How was Adam able to be "tempted"?

[Teflon93]

I didn’t ask “who missed the point” did I? You seem unwilling to engage in a discussion and more interested in polemics.

Anyway.

Sure, one can exercise their free will to do good. I guess I would distinguish between aided and unaided by God’s grace and good on the natural order and good on the supernatural order.

Is it my position that God withdrew his grace prior to Adam and Eve’s sin? No, as I stated earlier I am undecided on how the fall occured and if you actually take the time to read my posts you will see that I explained that when I responded to Mike I didn’t have Adam or Eve in mind when I started the discussion on God withdrawing his grace.

What’s the thread’s title again?

I have read your posts, you have either not read, not comprehended, or simply not answered most of mine. Anyone reading can judge for themselves whether they are polemical.

I have at least answered the questions posed. Directly, too.

You missed the point where I broke down the Calvinist view (as near as I can make it out) logically and you took that for my view.

You missed the point where I analogized grace to an organ necessary for life (kidney). Since you hold that no good is possible without God’s grace, and seem to hold that God withdrew His grace from Adam, it stands to reason that Adam could no longer do any good at all and therefore was bound to sin. Does that not make God responsible for the Fall, according to your logic, not mine?

I believe that Adam sinned of his own free will, and God withdrew His grace. Thus the cause of God’s withdrawal of His grace was Adam’s sin; God’s withdrawal of His grace did not cause Adam’s original sin. This is why I suggested you were inverting cause and effect.

When one refuses to clearly engage an argument, one can hardly claim to be engaging in discussion at all.

And like it or not, the forum often takes the shape of debate. Simple, clearly-stated reasoning helps avoid the misunderstandings which do come up.

 

[mikeledes]

No, this is not true.

If, as we see described in Romans, God withdraws His grace from a sinner and turns him over to his own desires, that person still chooses what they want. They are responsible for their sin, not God.

God did not cause them to sin.

Also, if someone believes in original sin, I’m not sure how they can maintain a belief in free will.

So God withdrew His grace from Adam so that he would sin and thus create a mass of condemned sinners from which He would select the elect? The passage in Romans refers to people who have a fallen nature. Did they have grace and then He took it away?

I can believe in original sin and free will because I believe God gives man prevenient grace in order to enable him to chose or reject Him. If this were not so, then God’s desire for the repentance of the wicked would be insincere? Why would he say He desires not the death of the wicked and desires their repentance, but withholds the means by which they can come to repentance? That’s like saying you desire someone to be healed, but then refuse to give provide any opportunity for that person to be healed.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

You need to distinguish between God’s active will and passive will. He is sovereign so it’s not like the fall caught Him by suprise.

I’m not sure how the mechanics of the fall occured so I don’t hold that God necessarily removed his grace from Adam and Eve.

If He never granted us His grace we would all be doomed wouldn’t we?

Did Adam freely choose to sin or not? According to Genesis, Adam lost his original justice after he ate of the tree. If God withdrew His grace before he ate of the tree, then wouldn’t that mean he lost his original righteousness prior to hsi eating of the tree and was thus already spiritually dead when he ate the fruit?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The fact that the law is “written on our heart” actually points to this being natural, not to it being Grace. In making us God imprints a sense of good in us, and this doesn’t require any Grace to operate in general, though after the Fall it requires Grace to operate perfectly and at all times.

I guess this does make sense.

Prevenient Grace is simply the impulsion by God for us to do some good that we wouldn’t otherwise do, whether because we are damaged by the Fall, or because it’s a good that is beyond our natural capacity (such as supernaturally turning to God). We all naturally have the impulsion to do some good, even if it’s the good of eating and taking care of ourselves (and this is indeed a good, since we ourselves are a gift from God that deserves as much care and respect as any other human).

But isnt this “natural good” still good in God’s eyes to some degree? It sounds as if this “natural good” is instead neutral.

St. Thomas Aquinas puts out ability to do good this way in the Summa:

newadvent.org/summa/2109.htm#2

So Adam and Eve could have, without any difficulty, performed all natural good works, but they couldn’t have done any supernatural good works (such as Loving God with Charity, as opposed to loving Him in a human way) without Grace. After the Fall we can still do some natural good work, but it varies from person to person, and no one can do ALL the good work the incorrupt human nature could (we all have foibles and “pet temptations”). After the Fall I might be intemperate and you might be quick to anger, but I can still easily keep my peace of mind and you might not go overboard with alcohol (both good things), so we do some good but no one is completely good the way we should be.

I read the next question and “Reply to Objection 3” it says man can love God by his “natural powers” yet it is a lower degree of love. But isnt it still love and isnt it still objectively good?

After all, does it really make sense that the only thing that’s keeping you from glutting yourself on booze and lust every moment of the day is the special Grace of God? Am I really a cold-blooded murderer at heart, but for the Grace of God?

Make sense?

This does make sense in that we are not stone cold evil. The way I see it, if we were equivalent to lumps of dung then we would cease to be in God’s image and not worth saving at all.

 

[Ghosty]

I read the next question and “Reply to Objection 3” it says man can love God by his “natural powers” yet it is a lower degree of love. But isnt it still love and isnt it still objectively good?

Yes, it’s most certainly objectively good. Being objectively good doesn’t merit Grace, however, and it certainly doesn’t merit Heaven.

Remember, Heaven isn’t simply a “natural reward”, but is the very presence and possession of God. We not only can’t merit that by our natural powers, we can’t even conceive of what that is, nor even conceive that such a thing is possible. It is infinitely beyond all our capacity to recognize or accomplish, even moreso than for a rock to suddenly sprout legs and walk around. When we do the good that is natural to us, we receive a natural reward, a creaturely reward; a human smiling back at us, a good friendship, a warm place to sleep, ect. None of that merits a special gift of Divine Life from God, nor can it since Divine Life is totally disproportionate to natural actions.

Even a natural human love of God is no greater, and no more meritorious, than a dog’s natural love for its owner; it’s objectively good, but nothing especially noteworthy (except in the case of Fallen man, who often needs Grace to even accomplish this natural good; even then, however, we’re just receiving special help so we can do what we should and would be doing anyway). Another analogy would be a person with the flu who can’t run around the block until they are cured of their illness; running around the block is a good thing, especially relative to being bed-ridden, but it’s nothing spectacular and they’re not going to win a medal or any special notoriety for it; suddenly sprouting wings and flying to the moon would indicate a fundamental change in the person, however.

We as a species were made to Love God with the Divine gift of Grace, beyond the power of the nature we’ve been given (and beyond the power of ANY possible creature, since Divine Love can’t be the natural property of a created thing, but rather must be shared). Our nature is basically built to have Grace, but Grace isn’t a part of our nature, just like a car engine is built to have oil, but oil isn’t part of the nature of being a car engine. Without Grace we fall apart, because our nature is designed to do something that it simply can’t do on its own, and this is the “God-shaped hole” that St. Augustine refers to, and also when he says “our hearts are restless until they rest in God”. Just like a car engine without oil, the human nature without Grace breaks down and fails even though it may still run for a little bit and chug along for a short while as long as it’s not pushed too hard.

This is why Adam and Eve turning from Grace had such a disasterous affect on our species; we became an engine running without oil, and our pistons and gears got overheated and warped. Putting Grace back in allows us to do what we’re supposed to do again, but it doesn’t automatically undo all the damage from the time spent operating without it (i.e. our time before Baptism). We still require maintence and servicing, and ultimately a full overhaul (the Resurrection) before we can perfectly do what we were made to do in the first place: see, know, and Love God as He is.

Does that help?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yes, it’s most certainly objectively good. Being objectively good doesn’t merit Grace, however, and it certainly doesn’t merit Heaven.

If something is objectively good it has to be pleasing in God’s eyes, I see no way around it. God looks for objective good and that plays into the Final Judgment. Thats why I was having a hard time seeing good done apart from grace.

Remember, Heaven isn’t simply a “natural reward”, but is the very presence and possession of God. We not only can’t merit that by our natural powers, we can’t even conceive of what that is, nor even conceive that such a thing is possible. It is infinitely beyond all our capacity to recognize or accomplish, even moreso than for a rock to suddenly sprout legs and walk around.

I agree, our “good works” are a distant distant second when we consider grace is absolutely essential, and most of all a gift, and without it we never had a chance. A new question is, is everyone given a sufficient measure of grace? I cant see why not.

When we do the good that is natural to us, we receive a natural reward, a creaturely reward; a human smiling back at us, a good friendship, a warm place to sleep, ect. None of that merits a special gift of Divine Life from God, nor can it since Divine Life is totally disproportionate to natural actions.

But there are many cases where there isnt a “natural reward” nor is that what the individual is interested in, for example parenting, charity work, saving a life while losing your own, etc.

Even a natural human love of God is no greater, and no more meritorious, than a dog’s natural love for its owner; it’s objectively good, but nothing especially noteworthy (except in the case of Fallen man, who often needs Grace to even accomplish this natural good; even then, however, we’re just receiving special help so we can do what we should and would be doing anyway). Another analogy would be a person with the flu who can’t run around the block until they are cured of their illness; running around the block is a good thing, especially relative to being bed-ridden, but it’s nothing spectacular and they’re not going to win a medal or any special notoriety for it; suddenly sprouting wings and flying to the moon would indicate a fundamental change in the person, however.

But what you are describing is a “love of God” that amounts to “nothing especially noteworthy”…is there such a thing?

In regards to merits, I agree God never owed us, nor do we deserve it…but honestly does God let any love for Him amount to “nothing special”? The only reason why I believe there is such a thing as “natural love for God” is because Aquinas said so, otherwise I cant see how such a concept can exist in reality with God acting as if it amounts to nothing.

We as a species were made to Love God with the Divine gift of Grace, beyond the power of the nature we’ve been given (and beyond the power of ANY possible creature, since Divine Love can’t be the natural property of a created thing, but rather must be shared). Our nature is basically built to have Grace, but Grace isn’t a part of our nature, just like a car engine is built to have oil, but oil isn’t part of the nature of being a car engine. Without Grace we fall apart, because our nature is designed to do something that it simply can’t do on its own, and this is the “God-shaped hole” that St. Augustine refers to, and also when he says “our hearts are restless until they rest in God”. Just like a car engine without oil, the human nature without Grace breaks down and fails even though it may still run for a little bit and chug along for a short while as long as it’s not pushed too hard.

I have no problem with your example except for the fact what it is saying is that there is no such thing as objective good but rather “neutral” as long as the car doesnt have oil. A neutral act in God’s eyes to me is deciding whether I want water or beer to drink at dinner, not whether I give to charity not expecting a return or give up my life for another.

This is why Adam and Eve turning from Grace had such a disasterous affect on our species; we became an engine running without oil, and our pistons and gears got overheated and warped. Putting Grace back in allows us to do what we’re supposed to do again, but it doesn’t automatically undo all the damage from the time spent operating without it (i.e. our time before Baptism). We still require maintence and servicing, and ultimately a full overhaul (the Resurrection) before we can perfectly do what we were made to do in the first place: see, know, and Love God as He is.

That is why I cant imagine objective good apart from grace and why I earlier concluded even non-Christians who do good must be inspired by grace (though not to the degree a Christian is).

Does that help?

Im trying!

 

[Ghosty]

Catholic Dude: By “nothing especially noteworthy” I’m refering to the fact that it’s wholly within the nature, so it’s not really saying anything more than “he’s doing what’s natural”. Now obviously this is special insofar as the nature itself is made from nothing by God, and given as a gift to that person, but my point is that it’s not special beyond nature. It’s incredible to consider that we are made from nothing, and yet we breath, but when considering our nature itself the act of breathing is nothing spectacular to us. Breathing is a good made by God, as is care for your fellow man, but they are natural goods and are pleasing to God in a manner proportionate to our nature.

Think of it this way: you living and breathing is quite pleasing to God, so pleasing that He made you from nothing and gave you a unique soul, but these beautiful things are simply natural. We wouldn’t expect God to give us Grace just because we live and breathe, but what I’m saying is that loving God in a purely human way is no more or less special than our living and breathing. This doesn’t mean that it’s NOT special, considered absolutely, but rather that it’s nothing special in proportion to our nature. Dogs are pleasing to God by being dogs and doing what comes naturally to dogs, or else God wouldn’t make them. Humans are also pleasing to God in our natural capacity. Even the damned are pleasing to God in this manner, or else they wouldn’t exist at all.

As for my point about natural rewards, I was more trying to emphasize that what we receive is a natural reward of some kind if we are rewarded at all. It was more to draw a distinction between natural rewards and supernatural rewards, rather than say that every natural good action receives a natural reward. Again, it’s a matter of proportion more than anything.

I have no problem with your example except for the fact what it is saying is that there is no such thing as objective good but rather “neutral” as long as the car doesnt have oil. A neutral act in God’s eyes to me is deciding whether I want water or beer to drink at dinner, not whether I give to charity not expecting a return or give up my life for another.

That particular analogy wasn’t designed to show “objective good”, but rather our relationship to Grace and how it helps us to do both what’s natural and what’s beyond our nature. Remember, everything insofar as it exists is “objectively good”, because existance is a gift from God. There is no “neutral being”, because there is no being besides God and what God gives being to, and God does not make neutral or evil things.

The real question is whether or not our natural good can merit eternal life, and the answer to that is obviously that it can’t because eternal life is a Divine thing and not a creaturely thing, and we can’t operate on a Divine level without Grace. If we can’t operate on a Divine level, how can we merit, let alone appreciate, Divine rewards? Since we’re creatures that are designed for the possession of the Eternal Good, however, God gives us Grace for us to cooperate with and unite ourselves to so that we can go beyond the activities of mere creaturely nature and “do the good works that Christ has prepared in advance”. We are designed to do more than what our nature allows for, and THAT is what is most pleasing to God, and what merits the Eternal Good (and this Eternal Good is nothing else but God, so in a sense we are given God so that we can work with God so that we can merit a closer union with God, all in a continuing, spiraling process during this lifetime until we receive the fullness of the Beatific Vision in the next life).

So the steps go like this:

1. I’m given the free gift of existing with this nature.
2. I’m given Grace in order to perform (Divine) works beyond the capacity of my nature, such as truly Loving God as Father and not simply Creator (just as the Son does).
3. By working with this Grace I’m granted more Grace, a deeper connection with God that allows me to even further surpass my nature (my Love grows stronger, and drives me to do more).
4. This process continues with its starts and stops throughout my life, until I finally come into the fullness of my reward by “seeing God face to face”, with greater or lesser clarity according to how much I’ve united myself to God.

or

1. I ultimately fail in cooperating with Grace and I turn away from God, the Source of all Goodness, and suffer the suffering of being utterly broken and incomplete (I’m designed to Know and Love God, after all, even if I need Grace in order to do it), and never being able to put an end to myself since my existance is irrevocable according to God’s Will. This is the “pain of Damnation”, which is in addition to any other suffering my soul and body will experience in the next life.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

A new question is, is everyone given a sufficient measure of grace? I cant see why not.

Absolutely! It’s what we were made for, after all. God even Incarnated and died on the Cross so that we could have such Grace. Not everyone cooperates with this Grace, however, so just because everyone receives it doesn’t mean everyone is ultimately Saved.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Ok, I think I get it now. Im glad I learned this and it certainly beats the “total depravity” mindset of some Protestants.

 

[mikeledes]

Did Adam freely choose to sin or not? According to Genesis, Adam lost his original justice after he ate of the tree. If God withdrew His grace before he ate of the tree, then wouldn’t that mean he lost his original righteousness prior to hsi eating of the tree and was thus already spiritually dead when he ate the fruit?

God Bless,
Michael

No response? I wonder why…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

No response? I wonder why…

God Bless,
Michael

Clearly it must be because your question is somehow a complete misreading of Reformed theology as part of the ongoing papist plot to lead Luther and Calvin’s sheep astray…

Or maybe it’s just a question the answer to which has implications closer to the reformer’s views than we moderns would like.

 

[Calvinator]

Did Adam freely choose to sin or not? According to Genesis, Adam lost his original justice after he ate of the tree. If God withdrew His grace before he ate of the tree, then wouldn’t that mean he lost his original righteousness prior to hsi eating of the tree and was thus already spiritually dead when he ate the fruit?

God Bless,
Michael

Mike,

If you go back several posts (#169?) you will see that I tried to correct the confusion I caused by asking you about God withdrawing his grace. I asked you about God withdrawing his grace in post 140(?) because it is a common, albeit fallacious charge, that reformed Christians think God is the author of sin or that our theolgy makes God the author of sin and I thought that is where you were heading.

So, in short, no, I don’t think God withdrew his grace from Adam and then caused Adam to fall. Back in post 36 I alluded to what I believe. I do believe Adam had a free will, but it was apparently mutable (ie. changeable). As I said in post 130, I haven’t worked out all the details as to how Adam sinned. We will agree that Adam had free will but it seems like a rather shallow answer to the question. How is it that Adam chose evil?

Just stating Adam had a free will doesn’t describe how Adam would choose evil since there was no evil in him, at least it’s my understanding that there wasn’t. If Adam was prideful, well, where did that pride come from that caused him to choose evil?

I still don’t see how anyone can say they believe in a free will and original sin. If you have free will, why do you choose sin? If you believe in God, why on earth would you ever choose to offend him? If your will is free, why not choose good instead of evil? If you have a strong urge to sin, your will is under the influence of your passions and is no longer truly free, at least IMHO it isn’t free.

As I said earlier, maybe not in this thread, I am in the middle of a move and have very limited access to a computer so it may be several days before I can get back to this thread. It’s not that I am no longer interested or that your brilliant apologetic efforts have left me speechless…I just don’t have easy access to a computer.

 

[jmcdzzz]

How was Adam able to be tempted in the first place if he didn’t suffer from the effects of original sin?

Genesis never says that Adam was tempted. Temptation implies a struggle between two choices. Genesis simply says that “she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate”. Eve was certainly tempted, but it doesn’t say that Adam was. I think that we can probably surmise that he was, as was there too while the serpent was talking to Eve, but the text does not demand it.