Original Sin and Concupiscence

[fhansen]

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.

Yes, he used it wrongly, abusing it apparently, as we all do at times. We’re here, IMO, to learn how to use it right, to learn why and how to *will *rightly IOW, reversing Adam’s choice, within ourselves, so to speak.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is interesting, is it not, that Jesus was born not only without the stain of original sin, but also born without the ability to sin, since God cannot sin and Jesus is the Son of God?

Even those moments of righteous anger that Jesus exhibited, such as driving the hypocrites from the temple, did not amount to the sin of anger, since his wrath was divine, not human, and therefore not subject to commandments given to men to avoid anger.

*Matthew 21:13

He said to them, “The Scriptures declare, ‘My Temple will be called a house of prayer,’ but you have turned it into a den of thieves!”*

 

[Rohzek]

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.

This cannot be true of Adam or Eve. They had the fullest access to wisdom there was. They both followed God. As the verse earlier from Jeremiah demonstrates, humanity originally drank from the fountain of life (God). So they definitely were in touch with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they had perfect wisdom. They simply chose to reject it.

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?

It differs because concupiscence is the inclination to do evil. Free will is the ability to do evil, but it is not the inclination to do evil. Again, imagine yourself in a conversation about football. Generally, you are inclined to stay on topic. However, you can start talking about how much you love kittens. It would be inappropriate, but you really can just change the topic so abruptly. That is the difference between free will so as to do good or evil, and inclination to do evil. The Cartesian philosophers discussed this issue quite a bit actually; that is the difference between inclination and ordinary free will.

It is interesting, is it not, that Jesus was born not only without the stain of original sin, but also born without the ability to sin, since God cannot sin and Jesus is the Son of God?

We cannot possibly know that he was unable to sin. Remember, Christ had two wills within the hypostatic union: one human will and one divine will. Neither will was subsumed by the other. They merely worked in conjunction. He had two wills in one person. It isn’t unfeasible that the human will would have strayed. Furthermore, when the Devil tempted Jesus, Jesus spoke as though that he really was capable of sinning. This applies to his human will. So I would argue that Christ was fully capable of sinning, just like Adam was.

 

[Jesus_Lives]

The Catechism states here:

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

I am perplexed by the language here. If concupiscence did not exist until after the Fall, why did it not exist before the Fall? Before the Fall, Adam and Eve apparently were inclined to sin and the Serpent knew this. Therefore, at the moment of his creation, was man not inclined to evil as well as to good?

Because people make up stuff as they go.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So I would argue that Christ was fully capable of sinning, just like Adam was.

Putting it as bluntly as I can, this is nonsense.

 

[fhansen]

This cannot be true of Adam or Eve. They had the fullest access to wisdom there was. They both followed God. As the verse earlier from Jeremiah demonstrates, humanity originally drank from the fountain of life (God). So they definitely were in touch with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they had perfect wisdom. They simply chose to reject it.

And how could choosing to reject it be in* any way* reflective of perfect wisdom? And here’s a related question. Do you think that Adam may have later had a change of mind/heart, turning back to God? And if so,why?

 

[Vico]

…

I am perplexed by the language here. If concupiscence did not exist until after the Fall, why did it not exist before the Fall? Before the Fall, Adam and Eve apparently were inclined to sin and the Serpent knew this. Therefore, at the moment of his creation, was man not inclined to evil as well as to good?

Concupiscence was caused by the first sin, and concupiscence was countered by the preternatural gift of integrity. Although Adam and Eve had the preternatural gift of infused knowledge, it did not include all knowledge. Envy lead to the fall.**Wisdom 2:24 **

But by the envy* of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are allied with him experience it.

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

**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.
The Baltimore Catechism No. 3 describes pride and disobedience as the first sin:55. Did Adam and Eve obey the commandment of God?
Adam and Eve did not obey the commandment of God, but ate of the forbidden fruit.
(a) In eating the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve committed sins of pride and disobedience. Our first parents sinned grievously because they deliberately disobeyed a grave command of God.

 

[Vico]

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.”

Evil is choice not to love God. Since God gave free will to choose, the capability of being evil is from God. There must be free will to express love, so this is a necessary evil.

 

[Rohzek]

Putting it as bluntly as I can, this is nonsense.

If it is nonsense, then why did Satan even bother tempting Jesus?

And how could choosing to reject it be in* any way* reflective of perfect wisdom? And here’s a related question. Do you think that Adam may have later had a change of mind/heart, turning back to God? And if so,why?

In answer to the first question, we must understand that true wisdom comes from the Holy Spirit, as Solomon so aptly demonstrates. According to Jeremiah 2:13 (Vulgate version), humanity turned away from the the waters of Life (God). So it seems obvious that Adam and Eve originally both partook of the waters of life, which means they partook of the Holy Spirit and thus had perfect wisdom. Nevertheless, they consciously chose to abandon it. Just because one has access to perfect wisdom, it does not totally bar or limit their free will.

Yes, I would argue that Adam and Eve both did have a change of heart. After all, they did confess to God, although they simultaneously attempted to pass the blame. It’s not a perfect confession by any means, and it probably made things worse as a result, but the fact that they felt guilty about it and even bothered facing God goes to show that within their person they did indeed have a change of heart. However, God decided that they must face certain consequences, hence the loss of Paradise.

 

[fhansen]

In answer to the first question, we must understand that true wisdom comes from the Holy Spirit, as Solomon so aptly demonstrates. According to Jeremiah 2:13 (Vulgate version), humanity turned away from the the waters of Life (God). So it seems obvious that Adam and Eve originally both partook of the waters of life, which means they partook of the Holy Spirit and thus had perfect wisdom. Nevertheless, they consciously chose to abandon it. Just because one has access to perfect wisdom, it does not totally bar or limit their free will.

Of course it would. Perfect wisdom would necessarily move them to make perfect choices. Adam & Eve chose to eat from the wrong tree. Apparently they didn’t even bother with the Tree of Life.

Yes, I would argue that Adam and Eve both did have a change of heart. After all, they did confess to God, although they simultaneously attempted to pass the blame. It’s not a perfect confession by any means, and it probably made things worse as a result, but the fact that they felt guilty about it and even bothered facing God goes to show that within their person they did indeed have a change of heart. However, God decided that they must face certain consequences, hence the loss of Paradise.

I doubt it. The truth is they weren’t yet ready to repent. The Prodigal needed time spent in the pigsty before he had a change of heart. In fact, true repentance would’ve meant a return to justice for them, in which case God would most likely have restored them to their previous state.

 

[frangiuliano115]

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.

Didn’t Augustine say he had no answer for where evil comes from??

I think I even quoted him up there somewhere. Or maybe someone else…

God bless

 

[fhansen]

Didn’t Augustine say he had no answer for where evil comes from??

I think I even quoted him up there somewhere. Or maybe someone else…

God bless

He and Aqunas both acknowledged that the only possible source of evil is good, because in Gods creation there’s nothing other than good to begin with. As a general observation, good is what we start with. But when we look at the how and why of evil, the awful things that occur in the world and why God permits it, the problem becomes difficult to resolve.

Augustine said that only in the light of our faith, that reveals the love of God-the extent that He would go to conquer evil, the evil that had found its way and rooted itself in the hearts of men-and the grace He offers to the world, does the “mystery of lawlessness” become resolvable.

 

[fhansen]

Evil is choice not to love God. Since God gave free will to choose, the capability of being evil is from God. There must be free will to express love, so this is a necessary evil.

Yes, free will isn’t a necessary evil; it’s a good, in fact. The potential for evil, however, necessarily exists as a result of the gift of free will.

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR VICO

You say:

Evil is choice not to love God. Since God gave free will to choose, the capability of being evil is from God. There must be free will to express love, so this is a necessary evil.

Having difficulty following along with the time I have, but am interested. I see you wrote other stuff above, will check out later.

For now:

Have we come to understand what evil is??

Is a hurricane evil? Is nature evil in general?

Wind could be good, it could be bad. It is affected by the sin nature. Are we calling that sin nature evil?

If so, there’s a problem with your definition of evil as the choice not to love God.

Is an atheist evil because he does not love God?

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

P.S. The church teaches that evil is a “thing”. Satan.

Evil is what makes us sin, and all is infected with the “sin nature”.

I’ve missed too much.

God bless

Don’t know too much about Augustine. Read City of God years ago and cannot remember enough to use him as a source - which I wouldn’t do anyway - (don’t like using saints and church fathers as source) - but this idea of his that evil is the absence of good can’t work as far as my thinking process can go.

 

[Rohzek]

Of course it would. Perfect wisdom would necessarily move them to make perfect choices. Adam & Eve chose to eat from the wrong tree. Apparently they didn’t even bother with the Tree of Life.

No, it doesn’t. You cannot hold that position without believing that free will itself is a form of grace. And that poses all sorts of problems, ie. irresistible grace, predestination, etc. Free will is something completely different from grace. I think this is further bolstered by Jeremiah 2:13, which states: “In fact, my people committed two evils. They abandoned me, the waters of life, and they dug themselves broken cisterns which cannot contain water.” As exemplified by the people of Israel, they had access to the waters of life of God. They had access to perfect wisdom. Still, like Adam, they chose to abandon it.

I doubt it. The truth is they weren’t yet ready to repent. The Prodigal needed time spent in the pigsty before he had a change of heart. In fact, true repentance would’ve meant a return to justice for them, in which case God would most likely have restored them to their previous state.

You’ve basically just repeated what I said. I said they repented, just not perfectly. Adam and Eve admitted to doing wrong. They expressed shame. At the same time, however, they passed the blame with no shame. In other words, they knew right from wrong, and confessed that, but wished to pass the blame too.

 

[Rohzek]

Of course it would. Perfect wisdom would necessarily move them to make perfect choices. Adam & Eve chose to eat from the wrong tree. Apparently they didn’t even bother with the Tree of Life.

No, it doesn’t. You cannot hold that position without believing that free will itself is a form of grace. And that poses all sorts of problems, ie. irresistible grace, predestination, etc. Free will is something completely different from grace. I think this is further bolstered by Jeremiah 2:13, which states: “In fact, my people committed two evils. They abandoned me, the waters of life, and they dug themselves broken cisterns which cannot contain water.” As exemplified by the people of Israel, they had access to the waters of life of God. They had access to perfect wisdom. Still, like Adam, they chose to abandon it. This is again exemplified in Isaiah 42:5, where it says: “Thus says the Lord, He who made the heavens and fixed them, who formed the earth and all who are on it. He bestows upon the people that breath and the Spirit to those that tread (upon the earth).” Solomon also states in Wisdom 1:7, “The Spirit of the Lord fills the entire earth, and all that it contains have knowledge of the voice.” Solomon is most explicit here. Adam must have had this spirit/wisdom. He knew what the will of God was. Yet, nevertheless, he chose to ignore it.

I doubt it. The truth is they weren’t yet ready to repent. The Prodigal needed time spent in the pigsty before he had a change of heart. In fact, true repentance would’ve meant a return to justice for them, in which case God would most likely have restored them to their previous state.

You’ve basically just repeated what I said. I said they repented, just not perfectly. Adam and Eve admitted to doing wrong. They expressed shame. At the same time, however, they passed the blame with no shame. In other words, they knew right from wrong, and confessed that, but wished to pass the blame too. They wanted to excuse themselves a bit and play God.

 

[fhansen]

No, it doesn’t. You cannot hold that position without believing that free will itself is a form of grace. And that poses all sorts of problems, ie. irresistible grace, predestination, etc. Free will is something completely different from grace. I think this is further bolstered by Jeremiah 2:13, which states: “In fact, my people committed two evils. They abandoned me, the waters of life, and they dug themselves broken cisterns which cannot contain water.” As exemplified by the people of Israel, they had access to the waters of life of God. They had access to perfect wisdom. Still, like Adam, they chose to abandon it. This is again exemplified in Isaiah 42:5, where it says: “Thus says the Lord, He who made the heavens and fixed them, who formed the earth and all who are on it. He bestows upon the people that breath and the Spirit to those that tread (upon the earth).” Solomon also states in Wisdom 1:7, “The Spirit of the Lord fills the entire earth, and all that it contains have knowledge of the voice.” Solomon is most explicit here. Adam must have had this spirit/wisdom. He knew what the will of God was. Yet, nevertheless, he chose to ignore it…

Ok, so then, let’s get back to the basic question, Why did Adam choose to ignore that voice? Free will, itself, is neutral; it only makes possible Adams sin. Why did Adam sin? If fear of God is only the beginning of wisdom then why did Adam not heed God’s voice? Why didn’t he fear God? Seems like he had a ways to go. Knowledge and wisdom are two different things.

You’ve basically just repeated what I said. I said they repented, just not perfectly. Adam and Eve admitted to doing wrong. They expressed shame. At the same time, however, they passed the blame with no shame. In other words, they knew right from wrong, and confessed that, but wished to pass the blame too. They wanted to excuse themselves a bit and play God.

You argued that they had a change of heart. I’d maintain that they had no such change. They knew they had done wrong but still remained in a state of rebellion, outside of Gods will as a matter of their own wills, a state which was passed on to all humanity. There’s a reason why man was exiled from Eden and into a relatively godless world of pain suffering, and death, which yet still contains the goodness of Gods love and handiwork, but where man can call the shots, where mans will rules the day. This world is not merely a punishment, it’s a school, where man can, with the help of revelation and grace, finally learn to say yes instead of no. Adam and Eve, I’d bet, finally said “yes” at some point, having come to perfect wisdom-or at least sufficient wisdom-the hard way, perfect contrition.

 

[OneSheep]

Again, I don’t mean to be obtuse. It’s a quality I don’t like in others for sure.

But 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.

When Adam and Eve sinned, there was an inclination to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree once the nature of that fruit was falsely explained to them by the serpent. They could have refused, and been inclined to eat rather of all the other trees except that one. Why did they choose the serpent’s favored tree if they were not already inclined to do so? The inclination to do evil did not begin after the Fall, but rather before.

If you want to say the inclination got ramped up after the Fall, that would be a reasonable inference. But to say there was no inclination before the Fall seems to me not a true representation of the state of mind they were in when they decided to defy God’s command not to eat that apple.

Good morning, Charlemagne

Wonderful question, and great discussion.

Though “inclination” could stand some definition, if we take the story literally A&E were certainly receptive to the idea of eating the fruit. The question is, was the inclination to eat the fruit “evil” in the first place?

If I condemn A&E’s inclination , then I could characterize the inclination that way. On the other hand, did A&E really know what they were doing? Or, as it is in the case of all sin, were they blind or lacking in awareness?

In order for one to say “they knew what they were doing” we would have to determine that they were omniscient, and in that case they are not “human” in the normal use of the word.

What do you think? A&E saw the fruit as “good to eat”. Are we not created with the desire for knowledge? Is desire for knowledge “evil”?

Thanks again for the thread.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If it is nonsense, then why did Satan even bother tempting Jesus?

My guess, which is as good as yours, is that Satan did not really know who he was up against.

Satan’s perverse logic was blind-sided by his own choice of hell, which was a dumb choice also.