualization of a possibility is impossible, then it is not a possibility but an impossibility.

Anyhow, I understand what you are saying as did the Fathers of the Church over 1500 years ago. However your view seriously underestimates the genius and insight of a solid philosophic tradition that peaked in Aquinas.

His philosophy of Man, the one most favoured by the Church, intrinsically cannot accept what you opine as it would shatter all his theology which is built on this understanding of “natural” man before God. His systematic framework works extremely well elucidating all other areas of theology and doctrine

With Aquinas there is no intrinsic contradiction in saying that we cannot sin in heaven even though we have free will. He would say that if we truly understand what drives human will/reason then it is because of these very drives that we cannot sin in heaven (for there is no faith but only sight and so no “bottlenecks” that insulate us from uniting us with the infinite). Its a bit like when I suddenly discovered a firewire port on my very old laptop;it beat the hell out of my printer/parallel port for copying files. How could you not love it. It is what I had been seeking all along but never knew it. It is what I was made for so to speak. not wanting to use the firewire port when seeing it was literally impossible.

In the end I suppose it comes down to understanding what “free will” is according to Church understanding. Your definition looks different. Is this your own idea or do you have sources for it you may like to attribute/source?

This link,q.7, may be helpful to readers catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0462.html though it doesn’t totally reflect Aquinas in my opinion.

 

[fhansen]

UZZIAH1: Under my interpretation, it is NEVER by God’s fiat.

Well, I don’t think you demonstrated how that can be.

It is against the sovereignty of sovereign God to create an equal fellow God.

I don’t know if it has anything to do with sovereignty. It’s probably just a logical contradiction to say God could create another God-equal to Himself.

Therefore, we are innately LESS THAN God. We HAVE TO BE. God is stuck.

Yes, we are unavoidably inferior to God. He had to determine that it was worth it to create sentient beings such as ourselves with the gift of free will-and He did-presumably intending to bring a greater good out of the evil that resulted. But the Catechism has this to say:

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.

Also, I would read the decrees of the council of Trent, session V, on Original Sin. It definitively declares that OS is transmitted by descent.

 

[fhansen]

Therefore, AT NO POINT DID GOD AFFIRMATIVELY CREATE THE PROBLEM, SINCE THE SOLUTION TO IT – SAVING GRACE PURCHASED ON THE CROSS – WAS THE ALWAYS-IN-PLACE FINAL INGREDIENT.

This resonates to some extent with Church teaching here:

**324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution”, said St. Augustine, and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For “the mystery of lawlessness” is clarified only in the light of the “mystery of our religion”. The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace. We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.**

 

[fhansen]

There may be others in-between, but that is obviously beyond our knowing - the above are hard enough to fathom.

OK. I understand how the flesh wars against the spirit. I guess I was reacting to the term “bodiliness” and was wondering if there wasn’t some dualism in your thinking but you went over the top on your explanation-I didn’t mean to make you dig so deep! Thank you. I sometimes debate with non-Catholic Christians and some, holding to the “faith alone/imputed righteousness” doctrine of justification, seem to view the body as if it’s almost evil and the sole cause of our sinfulness. In that belief, they maintain that overcoming sin/fulfilling the Law is impossible for humans, and that only by shedding their “body of sin” will they be free from sin. This concept opens up all kinds of other problems, however.

Anyway, I’ve really enjoyed this discussion-I always learn when I play ideas off someone with greater knowledge than I. But I also appreciate your willingness to not merely read and know dogma but to ponder, explore, and attempt to expand on its’ meaning. Knowledge of dogma doesn’t necessarily imply understanding of the dogma-we’re usually still dealing with things over and above our natural ability to comprehend. If I could quote the Catechism and the Summa verbatim from memory I still wouldn’t necessarily know what was being said with any depth

Gaining deeper insight into the meaning of the Atonement, for one, has been a pet pursuit of mine for over a year now. Whether I’ve gotten very far in my endeavor is another question. I think it’s also interesting to ponder further that man’s unwillingness to turn to God is a constituent part of inherited injustice. All of creation accedes to and bows in obedience to the wisdom and will and power of God, except for certain sentient beings-and only because they (we) have the choice, of course. In any case it makes sense to me that we sin not merely because of our weakness and ignorance and compromised integrity in general, and not solely in reaction to the specter of death we have hanging over our heads as many Orthodox see it, but also because we, individually, prefer things our way; Adam, contrary to reason, preferred autonomy from God according to the Catechism and I believe all humankind is marked with this “fault”, for lack of a better word. In this way humankind tacitly and unconsciously accedes to the will of Adam- confirming *his *choice, until they learn of its’ folly, at least.

This unreasonable preference, alone, is related to the very reason why a person can and will, for example, obstinately believe something to be true for no other reason than for expediency or some perceived benefit. OS is actually a twisting of the truth-the believing of a lie-exchanging truth for a lie-‘God didn’t really say that’- in order to enable oneself to pursue some ungodly “good” or agenda. We need to believe we’re doing the right thing in order to do the wrong thing-that we ‘have the right’- we need to justify our actions first, if only in or during the moment of committing the act. This is mans’ “righteousness”-self-righteousness-as opposed to Gods’ righteousness. This rejection of Gods’ authority, this affront to and denial of truth, this denial of Gods’ will- is what opens the door for disobedience and all other sin that follows. A few thoughts-probably nothing new.

At one time I believed A&E possessed the BV- and there are theologians who still maintain this. I’m sure they were in Gods’ presence in a much more immediate manner than ourselves; they must’ve known Gods’ love and glory on a much more profound scale. But it almost seems that, if the BV was withheld, then their culpability for opposing Gods’ will should likewise be mitigated.

But now it seems that, from a broader perspective, they weren’t yet ready to “see” God directly-and there was a larger plan involved. In order for that complete union to occur a blessed fault was apparently first necessitated with a struggle that was to include the experience of coming to know good and evil with all that implies, with all the suffering human history demonstrates: the Prodigals’ trip to the pigsty-to prepare the soil for the Tree of Life while we develop a hunger and thirst for its’ fruit. It’s not beneficial to mess with truth, truth really is better than lies, true righteousness is beautiful and worth placing over and above our own selfish interests and desires. Eden is different than heaven. Or maybe heaven is what Eden *could’ve *been or was meant to become.

In the end I think all God really wants is for us to be who we are-right and proper expressions of Himself. Instead, by wanting to go beyond that, by attempting to be God and distance ourselves from God, we become warped and caricatured expressions of both Him and ourselves.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

OK. I understand how the flesh wars against the spirit. I guess I was reacting to the term “bodiliness” and was wondering if there wasn’t some dualism in your thinking but you went over the top on your explanation-I didn’t mean to make you dig so deep! Thank you.

Thankyou - I realised it was probably more than you were actually asking but it also helped me to “crystalise” StJohnOTC’s understanding of Man before God (which is solidly based on Aquinas’s framework - but he takes it much further).

I sometimes debate with non-Catholic Christians and some, holding to the “faith alone/imputed righteousness” doctrine of justification, seem to view the body as if it’s almost evil and the sole cause of our sinfulness.

Exactly, there is a very fine line between true Christian teaching and Gnosticism (we are saved by knowledge) and Manicheanism (the body/materiality needs to be distanced/discarded in one way or another).

I believe Catholic spirituality (certainly in practice, quite a bit in the actual “teaching thereof”) still 'drifts" towards a slight Manicheanism. While nobody would outrightly say the body/materiality is “evil” there still a lot of conscious or sunconscious tendencies to think that the pure and the “spiritual” requires some form of immateriality and needs to get away from matter. This is due I believe to the over-influence and use of Plato’s understanding of Man from the time of the Early Church Fathers right up until early medieval times. Augustine was heavily influenced this way I believe which is prob why even some of his tendencies needed a little redressing. (Plato as you may know believed the really “real” was to be found in “heaven” - only imperfect copies of the real thing could be found bound up in matter). Aristotle’s lost writings (which emphasise “earthiness”) became available in medieval times and this is exactly what Aquinas and the other Scholastic thinkers latched on to.

When we have to deal with a wounded Human Nature it is even harder not to fall into a slight Manicheanism - especially as even the great spiritual writers sometimes exaggerate/dress their reforming theology in a way that looks Manichean.

I have always found great solace in, I believe, Teresa of Avila who basically stated there are two ways to find God, dependent on temperament/personality. Some see God by looking through the material (i.e. they can behold/“hold” the beautiful things of this world lightly and in doing so they are drawn to that greater Beauty that made them) … others must deny themselves such goods because their wounded natural attraction is far to strong and it pulls their vision down. I suppose we all experience a mix of this reality, and it differs at different stages of life. Wisdom not doubt lies in knowing ourselves and which applies when.

At one time I believed A&E possessed the BV- and there are theologians who still maintain this. I’m sure they were in Gods’ presence in a much more immediate manner than ourselves; they must’ve known Gods’ love and glory on a much more profound scale. But it almost seems that, if the BV was withheld, then their culpability for opposing Gods’ will should likewise be mitigated.

Yes, that is the fertile wonder of Catholic tradition - there are many traditions and the do seem to contradict themselves. Of course Aquinas’s BV understanding has outshone the others (he no doubt has a far tighter definition and consistent systematic framework) which doesn’t necessarily mean other definitions/frameworks are wrong. They probably harmonise once we understand what others are really saying. That’s the hard part.
(I think some might say that Divinisation is more powerful than the BV).