Original Sin and Concupiscence

[Rohzek]

Perhaps this might go a bit far, but maybe it’s useful to discuss anyways. Feel free to ridicule the idea. But in answer to Charlemagne’s problem, the answer lay not in the exact nature or being of mankind, but rather its environment. In Paradise we could choose whatever, because having free will is part of our very being/nature. Okay, so Adam and Eve chose to eat of the fruit. Thus God tossed them out of Paradise. Perhaps concupiscence doesn’t originate from a damaged nature of mankind, but rather from being cast out into a fallen world. Being in a fallen world thus inclines us to disobey God, but does not determine us. A good example of this is the following. Say you are discussing the latest football game with friends. And then they ask you, “Who do think will make it to the playoffs?” One is normally inclined to answer the question or at least stay on topic. But let’s say you freely chose to instead discuss why you love kittens so much. It is certainly conceivable that you could choose to discuss kittens. However, the conversation inclines you, but not determines you, to stay on topic. Inclination does not mean determination, an important distinction (something the Cartesians made pretty explicit too).

Now the common objection to this theory is that it leads to Pelagianism, whereby God’s grace isn’t necessary for human salvation. Well, one can avoid that charge if they account for Genesis 2:7, where God breathed life into man. If our very being possess the grace of God, thus leaving us the choice to accept or reject it, then we can avoid the problem of Pelagianism. In the end, concupiscence might not lie in our nature, but be the result of our environment.

Just food for thought.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, perhaps that is the end result of my searching as well.

I am 75 and it is close to the end times for me anyway.

In the end maybe we can’t move much further than Anselm’s answer to the question regarding Adam’s act of rebellion/disobedience, ‘Why did Adam sin?’ Anselm’s simple conclusion: Adam sinned because he* willed* to sin. We’re here to learn, with the help of revelation and grace in a world now very much spiritually separated and autonomous from its Creator, how to will otherwise.

 

[Rohzek]

Perhaps this might go a bit far, but maybe it’s useful to discuss anyways. Feel free to ridicule the idea. But in answer to Charlemagne’s problem, the answer may lay not in the exact nature or being of mankind, but rather its environment. In Paradise we could choose whatever, because having free will is part of our very being/nature. Okay, so Adam and Eve chose to eat of the fruit. Thus God tossed them out of Paradise. Perhaps concupiscence doesn’t originate from a damaged nature of mankind, but rather from being cast out into a fallen world. Being in a fallen world thus inclines us to disobey God, but does not determine us. A good example of this is the following. Say you are discussing the latest football game with friends. And then they ask you, “Who do you think will make it to the playoffs?” One is normally inclined to answer the question or at least stay on topic. But let’s say you freely chose to instead discuss why you love kittens so much. It is certainly conceivable that you could choose to discuss kittens. However, the conversation inclines you, but not determines you, to stay on topic. Inclination does not mean determination, an important distinction (something the Cartesians made pretty explicit too).

Now the common objection to this theory is that it leads to Pelagianism, whereby God’s grace isn’t necessary for human salvation. Well, one can avoid that charge if they account for Genesis 2:7, where God breathed life (inspiravit) into man. If we connect this to 2 Corinthians 3:6, where Paul says the Spirit is living, we could interpret it that he gave his Spirit to us at the moment of creation, thus a form of grace. If our very being possess the grace of God, thus leaving us the choice to accept or reject it, then we can avoid the problem of Pelagianism. In the end, concupiscence might not lie in our nature, but be the result of our environment.

This only a rudimentary proposition, but it is food for thought.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

… if you are on a level road and can go one way or the other with equal ease, there is a reason (inclination) to go one way or the other.

Okay, each person forms a judgment and prefers one way over another. Call it an inclination if you will, but it is not of the same kind as the slope, because the judgment varies from person to person, whereas the slope affects everyone. Therefore I would not say the inclination was ramped up after the fall, because it is not a matter of degree, but of two distinct inclinations.

The word “inclination” is also associated with a predisposition, tendency, or orientation. Before the fall, Adam was in fact oriented toward the good. But his intellect did not yet enjoy the beatific vision, and his will was not yet confirmed in grace; therefore it was possible for him to prefer a lesser good over God, and to choose moral evil.

What went through his mind? How did he arrive at the judgment he came to? I have wondered this many times, and do not have a positive answer, but can only say it was not an inclination of nature.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes, perhaps that is the end result of my searching as well.

I am 75 and it is close to the end times for me anyway.

Well, hang in there Charlemagne! I’m 70 and don’t feel “old” just yet!

You gave us a good run for our money and made us use the ole’ brain - which is why I’m here anyway. I taught catechism till last year and have a small bible study now to keep busy. It’s difficult to just give up something so it’s nice to be on this forum.

Your question just shows that you’re thinking very deeply. Unfortunately, God didn’t tell us everything. The next time you’re reading John, check out John 21:25. Maybe the bible just tells us what we need to know and the rest is all intellectual debating.

What’s important is that we know the Lord, we believe in Him and are following Him, which is the greek meaning of “believe” and that we are safe in His hands and will be with Him one day.

God bless you

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Perhaps concupiscence doesn’t originate from a damaged nature of mankind, but rather from being cast out into a fallen world.

Interesting theory. But what does it mean to be in a fallen world, except that other souls besides myself have an inclination to evil? And if they have, why not I?

 

[Vico]

Perhaps this might go a bit far, but maybe it’s useful to discuss anyways. Feel free to ridicule the idea. But in answer to Charlemagne’s problem, the answer lay not in the exact nature or being of mankind, but rather its environment. In Paradise we could choose whatever, because having free will is part of our very being/nature. Okay, so Adam and Eve chose to eat of the fruit. Thus God tossed them out of Paradise. Perhaps concupiscence doesn’t originate from a damaged nature of mankind, but rather from being cast out into a fallen world. Being in a fallen world thus inclines us to disobey God, but does not determine us. A good example of this is the following. Say you are discussing the latest football game with friends. And then they ask you, “Who do you think will make it to the playoffs?” One is normally inclined to answer the question or at least stay on topic. But let’s say you freely chose to instead discuss why you love kittens so much. It is certainly conceivable that you could choose to discuss kittens. However, the conversation inclines you, but not determines you, to stay on topic. Inclination does not mean determination, an important distinction (something the Cartesians made pretty explicit too).

Now the common objection to this theory is that it leads to Pelagianism, whereby God’s grace isn’t necessary for human salvation. Well, one can avoid that charge if they account for Genesis 2:7, where God breathed life (inspiravit) into man. If we connect this to 2 Corinthians 3:6, where Paul says the Spirit is living, we could interpret it that he gave his Spirit to us, thus a form of grace. If our very being possess the grace of God, thus leaving us the choice to accept or reject it, then we can avoid the problem of Pelagianism. In the end, concupiscence might not lie in our nature, but be the result of our environment.

As in the Confession of Dositheus, 14:"… it is necessary that he be guided and prevented [preceded] by grace, as has been said in treating of predestination. Consequently, he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life, although he has it in his own power to will, or not to will, to co-operate with grace."
Totally in keeping with the two dogmatic teachings against Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Perhaps this might go a bit far, but maybe it’s useful to discuss anyways. Feel free to ridicule the idea. But in answer to Charlemagne’s problem, the answer may lay not in the exact nature or being of mankind, but rather its environment. In Paradise we could choose whatever, because having free will is part of our very being/nature. Okay, so Adam and Eve chose to eat of the fruit. Thus God tossed them out of Paradise. Perhaps concupiscence doesn’t originate from a damaged nature of mankind, but rather from being cast out into a fallen world. Being in a fallen world thus inclines us to disobey God, but does not determine us. A good example of this is the following. Say you are discussing the latest football game with friends. And then they ask you, “Who do you think will make it to the playoffs?” One is normally inclined to answer the question or at least stay on topic. But let’s say you freely chose to instead discuss why you love kittens so much. It is certainly conceivable that you could choose to discuss kittens. However, the conversation inclines you, but not determines you, to stay on topic. Inclination does not mean determination, an important distinction (something the Cartesians made pretty explicit too).

Now the common objection to this theory is that it leads to Pelagianism, whereby God’s grace isn’t necessary for human salvation. Well, one can avoid that charge if they account for Genesis 2:7, where God breathed life (inspiravit) into man. If we connect this to 2 Corinthians 3:6, where Paul says the Spirit is living, we could interpret it that he gave his Spirit to us at the moment of creation, thus a form of grace. If our very being possess the grace of God, thus leaving us the choice to accept or reject it, then we can avoid the problem of Pelagianism. In the end, concupiscence might not lie in our nature, but be the result of our environment.

This only a rudimentary proposition, but it is food for thought.

Well, there’s a basic problem with your theory:

**Perhaps concupiscence doesn’t originate from a damaged nature of mankind, but rather from being cast out into a fallen world. Being in a fallen world thus inclines us to disobey God, but does not determine us.
**

Can’t look up scripture because it’s too late but I think you know enough of it, so –

The changes that ocurred in Genesis to Adam and Eve ocurred BEFORE God tossed out Adam and Eve.

Adam, Where are you? He was hiding from God. His relationship with God was ALREADY broken when he was sent out into the “world”.
Adam was ashamed of his nakedness. He was still in the garden.

Plus, we believe that they CAUSED the fallen world.

So those are some big problems. Could you rethink and repost?

I’d like to check in tomorrow.

God bless you

 

[Vico]

Well, there’s a basic problem with your theory:

**Perhaps concupiscence doesn’t originate from a damaged nature of mankind, but rather from being cast out into a fallen world. Being in a fallen world thus inclines us to disobey God, but does not determine us.
**

Can’t look up scripture because it’s too late but I think you know enough of it, so –

The changes that ocurred in Genesis to Adam and Eve ocurred BEFORE God tossed out Adam and Eve.

Adam, Where are you? He was hiding from God. His relationship with God was ALREADY broken when he was sent out into the “world”.
Adam was ashamed of his nakedness. He was still in the garden.

Plus, we believe that they CAUSED the fallen world.

So those are some big problems. Could you rethink and repost?

I’d like to check in tomorrow.

God bless you

It certainly is the Catholic teaching that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were supernatural and not due to human nature. The gift of integrity is equivalent to exemption from concupiscence. Therefore it is consistent that* concupiscence is natural rather than a damaged nature.
*

 

[davidv]

It certainly is the Catholic teaching that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were supernatural and not due to human nature. The gift of integrity is equivalent to exemption from concupiscence. Therefore it is consistent that* concupiscence is natural rather than a damaged nature.
*

My understanding of the teaching on original sin does not support that concupiscence is a natural state of mankind. The inclination toward the good is the natural condition of man prior to the fall. This inclination (toward the good) is not dependent on the supernatural.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, hang in there Charlemagne! I’m 70 and don’t feel “old” just yet!

God bless you

If you are around in five years, I hope you are singing the same tune.

 

[Vico]

My understanding of the teaching on original sin does not support that concupiscence is a natural state of mankind. The inclination toward the good is the natural condition of man prior to the fall. This inclination (toward the good) is not dependent on the supernatural.

After the Fall, both sanctifying grace, and the preternatural gifts were lost.

Modern Catholic Dictionary, PreturnaturalFavors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title – infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35763

 

[davidv]

After the Fall, both sanctifying grace, and the preternatural gifts were lost.

Modern Catholic Dictionary, PreturnaturalFavors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title – infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35763

The Church calls concupiscence a wound of nature. How can a wound be natural?

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the "spirit."302 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.303

Based on this concupiscence is contrary to human nature.

 

[Vico]

The Church calls concupiscence a wound of nature. How can a wound be natural?

Based on this concupiscence is contrary to human nature.

It states that by original sin, human nature “is wounded in the natural powers proper to it”. The preternatural gifts were lost and they are “beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them” but not supernatural. The powers are proper to the nature but beyond it. Set the use of preternatural by the Catholic Church below.405 Although it is proper to each individual, 295 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 towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

http://www.vatican.va/img/vuoto.gif APOSTOLIC PENITENTIARY
DECREE
**Plenary Indulgences for the 15th World Day of the Sick ** Since man fell in consequence of original sin which deprived him of both supernatural and preternatural gifts, God the Creator and Redeemer, in his infinite mercy, has closely united in a mysterious bond what justice demands and what forgiveness obtains; therefore, suffering that has a penal character becomes a favourable opportunity for expiating sin and for obtaining the growth of virtue, and hence, for attaining eternal salvation.

 

[Rohzek]

Well, there’s a basic problem with your theory:

**Perhaps concupiscence doesn’t originate from a damaged nature of mankind, but rather from being cast out into a fallen world. Being in a fallen world thus inclines us to disobey God, but does not determine us.
**

Can’t look up scripture because it’s too late but I think you know enough of it, so –

The changes that ocurred in Genesis to Adam and Eve ocurred BEFORE God tossed out Adam and Eve.

Adam, Where are you? He was hiding from God. His relationship with God was ALREADY broken when he was sent out into the “world”.
Adam was ashamed of his nakedness. He was still in the garden.

Plus, we believe that they CAUSED the fallen world.

So those are some big problems. Could you rethink and repost?

I’d like to check in tomorrow.

God bless you

Interesting. Before I answer the question, I’ll start from another end. Let’s look at Job 32:8, which says the following: “The Spirit is who intercedes for mortals, truly the living breath (inspiratio) is what he gives to me.” This breath or grace is what God gave us upon creation. Solomon says more about this in Proverbs 20:27, which says: “The Light of the Lord is the spirit of a man.” This seems to indicate to me that the mankind still holds the grace of God within themselves. Next turn to Jeremiah 2:13 in the Latin Vulgate version, which says: “In fact, my people have done two evils. They have abandoned me, the fountain of living water, and they have dug themselves cisterns; broken cisterns which are unable to contain water.” David also says in Pslams 5:10: “For with You is the fountain of life.”

So now this brings me to the answer the problem you highlighted. You said that Adam and Eve had both already severed their relationship with God after eating the fruit, but before being cast out of Paradise. I agree that they had damaged that relationship. However, that is a separate matter from concupiscence. I think Jeremiah highlights this quite well. He states that two wrongs were done by humanity: First abandoning God, which Adam and Eve had done when they disobeyed. But the second wrong was the fabrication of new cisterns so as to replace God. The latter sin only compounds the initial problem. Adam and Eve had not done that, particularly because they eventually confessed to God with their shame, although imperfectly. The concupiscence to do the latter evil must therefore be the result of the environment of the fallen world. The fallen world is the creative space given to us by God so that we might choose to create false gods, etc.

To quote Alcuin of York, when asked what exactly was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he replied the following: “It is not that the tree in its nature had reason and had contained knowledge of Good and Evil. But rather in it, man was able to know the difference between the good and the evil of disobedience.” The end result was that they knew they had sinned. Their nakedness was more of a spiritual nature. They realized that they had abandoned the fountain of living water. However, even after they appeared again before God, they through pride continued to pass the blame. It is at that point that God cast them out of Paradise and into the fallen world. Their sin of pride was not the result of concupiscence, but rather it was exactly of the same nature of eating the fruit. The concupiscence was the result of their fall from Paradise. Otherwise, why would Solomon say that the Light of the Lord is the spirit of a man? If the spirit or very being of a man has no grace from birth, then it cannot be the light of the Lord.

Interesting theory. But what does it mean to be in a fallen world, except that other souls besides myself have an inclination to evil? And if they have, why not I?

Could you perhaps expand on this question? I do not fully understand what you are asking.

 

[davidv]

It states that by original sin, human nature “is wounded in the natural powers proper to it”. The preternatural gifts were lost and they are “beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them” but not supernatural. The powers are proper to the nature but beyond it. Set the use of preternatural by the Catholic Church below.405 Although it is proper to each individual, 295 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 towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

http://www.vatican.va/img/vuoto.gif APOSTOLIC PENITENTIARY
DECREE
**Plenary Indulgences for the 15th World Day of the Sick ** Since man fell in consequence of original sin which deprived him of both supernatural and preternatural gifts, God the Creator and Redeemer, in his infinite mercy, has closely united in a mysterious bond what justice demands and what forgiveness obtains; therefore, suffering that has a penal character becomes a favourable opportunity for expiating sin and for obtaining the growth of virtue, and hence, for attaining eternal salvation.

So, is what you are saying, is that without the preternatural gifts, man would have been inclined to sin even if no sin had yet bet committed?

 

[Vico]

So, is what you are saying, is that without the preternatural gifts, man would have been inclined to sin even if no sin had yet bet committed?

Yes, hypothetically, however God created Adam and Eve with the supernatural and preternatural gifts so it was not that way from the beginning.

 

[Lucretius]

So, is what you are saying, is that without the preternatural gifts, man would have been inclined to sin even if no sin had yet bet committed?

If you think about it, animal impulses (hunger, thirst, sex, safety) and spiritual desires (wisdom, goodness) do not work together at all, if combined in one being. These two very different natures would be at war with each other, trying to overpower its opposite (which is what we see in Fallen man: the flesh vs the spirit). God saw this, and thus gave us a gift that integrated these two natures, and did so in such a way that had them actually compliment each other, rather than bring each other down. We lost this gift, and we are now at war within ourselves.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[fhansen]

Well, there’s a basic problem with your theory:

**Perhaps concupiscence doesn’t originate from a damaged nature of mankind, but rather from being cast out into a fallen world. Being in a fallen world thus inclines us to disobey God, but does not determine us.
**

Can’t look up scripture because it’s too late but I think you know enough of it, so –

The changes that ocurred in Genesis to Adam and Eve ocurred BEFORE God tossed out Adam and Eve.

Adam, Where are you? He was hiding from God. His relationship with God was ALREADY broken when he was sent out into the “world”.
Adam was ashamed of his nakedness. He was still in the garden.

Plus, we believe that they CAUSED the fallen world.

So those are some big problems. Could you rethink and repost?

I’d like to check in tomorrow.

God bless you

FWIW, I tend to think they were already outside of the garden the instant that they sinned. They had placed themselves outside of the garden, no longer in right relationship with God, in a state now separated or distanced from Him.

Humanity’s exile into the world we know now was not so much a punishment or arbitrary choice of God as much as it was a direct natural consequence of their act, like the consequence of dying as a result of trying to defy gravity by stepping off a cliff. God had warned them, “Don’t jump”. They were now spiritually dead, no longer aligned with truth, no longer aligned with Gods will as the rest of creation is, no longer in perfect sync with the universe. This is the world of man that we find ourselves in now.

 

[frangiuliano115]

It certainly is the Catholic teaching that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were supernatural and not due to human nature. The gift of integrity is equivalent to exemption from concupiscence. Therefore it is consistent that* concupiscence is natural rather than a damaged nature.
*

Believe me I know catholci teaching well. Concupiscence IS a damaged nature. We did not have it before the fall.

But that is not what I was hinting at. Rohzek puts forth the idea that they became damged by being thrown out into the world and that’s when sin came in. If I understood correctly.

They were IN the garden when they sinned so I just brought that up to her/him to see if they thought it out correctly.

Thanks and God bless