Original Sin and Concupiscence

[frangiuliano115]

Your question is the same as mine.

I think God did hold back certain knowledge from Adam and Eve that he subsequently did not hold back from us: namely, that the serpent would tempt them with a lie and that they had better be on the watch for that serpent and ready for the lie. Just the appearance of the serpent would have tipped them off that the serpent was setting them up for the Fall.

Since God walked with Adam and Eve in Eden, they would have had a chance to inform God that indeed the serpent had appeared and tempted them. They should have had the wisdom and strength of character to resist that temptation if they were so full of integrity as some in this forum seem to think. But they did not. This leads me to think that the proclivity to sin (concupiscence) was in them from the start, as it was in the angels who fell right from the start of their creation when, theologians opine, God revealed to them they were destined to fall down and worship the Man/God Jesus Christ.

From those to whom more is given, more is demanded. That is why the angels were damned for all eternity, whereas men were given a reprieve and a chance to repent and be saved by being washed in the blood of the lamb.

Loved your last paragraph.

Did you see my post to Vico, stating at the end that I noticed that noorez is now asking the unanswerable question, as you were also but which we can’t seem to get to the bottom of.

So, I’ll ask you. You say:

They should have had the wisdom and strength of character to resist that temptation if they were so full of integrity as some in this forum seem to think. But they did not. This leads me to think that the proclivity to sin (concupiscence) was in them from the start, as it was in the angels who fell right from the start of their creation

If proclivity to sin (concup.) was in them from the start, as it was in the angels,

Where Did It Come From???

We’re going to get to the bottom of this!!

God bless

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Loved your last paragraph.
If proclivity to sin (concup.) was in them from the start, as it was in the angels,

Where Did It Come From???

We’re going to get to the bottom of this!!

God bless

Your guess is as good as mine!

Perhaps “It” comes from the fact that neither angels nor men were created perfect?

Only God is perfect.

So anyone created imperfect by his very nature can choose good or evil. Our free will is supported by grace, but we can be damaged by the desire to know greater perfection than we can possibly know.

My recollection (correct me if I’m in error here) is that Augustine said the origin of sin is in desire, whereas Aquinas found the origin of sin in knowledge. I think desire and knowledge are both at the bottom of sin, the desire for more knowledge than we are entitled to know. And isn’t that the very lesson of Genesis when God forbids Adam and Eve to desire the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

*Genesis 2:16-17

The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.*

 

[Rohzek]

Your guess is as good as mine!

Perhaps “It” comes from the fact that neither angels nor men were created perfect?

Only God is perfect.

So anyone created imperfect by his very nature can choose good or evil. Our free will is supported by grace, but we can be damaged by the desire to know greater perfection than we can possibly know.

My recollection (correct me if I’m in error here) is that Augustine said the origin of sin is in desire, whereas Aquinas found the origin of sin in knowledge. I think desire and knowledge are both at the bottom of sin, the desire for more knowledge than we are entitled to know. And isn’t that the very lesson of Genesis when God forbids Adam and Eve to desire the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

*Genesis 2:16-17

The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.*

Well their is something that many would find problematic in the assumption that mankind was never perfect to begin with. Basically, this has been proposed before by the bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia. He actually rejected the notion of Original Sin in all its forms. He proposed mankind was not perfected because human nature was essentially always mutable, while God’s nature of immutable. Therefore, as his argument goes, God planned for Adam and Eve’s fall the whole time (in a sense there never was a Fall according to him), and that essentially this whole thing we call Life is a grand operation to have our human nature perfected by becoming immutable with the help of God. It’s a radical theory, and as some theologians have noted, was also trying to tackle the tension within the notion of the hypostatic union of Christ. I’m not clear on all the details. Nonetheless, the idea that they weren’t perfect to begin with, tends to lead down this path.

I think that we should establish some basic premises though as alternatives to the above theory. Mainly that proclivity to sin = concupiscence. Meanwhile, ability to sin =/= concupiscence. In fact, ability to sin = free will, because it is God’s will that establishes morality. Therefore, in order to defy the will of God, one must have a will of their own, hence free will. Adam and Eve therefore were not inclined to sin, but merely had the ability to sin, which they then did. The proclivity to sin came afterwards.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Your guess is as good as mine!

Perhaps “It” comes from the fact that neither angels nor men were created perfect?

Only God is perfect.

So anyone created imperfect by his very nature can choose good or evil. Our free will is supported by grace, but we can be damaged by the desire to know greater perfection than we can possibly know.

My recollection (correct me if I’m in error here) is that Augustine said the origin of sin is in desire, whereas Aquinas found the origin of sin in knowledge. I think desire and knowledge are both at the bottom of sin, the desire for more knowledge than we are entitled to know. And isn’t that the very lesson of Genesis when God forbids Adam and Eve to desire the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

*Genesis 2:16-17

The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.*

Well, it wasn’t the tree of knowledge. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They already knew the good, after the knew the evil too. Desire is definitely at the root of much evil, as is pride.

But here’s my question. You say:

Perhaps “It” comes from the fact that neither angels nor men were created perfect?

How could a perfect being create an imperfect being? If He’s perfect and good and powerful, how does he get an imperfect angel or an imperfect man?

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

Well their is something that many would find problematic in the assumption that mankind was never perfect to begin with. Basically, this has been proposed before by the bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia. He actually rejected the notion of Original Sin in all its forms. He proposed mankind was not perfected because human nature was essentially always mutable, while God’s nature of immutable. Therefore, as his argument goes, God planned for Adam and Eve’s fall the whole time (in a sense there never was a Fall according to him), and that essentially this whole thing we call Life is a grand operation to have our human nature perfected by becoming immutable with the help of God. It’s a radical theory, and as some theologians have noted, was also trying to tackle the tension within the notion of the hypostatic union of Christ. I’m not clear on all the details. Nonetheless, the idea that they weren’t perfect to begin with, tends to lead down this path.

I think that we should establish some basic premises though as alternatives to the above theory. Mainly that proclivity to sin = concupiscence. Meanwhile, ability to sin =/= concupiscence. In fact, ability to sin = free will, because it is God’s will that establishes morality. Therefore, in order to defy the will of God, one must have a will of their own, hence free will. Adam and Eve therefore were not inclined to sin, but merely had the ability to sin, which they then did. The proclivity to sin came afterwards.

Eventually Charlegmagne will get here!

I’ve been debating with myself about this for many years. My thought process has changed over time and with it my ideas. I hesitate to bring this up with anyone, and even on this post, because any result other than just accepting that things are the way they are is almost blasphemous!

I don’t know Theodore of Mopsuestia (who do I know???) but, boy, I’ve had this thought all on my very own! And many others.

Now, just off the top of my head, I couldn’t agree with Mr. Mopsuestia because if his theory was correct we’d just be getting better and better and we aren’t. Our human nature is the same as it was 5,000 yrs ago. I also would have to think about how this relates to the hypostatic union - can’t think of anything right now.

How about the idea that there was a good god and an evil god way back at the beginning. Even Job could be worked into this idea. But, alas, it is heretical too.

It was easy when I first came to know God at the age of about 28. Had a born again experience, as protestants would say. My truth was that God is good. Satan is evil. All bad comes from Satan. Well, that lasted for about 10 yrs and then all the questions started to abound.

I have stopped thinking about this since THERE IS NO ANSWER. We only know what God wants us to know. Even Jesus didn’t say everything that could have been said to clear up so many misconceptions.

Now what kind of catechist must I have been, you might wonder. A very good one! There was no question those kids could come up with that I hadn’t already thought of on my own. Kids do ask very good questions. It’s amazing how clear they are in their thinking. And how basic.

Your second pp relating to sin is okay, I think. Do you mean that proclivity to sin=concup. OR that concup. = proclivity to sin? I see a difference. I agree with the second. It might just be words.

Back to Mr. Mopsuestia. Having our human nature perfected by becoming unchangeable with the help of God. The hypostatic union. Was Jesus, according to him. the perfected man? His nature could no longer be changed because it had become perfect and thus he was “God” or like God? Which would mean that eventually we will all be like him – possibly using more than 10% of our brain? I’d have to discard that too.

So I’m always left with the bible and what it teaches and the limits thereof. Maybe I’m afraid to go beyond; maybe it’s not necessary; maybe we just need to put ourselves in His hands and not worry about it all.

From your othe post above you say that you’re not sure why this world would even have to be affected by man’s sin. Because as we look for the reason for our damaged nature, so we must also notice that nature itself is damaged - and what caused that? Catholicism teaches that sin entered into everything - man and nature.

God COULD have made it this way and then placed us in it as a consequence of orig. sin, as you say, but WHY? I mean, it’s easier to accept what men were inspired to write to explain why things are the way they are.

And gettng back to Augustine. Thanks for listing some good ideas he wrote about. Will be doing much looking into this. A pet peeve of mine is that the church quotes saints too much. They each have differing opinions. But when I say this to traditional catholic friends of mine they get upset and tell me But he’s a doctor of the church - he must be right.

Yes. Sometimes I wish it was solo scriptura.

I apologize for such a long post but it’s answering two different posts of yours.

God bless

 

[Rohzek]

Eventually Charlegmagne will get here!

I’ve been debating with myself about this for many years. My thought process has changed over time and with it my ideas. I hesitate to bring this up with anyone, and even on this post, because any result other than just accepting that things are the way they are is almost blasphemous!

I always pay respect to tradition, but for me tradition must always be justified. So I find nothing wrong with questioning things.

I don’t know Theodore of Mopsuestia (who do I know???) but, boy, I’ve had this thought all on my very own! And many others.

Now, just off the top of my head, I couldn’t agree with Mr. Mopsuestia because if his theory was correct we’d just be getting better and better and we aren’t. Our human nature is the same as it was 5,000 yrs ago. I also would have to think about how this relates to the hypostatic union - can’t think of anything right now.

I’ll explain how it relates to the hypostatic union to the best of my ability below. I must admit however, that my knowledge of Theodore is very limited. I can suggest maybe an article or an entire book on it if you would like, but I’ve only skimmed them.

How about the idea that there was a good god and an evil god way back at the beginning. Even Job could be worked into this idea. But, alas, it is heretical too.

The reason it is problematic is because it commits to a problematic premises. First, that Evil is an actual ontological existence. If it was an actual existence, then it would mean that God created Evil. If God created Evil then it means God willed Evil. At that point, it thus undermines what it means to do Evil, in which Evil thus becomes indistinguishable from what Good is. After all, we usually define Good as whatever God wills, or at least I do. If you however say “Well the Evil God was not created by the Good God,” it also poses a problem because then it undermines the omnipotence principal of the Good God. This is why this position is untenable. You either adopt this position and abandon omnipotence principle of God, or you abandon the two-Gods premise to save the omnipotence principle.

Your second pp relating to sin is okay, I think. Do you mean that proclivity to sin=concup. OR that concup. = proclivity to sin? I see a difference. I agree with the second. It might just be words.

I think it is just words. Both formulations seem the same to me.

 

[Rohzek]

Back to Mr. Mopsuestia. Having our human nature perfected by becoming unchangeable with the help of God. The hypostatic union. Was Jesus, according to him. the perfected man? His nature could no longer be changed because it had become perfect and thus he was “God” or like God? Which would mean that eventually we will all be like him – possibly using more than 10% of our brain? I’d have to discard that too.

Yeah, so from my limited understanding of Theodore’s idea is that he believed that humanity all shared this fundamental nature called human nature as though it were some sort of Platonic object up in some metaverse. As we all choose to do actions, etc. these things have an effect upon the nature. When Christ came into the world, it presented us with a way to make our nature immutable because he had both human and divine natures. That’s the limit of my understanding. I really don’t know it well in detail. Again, I’d be more than happy to provide an article or a book as good secondary sources on the matter.

From your othe post above you say that you’re not sure why this world would even have to be affected by man’s sin. Because as we look for the reason for our damaged nature, so we must also notice that nature itself is damaged - and what caused that? Catholicism teaches that sin entered into everything - man and nature.

Yeah, that’s been the traditional interpretation of Original Sin in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Nevertheless, I am somewhat skeptical that it is an adequate explanation of our Fall and our current predicament solely because the concupiscence doesn’t seem to go away with baptism, etc.

God COULD have made it this way and then placed us in it as a consequence of orig. sin, as you say, but WHY? I mean, it’s easier to accept what men were inspired to write to explain why things are the way they are.

I have no idea as to why really, but I can speculate. Maybe he was just so upset at our betrayal, that he wanted some space between us? It sounds odd, but he is a jealous god after all. Or perhaps he wanted us to come to an understanding that we always need him and the fundamental purpose of our existence is to have a relationship with him. But because by our very nature we are creative creatures, we often have to learn the hard way. Perhaps when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit God began to feel that this was true, and when Adam and Eve began to further pass the blame, God became convinced that we really had to learn the hard way to accept his grace.

And gettng back to Augustine. Thanks for listing some good ideas he wrote about. Will be doing much looking into this. A pet peeve of mine is that the church quotes saints too much. They each have differing opinions. But when I say this to traditional catholic friends of mine they get upset and tell me But he’s a doctor of the church - he must be right.

I think that’s mostly a scholastic legacy, the idea that the Church Fathers rarely if ever contradicted one another. Earlier tradition, particularly the Carolingian Tradition, never went that far. They sought consensus on many matters, but diversity was often expected.

Yes. Sometimes I wish it was solo scriptura.

I apologize for such a long post but it’s answering two different posts of yours.

God bless

Well, I think scripture is important, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say that only scripture is legitimate. After all, scripture doesn’t really explicitly point out the concept of the Trinity. That’s something that took time to formulate and realize. So much so that John Chrysostom had to convince Jerome that the Holy Spirit was God, and not some other creation. This is why the present-day Nicene Creed doesn’t proclaim the Father, Son, AND the Holy Spirit as consubstantial. It only proclaims the Father and the Son as consubstantial. Why? Because the question on the Holy Spirit had yet to be settled.

 

[Vico]

Loved your last paragraph.

Did you see my post to Vico, stating at the end that I noticed that noorez is now asking the unanswerable question, as you were also but which we can’t seem to get to the bottom of.

So, I’ll ask you. You say:

They should have had the wisdom and strength of character to resist that temptation if they were so full of integrity as some in this forum seem to think. But they did not. This leads me to think that the proclivity to sin (concupiscence) was in them from the start, as it was in the angels who fell right from the start of their creation

If proclivity to sin (concup.) was in them from the start, as it was in the angels,

Where Did It Come From???

We’re going to get to the bottom of this!!

God bless

The gift of integrity is the exemption from concupiscence. The fall was not from concupiscence. Therefore the gift of integrity did not prevent the fall.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But here’s my question. You say:

Perhaps “It” comes from the fact that neither angels nor men were created perfect?

**How could a perfect being create an imperfect being? **If He’s perfect and good and powerful, how does he get an imperfect angel or an imperfect man?

I do not see how a Perfect Being could create anything other than an imperfect being.

Only God is perfect.

So implicit in anything created is that it cannot be perfect.

It can be perfectly innocent, but that perfectly innocent being cannot be guaranteed to be eternally perfect if free will is a given. Free will must mean what it says: that you are free to choose between good and evil. If Adam and Eve were predisposed (able, inclined) to commit evil, it is only because God made them free to make that choice.

So I am still in a quandary as to why concupiscence is thought to have occurred only after the Fall. Have I missed something about the definition of concupiscence?

 

[fhansen]

Loved your last paragraph.

Did you see my post to Vico, stating at the end that I noticed that noorez is now asking the unanswerable question, as you were also but which we can’t seem to get to the bottom of.

So, I’ll ask you. You say:

They should have had the wisdom and strength of character to resist that temptation if they were so full of integrity as some in this forum seem to think. But they did not. This leads me to think that the proclivity to sin (concupiscence) was in them from the start, as it was in the angels who fell right from the start of their creation

If proclivity to sin (concup.) was in them from the start, as it was in the angels,

Where Did It Come From???

We’re going to get to the bottom of this!!

God bless

You won’t answer that question easily. Remember, though, that God cannot be the author of sin/evil.

 

[fhansen]

Your guess is as good as mine!

Perhaps “It” comes from the fact that neither angels nor men were created perfect?

Only God is perfect.

So anyone created imperfect by his very nature can choose good or evil. Our free will is supported by grace, but we can be damaged by the desire to know greater perfection than we can possibly know.

My recollection (correct me if I’m in error here) is that Augustine said the origin of sin is in desire, whereas Aquinas found the origin of sin in knowledge. I think desire and knowledge are both at the bottom of sin, the desire for more knowledge than we are entitled to know. And isn’t that the very lesson of Genesis when God forbids Adam and Eve to desire the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

*Genesis 2:16-17

The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.*

I think the above is the answer. Regardless of how perfect God may create a being, only He has absolute perfect integrity. Our own perfection is bound up with His; to the extent that we remain in communion with Him our integrity is intact, to the extent that we don’t, we’re fallen. And the awful, beautiful, truth is that its our choice.

But how does an imperfect being make the right choice? Gradually, via a process, of first coming to know good and evil, then making the right choice, the choice between them, and *growing in it, *with the help of grace, over time, God the divine Potter patiently molding the clay. Everything in our lives, including purgatory, perhaps, may play its role in this process, this process of justification as we come to will rightly.The catechism teaches that God made His universe in a “state of journeying to perfection”.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I do not see how a Perfect Being could create anything other than an imperfect being.

Only God is perfect.

So implicit in anything created is that it cannot be perfect.

It can be perfectly innocent, but that perfectly innocent being cannot be guaranteed to be eternally perfect if free will is a given. Free will must mean what it says: that you are free to choose between good and evil. If Adam and Eve were predisposed (able, inclined) to commit evil, it is only because God made them free to make that choice.

So I am still in a quandary as to why concupiscence is thought to have occurred only after the Fall. Have I missed something about the definition of concupiscence?

Charlemagne, you’re still in a quandry because you haven’t gone back far enough and maybe you never will.

However, if you can believe that a PERFECT being can (by mistake?) create something imperfect then you have to accept that as your ANSWER!

Adam and Eve were IMPERFECT. God gave them free will. Those chose to disobey God. They ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Evil has now entered the universe. They commited original sin. That sin is taken away at baptism. But the EFFECTS of that sin remain with us forever and make us tend toward sin. Jesus give us the example to help us fight that tendency. He gives us the power by being in our heart; check out the New Covenant.

If you accept all of the above, there is nothing more for you to ask, although this post could go on forever because it brings up so many interesting questions, okay, but you should be able to come to a comfortable conclusion. Even if it’s to accept something you’ll NEVER understand!!

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

You won’t answer that question easily. Remember, though, that God cannot be the author of sin/evil.

And therein lies the problem:

WHERE did evil come from?

Which is what Charlemagne is really asking and which WILL NOT get a reply, as you so simply stated.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

The gift of integrity is the exemption from concupiscence. The fall was not from concupiscence. Therefore the gift of integrity did not prevent the fall.

Ooops. I lost my reply!

It basically said that your answer is not what I was asking. It’s too basic.

I also said that maybe we should stay with the basics since Charlemagne’s question cannot be answered.

God bless

 

[Vico]

Ooops. I lost my reply!

It basically said that your answer is not what I was asking. It’s too basic.

I also said that maybe we should stay with the basics since Charlemagne’s question cannot be answered.

God bless

You asked: If proclivity to sin (concup.) was in them from the start, as it was in the angels,

Where Did It Come From???

I pointed out that it was not concupiscence, you asked a conditional question. The answer is that there was no proclivity to sin from the start in man or angels. I think you mean to ask something else, “Why did the angels, Adam and Eve, choose evil?”

St. Augustine said he could not find an answer (see CCC 385 below). Catholic Encylopedia stated: “It is as impossible to know, in the fullest sense, why this world was made as to know how it was made; but St. Thomas has at least shown that the acts of the Creator admit of complete logical justification, notwithstanding the mystery in which, for human intelligence, they can never wholly cease to be involved.”

Sharpe, A. (1909). Evil. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: 391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably *rejected *God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271

393 It is the *irrevocable *character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272

760 Christians of the first centuries said, "The world was created for the sake of the Church."153 God created the world for the sake of communion with his divine life, a communion brought about by the “convocation” of men in Christ, and this “convocation” is the Church. The Church is the goal of all things,154 and God permitted such painful upheavals as the angels’ fall and man’s sin only as occasions and means for displaying all the power of his arm and the whole measure of the love he wanted to give the world:

Just as God’s will is creation and is called “the world,” so his intention is the salvation of men, and it is called "the Church."155

215 "The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your righteous ordinances endures forever."30 “And now, O LORD God, you are God, and your words are true”;31 this is why God’s promises always come true.32 God is Truth itself, whose words cannot deceive. This is why one can abandon oneself in full trust to the truth and faithfulness of his word in all things. The beginning of sin and of man’s fall was due to a lie of the tempter who induced doubt of God’s word, kindness and faithfulness.

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution”, said St. Augustine,257 and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For “the mystery of lawlessness” is clarified only in the light of the “mystery of our religion”.258 The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace.259 We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.260
​

 

[frangiuliano115]

I pointed out that it was not concupiscence, you asked a conditional question. The answer is that there was no proclivity to sin from the start in man or angels. I think you mean to ask something else, “Why did the angels, Adam and Eve, choose evil?”

**St. Augustine said he could not find an answer **(see CCC 385 below). Catholic Encylopedia stated: “It is as impossible to know, in the fullest sense, why this world was made as to know how it was made; but St. Thomas has at least shown that the acts of the Creator admit of complete logical justification, notwithstanding the mystery in which, for human intelligence, they can never wholly cease to be involved.”

Sharpe, A. (1909). Evil. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: 391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably *rejected *God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271

393 It is the *irrevocable *character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272

760 Christians of the first centuries said, "The world was created for the sake of the Church."153 God created the world for the sake of communion with his divine life, a communion brought about by the “convocation” of men in Christ, and this “convocation” is the Church. The Church is the goal of all things,154 and God permitted such painful upheavals as the angels’ fall and man’s sin only as occasions and means for displaying all the power of his arm and the whole measure of the love he wanted to give the world:

Just as God’s will is creation and is called “the world,” so his intention is the salvation of men, and it is called "the Church."155

215 "The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your righteous ordinances endures forever."30 “And now, O LORD God, you are God, and your words are true”;31 this is why God’s promises always come true.32 God is Truth itself, whose words cannot deceive. This is why one can abandon oneself in full trust to the truth and faithfulness of his word in all things. The beginning of sin and of man’s fall was due to a lie of the tempter who induced doubt of God’s word, kindness and faithfulness.

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution”, said St. Augustine,257 and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For “the mystery of lawlessness” is clarified only in the light of the “mystery of our religion”.258 The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace.259 ****We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.****260
​

I was not asking why Adam and Eve chose evil. I was asking where evil comes from; the same question Charlemagne has been asking except that I (think) know the answer. On the other hand, who can know it for sure??? Hope you’ve read Rohzek’s posts.

Okay. Now we’re getting somewhere. Because I’ve said my answer. And, finally, you are quoting what it is.

I think we all know pretty much all of the above. Here are the important points:

1. St. Augustine said he could not find an answer

**2. and God permitted such painful upheavals as the angels’ fall and man’s sin only as occasions and means for displaying all the power of his arm and the whole measure of the love he wanted to give the world: **

**3. God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution”, said St. Augustine,257 and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God.
**

4. We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.

So here we are with the solution! There is no solution/answer to Charlemagne’s question! We must only “fix our eyes on Him who alone is the conqueror.”

 

[Rohzek]

The Catechism is leading to something important here. The answer as to why Adam and Eve sinned was simply because they chose to do so, not because of concupiscence. The only reason why Augustine couldn’t explain the problem of Evil was solely because he had a warped conception of free will to begin with, whereby it was nothing more than a facet of irresistible grace.

Also, let’s just drop the idea that Adam or Eve must have been imperfect due to them eventually sinning. That’s not a good way to put it. We should really redefine what it means to be perfect here, so as to avoid blaming God for all this mess. What makes God perfect? Generally, it has been said in the Latin West since about the 13th Century that God is perfect because he is Pure Act outside time (immutable). I have a number of issues with this concept, which I’ve explained elsewhere. So I won’t explain it again unless asked to.

I propose an alternative conception to the perfection and immutability of God. The perfection of God is nothing more than God being the highest being. By virtue of being the Creator and being omnipotent, he is thereby the highest authority. As a result, whatever he wills is de facto good. The implication of this proposition is that God too has a free will. The immutability lies within God’s nature. It is his nature that is immutable. So now we arrive at the point of mankind. By default, because they are a created being, one can say that man is imperfect, but it is rather misleading. The imperfect does not assume that they are some sort of abomination in need of correction. It just means that they aren’t the Creator. So in a sense, even the angels who sided with God in the heavenly war are imperfect too. Imperfection =/= sin. Since mankind will always have a free will throughout their eternal existence, we cannot conclude that perfection of man has anything to do with the idea that man will one day be completely unable to sin. That doesn’t seem plausible, because it would taking away free will.

Evil isn’t a thing. It is just an abstract concept. It is merely having a will that runs contrary to God’s will. This is what makes the hypostatic union so amazing. Christ had both a human will and a divine will. Yet, his human will never ran contrary to the divine will. It worked in concert, and was never subsumed. Therefore, Christ never sinned.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So now we arrive at the point of mankind. By default, because they are a created being, one can say that man is imperfect, but it is rather misleading. The imperfect does not assume that they are some sort of abomination in need of correction. It just means that they aren’t the Creator.

Exactly!

They are not some sort of abomination when created, but, being created free, they are capable of choosing to become an abomination. How does that differ from concupiscence?

 

[fhansen]

And therein lies the problem:

WHERE did evil come from?

Which is what Charlemagne is really asking and which WILL NOT get a reply, as you so simply stated.

God bless

Augustine said that the only possible source of evil is good. This is simply because God created everything and everything He created is good. So evil is a twisting, diminishing, lessening or corruption of some good of God’s creation; evil has no reality of its own. It is only possible due to the fact that creation has the freedom to will and commit it: the free will of angels and men-the abuse of that freedom.

So, for example, self-love is good while pride is not. A normal appetite for food or sex is good while gluttony or lust are harmful. Our need for things is right and good while covetousness and theft are not. To be “like God” is good but for creation (us) to think we can be like Him while apart from Him (“without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”, CCC) is not the right order of things and leads to chaos/destruction. It’s a matter of the will-and I think, like the Prodigal, Adam’s will needed some more formation. God deemed this a worthwhile endeavor and created accordingly. Adam was perfect according to the nature given him but not perfect in wisdom. He didn’t yet possess the fear of God, the beginning of wisdom (PS 111:10, PR 1:7), which ultimately leads to love of God, where obedience is spontaneous.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Adam was perfect according to the nature given him but not perfect in wisdom. He didn’t yet possess the fear of God, the beginning of wisdom (PS 111:10, PR 1:7), which ultimately leads to love of God, where obedience is spontaneous.

And he was created free! Free to be good or bad. Without that freedom, we would not be human.

Animals cannot choose to be good or bad because they are not free to make that choice.

They just follow their laws of instinct or their training.

Man is free to follow his nature or to defy both his nature and his training.

We do it all the time. Apparently so did Adam, the first chance he got.