Looking for Adam

[Vico]

Thanks.

Well, when I work out how they could have malice in their hearts when they were created free from any such fallen desire I’ll have an answer.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica, Q163 A2:

Wherefore from the very fact that man coveted a spiritual good above his measure, as stated in the foregoing Article, it follows that he coveted God’s likeness inordinately.

It must, however, be observed that the proper object of the appetite is a thing not possessed. Now spiritual good, in so far as the rational creature participates in the Divine likeness, may be considered in reference to three things.

• First, as to natural being: and this likeness was imprinted from the very outset of their creation, both on man–of whom it is written (Genesis 1:26) that God made man “to His image and likeness”–and on the angel, of whom it is written (Ezekiel 28:12): “Thou wast the seal of resemblance.” * Secondly, as to knowledge: and this likeness was bestowed on the angel at his creation, wherefore immediately after the words just quoted, “Thou wast the seal of resemblance,” we read: “Full of wisdom.” But the first man, at his creation, had not yet received this likeness actually but only in potentiality. * Thirdly, as to the power of operation: and neither angel nor man received this likeness actually at the very outset of his creation, because to each there remained something to be done whereby to obtain happiness.

Accordingly, while both (namely the devil and the first man) coveted God’s likeness inordinately, neither of them sinned by coveting a likeness of nature. But the first man sinned chiefly by coveting God’s likeness as regards **“knowledge of good and evil,” **according to the serpent’s instigation, namely that by his own natural power he might decide what was good, and what was evil for him to do; or again that he should of himself foreknow what good and what evil would befall him. Secondarily he sinned by coveting God’s likeness as regards his own power of operation, namely that by his own natural power he might act so as to obtain happiness. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 30) that “the woman’s mind was filled with love of her own power.” On the other hand, the devil sinned by coveting God’s likeness, as regards power. Wherefore Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 13) that “he wished to enjoy his own power rather than God’s.” Nevertheless both coveted somewhat to be equal to God, in so far as each wished to rely on himself in contempt of the order of the Divine rule.

 

[grannymh]

On the other hand, God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. (from CCC 1730)

Consequently, we cannot deny Adam’s ability to choose an evil act. Denying Adam’s ability to perform deliberate actions on his own responsibility (from CCC 1731) can be considered as denying God’s power to give Adam his spiritual soul which does include freedom of choice. Please take a few minutes to decide if God has the power to give humans freedom of choice. That request does sound odd, but there can be a difficulty understanding how a person can deliberately, with full knowledge and full consent, disobey their Creator.

This freedom of choice means that there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil. (from CCC 1732)

Being in the State of Sanctifying Grace aka Adam’s original State of Original Holiness and Justice does not, repeat not, change basic human nature by removing the possibility of choosing the State of Mortal Sin.

Being given the preternatural gifts does not, repeat not, change Adam’s basic human nature by removing the possibility of choosing the State of Mortal Sin.

Genesis 2: 15-17 does not say that Adam does not have the freedom to disobey his Creator.

Looking for Adam does not mean that somehow Adam’s human nature is different because there is the difficulty of accepting the fact that human nature per se includes the possibility of choosing the State of Mortal Sin.

 

[Vico]

On the other hand, God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. (from CCC 1730)

Consequently, we cannot deny Adam’s ability to choose an evil act. Denying Adam’s ability to perform deliberate actions on his own responsibility (from CCC 1731) can be considered as denying God’s power to give Adam his spiritual soul which does include freedom of choice. Please take a few minutes to decide if God has the power to give humans freedom of choice. That request does sound odd, but there can be a difficulty understanding how a person can deliberately, with full knowledge and full consent, disobey their Creator.

This freedom of choice means that there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil. (from CCC 1732)

Being in the State of Sanctifying Grace aka Adam’s original State of Original Holiness and Justice does not, repeat not, change basic human nature by removing the possibility of choosing the State of Mortal Sin.

Being given the preternatural gifts does not, repeat not, change Adam’s basic human nature by removing the possibility of choosing the State of Mortal Sin.

Genesis 2: 15-17 does not say that Adam does not have the freedom to disobey his Creator.

Looking for Adam does not mean that somehow Adam’s human nature is different because there is the difficulty of accepting the fact that human nature per se includes the possibility of choosing the State of Mortal Sin.

The rational being sins by acting contrary to reason.

And also, CCC
1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.” 121

121 St. Augustine, Contra Faustum 22L 42,418; St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,71,6.

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

 

[grannymh]

Adam had infused knowledge and freedom, but he lacked the the experience and skill to apply knowledge to action; he failed to exercise “the power of discerning and judging properly as to what is true or right; possessing discernment, judgment, or discretion,” i.e., wisdom. :banghead:

[definition from dictionary.com]

One of the many ways to express Original Sin is that Adam failed to exercise “the power of discerning and judging properly as to what is true or right; possessing discernment, judgment, or discretion,” i.e., wisdom. However, Adam, as a true human being, freely made the decision not to use proper wisdom. That was his first freely chosen error.

I recognize that many people believe that Adam had to first experience evil before he could choose between evil and good. That is a flat out attack on the Catholic teaching regarding human nature having a rational intellective soul along with freedom of choice. May I refer you to post 62 for three basic Catholic teachings regarding human nature. According to the principle of non-contradiction, Adam either had a human nature according to Catholic description or he did not have a human nature according to Catholic description. Adam cannot both have and have not a human nature according to Catholic description at the very same time.

When one follows Genesis 3: 1-6 one can understand the mistakes Eve made before she ate the forbidden fruit. Scripture link. usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

Please re-read this section from Vico, post 56
And from Baltimore Catechism No. 3:

Q. 252. Which were the chief causes that led Eve into sin?

A. The chief causes that led Eve into sin were: (1) She went into the danger of sinning by admiring what was forbidden, instead of avoiding it. (2) She did not fly from the temptation at once, but debated about yielding to it. Similar conduct on our part will lead us also into sin.

Obviously, Eve’s scenario fits us when we yield to temptation. Just as obviously, Adam was there agreeing with every misstep of Eve’s. As I said earlier in this post:
“However, Adam, as a true human being, freely made the decision not to use proper wisdom. That was his first freely chosen error.”

Adam was fully aware of the meaning of Genesis 2: 15-17. Scripture link. usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

As a true human being, Adam could ignore “infused knowledge.” He could ignore his conscience. He could ignore obvious wisdom. He should have ignored Eve’s personal sin; instead, he freely, with full knowledge, chose to do likewise. Therefore, Adam, because he is the first human, is responsible for Original Sin.

 

[grannymh]

Occasionally, we find some, not all, people questioning human culpability when it comes to mortal sins. How does a human being actually fulfill the Catholic requirements for a true mortal sin? The answers to that question belong in another type of thread.

Nonetheless, I am guessing that the heart of that question goes directly back to Adam and Original Sin. If Adam could not commit a mortal sin (true nature of Original Sin) then how could his descendants, inheriting his human nature, commit a mortal sin which basically refuses the love and presence of God in the State of Sanctifying Grace. Interestingly, the Catholic Church affirms both the existence of mortal sin (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889) and the existence of Adam.

What that means for this thread is that in addition to looking for Adam, we also need to examine his Original Sin.

Men work from sun to sun. But a granny’s work is never done.

 

[grannymh]

usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

1
"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the eartha— "
The author of the first three chapters of Genesis searches the legends of how the world began. In deep humility, he bows before the true Creator, the true God.

 

[grannymh]

usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

Genesis 1: 2-25

2*
and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—**(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/1#01001002-b”)
3
Then God said: Let there be light, …
6
Then God said: Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, …
9
Then God said: Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear. …
11
Then God said: Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it.
14
Then God said: Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the seasons, the days and the years,g …
20
Then God said: Let the water teem with an abundance of living creatures, and on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky.
24
Then God said: Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature: tame animals, crawling things, and every kind of wild animal. And so it happened:
25
God made every kind of wild animal, every kind of tame animal, and every kind of thing that crawls on the ground. God saw that it was good.

As one of the early scientists, the author of the first three chapters of Genesis studied the universe around him which was filled with a variety of living organisms. As scientists usually are, he was in awe of the intelligible universe and its distinct species. Like the scientists who would follow him, he asked the basic question – How did all this evolve?

Looking at the green environment and non-endangered species, the author reasoned that an extremely powerful source with a creative mind beyond all belief had to be the source. He looked around him. The only possible answer had to be the true Creator, the true God Who would not be limited by the form or shape of the earth in its abyss of darkness. It had to be God. This early scientist published his research with the citation “God said.”

Of course, all of us who are scientists at heart, can laugh at what was written. On the other hand, it is the methods and materials sections which contain the evidence. When our author scientist first looked at the materials, the universe and creatures, he was speechless. He did not have a science textbook and the internet was down. So he did the best he could knowing that eventually Ph.D. women and men would figure out the nitty-gritty. The years between the dawn of human history and today did not change the materials. The sun is still in the sky and the mosquitoes still bite. As for the methods section, the author of the first three chapters of Genesis grinned from ear to ear. As for methods – God did it.

To be continued.

 

[grannymh]

usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

Genesis 1: 25-26

25
God made every kind of wild animal, every kind of tame animal, and every kind of thing that crawls on the ground. God saw that it was good.
26
Then God said: Let us make* human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.

When we last saw the author of the first three chapters of Genesis (post 67), he was grinning from ear to ear because “God did it.” The next morning, the author looked into the mirror and smiled at himself. He was a handsome fellow. While he had never come face to face with his Creator, the author figured that God had made him good looking because he was in God’s image.

Unfortunately, the author’s delighted mood changed when the cat let him know that cats have dominion over man. Next, the breaking news was that two famous brothers got into a fight. Cain had killed Abel. Then, the author noticed that some clouds had arrived so he grabbed his umbrella. The weather channel quickly explained that heavy rain was forecasted. There was the warning that flash flooding was expected. And there was the awful thought that the author had not had the hole in his boat fixed. As he stepped outside, he noticed that there was also a hole in his umbrella.

What changed since the time that God saw that it was good? Who did what?

The author of the first three chapters of Genesis was also an investigative journalist. He repeated the mantra Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why? each morning when he entered his office. He was the very model of a modern major-general when it came to gathering hidden facts.

Who would have the facts? There was a very old man named Adam who often fell asleep on a park bench. The author of the first three chapters of Genesis grabbed his recording device.

The author of the first three chapters of Genesis was Looking for Adam

 

[simpleas]

Adam had infused knowledge and freedom, but he lacked the the experience and skill to apply knowledge to action; he failed to exercise “the power of discerning and judging properly as to what is true or right; possessing discernment, judgment, or discretion,” i.e., wisdom. :banghead:

[definition from dictionary.com]

If Adam lacked experience and skill to apply knowledge to action as you say, then God should not have set a boundary that his creature could not fully avoid.

 

[simpleas]

usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

Genesis 1: 25-26

25
God made every kind of wild animal, every kind of tame animal, and every kind of thing that crawls on the ground. God saw that it was good.
26
Then God said: Let us make* human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.

When we last saw the author of the first three chapters of Genesis (post 67), he was grinning from ear to ear because “God did it.” The next morning, the author looked into the mirror and smiled at himself. He was a handsome fellow. While he had never come face to face with his Creator, the author figured that God had made him good looking because he was in God’s image.

Unfortunately, the author’s delighted mood changed when the cat let him know that cats have dominion over man. Next, the breaking news was that two famous brothers got into a fight. Cain had killed Abel. Then, the author noticed that some clouds had arrived so he grabbed his umbrella. The weather channel quickly explained that heavy rain was forecasted. There was the warning that flash flooding was expected. And there was the awful thought that the author had not had the hole in his boat fixed. As he stepped outside, he noticed that there was also a hole in his umbrella.

What changed since the time that God saw that it was good? Who did what?

The author of the first three chapters of Genesis was also an investigative journalist. He repeated the mantra Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why? each morning when he entered his office. He was the very model of a modern major-general when it came to gathering hidden facts.

Who would have the facts? There was a very old man named Adam who often fell asleep on a park bench. The author of the first three chapters of Genesis grabbed his recording device.

The author of the first three chapters of Genesis was Looking for Adam

What a humorist post! I can image you sitting writing that after a few sherry’s!

 

[grannymh]

What a humorist post! I can image you sitting writing that after a few sherry’s!

I am working on the next installment. :tanning:

 

[grannymh]

usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

Genesis 1: 27

27
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.

usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

7
then the Lord God formed the man* out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.d

Ignoring two silly posts above,

the author of the first three chapters of Genesis finally found Adam sleeping on a park bench with some old newspapers as a blanket. In addition, Adam had not taken a bath since he lost his job as a gardener. For the first time in his life, the mind of this internationally known journalist/author was in a muddle. How could both a handsome, definitely clean smelling, proper gentleman as himself and this bundle of skin and bones both be in the image of God?

Sitting on the ground, there was no room on the park bench, an idea formed between the two ears of the author of the first three chapters of Genesis. The natural ground was universal. Everyone knew what ground was because they could see and touch it. Coincidentally, everyone knew that God was a super-natural Pure Spirit. Obviously, God was not blood and guts. This is how the author solved his problem.

In this beautiful park, named Eden after the donor, we can picture humans as having an universal anatomy which is physically seen like natural ground. Yet, there is a spiritual principle in humans which gives humans the unique ability to think and choose. This spiritual principle accounts for the interaction between a pure spiritual being and a human with a spiritual soul The author’s next idea was brilliant. Breath is essential for keeping humans alive. God could blow spiritual breath into some dusty ground so that it was brought to life, a very special human life created by God Himself. (CCC 362-366) Humans were definitely different from the animals which kept changing their species. Only humans are called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. (CCC 356)

Like the “corrections” seen in magazines, etc., This honest journalist/author of the first three chapters of Genesis corrected his opinion in post 68 when he said that he “figured that God had made him good looking because he was in God’s image.” Instead, God had opened the gates of heaven to him, not because he was good looking, but because he is the only creature who can be called a spiritual being. He had been created as soul and body.

Also, God, using common sense, insured that all natural anatomical human beings would absolutely know that God created them special. God first created one man and one woman, the Adam and Eve parents, both with the same human nature which would be passed on to their descendants.

 

[fhansen]

Regarding Adam :

What is the difference between the gift of immortality (which Adam was given freely)
and Eternal life (given freely to us, by Jesus Christ)

Adam was mortal, but with the gift of immortality he would not suffer or die as a human being.

What does Jesus restore to us that Adam lost, (which has been covered before in previous posts, but bare with me )

The grace to live in friendship with God, a supernatural Grace, which can only come from God, but not the same as Adam had to begin with. We have to learn all about God, suffer and die, so a completely different restoration. And the obvious there is no gift of immortality, but a hope that we will be resurrected at the second coming of Christ if we are found in his friendship, sanctifying grace.

Adam was holy, he did not need to be made holy, he only need to remain holy.
We on the other have to be made holy, it’s like back to front in a way.

So we are looking for Adam, but how to look for Adam?

No, Adam hadn’t achieved complete holiness yet. There was still a part for him to play, a choice to be made

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
:

 

[simpleas]

No, Adam hadn’t achieved complete holiness yet. There was still a part for him to play, a choice to be made

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
:

We can achieve a level of holiness, which some say is whole-ness with the aid of Sanctifying Grace as a people growing closer to God, and hopefully at death, we will become like God.
Original sin is wiped away at baptism, but it’s effects remain, we have an inclination to sin, which was not present before in the Original two human beings.

The choosing explanation I understand, they were to choose between good and evil, but how does one choose evil when there is no evil intent present within, no inclination to want something of evil when only goodness is present. All or most knowledge of what the good would bring and what the evil would bring, most people can determine this in our present human abilities, how would two people free from sin,good and holy, knowledgeable not be able to make a wise choice?

If Adam had a choice to make, he would have had good and bad present within him, in order to make an intelligent choice, but we don’t say this because it’s taught he was holy, because of SG and his friendship with God and that God wouldn’t create anything bad.

He may not have achieved complete holiness, that would have been the vision of God, but he was holy according to SG.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Also, God, using common sense, insured that all natural anatomical human beings would absolutely know that God created them special. God first created one man and one woman, the Adam and Eve parents, both with the same human nature which would be passed on to their descendants.

This is interesting what you say here, it leads my thoughts onto the experience of life that A&E had, right through the generations of humans, to the present day and our experience of life, God, their choices and our choices etc.

Maybe leading away from the OP…

 

[fhansen]

We can achieve a level of holiness, which some say is whole-ness with the aid of Sanctifying Grace as a people growing closer to God, and hopefully at death, we will become like God.
Original sin is wiped away at baptism, but it’s effects remain, we have an inclination to sin, which was not present before in the Original two human beings.

The choosing explanation I understand, they were to choose between good and evil, but how does one choose evil when there is no evil intent present within, no inclination to want something of evil when only goodness is present. All or most knowledge of what the good would bring and what the evil would bring, most people can determine this in our present human abilities, how would two people free from sin,good and holy, knowledgeable not be able to make a wise choice?

If Adam had a choice to make, he would have had good and bad present within him, in order to make an intelligent choice, but we don’t say this because it’s taught he was holy, because of SG and his friendship with God and that God wouldn’t create anything bad.

He may not have achieved complete holiness, that would have been the vision of God, but he was holy according to SG.

He wasn’t perfected until he chose rightly. That’s the point; Adam was gifted in many ways but God still won’t choose *for *us. As we choose rightly, according to truth and justice, we, ourselves, become just. Whether or not Adam had to take a detour into a less holy state first, the choice still remained.

 

[Vico]

No, Adam hadn’t achieved complete holiness yet. There was still a part for him to play, a choice to be made

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
:

The possibility of mortal sin remains until death.

 

[fhansen]

The possibility of mortal sin remains until death.

That’s certainly true. I’m not sure how that relates to the teaching tho.

 

[grannymh]

My apology, but I cannot resist this question.

“… how would two people free from sin, good and holy, knowledgeable not be able to make a wise choice?”

Maybe they were bored.

 

[Vico]

My apology, but I cannot resist this question.

“… how would two people free from sin, good and holy, knowledgeable not be able to make a wise choice?”

Maybe they were bored.

Since they did not have concupiscence, the sensuous appetite was perfectly subject to reason. The irascible appetite is hope and despair, courage and fear, and anger, which is not sensuous appetite. Now, anger is driven by thwarted desire and desire may be coveting. St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the opinion that the first man sinned chiefly by coveting God’s likeness as regards “knowledge of good and evil,”. Since they new not to go for “knowledge of good and evil” and did so anyway, it was also an act of pride.

St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of the sin of pride and envy that follow, in angels, in Summa Theologica, and this general understanding of pride and envy seem applicable to Adam and Eve, but here speaking of angels:

Yet, as a consequence, it was possible for envy also to be in them [angels], since for the appetite to tend to the desire of something involves on its part resistance to anything contrary. Now the envious man repines over the good possessed by another, inasmuch as he deems his neighbor’s good to be a hindrance to his own. But another’s good could not be deemed a hindrance to the good coveted by the wicked angel, except inasmuch as he coveted a singular excellence, which would cease to be singular because of the excellence of some other. So, after the sin of pride, there followed the evil of envy in the sinning angel, whereby he grieved over man’s good, and also over the Divine excellence, according as against the devil’s will God makes use of man for the Divine glory.

newadvent.org/summa/1063.htm