Is human nature inherently flawed?

[Neithan]

Dear Fellow Catholics,

The Church teaches that concupiscence–the struggle of the ‘flesh’ against the ‘spirit’–is natural in human beings; the Original Justice which Adam and Eve enjoyed, wherein their bodies were in perfect control of their spirits, was due to preternatural gifts and supernatural graces from God. These gifts and graces were removed by Original Sin. Baptism restores supernatural (i.e. divine) graces but not the preternatural (i.e. not divine but ‘superhuman’) gifts which eliminated concupiscence in our first parents. Only the Blessed Virgin was thereafter given these gifts by *special privilege.
*(Christ is divine so all such ‘graces’ and ‘gifts’ are perfectly natural to him.)

Isn’t it true that concupiscence can only be successfully resisted by our will, when we are aided by supernatural grace? Isn’t the ‘conquering of the flesh’ impossible without the presence of the Holy Spirit?
If this is the case, then that means when Man is in his purely natural state, he cannot avoid sin. Sin is natural to him? That doesn’t make sense, however, when we learn that sin is a transgression of Natural Law, or the proper, natural human conduct.
We seem to have a natural contradiction. Human beings, without any preternatural or supernatural help, will inevitably act against their own nature. Humans, when left to their own nature, will contradict it. This wedding of flesh and spirit, of ‘animal’ an ‘angel,’ has formed a twisted monstrosity, a pitiable creature who is bound to follow the dictates of his spirit but cannot control the demands of his flesh!

It seems like God made a creature deliberately ‘broken’, then ‘fixed’ him with special graces and gifts (Original Justice), which were subsequently taken away when this creature did not use them properly (Original Sin). Next, God condems this creature for helplessly contradicting its nature, the very act of which is unavoidable when left to its purely natural state…

Finally… God decides to sacrifice Himself to save this hopeless experiment of His–how does He do it? *By becoming one of them! :whacky:

*Please help me understand!

Sincerely,

Confused about Concupiscence

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Neithan:

Isn’t it true that concupiscence can only be successfully resisted by our will, when we are aided by supernatural grace?

Yes.

Neithan:

If this is the case, then that means when Man is in his purely natural state, he cannot avoid sin. Sin is natural to him? That doesn’t make sense, however, when we learn that sin is a transgression of Natural Law, or the proper, natural human conduct.

This does not follow. Concupisence is “a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.” This desire is natural, and in itself in accordance with Natural Law. It is, after all, a desire – not an action.

Sin is different from concupisence. Man is meant to be in communion with God at all times, and this would always provide the grace for him to want the wrong things, and yet not sin. A man’s “purely natural” state is a state of atonement with God – in this state he CAN avoid sin.

Neithan:

Human beings, without any preternatural or supernatural help, will inevitably act against their own nature.

“Supernatural” creates a false opposition. God is neither natual, nor supernatural; God is God. It is natural for us to want different things than God wants for us: this is how God gives us the opportunity to *freely choose * Him instead. There is nothing inevitable about our choosing against Him.

Neithan:

…a pitiable creature who is bound to follow the dictates of his spirit but cannot control the demands of his flesh …

This is, indeed, our fallen state. But it was not always so.

Humanity is not a “hopeless experiment.” God wanted free beings to love Him, that He might share the intimacy of the Trinity with Creation. He always knew we would fall. Still, it was our choice that brought about that reality.

The good news: Jesus Christ became a man like us, to save us from that sinful cycle! Halle----

Oops, it’s Lent. Praise the Lord!

Hope this helps.

 

[uncleauberon]

Neithan:

Dear Fellow Catholics,
The Church teaches that concupiscence–the struggle of the ‘flesh’ against the ‘spirit’–is natural in human beings;

The definition that you linked to first says that concupiscence is the desire for good.

Our Human endevour is to repair the rift between our flesh and spirit.

Our flesh is a good thing that is meant to be with us. It is important that we cherish it. Our flesh with be ressurected with us.

Original Sin caused a break between the too. Corruption of the flesh (the material world) from the spirit at the time of Adam’s sin.

When the flesh & the spirit are one then concupisence is well ordered. _ Our will is God’s Will _ (for the good)

In our corruption our intellect has been dimmed, and our flesh and spirit may contend with each other about “what is good?”.

The flesh may want to do “what feels good” - “Have sex with a minor” despite our spirit telling us that we should not.
– {Flesh’s desire for the marital embrace is good}

The spirit may tell us to do “what feels good” - “Go ahead be part of the crowd {peer pressure} take drugs” despite the flesh getting sick when heroin is taken.
– {The spirit’s desire for brotherhood is good}

By our will we will take the course to achieve “what is good”.

Often will and our intellect may not be sufficient to do “what is good”. Hence - SIN.

We must, by our will, enlist the aid of Grace to bolster our will and inform our intellect where they are lacking.

Neithan:

Isn’t it true that concupiscence can only be successfully resisted by our will, when we are aided by supernatural grace? Isn’t the ‘conquering of the flesh’ impossible without the presence of the Holy Spirit?

I’m not sure. I would say that it is possible for a well formed intellect and will to resist a “lower concupiscence”.
But, not all of them - all of the time. {Lest we become Pelagian[look it up]}

Many folks that may not have a strong line of grace in life can recognize “good natural law” and choose good over evil.

Yet, without grace they cannot see their own blind spots.

Neithan:

If this is the case, then that means when Man is in his purely natural state, he cannot avoid sin

. Sin is natural to him?

As we have stated, Man’s “natural” state is a well ordered concupisence.

This “natural” state is now corrupted by original sin.

Through Jesus Christ we can attain - or shall I say reclaim {reconciliation} - our “natural state”.

Neithan:

It seems like God made a creature deliberately ‘broken’, then ‘fixed’ him with special graces and gifts (Original Justice), which were subsequently taken away when this creature did not use them properly (Original Sin). Next, God condems this creature for helplessly contradicting its nature, the very act of which is unavoidable when left to its purely natural state…

Finally… God decides to sacrifice Himself to save this hopeless experiment of His–how does He do it? *By becoming one of them! *

God created us deliberately “Good” -
We broke ourselves. {Or rather Adam broke all of us “originally”}
And we continue to do so when “by our will” we choose the “wrong good” / evil.

All the rest is God’s attempt to help us correct our own chosen path.

I hope this helps

todd

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

In considering this issue, it might be helpful to reflect on why Jesus Christ is referred to as the second Adam.

As created, the first Adam (and Eve, as well) had wills that were in perfect harmony with God’s will, even though they were still both free and human. By their own free wills, they broke that harmony.

In Christ, a human will and the divine will were once again in perfect harmony – He was the second Adam.

In the Lord’s Prayer, there is a passage that is frequently taken to be a parallelism: “Thy kingdon come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” That’s our goal when we seek to become like Our Lord.

I’ve always had trouble with the “flawed” expression of the human condition, because it is too naturalistic and mechanistic. “Fallen”, on the other hand, better reflects to me the combined natural and supernatural consequences to our nature when Adam and Eve chose to separate their wills from that of God.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[blessedstar]

Think back to when you were little. You knew you shouldn’t do what you were doing, but still you went ahead and did it, part of it psychologically can be put down to learning boundaries but even this is not seperable from concupisence since all psychology can do is learn from the Divine Psyhcologist and such has been noted in Scripture as concupisence .

There is something in our nature that screams out at us not to sin, but there is also part of us that is malfunctioning and thus we sin, this has been called concupisence as is quoted in Sacred Scripture by St Paul.

Your question is a question about grace more than it is about the broken nature of humanity, in truth it questions the action of God’s love. Still it is good to ask questions because it is only through questioning we learn, still some would say doubts in faith are a bad thing, however I would say to experience doubt can lead to a great leap in faith as it is only through doubting sometimes that we ask questions and in asking we always receive if we ask the question to God.

God always gives, God always creates, God always blesses, God always does good and God always acts through grace.

Nothing happens without God’s grace and simply put grace is a pure gift of love as grace itself is a gift of the Divine instilled into humans, however the human must be open to the action of grace working within themselves.

So returning to the story of the fall, grace was abundent, no lack of it and fully God gave of Himself to humans so fully He walked daily with them in the Garden, but it wasn’t enough for the first two humans, they wanted to be like God themselves thinking knowing was better than purely accepting, so they co-operated with evil so that they might know and in knowing they chose not to accept and chose to be disobedient, the first sin was to disobey God and every sin is to be disobedient and why were they disobedient? Because they thought there was something better, to be God Himself.

So God said ok, you have fallen from my grace, but you desire to share my Divinity, you will do so by my generosity, but you will do it by virtue and suffering, in short you will return by this way to obedience and that is the Gospel of Christ Jesus and so we suffer evil and sin and we must strive against it in virtue and forgiveness because God has forgiven us, but God knew we could not do this without His grace and so again in His great generosity He said ok, by my suffering you will gain grace and by your own suffering also but beyond this I will make every sacramental provision for you and even more beyond this I will grant you my mercy and so in Him and the Blessed Mother humanity is restored to grace and repeatedly through repentance by God’s grace and mercy.

Now tell me God is not generous and you cannot see that He loves His children!

Ask God your questions and He will answer them.

 

[Neithan]

Thanks for the informative replies! I knew this was a good place to ask.

Prodigal_Son:

Sin is different from concupisence. Man is meant to be in communion with God at all times, and this would always provide the grace for him to want the wrong things, and yet not sin. A man’s “purely natural” state is a state of atonement with God – in this state he CAN avoid sin.

So, is our fallen state unnatural then? I’ve always understood justification as an unwarranted supernatural grace–the gift of divine life to a mere creature. But if we require supernatural grace in order to not give in to concupiscence (which is natural to us), then sinning is inevitable if we are left in our purely natural state… This would be problematic, because it would mean that God condemns a creature for acting in self-destructive ways which are only a result of its natural design.
In other words–God designed something (us) that cannot function normally on its own. We, unlike the animals, not only have a ‘capacity for’ God (capax dei), nor even a powerful desire–but a *need *for God in order to survive! God created us wholly dependent on Him?
(I’m sort of thinking as I type here) the only answer to this I think would be to say that we are naturally open to God’s grace, and that as soon as we *resist *it, we have acted unnaturally. This would mean that for each and every sin committed, someone resisted God’s grace. However, what about the people before Christ, who did not have the Holy Spirit? They did not have grace, and they still sinned, even though they couldn’t help it.

uncleauberon:

We must, by our will, enlist the aid of Grace to bolster our will and inform our intellect where they are lacking.

What about people who do not have ‘access’ to Grace i.e. those without Baptism today in Original Sin, or those who lived before Christ?

• Through Jesus Christ we can attain - or shall I say reclaim {reconciliation} - our “natural state”.*

But Christ’s ultimate achievement was the gift of the Holy Spirit–the return of sanctifying Grace (justification) to mankind. He doesn’t return us to a natural state, but brings us to a *supernatural *one, through the sacraments.
It is taught clearly that Adam’s Original Justice, whereby he perfectly subordinated his lower passions to his reason, was *not natural *to him. He (and Eve) had this ability through supernatural and preternatural graces and gifts. Not even we (yet) have the preternatural gifts which gave him perfect control of concupiscence.
So what that means is controlling concupiscence–which leads to sin–is not a natural capability of Man. Man is not naturally capable of acting naturally

“Fallen”, on the other hand, better reflects to me the combined natural and supernatural consequences to our nature when Adam and Eve chose to separate their wills from that of God.

But what did the Fall do, other than take away what superceded our nature? The ‘natural’ consequence of the fall, it seems, was to leave human beings to their own nature, which automatically acts contrary to itself (concupiscence vs. natural law), and ‘naturally’ results in ‘unnatural’ acts (sin)!

The central point of confusion for me is that Original Sin is not, like all Actual Sin, a willful breach of Natural Law, but merely a lack of superhuman abilities which our first parents possessed. A ‘privation of grace’. Which is why many theologians have taught that those who die only in Original Sin (babies without baptism) go to a place of ‘perfect, natural happiness.’
What this suggests is that the state of Original Sin is natural, whereas Original Justice is supernatural.
Unfortunately, Original Sin will inevitably lead to unnatural actions (sin). But how can we be condemned by God for acting in ways we are not capable of avoiding? Only if God offers his help (grace) in each and every possibility for sin and we reject it. As far as I understand it, God took away this help from Adam and didn’t give it back until Christ. So–how could anyone have been guilty for sin in the meantime?

blessedstar:

Still it is good to ask questions because it is only through questioning we learn, still some would say doubts in faith are a bad thing, however I would say to experience doubt can lead to a great leap in faith as it is only through doubting sometimes that we ask questions and in asking we always receive if we ask the question to God.

Doubt is the best coach Faith could have. No virtue gets stronger without exercise, and training is useless without challenge.
May the Lord never let us get too comfortable in our beliefs!

Ask God your questions and He will answer them.

I do, every day! Thing is–He likes to work through mediators

Peace

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

As to what the fall did:

Its rupture of the unity of human will and divine will is at the root of all of its effects. No longer connected to the divine will, and unable to reconnect on our own (hence, the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross), our nature was left in a condition it was not intended to be in. God’s plan was the union of wills that was broken by the disobedience of our first parents. Through redemption, the way to restore the unity has been reopened.

That’s part of my problem with the use of terms like flawed or defective in speaking of human nature. It was designed for the perfect unity which Adam and Eve rejected through an act of free will. (They were not the first creatures to do so; that happened among the angels.) Human nature is as it is because of misuse by humans, not through a deficiency in initial design.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[blessedstar]

Gerry Hunter:

Human nature is as it is because of misuse by humans, not through a deficiency in initial design.

Blessings,

Gerry

I agree with you. God made humans and said ‘it is good’ as He did for all of creation. Human nature was not created with a ‘flaw’ it was created perfect and only by our free will to make a choice to obey or disobey God, to serve God or not to serve God was that nature broken.

Thank you for your insightful post.

 

[uncleauberon]

Neithan:

So, is our fallen state unnatural then? I’ve always understood justification as an unwarranted supernatural grace–the gift of divine life to a mere creature.

Correct, our fallen state is “unnatural”.
Grace is “supernatural” to us, (natural to God).
We need this Grace to reconcile ourselves back to our intended natural state.

It is unwarrented. Thus a gift from God.

Neithan:

then sinning is inevitable if we are left in our purely natural state… This would be problematic, because it would mean that God condemns a creature for acting in self-destructive ways which are only a result of its natural design.

In our “natural state” sin is not inevitable. Sin was not inevitable for Adam and Eve. Sin for them was completely and 100% willful.

If you were in heaven would you sin ? Some angels did.
If you were in the Garden of Eden would you sin ? Adam & Eve did

Sin for us is inevitable without grace. We are not in our natural state without it.

Neithan:

I think would be to say that we are naturally open to God’s grace, and that as soon as we *resist *it, we have acted unnaturally. This would mean that for each and every sin committed, someone resisted God’s grace.

Yes you got it.

But, remember that at our birth (perhaps at conception) we are stained with Original Sin. We enter a corrputed world.
We are at once in our “unnatural state” at birth. Because of Adam.

Neithan:

However, what about the people before Christ, who did not have the Holy Spirit? They did not have grace, and they still sinned, even though they couldn’t help it.

What about people who do not have ‘access’ to Grace i.e. those without Baptism today in Original Sin, or those who lived before Christ?

They will be judged according to their works.
Their Intellect may not be perfect but natural law has always tugged at our hearts.

God will give them an opportunity to receive baptism by desire at the moment of their death.

{- Those before Christ were ministered to on the day that Christ was in the grave. They met Christ and were given a chance.}

Neithan:

But Christ’s ultimate achievement was the gift of the Holy Spirit–the return of sanctifying Grace (justification) to mankind. He doesn’t return us to a natural state, but brings us to a *supernatural *one, through the sacraments. It is taught clearly that Adam’s Original Justice, whereby he perfectly subordinated his lower passions to his reason, was *not natural *to him.

Where did you hear/read this ?

This is the what the church teaches.​

Catechism :
399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image—that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.
400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered;

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.​

You should get a copy of the Catechism. It will help you on your journey.

usccb.org/catechism/

God Bless.

 

[Neithan]

uncleauberon:

We need this Grace to reconcile ourselves back to our intended natural state.
…]
Sin for us is inevitable without grace. We are not in our natural state without it.

This is precisely the apparent contradiction that I’m seeing. Grace is supernatural, and yet we are not in our natural state without it? That just doesn’t make sense.

In our “natural state” sin is not inevitable. Sin was not inevitable for Adam and Eve. Sin for them was completely and 100% willful.

The article I linked to on concupiscence mentions that Adam and Eve possessed both supernatural grace and preternatural gifts–so they were far and above the ‘natural state’ of humanity.

Correct, our fallen state is “unnatural”.

But what did the Fall do, other than take away Adam and Eve’s supernatural grace and preternatural (superhuman) gifts which God had given them? It seems like the Fall was one from ‘superhuman-quasi-divine Man’, to simply ‘Man,’ i.e. supernatural-to-natural Man.

But, remember that at our birth (perhaps at conception) we are stained with Original Sin. We enter a corrputed world.
We are at once in our “unnatural state” at birth. Because of Adam.

It is at conception. But again, all Original Sin is, is a privation of Grace, it is *not *a corruption of nature. That would be the error which Luther and Calvin taught!

God will give them an opportunity to receive baptism by desire at the moment of their death.

{- Those before Christ were ministered to on the day that Christ was in the grave. They met Christ and were given a chance.}

Are you sure about this? Do you have anything concrete (e.g. Church documents) to support this? I’ve learned that the Righteous before Christ were already seperated from the Damned, even in Hell, and it is only to the area of Hell (Abraham’s Bosom) wherein the Righteous dwelled that Our Lord went. The Damned (Gehenna) were neither ministered to, nor freed. What I’m curious about is, what was the basis of this ‘pre-judgement,’ if no one had access to Grace and therefore could not help but sin!?

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.”

This seems to imply that concupiscence is *not natural *to man, whereas the OP linked article states:

…]"it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature. …]
'In our first parents, however, this complete dominion of reason over appetite was no natural perfection or acquirement, but a preternatural gift of God, that is, a gift not due to human nature; no was it, on the other hand, the essence of their original justice, which consisted in sanctifying grace; it was but a complement added to the latter by the Divine bounty.’"

This strongly affirms that concupiscence, which can only be conquered with* grace*, is *natural *to us, and Adam was only freed of it by the preternatural gift of God. A gift which even the baptised are not given, which will only be returned at the glorious Resurrection.

So there is still the inherent contradiction that a *natural *state of human beings, that is concupiscence, cannot be overcome except by *supernatural *help, that is grace, and will lead to sin without it.
So, Man in his ‘purely natural state’ cannot avoid sin? and what does this mean for all the people who lived before Christ but were still damned to Gehenna? What were they damned for if they had no Grace and could not avoid sinning?

Thanks for taking the time to post!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Without grace, human nature is not “elevated.” Thus, it is considered fallen. Grace elevates our nature.

Nonetheless, even without supernatural grace, man can perform a morally good act.

Thus, according to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,

“Actual Grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action (Sent. certa)” (Ott, 235)

“For the performance of a morally good action, Sanctifying Grace is not required (de fide)” [ibid., pg 234]

“Although the sinner does not possess the grace of justification, he can still perform morally good actions and, with the help of actual grace, even supernaturally good (though not meritorious) works, and through them prepare himself for justification. Thus all works of the person in mortal sin are not sins…” (ibid.)

“St. Augustine teaches that even the life of the worst man is hardly without some good works (De spiritu et litt. 28, 48).” (ibid.)

“Even infidels can do morally good works. Thus not all the works of infidels are sins. Pope Pius V condemned the following proposition of Baius: Omnia opera infidelium sunt peccata et philsophorum vertutes sunt vitia. D 1025; cf. 1298.” (ibid.)

“Holy Scriptures recognizes the ability of pagans to perform morally good works. Cf. Dn. 4, 24; Mt 5, 47. According to Rom. 2, 14 pagans are by nature able to fulfill the prescriptions of the moral law. … St. Paul had in mind real pagans, not lapsed Christians, as Baius wrongly held (D 1022). … The Fathers unreservedly admit the ability of infidels to perform morally good works.” (ibid., 234-235)

Likewise, St. Thomas Aquinas taught:

"human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing; just as a sick man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be perfectly moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of medicine he be cured. " (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 109, 2).

 

[Neithan]

itsjustdave1988:

Without grace, human nature is not “elevated.” Thus, it is considered fallen. Grace elevates our nature.

Nonetheless, even without supernatural grace, man can perform a morally good act.

True. Man is capable in his natural state of performing morally good works; however, isn’t it true that it is impossible for one to avoid sin without grace?

pagans are by nature able to fulfill the prescriptions of the moral law

. … St. Paul had in mind real pagans, not lapsed Christians, as Baius wrongly held (D 1022).

So, does this mean it is entirely naturally possible for humans to avoid offending God? St. Paul says “all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
How could we say pagans are/were capable of fulfilling the Law without falling into the Pelagian heresy (that man is naturally capable of ‘meriting’ justification through good works)?

Critical questions I’m still confused about:

• If concupiscence–which leads to sin–is natural to us, yet sin is unnatural, and both are unavoidable without supernatural grace, doesn’t this create an inherent contradiction i.e. Man is not naturally capable of acting according to his nature?
• On what basis were the pagans before Christ condemned to Gehenna, if they had no access to Grace and could not avoid sinning?

Btw Dave, I’m curious how you call up all these relevant citations so quickly? What’s your system?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Neithan:

True. Man is capable in his natural state of performing morally good works; however, isn’t it true that it is impossible for one to avoid sin without grace?

Performing morally good works by one’s natural endowments is the same as avoiding (actual) sin without supernatural grace, at least momentarily. Yet, it is impossible to do so for any considerable period of time.

In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia samans) to fulfill the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time (Sent. certa.) (Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *236)

So, I’m reluctant to say the natural endowments given to us by God are inherently flawed, viewing the gift of nature in itself. They are the same natural endowments given to Adam, which God made good. What man does with good gifts is a different matter. Without the supernatural “catalyst” of grace, the natural gifts are no longer instrinsically elevated. Thus, while our good natural gifts can obey God, Catholic doctrine teaches that it is morally impossible for man to do so for any considerable period of time.

Neithan:

So, does this mean it is entirely naturally possible for humans to avoid offending God? St. Paul says *“all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
*

Yes, but not for a considerable period of time. Rom 3:23 seems to be referring to “all” as in both Jews and Gentiles, not necessarily each and every person absolutely (eg. Jesus and Mary are notable exceptions). Yet St. Paul is not likely to be referring to actual sin, but to the consequences of original sin. St. Paul is emphasizing how man, in his fallen state, falls short of the glory of God, but is not literally stating that each and every human has committed actual sin. St. Paul, as a learned Jewish scholar is likely familiar with Caleb, for example, of whom Scripture states, “he has a different spirit and has followed me fully” (Num 14:24), “he has wholly followed the LORD!” (Deut 1:36). *.

Referring to Rom 3:23, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

399

Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280

280 Cf. Rom 3:23.

Neithan:

How could we say pagans are/were capable of fulfilling the Law without falling into the Pelagian heresy (that man is naturally

capable of ‘meriting’ justification through good works)?

Moral acts done with natural endowments do nothing to merit justification or eternal life. We can admit all day long that natural man can do works that are not sinful, but unless they are born again, they will never attain eternal life. Eternal life is an additional gift, not a natural gift or entitlement. Pelagianism insisted that the contrary was true, that man’s natural works were somehow efficacious for meriting supernatural grace.

The cause of justification is grace, not human works. It is a completely gratuitous gift. Moreover, a condition of meritorious works (which is not natural good works, but supernatural good works) is that the person meriting be in a prior state of supernatural grace. Consequently, a very good person who has never been born from above still falls short of the glory of God. Even if he were able to commit no mortal sin in his entire life (hypothetically), unless he was born from above, then he would still die in a state of original sin and thus not attain eternal life.

to be continued…*

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Neithan:

Critical questions I’m still confused about:

• If concupiscence–which leads to sin–is natural to us, yet sin is unnatural, and both are unavoidable without supernatural grace, doesn’t this create an inherent contradiction i.e. Man is not naturally capable of acting according to his nature?

Concupiscence is the “disordered desire of man” which is a consequence of original sin. I don’t view it as a cause as you seem to imply, but instead see it as an effect. Often is it spoken of a cause, but I think that is metaphorical, the *fomes peccati *or the “kindling for sin.” Nonetheless, I think of concupiscence is more strictly speaking an effect of Adam’s sin and not something inherently present within Adam’s nature, nor something later “attached” or “added” such that it would be inherently a part of our nature. I think more strictly speaking, it is not a “something,” but is more a lack of something. A lack of a preternatural gift which intrinsically effected Adam’s nature such that his natural reasoning was better equipped. Concupiscence is similar to suffering and death, which are not a “something” added to our nature, but an effect upon our nature caused by the lack of preternatural gifts.

I think of preternatural and supernatural gifts of Original Justice given to Adam and Eve as “catalysts” for the “engine” of our natural gifts. The purely natural engine is good, all by itself, although not unlimited in ability. However, with the catalysts, the engine is intrinsically better (elevated nature). Conversely, without the catalysts, the engine is “wounded” in comparison to its original design (fallen nature).

Good, but not very good, does not mean bad or “inherently flawed.” It means instead, that we are not as good as we could be if given other good gifts.

We inherited Adam’s natural gifts. They were not inherently changed when passed by human generation to us. What changed was the other gifts (supernatural and preternatural), which instrinsically elevated the natural gifts, were removed from them and not passed by natural human generation to us. Thus, without the supernatural “catalysts” the effect is that our natural “engine” has difficulty reasoning what is the ultimate good for man for any considerable period of time.

Nonetheless, our good but purely natural “engine” is capable of getting us over hills of temptation, but without the supernatural “catalysts” which intrinsically improve our natural “engine”, the engine is bound to fail over time. Not because of something wrong with the engine, but because the engine was not intended to be operated without catalysts.

So, why after baptism, when we are washed of our original sin, and given (at least some) of the catalysts, do we still suffer concupiscence? Theologians opine that God wills this for us no longer as a punishment for original sin, but because God wills that we suffer as a means of merit for the growth of virtue. Before baptism, we suffer as punishment for original sin…after baptism (and whenever we remain in a state of grace) we suffer as a means of meritorious work.

According to Ludwig Ott:

The lack of the gifts of integrity [ie. preternatural gifts] results in man’s being subject to concupiscence, suffering, and death. These results remain even after the extirpation of Original Sin, not as punishment, but as the so-called poenalitates, that is, as the means given to man to achiev the practice of virtue and moral integrity. (Ott, L., *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *112).

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Neithan:

• On what basis were the pagans before Christ condemned to Gehenna, if they had no access to Grace and could not avoid sinning?

I don’t believe that they had no access to grace. God gives sufficient grace to all the so-called “innocent unbelievers” so they may attain eternal life.

Cain, for example, was given grace (cf. Gen 4:7). In this instance, it may have not been sanctifying grace, but it was certainly supernatural grace. God directly warned Cain that sin was crouching at his door, and that he needed to master sin. God doesn’t demand of us that which is impossible. What a gift God gave to Cain! Cain’s wounded (fallen) reasoning capability was given a supernatural boost or help from God, yet tragically, Cain still rejected the help from God.

According to Ott’s text:

God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation (Sent. certa) (Ott, 241)

Dionysius taught that gentiles obtained the revelation of angels (Coel. Hier. ix). St. Thomas Aquinas similary affirmed, “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.” (Sent. 11, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4).

St. Thomas Aquinas affirms…

If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation [of the mystery of Christ], they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him [Christ] explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith [in Christ] through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth (*Summa Theologica, *IIb, 2, 7)

Neithan:

Btw Dave, I’m curious how you call up all these relevant citations so quickly? What’s your system?

LOL!! It’s not as quick as you might think! I have two main hobbies: Theology and Soccer. I’m somewhat obsessed with theology such that I have a basement overflowing with theology books. Also, I’ve been doing internet theology discussions at a rate of about 5 posts per day since the beginning of 2002 and have saved many of my prior discussions. So, when I happen to remember something I posted in the past, I do a search for it and cut & paste quotes that I previously used once before. I also started using Google’s Gmail, which I use primarily to store theology stuff. My blog (linked to below) is also a place where I’ve been trying to store information from some of my prior theology discussions.

 

[Neithan]

A thousand thanks for that extensive answer!

itsjustdave1988:

Even if he were able to commit no mortal sin in his entire life (hypothetically), unless he was born from above, then he would still die in a state of original sin and thus not attain eternal life.

Understood. So is it morally possible to avoid mortal sin in our purely natural state, then?

Thus, without the supernatural “catalysts” the effect is that our natural “engine” has difficulty reasoning what is the ultimate good for man for any considerable period of time.

So would it be accurate to say, that human beings–alone among all creatures–are intrinsically and directly dependent on God for their own good, as opposed to animals who need only the good of Nature (i.e. they cannot sin), or Angels who are naturally capable of fully obeying God (they can sin but not as a necessary consequence of their nature)?

Nonetheless, our good but purely natural “engine” is capable of getting us over hills of temptation, but without the supernatural “catalysts” which intrinsically improve our natural “engine”, the engine is bound to fail over time. Not because of something wrong with the engine, but because the engine was not intended to be operated without catalysts.

I see, so we are designed to operate with grace, and only by resisting it do we harm ourselves (sin). I still find it odd that we are the only living beings whose pure nature is not capable of assuring its own good without direct divine aid… still seems kinda ‘broken’ to me. Why are humans the only ones who require constant maintenance? Angels don’t *need *grace to avoid sin (right?), and animals have no use for grace. But maybe that’s just another unanswerable mystery.

In this instance, it may have not been sanctifying grace, but it was certainly supernatural grace.

What’s the difference

What was the basis of judgement for the Righteous and the Damned among pagan nations (or even Israel)? Since there was no forgiveness of sins before Christ, were the former all free of mortal sin for their entire lives!?

…]So, when I happen to remember something I posted in the past, I do a search for it and cut & paste quotes that I previously used once before. …]

Well, the effect is definitely impressive! I have a bit of a theology hobby myself (soccer too, actually), and finding applicable quotations on the fly isn’t exactly easy

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Neithan, and Dave,
Hope you don’t mind if I chime in here? (You expected me, didn’t you Dave? I hope you poured an extra mug of beer for me. )

Neithan, in addition to Dave’s excellent analysis and explanation, I just want to pick out your point about the Humans needing grace “maintainence” in order not to sin.

It goes further than this. Not only do we need grace in order not to sin for an appreciable length of time. . .but we need grace, a “supernaural aid” in order to FULFILL our supernatural end.

Yes, although natural creatures, we have BOTH a natural end and a supernatural end. Our natural end (or fulfillment, or “beatitude”) is to be happy: a kind of summation of the goods of the body and soul: health, physical integrity, knowledge, love, etc etc (take a look at Aristotle for a more complete list of what would constitute our fulfillment.) But, because God created us with an intellect and will that has a near-infinite appetite, whose desire is know the Truth and love the Good, the fulfillment of this capacity can only be had through the posession of the Beatific Vision. . . of Truth and Goodness Himself.

This is above our naural powers. I would daresay, however that it is a “natural” desire, part of our design to be ordered towards that end.

You are quite right, however, in noting the remarkable truth that we have, as part of our nature an END which, by our nature, we are INCAPABLE OF ATTAINING.

To wit see Aquinas, Frist Part of the Second Part, Q62:

Man is perfected by virtue, for those actions whereby he is directed to happiness, as was explained above. Now man’s happiness is twofold, as was also stated above . One is proportionate to human nature, a happiness, to wit, which man can obtain by means of his natural principles. The other is a happiness surpassing man’s nature, and which man can obtain by the power of God alone, by a kind of participation of the Godhead, about which it is written (2 Pt. 1:4) that by Christ we are made “partakers of the Divine nature.” And because such happiness surpasses the capacity of human nature, man’s natural principles which enable him to act well according to his capacity, do not suffice to direct man to this same happiness. Hence it is necessary for man to receive from God some additional principles, whereby he may be directed to supernatural happiness, even as he is directed to his connatural end, by means of his natural principles, albeit not without Divine assistance. Such like principles are called “theological virtues”: first, because their object is God, inasmuch as they direct us aright to God: secondly, because they are infused in us by God alone: thirdly, because these virtues are not made known to us, save by Divine revelation, contained in Holy Writ.

What do you think Neithan, Dave?
God Bless,
VC

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Verbum Caro,

Well put! :clapping:

You deserve a beer…
http://mypage.bluewin.ch/lasihak/perou/inca_beer.jpg

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Neithan,

Thank you for your questions. It caused me to ponder some things that has often bothered me. For instance, it had always seemed to me that God favored man over angels, as he had given man an opportunity for redemption after their fall, but for angels, there would be no such opportunity (that we know of).

Neithan:

So is it morally possible to avoid mortal sin in our purely natural state, then?

One can avoid mortal sin without supernatural grace, but not for a considerable amount of time. Our engine is capable, but was not created with unlimited capability so as to attain our supernatural end without supernatural help. This is not unlike the angels, however, as far as I’ve been able to figure out.

Neithan:

So would it be accurate to say, that human beings–alone among all creatures–are intrinsically and directly dependent on God for their own good, as opposed to animals who need only the good of Nature (i.e. they cannot sin), or Angels who are naturally capable of fully obeying God (they can sin but not as a necessary consequence of their nature)?

Very little is said of angels in Scripture and Tradition, which leaves much to speculative theology. However, as I understand it God created angels with a natural ability to make free will decisions, but just once (or else their decisions are permanent). Thus God created angels and their first feewill act sealed their fate forever. They were infused with knowledge at their creation, so they were sufficiently equipped to be obedient to God. However, some angels freely chose to sin. Thus, some angels sealed their fate in hell forever, while the angels who freely obeyed the Lord merited eternal life with the Beatific Vision of God.

The angels were not initially given the Beatific Vision of God (a supernatural gift) as part of their angelic nature. That came afterwards as merit for obedience to God. We don’t have much information as to what they had “naturally” and what gifts were given to them initially that were beyond their nature. One might opine they were given natural gifts and other gifts beyond their nature, just as the first humans were. However, that is speculative. Nonetheless, angels were not initially given the gift of the Beatific Vision of God. The fallen angels never had it, and those that obeyed God were rewarded with it. Like man, they needed supernatural help to attain their supernatural end.

As for other creatures, all are dependent upon God for their very existence, even the continuation of their existence. Plants, animals, angels, humans, every existing thing can only exist if God continuously wills their existence. Thus, there does not exist any creation that does not depend upon God for both their natural good and, if possible, their supernatural good. In the natural order, the dependency is still sometimes called grace, but it is not a supernatural grace. In the supernatural order, both angels and humans must depend upon supernatural grace.

Here I go again with my use of search engines (Verbum Caro might recognize some of these quotes)…

“***God co-operates immediately in ***every act of his creatures” (Ott, 88). This is called by Catholic theology, according to Fr. John Hardon, “Divine concurrence or concursus” (Fr. John Hardon, *God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, Part one, Thesis II). *It is based upon the teaching of the Roman Catechism which states that God “by an internal power impels to motion and action whatever moves and acts” (Roman Catechism, Article I).

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

According to Ott,

This co-operation of the Causa Prima (God) with the Causae Secundae (creation) is known as “Concursus Divinus.” The Divine co-operation in the Natural Order is called “Concursus Generalis or Naturalis,” to distinguish it from the special supernatural intervention of God through grace in rational creatures… The intrinsic reason for the necessity of the Divine co-operation lies in the entire dependence of all created being on God. As the activity of the creature has a real being which is distinct from the power from which it flows, so this “being of activity” must be caused by God.… (Ott, 88)

Consequently, when you stated, "

I still find it odd that we are the only living beings whose pure nature is not capable of assuring its own good without direct divine aid," I disagree. All creatures need direct divine aid to attain their natural good, as well as supernatural good. We don’t have a pure natural engine (nor does any other creation) that doesn’t require continual “maintenance” or Divine Concurrence by God.

The thing that seems to set humans apart from every other creature is that we have been given another chance after our fall. We were sent a Redeemer. Why humans and not angels? I dunno. Perhaps angels have a redeemer that wasn’t revealed to us. Were all the angels created all at once? Perhaps that may be why there is a human redeemer but no angelic redeemer. Perhaps it was because all angles sealed their own fate where as you and I suffer from the sin of Adam and Eve.