Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?

[OneSheep]

Here is an interesting sample of possible Catholic confusion from post 509.
“A tenet central to your own faith is “skipping Adam would impact the divinity of Jesus Christ”. Are you open to the possibility that some, if not many, Catholics do not share this centrality? Do you consider such Catholics “less faithful” or “less something”? This is a sincere question, not an accusation.”

I may be wrong.

Could such a sincere question open the possibility that Catholics can leave the Catholic Church because they are dissatisfied with doubts/confusion about the centrality of Jesus Christ within Catholicism? Confusion impacts personal satisfaction.

If a Church is confused about the centrality of its founder, there is no reason to stay with it when there are other organizations which do not bother with deep theological issues so that everyone is comfortable.(big tent concept) Could being comfortable in a church be the primary purpose of membership for some people? Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has some very uncomfortable teachings like a real first human Adam who had a real friendship relationship with his real Divine Creator God which required real human obedience. Sometimes, someone asks “What was God thinking?”

Also, there can be times when it can be an inconvenience to participate at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Is the Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation central to the Divinity of Jesus Christ? If there is confusion about the centrality of a fully-Divine Jesus Christ, there could also be confusion about a symbolic communion based on human needs. Is the symbolic communion of friendship a replacement for the difficult chapter 6, Gospel of John?

Speaking about confusion. Now I am confused because it sounds like my “own faith” makes me judge and jury. Perhaps I will be comfortable when …

---

Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

Good Morning, Granny,

I’m a little confused by your response, I’m not sure if you answered my question. Jesus Christ is central to our faith, we both agree. I was addressing Adam, the story of Adam and Eve, as a central tenet.

For example, a person may simply know the Gospel without knowing much at all about the OT or its teachings. Adam is not mentioned in the creed, and Jesus never stated Adam’s name in Gospel. Adam’s name is not in the Gospels at all. My concordance only shows Adam’s name in four verses of New Testament sacred scripture, and about half a dozen times in the OT.

Are you open to the possibility that many Catholics do not see teachings about Adam as a central *tenet *? If so, how do you feel about those faithful, what is your opinion of their communion?

Happy Thanksgiving!

Oops, looks like you added another post, but I still don’t see the answer to my questions. Gotta run! Have a great day!

 

[fhansen]

Good Morning,

I would be happy to address this, but we may be veering to far from the topic of the thread. Would you like me to start a thread?

Yes, and the Catholic Church guided by the Spirit. And the Spirit, of course, guides us in the unfolding of revelation. People who go to another church just because they disagree are not understanding the meaning of communion, of the centrality of Eucharist. The Church is not just an ideology, a bunch of doctrines. The Church is defined by Eucharist, by relationship, as family, correct? People in a family can disagree on opinions or what they think is important.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

Revelation doesn’t unfold in the sense of something new or contradictory being revealed, but only in the sense of that which has already been revealed being better clarified or understood. There’s lots of room for that even as some seem to deny this at times.

But if and when our beliefs directly contradict basic Church teachings, then there’s a point where the very definition of Church and her authority are being challenged. While the Church does not consist solely in doctrines, she doesn’t exist without them either. She stands on four “pillars of the faith”, outlined in the catechism: the Creed, Sacraments/Work of the Church, the Ten Commandments/Life in Christ, and Prayer. Relationship and community are critical and yet truth can never be compromised for the sake of unity; our unity is created by our serving the truth in fact, subjugated to “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”.

Beyond that, yes, I agree, families can and do disagree on what they think is important, and separating over anything but the most essential values and truths is foolish and just plain wrong. Now more than ever we should pray and strive for unity. God bless.

 

[grannymh]

Breaking News regarding Catholic doctrine from post 514.

"Yes, and the Catholic Church guided by the Spirit. And the Spirit, of course, guides us in the unfolding of revelation. People who go to another church just because they disagree are not understanding the meaning of communion, of the centrality of Eucharist. The Church is not just an ideology, a bunch of doctrines. The Church is defined by Eucharist, by relationship, as family, correct? People in a family can disagree on opinions or what they think is important. "

 

[fhansen]

Good Morning, Granny,

I’m a little confused by your response, I’m not sure if you answered my question. Jesus Christ is central to our faith, we both agree. I was addressing Adam, the story of Adam and Eve, as a central tenet.

For example, a person may simply know the Gospel without knowing much at all about the OT or its teachings. Adam is not mentioned in the creed, and Jesus never stated Adam’s name in Gospel. Adam’s name is not in the Gospels at all. My concordance only shows Adam’s name in four verses of New Testament sacred scripture, and about half a dozen times in the OT.

Are you open to the possibility that many Catholics do not see teachings about Adam as a central *tenet *? If so, how do you feel about those faithful, what is your opinion of their communion?

Happy Thanksgiving!

Oops, looks like you added another post, but I still don’t see the answer to my questions. Gotta run! Have a great day!

So now it’s Sola Gospels? Aren’t we being a bit selective in our sources of authority here OS? Certainly in one of those few NT places where Adam’s name is mentioned, Rom 5, St Paul makes it clear that all died in Adam; that we are as one man in him, and that Christ is the reversal of this, being the “new Adam” Whom we’re to emulate and follow as we enter into communion with Him.

 

[grannymh]

Breaking News regarding Catholic doctrine from post 514.
"Yes, and the Catholic Church guided by the Spirit. And the Spirit, of course, guides us in the unfolding of revelation. People who go to another church just because they disagree are not understanding the meaning of communion, of the centrality of Eucharist. The Church is not just an ideology, a bunch of doctrines. The Church is defined by Eucharist, by relationship, as family, correct? People in a family can disagree on opinions or what they think is important. "
This morning, I figured out that the above “Breaking News regarding Catholic doctrine from post 514” contains an interesting solution to those attacks against the bunch of Catholic doctrines surrounding God’s love and Original Sin. It is so interesting to read that Catholicism is not just an ideology, a bunch of doctrines. Seems to me that I read something similar on the internet which sounded like a calling to peace or maybe inviting people to a better improved Catholic Church. Personally, I suggest that Catholics study paragraphs 11 & 12, Humani Generis. There are some tough words there. w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

An interesting idea flowing from the “breaking news” would be to drop some of Catholicism’s annoying doctrines, like a real Adam, by updating the Catholic Church to a relationship as family. As a family, we can disagree on opinions which used to be Catholic doctrines properly defined under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in major Catholic Ecumenical Councils (CCC, Index of Citations, starting on page 720). Opinions are usually friendly in conversations so that everyone can shake hands without a bunch of doctrines.

Is this interesting proposal a suggestion to drop basic Catholicism (The O for the Original Relationship between God and creature) and join a great new group of relaxed Catholics?

 

[OneSheep]

Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

Revelation doesn’t unfold in the sense of something new or contradictory being revealed, but only in the sense of that which has already been revealed being better clarified or understood. There’s lots of room for that even as some seem to deny this at times.

But if and when our beliefs directly contradict basic Church teachings, then there’s a point where the very definition of Church and her authority are being challenged. While the Church does not consist solely in doctrines, she doesn’t exist without them either. She stands on four “pillars of the faith”, outlined in the catechism: the Creed, Sacraments/Work of the Church, the Ten Commandments/Life in Christ, and Prayer. Relationship and community are critical and yet truth can never be compromised for the sake of unity; our unity is created by our serving the truth in fact, subjugated to “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”.

Beyond that, yes, I agree, families can and do disagree on what they think is important, and separating over anything but the most essential values and truths is foolish and just plain wrong. Now more than ever we should pray and strive for unity. God bless.

Blessings to you also!

 

[grannymh]

Breaking News regarding Catholic doctrine from post 514.
"Yes, and the Catholic Church guided by the Spirit. And the Spirit, of course, guides us in the unfolding of revelation. People who go to another church just because they disagree are not understanding the meaning of communion, of the centrality of Eucharist. The Church is not just an ideology, a bunch of doctrines. The Church is defined by Eucharist, by relationship, as family, correct? People in a family can disagree on opinions or what they think is important. "

This morning I asked myself – Did I miss something in the above Breaking News.


Yes, I missed this important sentence regarding opinions. " People in a family can disagree on opinions or what they think is important."

It is certainly possible that presenting gentle opinions can lead to deep Catholic truths. For example: exploring the many ways that the author of the truth-filled first three chapters of Genesis explained the reality of a single sole spiritual being (Genesis 1: 27) with a decomposing anatomy. Note: God’s pure gift which removed the normal material death and suffering of humans Adam & Eve is dependent on the “Original relationship between the first human Adam and his Creator God.” (CCC 374-376)
Going back to post 483, we find a good approach to opinions.

“What we can say is that differences of opinion can draw people to inquire about God if those differences are presented and discussed in a way that does not turn people off. Adamant finger-pointing and accusation, for example, only serves to compromise the spirit of love and inclusion we find in the Gospel. “Catholic” means universal, we aim for unity, communion. We are one body.”

Obviously unity and communion is a goal of the Good Shepherd. This goal is accomplished in the Mystical Body of Christ. The CCC Profession of Faith in the Catholic Church includes the doctrine that the “Church is communion with Jesus” (CCC 787 and following) St. Paul does not mince words. “Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.” 1 Corinthians 12: 27.

Frankly, I do not find Jesus giving out various opinions. In addition, I do not find the Catholic Church defining Divine Revelation as a variety of opinions coming from the human family.

Could there be someplace where it is permissible, and maybe personally advantageous, to intellectually leave the Catholic Church because of a different conflicting opinion? Or maybe there is the suggestion that the Catholic Church should include any and all opinions as long as they are friendly. A real Adam doing the Original Sin belongs in the unfriendly classification of opinions.

From the encyclical Humani Generis w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Paragraph 11.
Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.

Paragraph12.
Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.

 

[OneSheep]

Breaking News regarding Catholic doctrine from post 514.
"Yes, and the Catholic Church guided by the Spirit. And the Spirit, of course, guides us in the unfolding of revelation. People who go to another church just because they disagree are not understanding the meaning of communion, of the centrality of Eucharist. The Church is not just an ideology, a bunch of doctrines. The Church is defined by Eucharist, by relationship, as family, correct? People in a family can disagree on opinions or what they think is important. "

This morning I asked myself – Did I miss something in the above Breaking News.


Yes, I missed this important sentence regarding opinions. " People in a family can disagree on opinions or what they think is important."

It is certainly possible that presenting gentle opinions can lead to deep Catholic truths. For example: exploring the many ways that the author of the truth-filled first three chapters of Genesis explained the reality of a single sole spiritual being (Genesis 1: 27) with a decomposing anatomy. Note: God’s pure gift which removed the normal material death and suffering of humans Adam & Eve is dependent on the “Original relationship between the first human Adam and his Creator God.” (CCC 374-376)
Going back to post 483, we find a good approach to opinions.

“What we can say is that differences of opinion can draw people to inquire about God if those differences are presented and discussed in a way that does not turn people off. Adamant finger-pointing and accusation, for example, only serves to compromise the spirit of love and inclusion we find in the Gospel. “Catholic” means universal, we aim for unity, communion. We are one body.”

Obviously unity and communion is a goal of the Good Shepherd. This goal is accomplished in the Mystical Body of Christ. The CCC Profession of Faith in the Catholic Church includes the doctrine that the “Church is communion with Jesus” (CCC 787 and following) St. Paul does not mince words. “Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.” 1 Corinthians 12: 27.

Frankly, I do not find Jesus giving out various opinions. In addition, I do not find the Catholic Church defining Divine Revelation as a variety of opinions coming from the human family.

Could there be someplace where it is permissible, and maybe personally advantageous, to intellectually leave the Catholic Church because of a different conflicting opinion? Or maybe there is the suggestion that the Catholic Church should include any and all opinions as long as they are friendly. A real Adam doing the Original Sin belongs in the unfriendly classification of opinions.

From the encyclical Humani Generis w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Paragraph 11.
Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.

Paragraph12.
Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.

Good Morning, Granny,

We have covered the above before, so no need to go into it again. We are of the same body, even though we have different opinions on things. This, dear, is fact.

So please, you have us all waiting for P.

Common Priesthood?

Bless your weekend!

 

[grannymh]

Common Priesthood (from post 523) in the first three chapters of Genesis?

That sounds like a way to introduce confusion about the original inhabitants in the Garden of Eden. When there is too much confusion, it becomes easy to consider a Catholic Big Tent where Catholic doctrines tend to lose their importance hinted in post 514. In post 514, the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist appears to be taught as relationship as family – where, apparently, one can disagree to the point that the Catholic Eucharist becomes family important only on Christmas when the elder members insist on attendance. I do not necessarily see the disappearance of the Eucharist. Rather, the essential meaning of Eucharist is being updated to comport with any, and all, modern human opinions.

Please refer to the word “eirenism” in paragraphs 11 & 12 of Humani Generis quoted in post 522. And take a second look at the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 12: 27) There is nothing there that says that it is o.k. for Catholics to replace doctrines, like Adam and Original Sin (fly in the ointment according to a famous Catholic) with their personal opinions or on what they think is important.

Going back to the Breaking News regarding Catholic doctrine in post 514, what is the real meaning of the Catholic Sacrament of the Eucharist? (CCC 1322 and following) Would the Catholic Priesthood have originated when Jesus, Himself, presided at the “Last Supper”?

 

[simpleas]

I was hoping P would be for Preternatural gifts…

 

[grannymh]

I was hoping P would be for Preternatural gifts…

The definition of Preternatural Gifts is catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35763

“Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title–infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.”

It is important that we learn that Adam did not have a “Preternatural” nature. Preternatural Gifts are gifts because God freely gave them to Adam and Eve in addition to and over and above their normal created human nature.

Created human nature is considered limited because it is not the same nature as the Divine Creator Who is totally transcendent, super-natural, one of a kind, solely spiritual Being. Humans are limited because they are not God. The Preternatural Gifts added to Adam and Eve’s nature. Infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality did not turn Adam and Eve into additional Divine Gods. They still had to freely choose obedience to their Creator God.
Genesis 2: 15-17.

It is understandable that people can miss the difference between Preternatural Gifts and human nature. That is why it is valuable to pay attention to basic Catholic doctrines which flow from the actual first three chapters of Genesis. When a few public popular Catholics omit these chapters or re-design these chapters, there is a ripple effect that can lead to heresies involving the full Divinity of Jesus Christ. (CCC 389, last sentence)

Chapter 6, Gospel of John may become a family love symbol. While that symbol may not be entirely bad, the real Catholic Church, not the proposed family description, teaches the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. When the neat family symbol allows members to follow their own opinions – That concept is entirely bad because it encourages denial of properly defined Catholic teachings such as the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Yes, we can receive Jesus “under our roof.” (Prayer in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) Yes, empty pews evince the symbolic approach especially when personal opinions rule.

 

[grannymh]

For General Information

The “proposed family description” mentioned in post 526 is found in post 514. There are a number of following informative posts on this “Breaking News” regarding Catholic doctrine from post 514.

 

[simpleas]

The definition of Preternatural Gifts is catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35763

“Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title–infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.”

It is important that we learn that Adam did not have a “Preternatural” nature. Preternatural Gifts are gifts because God freely gave them to Adam and Eve in addition to and over and above their normal created human nature.

Created human nature is considered limited because it is not the same nature as the Divine Creator Who is totally transcendent, super-natural, one of a kind, solely spiritual Being. Humans are limited because they are not God. The Preternatural Gifts added to Adam and Eve’s nature. Infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality did not turn Adam and Eve into additional Divine Gods. They still had to freely choose obedience to their Creator God.
Genesis 2: 15-17.

It is understandable that people can miss the difference between Preternatural Gifts and human nature. That is why it is valuable to pay attention to basic Catholic doctrines which flow from the actual first three chapters of Genesis. When a few public popular Catholics omit these chapters or re-design these chapters, there is a ripple effect that can lead to heresies involving the full Divinity of Jesus Christ. (CCC 389, last sentence)

Chapter 6, Gospel of John may become a family love symbol. While that symbol may not be entirely bad, the real Catholic Church, not the proposed family description, teaches the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. When the neat family symbol allows members to follow their own opinions – That concept is entirely bad because it encourages denial of properly defined Catholic teachings such as the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Yes, we can receive Jesus “under our roof.” (Prayer in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) Yes, empty pews evince the symbolic approach especially when personal opinions rule.

I’ve sorta questioned what concupiscence means to Catholic’s and what it meant that Adam and Eve were free from concupiscence in previous threads.

But just now reading your comment :

It is important that we learn that Adam did not have a “Preternatural” nature. Preternatural Gifts are gifts because God freely gave them to Adam and Eve in addition to and over and above their normal created human nature.

The gift given would have been separate, to give a gift, a person needs to receive it,freely and willing.
You say the gift was given in addition to and over and above their normal created human nature.
That is interesting, because now I’m pondering what their normal created human nature would have been like without the gift from God?

Having infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality, does make them sound different in nature, but thought of as a gift to the human in order for the human to live sinless makes sense, that would have been their normal created nature, yet it would only be achieved (being sinless) if they had been able to keep the gifts.

We can’t say God created a human as a dumb animal, full of concupiscence, and death and then give them gifts in order to combat this human state

 

[fhansen]

I’ve sorta questioned what concupiscence means to Catholic’s and what it meant that Adam and Eve were free from concupiscence in previous threads.

But just now reading your comment :

The gift given would have been separate, to give a gift, a person needs to receive it,freely and willing.
You say the gift was given in addition to and over and above their normal created human nature.
That is interesting, because now I’m pondering what their normal created human nature would have been like without the gift from God?

Having infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality, does make them sound different in nature, but thought of as a gift to the human in order for the human to live sinless makes sense, that would have been their normal created nature, yet it would only be achieved (being sinless) if they had been able to keep the gifts.

We can’t say God created a human as a dumb animal, full of concupiscence, and death and then give them gifts in order to combat this human state

It’s more like this from my understanding: God created them perfect, as to their natures, even without the preternatural gifts. And yet without *communion *with God a rational being with free will becomes a wild card-any and all dispositions and behaviors become possible.

In line with His wisdom the preternatural gifts are the “natural” outcome of being in communion with God, of partaking of Him. Adam broke that communion, Jesus came to restore it when the time was ripe in human history, and so within our own individual histories, reconciling us with God so that we may now commune with Him again, apart from Whom we can do nothing" (John 5:15). The test is still on, however; the concupiscence and threat of annihilation that we all must continue to experience now helps to refine us as we “struggle against sin” (Heb 12) with the underlying inescapable influence of knowing that our next breath may be our last.

The question facing us is, “What’s the most important thing in life after all?” Is it our reputation, our possessions, our wealth, our accomplishments, our pleasures, etc? Is it God? The answer to the question directly impacts or determines our nearness to, our relationship or communion with, Him. The answer, according to our faith, is supposed to be that Adam was wrong, that man must know and be subjugated to God, that the offerings of the world are pitifully lacking and futile next to that. And as we become tired or even disgusted with those offerings then *God’s * offerings, His demonstration of His existence, goodness, love, and promise of eternal life via the Resurrection, all acted out in real time in the person of Jesus Christ, become all the more attractive, and with the help of grace, all the more real.

Meanwhile concupiscence plays its role. To the extent that we reject its attractions/distractions our justice is all the greater, by virtue of being more fully “owned” by us. This is an aspect of our perfection, our willingness to embrace God first above all else, as opposed to Adam’s unwillingness at the time. To the degree that we remain distracted up to our death, we will be finally cleansed of it in purgatory, finishing the work there that began here in this life providing that our actions here weren’t so seriously opposed to God and His love that they amount to an absolute rejection of Him/it.

And fortunately none of this happens in a vacuum; we cannot force ourselves to place God first, to “value Him” as He deserves, to love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength; that occurs, over time, as we come to know Him, with His help, with His drawing us. That’s the very reason that we have this time here on earth, time to “work out our salvation”, time to come to our senses, time to gain the wisdom to know what’s truly of value, and what is not.

So apparently it’s good that our communion with God is not quite complete in this life, our relationship still at arm’s length to some extent, because here our choices, our decisions, our orientation towards good and evil, is realized; it’s our *own. *
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Cor 13:12

 

[grannymh]

I’ve sorta questioned what concupiscence means to Catholic’s and what it meant that Adam and Eve were free from concupiscence in previous threads.

But just now reading your comment :

The gift given would have been separate, to give a gift, a person needs to receive it,freely and willing.
You say the gift was given in addition to and over and above their normal created human nature.
That is interesting, because now I’m pondering what their normal created human nature would have been like without the gift from God?

Having infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality, does make them sound different in nature, but thought of as a gift to the human in order for the human to live sinless makes sense, that would have been their normal created nature, yet it would only be achieved (being sinless) if they had been able to keep the gifts.

We can’t say God created a human as a dumb animal, full of concupiscence, and death and then give them gifts in order to combat this human state

Some years back, a CAF member made the common sense observation that the temptation to Adam was external – a talking snake. That is something I would ponder.
And I would look for common sense which is in the informative first three chapters of Genesis beginning with the obvious shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27.

P is for Preternatural Gifts given to Eve and Adam

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[cfauster]

The new CCC gives a clear description (below) of the pre-Fall state. The distinction between natural and preternatural doesn’t appear in this portion of the CCC, but perhaps it does elsewhere.

IV. MAN IN PARADISE

374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die. The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.

377 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 to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

378 The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden. There he lives “to till it and keep it”. Work is not yet a burden, but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.

379 This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.

 

[simpleas]

It’s more like this from my understanding: God created them perfect, as to their natures, even without the preternatural gifts. And yet without *communion *with God a rational being with free will becomes a wild card-any and all dispositions and behaviors become possible.

In line with His wisdom the preternatural gifts are the “natural” outcome of being in communion with God, of partaking of Him. Adam broke that communion, Jesus came to restore it when the time was ripe in human history, and so within our own individual histories, reconciling us with God so that we may now commune with Him again, apart from Whom we can do nothing" (John 5:15). The test is still on, however; the concupiscence and threat of annihilation that we all must continue to experience now helps to refine us as we “struggle against sin” (Heb 12) with the underlying inescapable influence of knowing that our next breath may be our last.

The question facing us is, “What’s the most important thing in life after all?” Is it our reputation, our possessions, our wealth, our accomplishments, our pleasures, etc? Is it God? The answer to the question directly impacts or determines our nearness to, our relationship or communion with, Him. The answer, according to our faith, is supposed to be that Adam was wrong, that man must know and be subjugated to God, that the offerings of the world are pitifully lacking and futile next to that. And as we become tired or even disgusted with those offerings then *God’s * offerings, His demonstration of His existence, goodness, love, and promise of eternal life via the Resurrection, all acted out in real time in the person of Jesus Christ, become all the more attractive, and with the help of grace, all the more real.

Meanwhile concupiscence plays its role. To the extent that we reject its attractions/distractions our justice is all the greater, by virtue of being more fully “owned” by us. This is an aspect of our perfection, our willingness to embrace God first above all else, as opposed to Adam’s unwillingness at the time. To the degree that we remain distracted up to our death, we will be finally cleansed of it in purgatory, finishing the work there that began here in this life providing that our actions here weren’t so seriously opposed to God and His love that they amount to an absolute rejection of Him/it.

And fortunately none of this happens in a vacuum; we cannot force ourselves to place God first, to “value Him” as He deserves, to love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength; that occurs, over time, as we come to know Him, with His help, with His drawing us. That’s the very reason that we have this time here on earth, time to “work out our salvation”, time to come to our senses, time to gain the wisdom to know what’s truly of value, and what is not.

So apparently it’s good that our communion with God is not quite complete in this life, our relationship still at arm’s length to some extent, because here our choices, our decisions, our orientation towards good and evil, is realized; it’s our *own. *
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Cor 13:12

Thanks.

Having infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality,are the gifts though aren’t they?
I mean having the above is what makes a human perfect, or at least helps them journey toward perfection when they see God.
Adam and Eve were created and it seems given these gifts without ever having earned them.

 

[simpleas]

Some years back, a CAF member made the common sense observation that the temptation to Adam was external – a talking snake. That is something I would ponder.
And I would look for common sense which is in the informative first three chapters of Genesis beginning with the obvious shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27.

P is for Preternatural Gifts given to Eve and Adam

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

I’m not sure if the above is an attempt at answering my pondering question or just a deflection from it.
Yes the temptation was external, but the sin came from within.

 

[simpleas]

The new CCC gives a clear description (below) of the pre-Fall state. The distinction between natural and preternatural doesn’t appear in this portion of the CCC, but perhaps it does elsewhere.

IV. MAN IN PARADISE

374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die. The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.

377 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 to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

378 The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden. There he lives “to till it and keep it”. Work is not yet a burden, but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.

379 This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.

Thanks.

377 always leaves me confused though. I have yet to ‘fill in the blanks’ in order to understand it how the CCC teaching understands it.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks.

Having infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality,are the gifts though aren’t they?
I mean having the above is what makes a human perfect, or at least helps them journey toward perfection when they see God.
Adam and Eve were created and it seems given these gifts without ever having earned them.

Well, yes; our existence, itself, is a gift for that matter. But I was trying to explain why, once the first act of disobedience occurred, the preternatural gifts were forfeited or lost automatically, and why God would see fit that they *should *be lost, at least for a time.

Wallowing, so to speak, in our own struggle to achieve self-mastery, and in our ultimate helplessness in the overall scheme of things, can help shake/form us into the realization of our need for and dependency upon God. At the same time, when His goodness, trustworthiness, mercy, and love for us are so definitively revealed via Jesus, that dependency can become for us a welcome condition, similar to the realization of the Prodigal Son. God just wants man to learn, viscerally if it benefits us, what He already knows.

Attaining the ultimate state of perfection involves a journey, according to the Church. Adam may have been “more perfect” than ourselves in many ways, including knowledge, but *not in terms of possessing whatever wisdom was necessary to remain in obedience to God, because this wisdom involves utilizing *our knowledge properly, in such a way as to guide and orient the *will *correctly. Adam’s failure, according to various Fathers, was a failure of the will first of all. As we begin to gain that wisdom here, then our own ultimate perfection already begins to exceed Adam’s. Any authentic choice for God is a sign of a justice in us greater than Adam’s, who obviously chose and acted against God. This possibility of choosing and owning justice/goodness for ourselves-or refusing it-is an integral aspect of our free will.