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

[OneSheep]

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

That is an excellent foundation for Catholic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis. Thank you.

I am not sure if everyone learned this – Catholic doctrines can be built on a foundation such as Genesis 1: 31a. Thus, OneSheep --What is the next verse(s) you will use to build or reach the next Catholic doctrine flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis? You are not limited to one Catholic doctrine.

Hi Granny,

If I were to pick the most important verses to build Catholic doctrine, I would start with the Gospels and the rest of the NT. Anything from the OT would be way down the list, IMO.

However, if I were to pick from Gen 1-3, as far as the next most important verse, it would have to be 1:27 :

27
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

I do hope that I have provided enough, now. Or are you going to keep asking until I get to the ones you like the most? Chapters 2 and 3 are good and have their purpose, friend. They play a role in Catholic doctrine. They are inspired literature.

Blessings!

 

[OneSheep]

And yet “punishment” can be an alternate term for “natural consequences” in this story. And the consequences can actually be reformative-or intentionally formative, to begin with-in nature. Without God man is lost, he suffers, he struggles, he dies; he has no life on his own apart from God. The point is that man must be consciously subjugated to God in a relationship of love. We’re both obligated to it-in order to keep ourselves and therefore our world in a state of justice-and yet we benefit unimaginably from it, which is the lesson we must learn. Either way the** onus upon man for fulfilling this obligation** to be righteous/perfect/innocent cannot be diminished in our minds-or else we won’t be compelled to achieve our intended purpose.

Man is morally obligated to love, even if the knowledge of that obligation, alone, is insufficient to cause the desired effect. For* that* grace is required, but our purpose here in this life is to become malleable, softened, and therefore opened to grace, to listening to and heeding God’s voice again so that He may mold us into the beings He intends.

Hi fhansen,

Forgive me for taking liberty with the bolding button. What you are talking about is an approach to spirituality in which the individual person is somewhat coerced into doing what does not come naturally. There is a place for this approach, and it is very important as a means of motivating people to take on faith. The approach has merit, and application. There is nothing wrong with it, and it works for most people in terms of repentance from sin, seeking justice, etc.

However, when mercy is an obligation, the joy is diminished. Indeed, when relationship is forever maintained as an obligation, with some “or else” hanging over the head of the believer, what freedom is there in that? For all the good that the fear has led to, the continuance of the anxiety leads to scrupulosity and judgmental attitudes toward other people. It is a stagnation.

So while there is a place for obligation in all of our journeys, Jesus invites us to love in a deeper way, a way inspired not by fear but by love itself. We can see that people respond to unconditional love with the same they hold deep within. This is not about obligation, this invitation. It is about people being their “true selves”, people emanating love for its own sake, because there is Love within all people, and people naturally seek to serve and do acts of mercy because they Love.

Do you see what I’m saying? It is not either/or, it is both/and.

 

[goout]

Hi fhansen,

Forgive me for taking liberty with the bolding button. What you are talking about is an approach to spirituality in which the individual person is somewhat coerced into doing what does not come naturally. There is a place for this approach, and it is very important as a means of motivating people to take on faith. The approach has merit, and application. There is nothing wrong with it, and it works for most people in terms of repentance from sin, seeking justice, etc.

However, when mercy is an obligation, the joy is diminished. Indeed, when relationship is forever maintained as an obligation, with some “or else” hanging over the head of the believer, what freedom is there in that? For all the good that the fear has led to, the continuance of the anxiety leads to scrupulosity and judgmental attitudes toward other people. It is a stagnation.

So while there is a place for obligation in all of our journeys, Jesus invites us to love in a deeper way, a way inspired not by fear but by love itself. We can see that people respond to unconditional love with the same they hold deep within. This is not about obligation, this invitation. It is about people being their “true selves”, people emanating love for its own sake, because there is Love within all people, and people naturally seek to serve and do acts of mercy because they Love.

Do you see what I’m saying? It is not either/or, it is both/and.

I don’t think you understand the way in which the word “obligation” is understood here. Obligation is an integral part of “the deeper way”. Obligation is not at odds with the fullness of love.
newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm

 

[simpleas]

This is good instruction on how the Church reads Genesis. The questions are really good.
ec.libsyn.com/p/c/8/1/c81f3e5f5becb8bd/ImmaculateConception2016.m4a?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06c08632d5ce542f8a&c_id=13561692&destination_id=13713

Interesting talk, I would have preferred Q&A or at least an short explanation to his questions to help in understanding what he was trying to point out.

 

[grannymh]

Theology of the Body addresses the two creation accounts in depth. It’s early on in the document, the first few chapters.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

Thank you for this link. However, I am looking for the actual verses in the actual first three chapters of Genesis.

The Church does not read scripture with literalism.

I cannot speak for all scripture. My area of interest is the first three chapters of Genesis. I doubt that the current real Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Original Sin are not literally real. In fact, I am sure that the real Catholic Church, not the proposed Big Tent Church, continues to maintain the literal reality of Adam and Original Sin according to “the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church…” paragraph 37, Humani Generis
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

The bible is a work of literature, so in that sense it is literal. That is a different thing than literalism.

Of course there is a difference.

The priest in this homily briefly addresses this problem that besets modern people, where we demand that truth be seen only through the lens of science and journalism. Truth is much more than that.

The priest knows his audience and that is good.
Personally, I prefer a broader approach which is to start with the observations beginning with Genesis 1:1

Doctrine comes to light for us when reading scripture with the Church.

Naturally, reading scripture produces many good insights. But technically, we cannot refer to these insights as doctrine unless they are properly defined and duly declared according to the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth.

May I respectfully point out that the way doctrine based on scripture comes to light is through the major ecumenical Church Councils under the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. We can discuss doctrine, but we cannot add, subtract, replace, or change according to individuals living or dead.

 

[fhansen]

Hi fhansen,

Forgive me for taking liberty with the bolding button. What you are talking about is an approach to spirituality in which the individual person is somewhat coerced into doing what does not come naturally. There is a place for this approach, and it is very important as a means of motivating people to take on faith. The approach has merit, and application. There is nothing wrong with it, and it works for most people in terms of repentance from sin, seeking justice, etc.

However, when mercy is an obligation, the joy is diminished. Indeed, when relationship is forever maintained as an obligation, with some “or else” hanging over the head of the believer, what freedom is there in that? For all the good that the fear has led to, the continuance of the anxiety leads to scrupulosity and judgmental attitudes toward other people. It is a stagnation.

So while there is a place for obligation in all of our journeys, Jesus invites us to love in a deeper way, a way inspired not by fear but by love itself. We can see that people respond to unconditional love with the same they hold deep within. This is not about obligation, this invitation. It is about people being their “true selves”, people emanating love for its own sake, because there is Love within all people, and people naturally seek to serve and do acts of mercy because they Love.

Do you see what I’m saying? It is not either/or, it is both/and.

IMO there must be both a carrot and a stick in God’s toolkit. And this is so because 1) we’re morally accountable beings with free will and, 2) He wants us to freely choose the right thing, without forcing it. To be obligated to do the “right thing” is not bad; it’s good, in fact. which is why God could rightfully command it in Genesis. But knowing that man may need to *learn *to do it is why God didn’t abandon man but instead patiently leads him through history on to a place where he’s more capable of receiving the light -and responding to it.

Part of the lesson along the way is that even if man knows what righteousness consists of (because it’s been revealed via the law/ten commandments for example), he won’t be automatically capable of obedience, unless and until he comes to love. And love, by its nature cannot be forced. But what the obligation or command succeeds in doing is informing us-hopefully *convicting *us-that something is still missing, that there’s a way to go before we arrive at our goal, that there is a higher and better goal to begin with. At any point we generally tend to prefer thinking that we’ve already arrived but until that’s actually a reality we won’t experience the peace and satisfaction and happiness that we all desire anyway-and which is only available through communion with God even if not fully attained until the next life.

We do desperately need to know the depth of God’s love-to the extent that we can-and that is perhaps the central message of the New Testament, of the Incarnation. To the extent that we really know that, we’re changed already. But even then we’ll struggle against our own inclinations to be distracted from Him. There’s a reason why the first commandment is what it is-and why we need to hear it until it becomes our nature to observe it-until we come to understand why it’s so critical, and why it’s observation leads to life, as we simultaneously begin to practice it spontaneously as we cooperate with grace.

A carrot and a stick; God’s wise and patient with both.

 

[cfauster]

… The point is that man must be consciously subjugated to God in a relationship of love.

We’re both obligated to it - in order to keep ourselves and therefore our world in a state of justice - and yet we benefit unimaginably from it …

Man is morally obligated to love, even if the knowledge of that obligation, alone, is insufficient to cause the desired effect. For* that* grace is required …

Makes sense to me.

Seems like the temptation resulting in original sin was the temptation to mistrust God, to not be subject to God’s commands. Seems like that entailed mistrusting the goodness of God’s reasons for making the first humans the way they were made, with the combination of freedoms and responsibilities, capabilities and limitations, that they had. In a loose sense, at least, the preternatural gifts might have provided what now is provided by the grace fhansen mentioned. Of course, the preternatural gifts included more, but all I mean is that the ability of man to love and to do justice with mercy - to act as bearers of the image and likeness of God, so to speak - was adversely affected by original sin. Grace is required, and it’s not cheap grace. It cost the cross.

 

[simpleas]

I do have some questions. What are the two creation stories in the first three chapters of Genesis? Please explain them. Are they really different, in what way? Or are the first three informative chapters of Genesis a seamless story with multiple chapters? For example. Are there individual units leading to basic foundational Catholic doctrines? This reminds me to remind readers to be careful about certain public mentors who do not consider the reality of Original Sin because these words are missing.

“Genesis began with six clear statements of original blessing or inherent goodness (Genesis 1:10-31), and the words “original sin” are not in the New Testament. Yet the Church became so preoccupied with the fly in the ointment, the flaw in the beauty that we forgot and even missed out on any original blessing.” Father Richard Rohr
Also, I am a bit confused about “literal” – what is the big deal about “literal”? Catholic teaching is that the doctrines flowing from the first three amazing Genesis chapters are literally true. What more is needed?

Quickly,
before someone answers my questions …

Regarding “original blessing or inherent goodness” When I last looked, the beauty of the really, really big original blessing is still in existence. When we look in the mirror, we cannot miss it. When our material anatomy rots away, we still have the beauty and goodness of this original blessing. Even with our wounded human nature, we still possess the primary original blessing which gives us the opportunity, when we freely choose it, of living forever in joy eternal. Genesis 1: 26-27

I think Fr Rohr was referring to how the church may have concentrated on the sinful flesh at certain times in our history of the Catholic Church, and many people did miss out on the fact that everything had been originally of goodness. All was and still is original blessed by God…not man.

Just my thought…FWIW

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny,

If I were to pick the most important verses to build Catholic doctrine, I would start with the Gospels and the rest of the NT. Anything from the OT would be way down the list, IMO.

However, if I were to pick from Gen 1-3, as far as the next most important verse, it would have to be 1:27 :

27
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

I do hope that I have provided enough, now. Or are you going to keep asking until I get to the ones you like the most? Chapters 2 and 3 are good and have their purpose, friend. They play a role in Catholic doctrine. They are inspired literature.

Blessings!

Yup!!!

I will keep asking until I get to the one I like the most which is the needed full Divinity of Jesus Christ.

However, if you are having trouble because I consider the reality of the first three literal truth chapters of Genesis, it is o.k. to leave.

 

[grannymh]

A carrot and a stick; God’s wise and patient with both.

That sounds like Genesis 2:15-17.

The carrot is continuing to live in eternal joy when there is obedience to the Divine Creator. And the stick is the eventual bodily death which Adam will experience because of his chosen disobedience. And yes, because God loves, He is wise and patient with living humans who are worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

I think Fr Rohr was referring to how the church may have concentrated on the sinful flesh at certain times in our history of the Catholic Church, and many people did miss out on the fact that everything had been originally of goodness. All was and still is original blessed by God…not man.

Just my thought…FWIW

My thought regarding the quote in post 611 by a popular public mentor – FWIW – is that “sinful flesh at certain times in our history of the Catholic Church” is not the “fly in the ointment” that is being discussed. When a popular mentor makes us feel good, there is a natural inclination to avoid acknowledging attacks on the [Catholic] Original Sin aka fly in the ointment.

 

[goout]

Thank you for this link. However, I am looking for the actual verses in the actual first three chapters of Genesis.

I cannot speak for all scripture. My area of interest is the first three chapters of Genesis. I doubt that the current real Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Original Sin are not literally real. In fact, I am sure that the real Catholic Church, not the proposed Big Tent Church, continues to maintain the literal reality of Adam and Original Sin according to “the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church…” paragraph 37, Humani Generis
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Of course there is a difference.

The priest knows his audience and that is good.
Personally, I prefer a broader approach which is to start with the observations beginning with Genesis 1:1

Naturally, reading scripture produces many good insights. But technically, we cannot refer to these insights as doctrine unless they are properly defined and duly declared according to the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth.

May I respectfully point out that the way doctrine based on scripture comes to light is through the major ecumenical Church Councils under the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. We can discuss doctrine, but we cannot add, subtract, replace, or change according to individuals living or dead.

I have no idea where you are trying to go here.
No one questioned doctrine etc…

Genesis
The two creation narratives

 

[simpleas]

My thought regarding the quote in post 611 by a popular public mentor – FWIW – is that “sinful flesh at certain times in our history of the Catholic Church” is not the “fly in the ointment” that is being discussed. When a popular mentor makes us feel good, there is a natural inclination to avoid acknowledging attacks on the [Catholic] Original Sin aka fly in the ointment.

I may be wrong about what Fr Rohr was actually saying as I couldn’t remember the actual meditation that the part verse you post was about. I found it, so for anyone interested in what was being said here it is:

Genesis began with six clear statements of original blessing or inherent goodness (Genesis 1:10-31), and the words “original sin” are not in the New Testament. Yet the Church became so preoccupied with the fly in the ointment, the flaw in the beauty that we forgot and even missed out on any original blessing. We saw Jesus primarily as a problem-solver rather than as a revealer of the very heart and image of God (Colossians 1:15f). We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin. We dug a pit so deep that most people and most theologies could not get back out of it. You must begin with yes. You cannot begin with no, or it is not a beginning at all. [5]

myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

He also uses* fly in the ointment * here :

The message of falling down is very counter-intuitive, yet it is found in most of the world’s religions, especially Christianity. We grow spiritually much more by doing it wrong than by doing it right. That might just be the central lesson of how spiritual growth happens, yet nothing in us wants to believe it. I actually think it is one of the only workable meanings of “original sin.” There seems to have been a fly in the ointment from the beginning, but the key is recognizing and dealing with the fly rather than throwing out the whole ointment! Falling down is how humans come to consciousness.

cac.org/last-will-first-2016-07-17/

PS. The popular author didn’t make me* feel good* about myself, instead his explanations have helped me understand alot about our church, history,scriptures etc.

Just thought you should know, even if you weren’t suggesting any much thing

 

[grannymh]

I have no idea where you are trying to go here.
No one questioned doctrine etc…

Unfortunately, apparently many Catholics are not familiar with what is happening within the Catholic Church. Believe it or not, there are people who question doctrine on CAF including a post or two on this thread. The views of this thread indicate that guests and some members keep returning to this thread, looking for information regarding today’s Catholic Church. My guess is that many people are now taking the cafeteria approach seriously.

 

[grannymh]

I may be wrong about what Fr Rohr was actually saying as I couldn’t remember the actual meditation that the part verse you post was about. I found it, so for anyone interested in what was being said here it is:

Genesis began with six clear statements of original blessing or inherent goodness (Genesis 1:10-31), and the words “original sin” are not in the New Testament. Yet the Church became so preoccupied with the fly in the ointment, the flaw in the beauty that we forgot and even missed out on any original blessing. We saw Jesus primarily as a problem-solver rather than as a revealer of the very heart and image of God (Colossians 1:15f). We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin. We dug a pit so deep that most people and most theologies could not get back out of it. You must begin with yes. You cannot begin with no, or it is not a beginning at all. [5]

myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

He also uses* fly in the ointment *here :

The message of falling down is very counter-intuitive, yet it is found in most of the world’s religions, especially Christianity. We grow spiritually much more by doing it wrong than by doing it right. That might just be the central lesson of how spiritual growth happens, yet nothing in us wants to believe it. I actually think it is one of the only workable meanings of “original sin.” There seems to have been a fly in the ointment from the beginning, but the key is recognizing and dealing with the fly rather than throwing out the whole ointment! Falling down is how humans come to consciousness.

cac.org/last-will-first-2016-07-17/

PS. The popular author didn’t make me* feel good* about myself, instead his explanations have helped me understand alot about our church, history,scriptures etc.

Just thought you should know, even if you weren’t suggesting any much thing

Yes, that popular mentor, aka a Progressive Christian in a Wikipedia list, is helping people understand a lot about **his **church. And the improvements …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity#Notable_Progressive_Christians

:frighten:

 

[grannymh]

Yes, that popular mentor, aka a Progressive Christian in a Wikipedia list, is helping people understand a lot about **his **church. And the improvements …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity#Notable_Progressive_Christians

:frighten:

For general information.

Being named a “Progressive Christian” is not a Catholic honor or a Catholic award. It is a designation that the person, for example Mathew Fox, Richard Rohr, John Dominic Crossan, is, in essence, opposed to some basic Catholic doctrines. Not only are these men opposed to Catholicism, they have formed their own following, that is, a group of people who have decided that the Catholic Church is detrimental.

Obviously, it is not necessary that beginning students of these mentors hate the Catholic Church. These wolves in sheep’s clothing simply want their students to quietly slip away from Catholicism bit by bit according to what interests them. Eventually, these students decide that the Catholic Church is detrimental for themselves. Some will remain half-Catholic, a rather silly thought. Do some of these people really think it is possible to slice the Holy Eucharist into their own ideas of a happy communion of people? Yes.

 

[goout]

Thank you for this link. However, I am looking for the actual verses in the actual first three chapters of Genesis.
.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb2.htm
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb3.htm

 

[OneSheep]

Yup!!!

I will keep asking until I get to the one I like the most which is the needed full Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Jesus’ divinity depends on Adam?

 

[cfauster]

Thanks to goout’s recent post, I began looking at the EWTN collection of JPII’s addresses related to the topic of this thread.

Besides the two goout cited, I also recommend
Summary of Catechesis on Original Sin
(from Pope John Paul II’s weekly public audiences given September 8-October 8, 1986)

 

[OneSheep]

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb2.htm
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb3.htm

Thanks for bringing these forth, goout. Exerpt from the second link:

He appealed to the words of the first divine regulation, which in this text is expressly linked to man’s state of original innocence.

An exerpt from the first link:

In comparison with this description, the first account, that is, the one held to be chronologically later, is much more mature both as regards the image of God, and as regards the formulation of the essential truths about man.

What JPII is referring to with the word “mature” is the observation that in human history our image of God unfolds. With the word “formulation”, we see that “essential truths” about man are a revelation that unfolds, with the greatest Revelation in the incarnation itself, of course.

Jesus reveals that he loves us so much that it was worth the torture and death to steer us in the right direction.