Looking for Adam

[grannymh]

How could Adam sin when his life was so good?

That valid question is often asked.
There is no problem with that question.
The problems begin when the obvious answer, freedom of choice, is ignored.

In my humble opinion, the reason this “Adam question” is a perplexing question is that Genesis 1: 15-17 has been ignored. On purpose? Consequently, when the reality of these verses is skipped, the real Adam can be denied. The focus then shifts to an “Adam” who has this ignorance and that holiness. In other words, the Catholic teaching on Original Sin disappears, Adam disappears, and so does human responsibility for one’s actions disappears.

The real question is not how Adam could sin – that is explained in the Catholic teachings on human nature’s capability to sin due to human nature’s freedom of choice.

The real question is --What does that simple question really lead to? Ultimately, it will lead to a denial of some basic truths about human nature and its relationship to Divine nature. Eventually, as one unnamed popular author proposed in regard to Original Sin, it is a fly in the ointment. Swat it!

If anyone is really looking for Adam, one cannot keep skipping these verses. Some of the major unpopular truths are there including the difference between God and Adam. Adam, with his intellective rational soul, had the basic capability to challenge this difference.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

15
The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h
16
The Lord God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden*(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2#01002016-i”)
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j

 

[Vico]

How could Adam sin when his life was so good?

That valid question is often asked.
There is no problem with that question.
The problems begin when the obvious answer, freedom of choice, is ignored.

In my humble opinion, the reason this “Adam question” is a perplexing question is that Genesis 1: 15-17 has been ignored. On purpose? Consequently, when the reality of these verses is skipped, the real Adam can be denied. The focus then shifts to an “Adam” who has this ignorance and that holiness. In other words, the Catholic teaching on Original Sin disappears, Adam disappears, and so does human responsibility for one’s actions disappears.

The real question is not how Adam could sin – that is explained in the Catholic teachings on human nature’s capability to sin due to human nature’s freedom of choice.

The real question is --What does that simple question really lead to? Ultimately, it will lead to a denial of some basic truths about human nature and its relationship to Divine nature. Eventually, as one unnamed popular author proposed in regard to Original Sin, it is a fly in the ointment. Swat it!

If anyone is really looking for Adam, one cannot keep skipping these verses. Some of the major unpopular truths are there including the difference between God and Adam. Adam, with his intellective rational soul, had the basic capability to challenge this difference.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

15
The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h
16
The Lord God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden*(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2#01002016-i”)
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j

And not to forget the tree of life was available to eat from, in Eden.
Genesis 2
8 The LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and placed there the man whom he had formed.
9 Out of the ground the LORD God made grow every tree that was delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[fhansen]

And not to forget the tree of life was available to eat from, in Eden.
Genesis 2
8 The LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and placed there the man whom he had formed.
9 Out of the ground the LORD God made grow every tree that was delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And I think that’s an important point, one that’s easily overlooked. Adam & Eve were in sort of neutral territory in terms of their wills prior to the Fall. They hadn’t yet used their freedom, in whatever role it was to play, to definitively bind themselves to God. Eating from the Tree of Life would’ve probably signified a movement towards God, towards that binding or union, rather than away from it as they proceeded to do. And it’s interesting that not much mention was made of the Tof L; the option was there but definitely not forced. And yet… to eat of one tree was to die; to eat of the other was to live, forever.

 

[grannymh]

And I think that’s an important point, one that’s easily overlooked. Adam & Eve were in sort of neutral territory in terms of their wills prior to the Fall. They hadn’t yet used their freedom, in whatever role it was to play, to definitively bind themselves to God. Eating from the Tree of Life would’ve probably signified a movement towards God, towards that binding or union, rather than away from it as they proceeded to do. And it’s interesting that not much mention was made of the Tof L; the option was there but definitely not forced. And yet… to eat of one tree was to die; to eat of the other was to live, forever.

Wait a minute or two.

Adam did use his freedom to definitively bind himself to God – which on earth means that Adam is in the State of Sanctifying Grace.

Adam shares in the divine life of God. That is the original relationship between Adam and his Creator. (CCC 375)

Was Adam in the State of Mortal Sin in Genesis 2: 15? Not in my bible.

Adam’s State of Mortal Sin is much later in Genesis, chapter 3.

 

[fhansen]

Wait a minute or two.

Adam did use his freedom to definitively bind himself to God – which on earth means that Adam is in the State of Sanctifying Grace.

Adam shares in the divine life of God. That is the original relationship between Adam and his Creator. (CCC 375)

Was Adam in the State of Mortal Sin in Genesis 2: 15? Not in my bible.

Adam’s State of Mortal Sin is much later in Genesis, chapter 3.

Adam’s only act, when faced with that very choice, was to* un*bind any relationship he may’ve been given to begin with. That relationship, along with it’s corresponding grace, was forfeited. In Adam’s case love was given, but the favor wasn’t reciprocated. But presumably it has been by now. In any case, once that binding has taken place, it’s definitive.

 

[grannymh]

Adam’s only act, when faced with that very choice, was to* un*bind any relationship he may’ve been given to begin with. That relationship, along with it’s corresponding grace, was forfeited. In Adam’s case love was given, but the favor wasn’t reciprocated. But presumably it has been by now. In any case, once that binding has taken place, it’s definitive.

In my bible, Adam is quite alive in his relationship (State of Sanctifying Grace aka State of Original Holiness) in chapter 2 and the first part of chapter 3. Being alive means that Adam had to face the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit every day, especially when he worked in the Garden. Every day, until that event in chapter 3, Adam chose to act in obedience to God. For example Genesis 2: 20. Or one can say that Adam chose to act in a way which was not Mortal Sin.

 

[fhansen]

In my bible, Adam is quite alive in his relationship (State of Sanctifying Grace aka State of Original Holiness) in chapter 2 and the first part of chapter 3. Being alive means that Adam had to face the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit every day, especially when he worked in the Garden. Every day, until that event in chapter 3, Adam chose to act in obedience to God. For example Genesis 2: 20. Or one can say that Adam chose to act in a way which was not Mortal Sin.

We have no idea of what Adam chose-or for how long he may have so chosen. We only know of one instance of what Adam did when faced with a choice, the choice of whether or not to obey God. This teaching on freedom and man’s proper use of it is general and universal:

**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.
**

Until this binding takes place, with our choices contributing, even if the BV is a necessary part of it, man’s perfection is not yet attained. And, again, once the binding is made it is definitive. Meanwhile Adam was still in the process of choosing between good and evil, the first choice we know of being wrong.

 

[grannymh]

We have no idea of what Adam chose-or for how long he may have so chosen. We only know of one instance of what Adam did when faced with a choice, the choice of whether or not to obey God. This teaching on freedom and man’s proper use of it is general and universal:

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.

CCC 1730-1732 is important not only for our lives, but also to get a better understanding of Adam’s life.

You are correct that we do not know which day in human history, Adam stopped making obedient choices such as not eating the forbidden fruit. Considering what immediately happened with the Original Sin, we can reasonably say that Adam chose to maintain his State of Sanctifying Grace aka State of Original Holiness in Genesis 2: 19-20.

We do know that Adam, at some point in his life, did stop obeying God because Original Sin is real.

Please note that CCC 1732 refers to human acts plural. There is no indication that a human cannot make different choices on different days. Remember that CCC 1730-1732 refers to humans on planet earth. Being bound definitively to its ultimate good refers to heaven after bodily death. CCC 1732 refers to the possibility of “choosing between good and evil.” It does not say that humans are limited to a one-time choice, for example, Adam and organic fruit.

 

[fhansen]

CCC 1730-1732 is important not only for our lives, but also to get a better understanding of Adam’s life.

You are correct that we do not know which day in human history, Adam stopped making obedient choices such as not eating the forbidden fruit. Considering what immediately happened with the Original Sin, we can reasonably say that Adam chose to maintain his State of Sanctifying Grace aka State of Original Holiness in Genesis 2: 19-20.

We do know that Adam, at some point in his life, did stop obeying God because Original Sin is real.

Please note that CCC 1732 refers to human acts plural. There is no indication that a human cannot make different choices on different days. Remember that CCC 1730-1732 refers to humans on planet earth. Being bound definitively to its ultimate good refers to heaven after bodily death. CCC 1732 refers to the possibility of “choosing between good and evil.” It does not say that humans are limited to a one-time choice, for example, Adam and organic fruit.

A basic insight provided by Genesis, IMO, is simply that, when put to the test, Adam chose wrongly. This may’ve occurred at his creation for all we know. But this story is both a historical recording of an actual sin and an insight into the situation humankind finds ourselves in now. A basic point is that Adam still had some perfecting left to achieve, connected to his choosing, or else he could never have scorned or turned away from God.

 

[grannymh]

It is not news that Original Sin is being attacked six ways to Sunday. One of the main attacks is an attack on the reality of Adam’s human nature. Reduce that human nature in any way eliminates the possibility of Original Sin. Even the denting of Original Sin can lead to dismissal of human responsibility for rejecting God. In other words, there is the false clam that a human (all humans) cannot really commit a real Mortal Sin. There are some other fascinating denials, for example, denying the need for a sinner to seek forgiveness and to give up one’s State of Mortal Sin.

I realize that this is complicated just like modern Arianism. One of the things we can do when we look for Adam is to maintain his human nature as taught by the Catholic Church. This is not easy because we do not have Adam’s diary. However, we can use basic assumptions which stem from what we can learn in the first three chapters of Genesis and from what we learn from Catholic doctrines. For example. Adam has an intellective rational soul which allows freedom of choice; therefore, he is capable of rejecting goodness so that a personal desire can be obtained. It is not necessary to understand Adam’s personal desire because “understanding per se” will not make sin a good choice. Freedom of choice works both ways, good and bad.

No doubt that this is a tough thread. All we can do is to maintain basic doctrines in the best way possible. It is the battles which retain the truth that are really valuable.

 

[Vico]

And I think that’s an important point, one that’s easily overlooked. Adam & Eve were in sort of neutral territory in terms of their wills prior to the Fall. They hadn’t yet used their freedom, in whatever role it was to play, to definitively bind themselves to God. Eating from the Tree of Life would’ve probably signified a movement towards God, towards that binding or union, rather than away from it as they proceeded to do. And it’s interesting that not much mention was made of the Tof L; the option was there but definitely not forced. And yet… to eat of one tree was to die; to eat of the other was to live, forever.

The Catechism 1732 gives a definition that where “there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil,” “freedom has not bound itself definitively”.

Per CCC 1732, they were never bound definitively, because they were able to sin. Death certainly ended the possibility. Would choosing to eat from the tree of life been binding and mean loss of freedom to sin, per the definition. If so, it would have been be the ultimate act of humility, just as with the angels that choose. It seems that Adam and Eve were more like the angels, in that respect, before their fall, because of the finality of the choice.

 

[fhansen]

The Catechism 1732 gives a definition that where “there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil,” “freedom has not bound itself definitively”.

Per CCC 1732, they were never bound definitively, because they were able to sin. Death certainly ended the possibility. Would choosing to eat from the tree of life been binding and mean loss of freedom to sin, per the definition. If so, it would have been be the ultimate act of humility, just as with the angels that choose. It seems that Adam and Eve were more like the angels, in that respect, before their fall, because of the finality of the choice.

Yes, and yet the finality of the choice didn’t result in eternal damnation for man. In any case, I don’t know that eating from the Tree of Life would’ve necessarily meant that the definitive bond or union was realized-or that eating of it would’ve resulted in that bonding in any immediate sense. But I think it would’ve meant a *movement *towards greater justice and the realization or maintaining of eternal life, instead of away from it, keeping in mind that the Church teaches that while at Baptism we regain the grace and justice which Adam & Eve lost, we can nevertheless grow more in justice, becoming justified still as we cooperate with grace.

And we, as well, possess eternal life from the point of our initial justification at Baptism, and maintain it to the extent that we continue to live in the Spirit and partake of the Eucharist, which can easily be related to our eating of the Tree of Life. Just some thoughts. The Tree of Life certainly must’ve had real significance even as it seemed to be only barely acknowledged. The most important things are often overlooked or dismissed in this life-and must, hopefully, finally become valued and embraced.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Question…

Why look for Adam when you found Christ?

:,(

 

[Vico]

Yes, and yet the finality of the choice didn’t result in eternal damnation for man. In any case, I don’t know that eating from the Tree of Life would’ve necessarily meant that the definitive bond or union was realized-or that eating of it would’ve resulted in that bonding in any immediate sense. But I think it would’ve meant a *movement *towards greater justice and the realization or maintaining of eternal life, instead of away from it, keeping in mind that the Church teaches that while at Baptism we regain the grace and justice which Adam & Eve lost, we can nevertheless grow more in justice, becoming justified still as we cooperate with grace.

And we, as well, possess eternal life from the point of our initial justification at Baptism, and maintain it to the extent that we continue to live in the Spirit and partake of the Eucharist, which can easily be related to our eating of the Tree of Life. Just some thoughts. The Tree of Life certainly must’ve had real significance even as it seemed to be only barely acknowledged. The most important things are often overlooked or dismissed in this life-and must, hopefully, finally become valued and embraced.

I can see the distinction between justification and growth in the virtue of justice that you speak of. Yet the Tree of Life was guarded, so it does not seem to be a symbol of growth in justice: Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

The Church is teaching in the Catechism that as long as a person can choose mortal sin, that person’s “freedom has not bound itself definitively.” That means that after their fall since it was still possible for them to sin, or repent, that their freedom was not bound definitively. We know that death makes it definite. Eternal damnation results from final impenitence. So I don’t understand why you said: “yet the finality of the choice didn’t result in eternal damnation for man.”

I speculate that eating of the Tree Of Life would mean leaving Eden for heaven (eternal life), which is the defining moment after which no change of spiritual state can occur. I can’t reconcile the Tree of Life to communion, for they were barred from it when leaving Eden, with the sword.

 

[fhansen]

I can see the distinction between justification and growth in the virtue of justice that you speak of. Yet the Tree of Life was guarded, so it does not seem to be a symbol of growth in justice: Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

Maybe. But the purpose for consuming the Body and Blood is also the attainment of eternal life.

The Church is teaching in the Catechism that as long as a person can choose mortal sin, that person’s “freedom has not bound itself definitively.” That means that after their fall since it was still possible for them to sin, or repent, that their freedom was not bound definitively. We know that death makes it definite. Eternal damnation results from final impenitence. So I don’t understand why you said: “yet the finality of the choice didn’t result in eternal damnation for man.”.

I thought you were referring to Adam’s choice, which didn’t result in final damnation but rather exile from Eden and spiritual and physical death, sort of half way between heaven and hell perhaps.

I speculate that eating of the Tree Of Life would mean leaving Eden for heaven (eternal life), which is the defining moment after which no change of spiritual state can occur. I can’t reconcile the Tree of Life to communion, for they were barred from it when leaving Eden, with the sword.

Yes, but Jesus’ atonement changed all that, reconciling us so that man can now be friends with and sons of God again. We can now partake of and commune with Him.

 

[Vico]

Maybe. But the purpose for consuming the Body and Blood is also the attainment of eternal life.

I thought you were referring to Adam’s choice, which didn’t result in final damnation but rather exile from Eden and spiritual and physical death, sort of half way between heaven and hell perhaps.

Yes, but Jesus’ atonement changed all that, reconciling us so that man can now be friends with and sons of God again. We can now partake of and commune with Him.

Halfway, but nevertheless still with the free will to to choose sin.

Even in the Old Testament there were justified souls. The souls would go the Hades envisioned in two partitions.

 

[fhansen]

Halfway, but nevertheless still with the free will to to choose sin.
.

Yes, and so it’s not death, itself, that binds us definitively to God, but rather our free choices before death that brings us to that point, with purgatory perhaps finishing the rectification of the will, and then the Beatific Vision causing absolute binding. It’s as if justice still demands that we make the overall choice or series of choices for the true Good now, with the help of grace but without benefit of direct sight, with the reward being that very Vision, which then totally captivates the will.

Even in the Old Testament there were justified souls. The souls would go the Hades envisioned in two partitions.

ok. In any case Jesus is the only way to the Father, as the reconciler, the redeemer, the savior of humankind. We partake of Him, apart from Whom we can do nothing.

 

[Vico]

Yes, and so it’s not death, itself, that binds us definitively to God, but rather our free choices before death that brings us to that point, with purgatory perhaps finishing the rectification of the will, and then the Beatific Vision causing absolute binding. It’s as if justice still demands that we make the overall choice or series of choices for the true Good now, with the help of grace but without benefit of direct sight, with the reward being that very Vision, which then totally captivates the will.

ok. In any case Jesus is the only way to the Father, as the reconciler, the redeemer, the savior of humankind. We partake of Him, apart from Whom we can do nothing.

That’s very true, God always makes the first move and it is beyond our nature to be holy, so we must have the actual grace of God.

Well the Catechism is stating that it is not definitive if one can sin mortally, and that can occur up to death. Since the fall, the particular judgement occurs at death, such that there is no more ability to change the outcome.

 

[grannymh]

Observation

When people stopped looking for Adam,
attendance at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass decreased.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by Vico

That’s very true, God always makes the first move and it is beyond our nature to be holy, so we must have the actual grace of God.

I haven’t replied to some post’s since my last reply as I would be just repeating my question over again, then I read this above and I now wonder if I have been missing a valuable piece of information.
You say it is beyond our nature to be holy, and that is why we need Grace from God. I get that.

Now I am thinking that, A&E had the choice to act on their unnatural desires or act on the holy nature that they had by the grace of God, but then that seems their was two natures within.
I always thought that, when God created the first humans, they were created without any inclination to act upon unnatural desire, because they were created good, lived holy in friendship with God, and that is also why I have difficultly understanding how they could desire something more, something other than God.
But if God made them with* underlining* basic desires of their own, then I can understand how they then could actually act upon them.

I’m trying to explain what I’m thinking, and I don’t think I’ve done that good of a job, but I hope someone understands some of what I say?