Genesis 3:14-15

[Vico]

Not all are medicinal. The one about everyone else being kicked out of the Garden of Eden was just harsh.

Adam and Eve lost that, as they were told that death would happen: expelled lest they eat from the Tree of Life. No descendants were kicked out for there were no births in the Garden of Eden. Only Adam and Eve had that because it was suited to them when they had the supernatural and preternatural gifts.

 

[Vico]

Not all are medicinal. The one about everyone else being kicked out of the Garden of Eden was just harsh.

Something from Fr. John Hardon, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural Part Two: Creation as a Divine Fact

Terminology

Adam in context means first of all the man, described in Genesis and St. Paul as distinct from Eve. This is the term also found in the documents of the Church. However we do not use the word of him alone but extend it to Eve, in fact apply it to human nature as represented in our first parents.

The expression “before the fall” simply states the fact that Adam possessed grace [defined doctrine] and the preternatural gifts, without committing ourselves as to when the infusion took place.

By sanctifying grace we understand that permanent gift, which is now given through Christ and by which a man becomes formally justified, a partaker of the divine nature, an adopted son of God and heir of eternal life. In the present order, sanctifying grace is associated with the uncreated gift of the Holy Spirit and such created gifts as the infused virtues of faith, hope and supernatural charity.
…
The three gifts of bodily immortality [defined by the Church], integrity [theologically certain] and infused knowledge [common and certain doctrine] are called preternatural because they are not strictly due to human nature but do not, of themselves, surpass the capacities and exigencies of created nature as such. In other words, they are not entitatively supernatural.

Bodily immortality is the converse of mortality, i.e., the possibility of separation of soul from body. Adam was therefore capable of not dying. Yet the gift was conditional, provided he did not sin; it was gratuitous, since Adam’s nature by itself did not postulate this prerogative but came from the divine bounty; and it was participated, since only God enjoys essential immortality.

The gift of integrity is equivalent to exemption from concupiscence. It is called “integrity” because it effected a harmonious relation between flesh and spirit by completely subordinating man’s lower passions to his reason.
…
Adam’s infused knowledge was not acquired, in the sense of natural cognition derived from experience and the reasoning process; nor was it intrinsically supernatural as giving a knowledge of the mysteries, such as the souls enjoy in the beatific vision. It was infused because not naturally acquired, but yet entitatively not beyond the capacity of man’s faculties in his statu viae. Theologians commonly refer to three areas of special knowledge possessed by Adam: regarding God and His attributes, the moral law or man’s relations to God, and the physical universe both material and spiritual.
…

Dogmatic Value

It is defined doctrine, at least implicitly in Trent, that Adam possessed sanctifying grace before the fall.

Regarding Adam’s integrity, theologians distinguish between immunity from carnal and spiritual concupiscence. They say it is implicitly defined in Trent (DB 792) that Adam was free from sense concupiscence; or according to others it is proxima fidei. Immunity from spiritual concupiscence is said to be at least theologically certain; or the composite of integrity as such may be called proxima fidei.

Adam’s immortality of body has been defined by the Church, and is found in a series of documents: DB 101, 174, 788.

The possession of infused knowledge is held to be common and certain doctrine, though some assign a higher dogmatic note.

therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm

 

[BobCatholic]

Adam and Eve lost that, as they were told that death would happen: expelled lest they eat from the Tree of Life. No descendants were kicked out for there were no births in the Garden of Eden. Only Adam and Eve had that because it was suited to them when they had the supernatural and preternatural gifts.

OK, if their descendants were not subject to that punishment, please tell me why their sons and daughters were not allowed back into the Garden of Eden?

Since people are sinless immediately after baptism, why doesn’t God immediately transfer them to the Garden of Eden?

Oh.

That’s why.

We are held temporally responsible for their sin.

 

[BobCatholic]

Regarding Adam’s integrity, theologians distinguish between immunity from carnal and spiritual concupiscence. They say it is implicitly defined in Trent (DB 792) that Adam was free from sense concupiscence; or according to others it is proxima fidei. Immunity from spiritual concupiscence is said to be at least theologically certain; or the composite of integrity as such may be called proxima fidei.

I don’t have any problem with most of that except for the part I quoted above.

If Adam had no concupiscence, he could not sin, because he would not want to. He’d tell the snake to get lost, c’mon, Eve, we’re going to the other part of the garden.

But he fell, so clearly had imperfections which led him into sin. If you want to call it concupicense, ok.

Then let’s address internal versus external temptation. If A&E was immune from internal temptation, but not external temptation (because he could resist it easily). Then A&E would never have sinned on their own.

If they were not immune to external temptation, that is a DEFECT, a BUG in the software. It was an imperfection.

OK, so let’s say that bug or imperfection is OK. God allowed it. So then he should have kept the snake out and kept away all other external temptations. But God didn’t do that, he not only created the imperfection, he allowed the evil one to be in the Garden.

Why?

Sounds like setting up A&E for failure.

 

[Vico]

I don’t have any problem with most of that except for the part I quoted above.

If Adam had no concupiscence, he could not sin, because he would not want to. He’d tell the snake to get lost, c’mon, Eve, we’re going to the other part of the garden.

But he fell, so clearly had imperfections which led him into sin. If you want to call it concupicense, ok.

Then let’s address internal versus external temptation. If A&E was immune from internal temptation, but not external temptation (because he could resist it easily). Then A&E would never have sinned on their own.

If they were not immune to external temptation, that is a DEFECT, a BUG in the software. It was an imperfection.

OK, so let’s say that bug or imperfection is OK. God allowed it. So then he should have kept the snake out and kept away all other external temptations. But God didn’t do that, he not only created the imperfection, he allowed the evil one to be in the Garden.

Why?

Sounds like setting up A&E for failure.

They did not fall from concupiscence for it was introduced by the loss of integrity which was a preternatural gift.

 

[Vico]

OK, if their descendants were not subject to that punishment, please tell me why their sons and daughters were not allowed back into the Garden of Eden?

Since people are sinless immediately after baptism, why doesn’t God immediately transfer them to the Garden of Eden?

Oh.

That’s why.

We are held temporally responsible for their sin.

The descendants were not given the preternatural gifts, including bodily immortality. The Garden of Eden has the tree of life, so it cannot be available to them.

 

[BobCatholic]

The descendants were not given the preternatural gifts, including bodily immortality. The Garden of Eden has the tree of life, so it cannot be available to them.

They were not given the gifts because that’s part of the temporal punishment God imposed. This is why we are held temporally responsible for the sins of our ancestors.

They did not fall from concupiscence for it was introduced by the loss of integrity which was a preternatural gift.

I did not say they fell from concupiscence. They clearly fell from grace.

 

[Vico]

They were not given the gifts because that’s part of the temporal punishment God imposed. This is why we are held temporally responsible for the sins of our ancestors.

I did not say they fell from concupiscence. They clearly fell from grace.

Adam and Eve lost their gifts. The Church calls this a consequence for us but a punishment for them, but we never had a right to gifts which were given to Adam and Eve only. Those gifts are not natural to humans which is why they are called preternatural and supernatural gifts.

 

[Vico]

…
I did not say they fell from concupiscence. They clearly fell from grace.

You wrote: “If Adam had no concupiscence, he could not sin, because he would not want to. He’d tell the snake to get lost, c’mon, Eve, we’re going to the other part of the garden.”

What you stated above, that Adam could not sin without concupiscence, is not in accord with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that concupiscence was not present in Adam and Eve but came as a consequence of the fall. The freedom from concupiscence is the preternatural gift of integrity.

Catholic Encyclopedia has:
In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; nor was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty.
…
As to concupiscence the council [of Trent] declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin.

Ming, J. (1908). Concupiscence. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

 

[BobCatholic]

Adam and Eve lost their gifts. The Church calls this a consequence for us but a punishment for them,

Consequence, punishment, same thing. They have the same effect, thus they’re the same.

but we never had a right to gifts which were given to Adam and Eve only.

And why does this matter?

I argue that we have a right to these gifts OR a right not to be punished. God wants to have it both ways.

God creates people imperfect. That guarantees their fall, it is only a matter of time. The question is not if they’ll fall, it is when they’ll fall. Imperfections slays trigger a fall. Then he punishes them for falling.

He wants it both ways.

If a computer programmer writes buggy software and it crashes, then throws the computer out the window, what do you think of that computer programmer?

Now, imagine God is that programmer, we are the software, the crash was the fall and our daily falls, and the computer thrown out the window us us out of the Garden of Eden.

I’m not saying we don’t have any free will, but I’m saying our free will is so diluted, so weak, that it is almost as if we don’t have free will because there is no way to overcome our imperfections.

 

[BobCatholic]

You wrote: “If Adam had no concupiscence, he could not sin, because he would not want to. He’d tell the snake to get lost, c’mon, Eve, we’re going to the other part of the garden.”

What you stated above, that Adam could not sin without concupiscence, is not in accord with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that concupiscence was not present in Adam and Eve but came as a consequence of the fall. The freedom from concupiscence is the preternatural gift of integrity.

If you recall my post, I was making the difference between internal concupiscence (where we tempt ourselves) and external concupiscence (where we are tempted by others).

Adam had no internal concupiscence - that is obvious. So he, wouldn’t tempt himself to fall.

BUT Adam had external concupiscence - he could be tempted from the outside - by others. That’s why the snake could tempt him.

And since God didn’t create Adam with external concupiscence disabled, then why did he allow the tempter to enter the Garden? God’s system got hacked! Or God set up A&E to fail.

As to concupiscence the council [of Trent] declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin.

We are harmed. We are temporally held responsible for the sins of our ancestors. We suffer because of sins of others.

We are still imperfect and punished because of our imperfections. God’s grace doesn’t help overcome this.

 

[Vico]

If you recall my post, I was making the difference between internal concupiscence (where we tempt ourselves) and external concupiscence (where we are tempted by others).

Adam had no internal concupiscence - that is obvious. So he, wouldn’t tempt himself to fall.

BUT Adam had external concupiscence - he could be tempted from the outside - by others. That’s why the snake could tempt him.

And since God didn’t create Adam with external concupiscence disabled, then why did he allow the tempter to enter the Garden? God’s system got hacked! Or God set up A&E to fail.

We are harmed. We are temporally held responsible for the sins of our ancestors. We suffer because of sins of others.

We are still imperfect and punished because of our imperfections. God’s grace doesn’t help overcome this.

No Adam and Eve were not susceptible to concupiscence of any kind since they had the preternatural gift of Integrity.

As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica, II, I, Q 23, this was a matter of the irracible appetite not the sensuous appetite.

Question 23. How the passions differ from one another
Article 1. Whether the passions of the concupiscible part are different from those of the irascible part?

I answer that, The passions of the irascible part differ in species from those of the concupiscible faculty. For since different powers have different objects, as stated in the I:77:3, the passions of different powers must of necessity be referred to different objects. Much more, therefore, do the passions of different faculties differ in species; since a greater difference in the object is required to diversify the species of the powers, than to diversify the species of passions or actions. For just as in the physical order, diversity of genus arises from diversity in the potentiality of matter, while diversity of species arises from diversity of form in the same matter; so in the acts of the soul, those that belong to different powers, differ not only in species but also in genus, while acts and passions regarding different specific objects, included under the one common object of a single power, differ as the species of that genus.

In order, therefore, to discern which passions are in the irascible, and which in the concupiscible, we must take the object of each of these powers. For we have stated in the I:81:2, that the object of the concupiscible power is sensible good or evil, simply apprehended as such, which causes pleasure or pain. But, since the soul must, of necessity, experience difficulty or struggle at times, in acquiring some such good, or in avoiding some such evil, in so far as such good or evil is more than our animal nature can easily acquire or avoid; therefore this very good or evil, inasmuch as it is of an arduous or difficult nature, is the object of the irascible faculty. Therefore whatever passions regard good or evil absolutely, belong to the concupiscible power; for instance, joy, sorrow, love, hatred, and such like: whereas those passions which regard good or bad as arduous, through being difficult to obtain or avoid, belong to the irascible faculty; such are daring, fear, hope and the like.

newadvent.org/summa/2023.htm

 

[BobCatholic]

No Adam and Eve were not susceptible to concupiscence of any kind since they had the preternatural gift of Integrity.

OK, then that definitely meant they had the imperfection of pride then at the least. That snake tempted them, and they fell down from that.

Probably added to other imperfections such as stupidity, naivete, or fear.

Buggy software crashed, who was surprised? Certainly not the author of that buggy software who purposely put in those bugs.

 

[Vico]

OK, then that definitely meant they had the imperfection of pride then at the least. That snake tempted them, and they fell down from that.

Probably added to other imperfections such as stupidity, naivete, or fear.

Buggy software crashed, who was surprised? Certainly not the author of that buggy software who purposely put in those bugs.

God gave them supernatural grace from the start, so they were able to avoid mortal sin. That means it was freely chosen.

 

[BobCatholic]

God gave them supernatural grace from the start, so they were able to avoid mortal sin. That means it was freely chosen.

Until the snake tempted them. Until then, there was no temptation.

Because they fell for the snake’s temptation, it is obvious they had imperfections, and those imperfections reduced their free will.

 

[Vico]

Until the snake tempted them. Until then, there was no temptation.

Because they fell for the snake’s temptation, it is obvious they had imperfections, and those imperfections reduced their free will.

There was mortal sin so there was loss of grace. The can only happen through a free will choice. There is no question that if the will was not free there would be no culpability. The grace give by God makes it possible to resist the temptation. Eve sinned first in thought, pridefully putting herself before God, and that was also what Lucifer did.

 

[BobCatholic]

There was mortal sin so there was loss of grace. The can only happen through a free will choice. There is no question that if the will was not free there would be no culpability. The grace give by God makes it possible to resist the temptation. Eve sinned first in thought, pridefully putting herself before God, and that was also what Lucifer did.

I didn’t say they had zero free will, they had reduced free will due to the imperfections.

And if there was no culpability due to no free will, why are we held temporally responsible for their actions? We didn’t do their sin, but we are treated as if we were culpable, even though we are not.

You just admitted they had the imperfection of pride, which is what I’ve been saying for a long time. If they didn’t have this imperfection, they would not have fallen. When God takes away imperfections, that is his grace acting. When Adam and Eve had imperfections, that was God’s grace taken away long before the fall.

 

[Vico]

I didn’t say they had zero free will, they had reduced free will due to the imperfections.

And if there was no culpability due to no free will, why are we held temporally responsible for their actions? We didn’t do their sin, but we are treated as if we were culpable, even though we are not.

You just admitted they had the imperfection of pride, which is what I’ve been saying for a long time. If they didn’t have this imperfection, they would not have fallen. When God takes away imperfections, that is his grace acting. When Adam and Eve had imperfections, that was God’s grace taken away long before the fall.

We are born without sanctifying grace at our birth, a natural human state, which is called original sin, but is analogical sin for us not actual sin. All eternal and temporal punishment for sin is eliminated with baptism.

The topic of imperfection was discussed in our posts in December: all sin is imperfect behavior, and may be due to malice, passion, or ignorance. For a long time we have both said there is imperfection. Only God is infinitely perfect. God did not remove his grace before the sin occurred. When the inordinate pride was chosen (not all pride is inordinate) the grace was lost.

 

[BobCatholic]

All eternal and temporal punishment for sin is eliminated with baptism.

OK, so after baptism, why don’t we go to the Garden of Eden? We are still held temporally responsible for Adam and Eve’s sin, instead.

God did not remove his grace before the sin occurred. When the inordinate pride was chosen (not all pride is inordinate) the grace was lost.

God created people who are imperfect. Imperfections are an absence of God’s grace.
God took away his grace and people become imperfect.

Imperfections are proof that God removed his grace, he held back.

Mary and the angels are perfect and will never sin, they don’t want to because they have no imperfections - and they are filled with grace, no grace is missing for them!

 

[Vico]

OK, so after baptism, why don’t we go to the Garden of Eden? We are still held temporally responsible for Adam and Eve’s sin, instead.

God created people who are imperfect. Imperfections are an absence of God’s grace.
God took away his grace and people become imperfect.

Imperfections are proof that God removed his grace, he held back.

Mary and the angels are perfect and will never sin, they don’t want to because they have no imperfections - and they are filled with grace, no grace is missing for them!

The Garden of Eden was only for Adam and Eve. They could not remain there because of the loss of the preternatural gift of bodily immortality, and the tree of life exists in that garden.

The Catholic Church teaches that actual graces are given to people even before their conversion and sanctifying grace is given with baptism and confession, and also that with the other five sacraments, sanctifying grace is increased. Catechism:

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1739 Freedom and sin. Man’s freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God’s plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.