How could Adam and Eve act for everyone?

[JeannetteCML]

I’m not sure where to ask this question, but I have always had considerable difficulty with the foundational doctrine of original sin. Understanding the entire faith seems to depend on it, and yet it all does make sense to me. And I have done some seeking, having a bachelors and a masters degree in theology.

We cannot take the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as an historical account. Death was part of the way of the world before humans came on the scene even if sin wasn’t. I don’t know much about evolution, but I believe it to be reasonable enough to entertain the possibility of there being at some point one original human man and then at some other point, one original human woman. What I mean is that I believe there was a cutoff point somewhere in the course of evolution where one being was evolved to the point of destiny for eternal life and one was not. I somehow don’t believe the human species was just created seperately from the rest of creatures, although it’s always possible…

So I am wondering, why do we believe that humans are not born in a state of original grace as the first ones were? It does not seem just that God would punish descendents because of what their parents did. I don’t see why what was lost by the parents was lost for the children as well. Was there ever a set of people who were born in grace? Or is it really God’s plan that we are all born in the process of coming to sanctity? I don’t want to challenge the belief that it was not God’s intention for sin and death to be in his “good” creation, but the fact of the matter is that suffering and death have always been inescapable.

What is original sin? Why is it just that all experience the effects of it? Or, I might just as well ask, why must there be an unredeemed universe and later a redeemed one?

 

[paarsurrey]

I’m not sure where to ask this question, but I have always had considerable difficulty with the foundational doctrine of original sin. Understanding the entire faith seems to depend on it, and yet it all does make sense to me.

Hi
Adam and Eve, to me, made a mistake ( not a sin ) for which they repented and resolved not to persist on it, so GodAllahYHWH forgave them.
This is the lesson in the story that whoever does a worgful act with a mistake and repents on it and resolves not to persist on itand ask forgiveness from GodAllahYHWH from the core ho his heart, he would be forgiven by the grace of God.
So the act of Adam and Eve was for them only and was not to become hereditory. Somehow it has been misunderstood by so many.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.

 

[Smber2c]

We cannot take the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as an historical account. Death was part of the way of the world before humans came on the scene even if sin wasn’t.

I apologise for not starting with the questions you actually asked, I’ll try getting into some of that if my night permits. But the first thing that jumps out at me is your certainty that the Garden of Eden isn’t historical.

I admit that I believe in macro-evolution, thus thinking it logical as you say in death before humans. But I won’t for a second say that creation exactly as the Bible lays it out is impossible.

Could God not have created the world however He liked? Could He have not have created Earth with dino bones already planted in the ground, even pre-aged them for us?

 

[LilyM]

I’m not sure where to ask this question, but I have always had considerable difficulty with the foundational doctrine of original sin. Understanding the entire faith seems to depend on it, and yet it all does make sense to me. And I have done some seeking, having a bachelors and a masters degree in theology.

We cannot take the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as an historical account. Death was part of the way of the world before humans came on the scene even if sin wasn’t. I don’t know much about evolution, but I believe it to be reasonable enough to entertain the possibility of there being at some point one original human man and then at some other point, one original human woman. What I mean is that I believe there was a cutoff point somewhere in the course of evolution where one being was evolved to the point of destiny for eternal life and one was not. I somehow don’t believe the human species was just created seperately from the rest of creatures, although it’s always possible…

So I am wondering, why do we believe that humans are not born in a state of original grace as the first ones were? It does not seem just that God would punish descendents because of what their parents did. I don’t see why what was lost by the parents was lost for the children as well. Was there ever a set of people who were born in grace? Or is it really God’s plan that we are all born in the process of coming to sanctity? I don’t want to challenge the belief that it was not God’s intention for sin and death to be in his “good” creation, but the fact of the matter is that suffering and death have always been inescapable.

What is original sin? Why is it just that all experience the effects of it? Or, I might just as well ask, why must there be an unredeemed universe and later a redeemed one?

First of all - why do you assume that humans were always destined to die??? Regardless of if our bodies evolved over millions of years, there was a cutoff point, on one side of which our species homo sapiens didn’t exist, on the other side of which it did.

And yes, through mitochondrial DNA (which humans take from their female ancestors) it’s been positively determined that all humans did have a single female ancestor. Whether there was a single male as well is impossible to determine but it’s highly likely.

At any rate, that point, the point when the species homo sapiens arrived on the evolutionary scene, is the point at which our immortal soul (as opposed to the natural souls possessed by other living creatures) was breathed into us by God. THAT it is which determines our unique status, and certainly gave and gives us the option of immortality.

As for being punished for Adam and Eve’s sin - you may call it unfair, but it is life. Aren’t we all at least somewhat punished for the sins of our parents? And our more distant ancestors? If my great-great-grandfather gambles away the family inheritance, isn’t it at least highly likely that I’ll be poor too?

If great-great-grandma was an alcoholic who beat her children, again highly likely I’ll suffer in some way for that too, for sin and problems beget more sins and more problems.

 

[Smber2c]

Adam and Eve, to me, made a mistake ( not a sin ) for which they repented and resolved not to persist on it, so GodAllahYHWH forgave them.

I in no way mean to discredit your faith. I’m not sure if your version of Genesis is identical to ours…but if it is there’s no doubt they sinned. Adam and Eve were given a direct order by God.

Genesis 3:3 “But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

They chose to disreguard this decision and in doing so they chose directly against God’s will.

Genesis 3:6 “And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

These isn’t much doubt that they were told not to, then disobeyed and did so.

 

[Smber2c]

Here is some helpful information on Original Sin from newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
All the blue is a direct quote from this site.

What caused Orininal Sin?
St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”.

What was it’s effects?

St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect”

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin.
(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants
(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin.

How can we be guilty of a sin we didn’t voluntarily commit?

“There can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth”, writes St. Augustine (De vera relig., xiv, 27). The Church has condemned the opposite solution given by Baius

Original sin is not an act but, as already explained, a state, a permanent privation, and this can be voluntary indirectly – just as a drunken man is deprived of his reason and incapable of using his liberty, yet it is by his free fault that he is in this state and hence his drunkenness, his privation of reason is voluntary and can be imputed to him.

But how can original sin be even indirectly voluntary for a child that has never used its personal free will?

even before the use of reason, sin is already in the soul, according to the data of Tradition regarding the baptism of children and the sin contracted by generation. Some theosophists and spiritists admit the pre-existence of souls that have sinned in a former life which they now forget; but apart from the absurdity of this metempsychosis, it contradicts the doctrine of original sin, it substitutes a number of particular sins for the one sin of a common father transmitting sin and death to all (cf. Romans 5:12 sqq.). The whole Christian religion, says St. Augustine, may be summed up in the intervention of two men, the one to ruin us, the other to save us.

 

[Smber2c]

finishing up:
newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

“It is unjust to make us responsible for an act committed before our birth.” Strictly responsible, yes; responsible in a wide sense of the word, no; the crime of a father brands his yet unborn children with shame, and entails upon them a share of his own responsibility.

“Your dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam.”
That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word.
It is true that, considered as “a moral deformity”, “a separation from God”, as “the death of the soul”, original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the “stain” which St. Thomas defines as “the privation of grace”, and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, “takes away all that is really and properly sin”, for concupiscence which remains “is not really and properly sin”, although its transmission was equally voluntary.
Considered precisely as voluntary, original sin is only the shadow of sin properly so-called. According to St. Thomas , it is not called sin in the same sense, but only in an analogous sense.

 

[Smber2c]

To be honest, I think this concept foundational in understanding many Catholic teachings.

If one does not understand or believe in Original Sin, I can not see a proper understanding of these things:

• the purpose of Christ’s redemtion of the human race.
• the role of concupisence in man’s morality.
• Mary’s unique role as a new Eve, free of original sin.
• the role of baptism in entering us into the Family of God.

I’d suggest thinking each of those over some in light of the teachings on Original Sin. Just reading the above writings on Original Sin, I was pleased to see some of the nuances of our faith from fresh eyes and new perspectives.

 

[JeannetteCML]

First of all - why do you assume that humans were always destined to die??? Regardless of if our bodies evolved over millions of years, there was a cutoff point, on one side of which our species homo sapiens didn’t exist, on the other side of which it did.

As for being punished for Adam and Eve’s sin - you may call it unfair, but it is life. Aren’t we all at least somewhat punished for the sins of our parents? And our more distant ancestors? If my great-great-grandfather gambles away the family inheritance, isn’t it at least highly likely that I’ll be poor too?

If great-great-grandma was an alcoholic who beat her children, again highly likely I’ll suffer in some way for that too, for sin and problems beget more sins and more problems.

I believe they had to be destined to die because they were human animals just like any other living animals at the time who died. They weren’t invincible to dangers on earth, to poisons, or to old age. Just because of their biological make up from the beginning.

You say, I may call it unfair but it’s life. But that is precisely my question. Why is it the way life is? Why are we harmed on a spiritual level by what our parents did? Why does it effect our very souls and our standing before God? It doesn’t seem in line with God’s justice.

 

[JeannetteCML]

To be honest, I think this concept foundational in understanding many Catholic teachings.

If one does not understand or believe in Original Sin, I can not see a proper understanding of these things:

• the purpose of Christ’s redemtion of the human race.
• the role of concupisence in man’s morality.
• Mary’s unique role as a new Eve, free of original sin.
• the role of baptism in entering us into the Family of God.

I’d suggest thinking each of those over some in light of the teachings on Original Sin. Just reading the above writings on Original Sin, I was pleased to see some of the nuances of our faith from fresh eyes and new perspectives.

Yes, this is why original sin troubles me so much. If it doesn’t make sense to you there’s not much else that does! Thinking them over in the light of my frustration with original sin… it’s all too much.

 

[JeannetteCML]

Yes, so it is not a sin we are personally guilty of but a privation of grace. It’s not our fault. But we suffer and die because of it now. How is that just? Why does God continue this privation now, one child at a time? I can see why the first were deprived, but why now the second and the third down the line? It’s not genetic… it’s not biological… it’s not even environmental. Is it spiritual?

 

[Pax_Tibi]

Genesis is God’s way of telling us the story of the fallen angels. Creation is God’s way to give the fallen angels/us a second chance.The fallen angels are US. We are the “commiters” of original sin. We did this individually. It is our sin. Adam/Eve are each of us.

When God’s creation evolved enough for God to infuse us/souls into His creation, He called it “Man/Women”.
Each subsequent human/baby, was infused with a soul. Each soul was a fallen angel. Each of us were created from the beginning. We are eternal in so far as God keeps us so. He has stated that He has known us before we were in the womb.

All of this happened immediately. There is no before or after to creation. God’s giving us free will is His original idea. Love for us is His original idea. Forgiveness is God’s idea. Because He is LOVE. Creation is simply the playing out of His plan in space/time. Creation gives us “time” to work out our salvation. Time gives God the opportnity to join us. Jesus is the “Way” God chose to prove His love. We all know the rest of the story.

Thanks.

 

[mchium]

Genesis is God’s way of telling us the story of the fallen angels. Creation is God’s way to give the fallen angels/us a second chance.The fallen angels are US. We are the “commiters” of original sin. We did this individually. It is our sin. Adam/Eve are each of us.

When God’s creation evolved enough for God to infuse us/souls into His creation, He called it “Man/Women”.
Each subsequent human/baby, was infused with a soul. Each soul was a fallen angel. Each of us were created from the beginning. We are eternal in so far as God keeps us so. He has stated that He has known us before we were in the womb.

If you are Catholic, you need to do some studying - maybe St Thomas or a great book, “Theology for the Beginner” by Frank Sheed.

-Human Beings and Angels are two completely different creations of God
-Newly conceived babies are not angels, fallen or otherwise.
-We do not exist all at once from eternity. Only God is eternal (no beginning); we are immortal (with a beginning, but no end)
-Original Sin is not our sin. We suffer from the affects of original sin; i.e. fallen nature. Adam & Eve bore the fault of the actual sin, itself. We are each individuals as God created us; we are not Adam & Eve

Talk you your parish priest or read the Catechism or some basic theology. If you are Catholic, that is…'cause if you are, you need to know what the faith you claim teaches. God Bless

 

[Smber2c]

Yes, so it is not a sin we are personally guilty of but a privation of grace. It’s not our fault. But we suffer and die because of it now. How is that just? Why does God continue this privation now, one child at a time? I can see why the first were deprived, but why now the second and the third down the line? It’s not genetic… it’s not biological… it’s not even environmental. Is it spiritual?

I’m not sure if I can answer all those, but I’ll try the “How is it just?”

There are 2 things I think we should look into.
1st - does God owe us anything at all?
2nd - is He was going to give us the best thing possible what would it be?

1. I think we can all agree, God doesn’t owe us anything. He didn’t need to create us. Having created us, and being betrayed by the first of our kind, He doesn’t need to fix the mess that we (meaning any of humanity, thus Adam and Eve) made of His perfect world.
2. Despite what I wrote in 1 (not owing us anything), I believe that He has chosen to still offer us exactly the “best thing possible”. Which would be the opportunity to worship, witness, and be with God the author of all that is good. - This being made possible by a perfect sacrifice being offered

With this in mind, I wonder…how do we always (myself included) find ourselves wondering about the justice of concupiscence, of death, of the possibility of going to hell? Not only has God given to us. He’s given generously.

 

[mchium]

It’s not genetic… it’s not biological… it’s not even environmental. Is it spiritual?

Yes…you’ve got it. There is a one-ness, inheritance and handing down, spiritually, just as the biological and genetic work. We don’t study enough metaphysics these days or read enough Aquinas. We don’t understand the spiritual order very well.

There are longer, more academic answers, but basically, that’s what it will say. We have a spritual inheritance…and with the suffering, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus, and baptism, we have been given a new, redeemed inheritance - as one in the mystical body of Christ and as children of God, with a share in His divinity! Amazing, eh?

 

[yinekka]

As Michium said ‘Theology For Beginners’ by Frank Sheed is a great place to start for an understanding of creation. I would then recommend ‘A Map of Life’ also by Sheed and his great work ‘Theology and Sanity’ to give the final polish to your understanding.

 

[paarsurrey]

These isn’t much doubt that they were told not to, then disobeyed and did so.

Hi
A sin done out of mistake, for which one repents and resolves not to do it again and asks forgiveness from GodAllahYHWH, and is forgiven also as implied and mentioned in Genesis, so why find fault with the common ancesters. It could not and did not become hereditory, every child born is innocent.
I love Jesus and Mary.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.

 

[Fidelis]

I believe they had to be destined to die because they were human animals just like any other living animals at the time who died. They weren’t invincible to dangers on earth, to poisons, or to old age. Just because of their biological make up from the beginning.

You say, I may call it unfair but it’s life. But that is precisely my question. Why is it the way life is? Why are we harmed on a spiritual level by what our parents did? Why does it effect our very souls and our standing before God? It doesn’t seem in line with God’s justice.

Here is the teaching of the Church:

Adam and Eve were created perfect by God and placed by him in a garden – Paradise, if you will. The Church teaches that they were real people. This garden was not heaven, but a paradise where they were protected from harm and had everything they needed. They had all the natural gifts man could have, plus **preternatural **gifts given them by God. These preternatural gifts enabled them, unlike us, to have complete control over their wills, intellect and emotions. Under God’s special protection, they need never have sinned, or become sick or even die, God’s plan being to take them to himself in heaven when their lives were through. Adam was thus the perfect representative of us all, possessing every advantage.

There was a test involved, however, which we all know they failed. In this test they were representing all of mankind as it’s perfect representatives. None of us imperfect men facing this test, left to our own devices, would have stood a chance. It was a test of their free wills, without which no one can truly love anyone else, including God. As a result of this failure, man lost paradise and all the preternatural gifts (which resulted in what we call “original sin”). Since that time each man has compounded this failure by personal sin upon sin, thus making him incapable of meriting heaven.

Thanks be to God who, in his mercy, sent us a Saviour, Jesus Christ, who through his sacrifice on the Cross reversed Adam’s failure, paid for our sins and made is possible for us, through faith and baptism, to be restored to fellowship with God. Just as the naturally and preternaturally perfect Adam was our representative, so Christ was our perfect representative (Romans 5:12-19). If we have no objection to Christ representing us, we should not object that Adam did the same.

Through faith and our obedience in God’s grace, we can one day be with God in heaven as was his plan all along.

Hope that helps.

---

 

[JeannetteCML]

…God’s plan being to take them to himself in heaven when their lives were through. Adam was thus the perfect representative of us all, possessing every advantage.

Thanks, that helps. That’s interesting that that was God’s plan, though --to start us out on earth and test us. Interesting.

 

[JeannetteCML]

As Michium said ‘Theology For Beginners’ by Frank Sheed is a great place to start for an understanding of creation. I would then recommend ‘A Map of Life’ also by Sheed and his great work ‘Theology and Sanity’ to give the final polish to your understanding.

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll check those out.

(Does anyone know how to quote two people in one reply?)