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

[grannymh]

Simpleas,

When we are searching for the hidden truths in the first three wonderful chapters of Genesis, we must choose a starting point which is an undeniable truth. Some starting points you can choose would be 1. God as Creator exists. 2. Humans are an unique species. 3. Humans have a beneficial goal. 4. God has the power to communicate with humans. 5. Humans have the power to communicate with God. 6. Adam and Original Sin truly existed in real space and time at the very beginning of human history.

Or you can pick any other undeniable truth as the basic foundation for your search. The next step is to find secondary truths which come from your first undeniable truth. Secondary truths automatically lead to additional truths. And so on. Even our alphabet presents basic fundamental truths.

When we are looking for an “answer” in the amazing first three chapters of Genesis, then we need to define the question. Once we have a definitive question, we look for one of the undeniable truths as the starting point of our search for answers.

All this sounds like a game. And that is a good way to find the deeper meanings in the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, the necessity for Genesis 3: 15.

Simpleas, are you willing to try this path to find the many truths which are important today? Especially those truths which really interest you?

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[cfauster]

…

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.

Lots of wisdom there. Thank you.

 

[simpleas]

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.

Thanks.

Your posts are like mini homilies

Your answer in part to my question was this :

*It’s more like this from my understanding: God created them perfect, as to their natures, even without the preternatural gifts.
*

That is what I am pondering, what was their nature then, without the gifts? The way I think of it is that when they were created, they were created with the gifts from day one, so they had the sort of nature we would imagine that is consistent with a sinless nature, one that only knows and acts on goodness. (not perfection, like God)

Adam/Eve had the freedom from sin, yet they sinned. There was a failure somewhere and you say it was the will.

Having freedom from concupiscence, as described in the CCC 377, being unimpaired in his whole being, suggests to me that it includes the will?
I know they had freewill, and their wills would not have yet been ordered toward God alone, being sinless didn’t make any difference.

 

[bchai]

I did an in-depth study of original sin in my Blog Post.

You can read it here: brandonjchai.com/index/original-sin-truth/.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks.

Your posts are like mini homilies

Your answer in part to my question was this :

*It’s more like this from my understanding: God created them perfect, as to their natures, even without the preternatural gifts.
*

That is what I am pondering, what was their nature then, without the gifts? The way I think of it is that when they were created, they were created with the gifts from day one, so they had the sort of nature we would imagine that is consistent with a sinless nature, one that only knows and acts on goodness. (not perfection, like God)

Adam/Eve had the freedom from sin, yet they sinned. There was a failure somewhere and you say it was the will.

Having freedom from concupiscence, as described in the CCC 377, being unimpaired in his whole being, suggests to me that it includes the will?
I know they had freewill, and their wills would not have yet been ordered toward God alone, being sinless didn’t make any difference.

I know- I probably get kinda preachy at times . Anyway, it’s not an easily answered question. But it makes sense that God alone, being infinitely perfect, could be absolutely free from the possibility of straying from that perfection. And free will is either completely free-or it’s not free at all. If God wants us to freely choose truth, righteousness, goodness- to freely choose Him as a matter of our justice/integrity- then the possibility of our *not *choosing Him must necessarily exist as well. And I don’t know if we can take the question of why A&E chose as they did much further than that. But that choice for Him is critical; unlike God man has no perfection apart from Him, apart from union with Him. But I do see that they and we are given time-sort of a reprieve- to work this all out here in our non-Edenic world.

The story of creation and the Fall is at one and the same time a historical event and a message, about us, regarding human nature and the world/state we find ourselves in now. Anyway I don’t think Adam & Eve were so profoundly different from ourselves-mainly more privileged in a sense. We’re here to find out just what they gave up in the pursuit of whatever they-and we-keep looking for.

Again, it seems that perfection for a created being with free will necessarily involves him choosing and participating in that perfecting, which carries with it both a risk of failure and the potential for glory, for growing in perfection/holiness. Just some thoughts, FWIW.

 

[grannymh]

Common sense suggestion regarding description of human nature.

Begin with the two truths that “God as Creator exists” and “Humans are an unique species.”

Subsequently, Genesis 1: 27 is an accurate description of human nature because the Creator, being a divine God, has the power to go from the animal kingdom to a peerless species. Natural science observes the rational difference between a Beaver Dam and the Hoover Dam. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam This rational difference is key to the unique peerless human species.

Because of the truth “God has the power to communicate with humans” Genesis 1: 27 becomes acceptable information regarding the description of human nature.

Note: Some, not all, basic truths are in the first paragraph of post 536. Common sense tells us that a Creator God is not limited to a handful of undeniable truths.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

I did an in-depth study of original sin in my Blog Post.

You can read it here: brandonjchai.com/index/original-sin-truth/.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

I know- I probably get kinda preachy at times . Anyway, it’s not an easily answered question. But it makes sense that God alone, being infinitely perfect, could be absolutely free from the possibility of straying from that perfection. And free will is either completely free-or it’s not free at all. If God wants us to freely choose truth, righteousness, goodness- to freely choose Him as a matter of our justice/integrity- then the possibility of our *not *choosing Him must necessarily exist as well. And I don’t know if we can take the question of why A&E chose as they did much further than that. But that choice for Him is critical; unlike God man has no perfection apart from Him, apart from union with Him. But I do see that they and we are given time-sort of a reprieve- to work this all out here in our non-Edenic world.

The story of creation and the Fall is at one and the same time a historical event and a message, about us, regarding human nature and the world/state we find ourselves in now. Anyway I don’t think Adam & Eve were so profoundly different from ourselves-mainly more privileged in a sense. We’re here to find out just what they gave up in the pursuit of whatever they-and we-keep looking for.

Again, it seems that perfection for a created being with free will necessarily involves him choosing and participating in that perfecting, which carries with it both a risk of failure and the potential for glory, for growing in perfection/holiness. Just some thoughts, FWIW.

I agree, it’s not an easily answered question.

I think I will always ponder from time to time, how a sinless human being, chooses sin when there is no sin within yet. even when tempted from outside of themselves.

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

I know- I probably get kinda preachy at times . Anyway, it’s not an easily answered question.** But it makes sense that God alone, being infinitely perfect, could be absolutely free from the possibility of straying from that perfection.** And free will is either completely free-or it’s not free at all. If God wants us to freely choose truth, righteousness, goodness- to freely choose Him as a matter of our justice/integrity- then the possibility of our not choosing Him must necessarily exist as well. And I don’t know if we can take the question of why A&E chose as they did much further than that. But that choice for Him is critical**; unlike God man has no perfection apart from Him, apart from union with Him. But I do see that they and we are given time-sort of a reprieve- to work this all out here in our non-Edenic world.

The story of creation and the Fall is at one and the same time a historical event and a message, about us, regarding human nature and the world/state we find ourselves in now. Anyway I don’t think Adam & Eve were so profoundly different from ourselves-mainly more privileged in a sense. We’re here to find out just what they gave up in the pursuit of whatever they-and we-keep looking for.
**
Again, it seems that perfection for a created being with free will necessarily involves him choosing and participating in that perfecting**, which carries with it both a risk of failure and the potential for glory, for growing in perfection/holiness. Just some thoughts, FWIW.

Good Morning fhansen,

Plenty of “worth” there! I wanted to focus on the bold, but the rest of it was so well-stated I decided not to pick the pieces out of their original context.

The added layer of difficulty arises in the fact that we know through Christ that God forgives us without condition, His mercy is infinite. In addition, we know that Jesus calls us to “Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect”.

The human can look upon what happened in the story of A&E and see that the two messed up, they were disobedient and were punished. The story sends this point home well for people. The problem is that since God is perfect, God’s behavior in the story is to be seen as perfect, including some rather permanent inflictions like pain in childbirth and other sufferings - for all generations of His “beloved”. While the story steers people in the direction away from blaming God for our human condition (a condition of suffering sometimes, contrary to what we want) it does leave the reader with a rather negative anthropology, one of self blame for his own God-given nature and circumstance. In addition, our loving Father is shown to give us a gift He knew we would fail to hold in perfection, then He took the gift away with permanence. If this is “perfection”, then the human called to such perfection will behave uncharitably. In addition, we know our Father as infinitely merciful, but to many readers the story does not show a Father who understands and forgives, so again the reader is left with a contradicting picture of what it means to forgive, what “perfection” looks like.

Jesus points directly toward an answer to “who to blame”, he lives and suffers in giving us the answer. There is no one to blame (think negatively toward, be compelled to punish) for our condition. When we do blame, we are called to forgive. God is not punishing us, and we are not, by nature, self-destructive. Indeed, God has given us a nature such that we desire to survive, to thrive, and to love. Yes, we are fallible, but we suffer and learn from our errors, we develop. The bottom line is that we can thank God every day for the gift of life and the gift of being human. Yes, we suffer sometimes, but the gift of faith guides us in knowing that everything is going to be okay and seeing the good that comes from even the worst of circumstances.

 

[grannymh]

For general information.

There can be a ton of misunderstandings about the Dawn of Human History-- if one actually accepts the Dawn of Human History.

The current popular misunderstanding, that I have spotted in various sincere posts, is that there are some members who appear to be unaware of the difference between God the Creator and the first created human creature. Apparently, one has to be older than dirt to have learned that difference. What currently amazes me is the apparent lack of common sense.

Obviously, one has to actually study, verse by verse, in conjunction with actual Catholic doctrines, to learn the real difference between Creator and created. Unfortunately, there are a few posters who do not study in depth. Allegories are usually flimsy. Apparently, there are a few emerging Catholics who prefer the “family” approach to Catholic doctrines.(Breaking News in post 514. Comments in following posts)

 

[grannymh]

I agree, it’s not an easily answered question.

I think I will always ponder from time to time, how a sinless human being, chooses sin when there is no sin within yet. even when tempted from outside of themselves.

Thanks.

Have you ever considered “free will” as a rational part of real human nature? (Catholic teachings – CCC 1730-1732)

 

[simpleas]

Have you ever considered “free will” as a rational part of real human nature? (Catholic teachings – CCC 1730-1732)

Yes, humans have freewill.

But…

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.

By free will one shapes one’s own life.

Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

The above I have always considered is directed towards us humans now, the ‘sinful’ humans so to speak.

To me, Adam and Eve would have grown, been mature in truth and goodness because they were free of sin…doesn’t mean they didn’t or couldn’t use their freewill, but where did the lack of trust in the goodness and truth of God come from that made them turn away and seek their own ‘powers’.

I know you nor anyone else can answer that, but this is what I’m asking anyway, for I cannot properly realise how I am to understand such a amazing story.

If I didn’t think about it much, it would be like most people think, they sinned…end of discussion.It’s too amazing to just forget.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, humans have freewill.

But…

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.

By free will one shapes one’s own life.

Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

The above I have always considered is directed towards us humans now, the ‘sinful’ humans so to speak.

To me, Adam and Eve would have grown, been mature in truth and goodness because they were free of sin…doesn’t mean they didn’t or couldn’t use their freewill, but where did the lack of trust in the goodness and truth of God come from that made them turn away and seek their own ‘powers’.

I know you nor anyone else can answer that, but this is what I’m asking anyway, for I cannot properly realise how I am to understand such a amazing story.

If I didn’t think about it much, it would be like most people think, they sinned…end of discussion.It’s too amazing to just forget.

They weren’t God. I don’t know any other reason that would make their sin possible. Pondering that difference, created vs Creator, what that difference actually consists of, is where the answer lies IMO. Adam failed to recognize that difference*-because* of that difference, ironically, perhaps. He failed to recognize it because he wasn’t God IOW. God’s intention is to challenge and draw us into the awareness of that distinction. That is lesson #1 for man. Without God, apart from God, we lose self-mastery; we’re weak, fragile, subject to death. *God *is man’s life.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, humans have freewill.

But…

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.

By free will one shapes one’s own life.

Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

The above I have always considered is directed towards us humans now, the ‘sinful’ humans so to speak.

To me, Adam and Eve would have grown, been mature in truth and goodness because they were free of sin…doesn’t mean they didn’t or couldn’t use their freewill, but where did the lack of trust in the goodness and truth of God come from that made them turn away and seek their own ‘powers’.

I know you nor anyone else can answer that, but this is what I’m asking anyway, for I cannot properly realise how I am to understand such a amazing story.

If I didn’t think about it much, it would be like most people think, they sinned…end of discussion.It’s too amazing to just forget.

It sounds as if you are trying to say that Adam did not commit small personal sins before he committed the very big official Original Sin. As far as we know from the first three chapters of Genesis, that could be true.

Next, it sounds as if you are depending on someone’s skill to read another person’s particular mind at a particular time in history. Personally, I doubt if anyone has the skill to go back millions of years and examine personally what Adam was thinking. In the Catholic Church, what matters is that the creature Adam freely chose to disobey the extremely serious, direct command of his Creator.

 

[fhansen]

It sounds as if you are trying to say that Adam did not commit small personal sins before he committed the very big official Original Sin. As far as we know from the first three chapters of Genesis, that could be true.

Next, it sounds as if you are depending on someone’s skill to read another person’s particular mind at a particular time in history. Personally, I doubt if anyone has the skill to go back millions of years and examine personally what Adam was thinking. In the Catholic Church, what matters is that the creature Adam freely chose to disobey the extremely serious, direct command of his Creator.

But I think it should’ve been impossible for Adam to commit personal sins before the original one, no? That sin constituted a complete paradigm shift for man-a loss of innocence, an opening of the door to sin. Then we have the catechism’s statement:

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

 

[grannymh]

My apology to simpleas, fhansen, and readers.The realm of speculation is not my main interest at this point in time.

At the moment, I am interested in saving all the Catholic doctrines which flow from the first historical three chapters of Genesis. The alphabetical tool is one way of approaching different truths. Obviously, there are a variety of ways to approach the teachings in the favorite first three chapters of Genesis. But the emerging idea of family should not hide basic fundamental Catholic doctrines under the rug.

Paragraphs 11 & 12, Humani Generis
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

---

All humans are worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

They weren’t God. I don’t know any other reason that would make their sin possible. Pondering that difference, created vs Creator, what that difference actually consists of, is where the answer lies IMO. Adam failed to recognize that difference*-because* of that difference, ironically, perhaps. He failed to recognize it because he wasn’t God IOW. God’s intention is to challenge and draw us into the awareness of that distinction. That is lesson #1 for man. Without God, apart from God, we lose self-mastery; we’re weak, fragile, subject to death. *God *is man’s life.

I think that they would have known they weren’t God, because the temptation was to eat from the tree and become like gods. They recognised their limitations maybe, as being created as humans, spiritual, but not gods/God.

 

[simpleas]

It sounds as if you are trying to say that Adam did not commit small personal sins before he committed the very big official Original Sin. As far as we know from the first three chapters of Genesis, that could be true.

Next, it sounds as if you are depending on someone’s skill to read another person’s particular mind at a particular time in history. Personally, I doubt if anyone has the skill to go back millions of years and examine personally what Adam was thinking. In the Catholic Church, what matters is that the creature Adam freely chose to disobey the extremely serious, direct command of his Creator.

I have never considered that Adam/Eve had committed small personal sins, before the original sin. I always thought that the garden, the first two humans, were free from a sinful nature.

I doubt too that anyone has the skill to go back millions of years and read Adam and Eve’s mind…

I can however examine what the church teaches about our human nature.

 

[simpleas]

Q…

 

[fhansen]

I think that they would have known they weren’t God, because the temptation was to eat from the tree and become like gods. They recognised their limitations maybe, as being created as humans, spiritual, but not gods/God.

Well, according to the Church the Creator/created distinction was lost on them. And this goes far to explain why they didn’t heed God’s voice; who one listens to and obeys speaks volumes about who ones God actually is. Likewise thinking they could** “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God” **(CC C398), does not exactly square well with someone who recognizes their limitations. And I think failure to recognize ones limitations continues to play a major role in this world’s problems, one of many facts that confirms to me that A&E’s sin of disobedience is still alive and well in their descendants in one way or another.