Original Sin and Concupiscence

[grannymh]

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?

“Concupiscence” We must be on the same page regarding language. Me, I would like better language than the word concupiscence which is always hard for me to spell.

The words “inclined to evil” do not quite explain the complete original nature of Adam. Inherent in our first parent is true free will which is a wonderful ability of his intellective spiritual rational soul.

If we are going to take the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth, then we need to be precise about free will. First, our will is not automatically inclined with the exception that it seeks eternal good. “Seeks” indicates that there is an affirmation. However, we can freely substitute a lesser good in place of God. Inclined is a possible maybe. Concupiscence is inclined because there is a good chance that a bad maybe will be chosen.
(CCC 1730-1732 and CCC 356-358)

If we were robots, the lack of free will would mean that our rational mind is not necessary. An useless mind would be blind when it comes to awareness about God.
I do not think that the Catholic Church would allow us to say, at the beginning of the Sacrament of Confession, “Bless me Father for I am a robot without omniscience.”

Seriously, which is hard for this older than dirt granny, once it is settled that Adam’s nature includes both free will and rationality, then it becomes easier to deal with the perplexing real events in the Garden. CCC 390

Genesis 2: 15-17 is an example of rational mind and free choice.
Genesis 1: 26-27 is an example of Adam’s nature and our nature.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Satan did not really know who he was up against. . .

It is interesting.

There were demons who recognized Jesus:

Luke 4:43 “Go away! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are–the Holy One of God!”
Matt 8:29 “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”
Mark 1:24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are–the Holy One of God!”

Satan did see a fragile human being, in whose death he participated, through Judas and at the beginning in the Garden.
He perhaps thought He could corrupt Him as easily as we are corrupted.
A reminder that it is in Christ that we are able to reach salvation.

 

[Rohzek]

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.

I agree that in general knowledge and wisdom are two different things. But clearly Solomon is speaking of wisdom here. He is speaking of Wisdom’s power to make known the will and council of God. This is apparent in just a few verses up:* "In fact, the Holy Spirit of discipline shall flee deception and remove itself from thoughts which are without understanding. And it shall not be held while iniquity enters in. For the Spirit of Wisdom is good. (Wisdom 1:4-5).* Just as within the hypostatic union of Christ, divine council and wisdom never subsumes the human free will.

Free will is actually about making choices and having a choice. Adam sinned not only because he was able, but because he chose to. Wisdom never limits choice. He always had his own agency. The same with Eve. He knew God’s will and council, but he rejected it anyways.

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.

I intended to make clear that Adam and Eve only had a change of heart insofar that they regretted their decision. Still that did not stop them from committing another sin by trying to pass the blame.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is interesting.

There were demons who recognized Jesus:

Yes, they understood him to be the Holy One he claimed to be, and they seemed uncertain about why he was there. Apparently they did not know he was incapable of sin, or why would they tempt him in vain with their questions and bribes?

As always, the demons do not have the truth in them, which is why they deceived themselves from the start and made it their mission to drag us down to their level of self deception.

 

[fhansen]

I agree that in general knowledge and wisdom are two different things. But clearly Solomon is speaking of wisdom here. He is speaking of Wisdom’s power to make known the will and council of God. This is apparent in just a few verses up:* "In fact, the Holy Spirit of discipline shall flee deception and remove itself from thoughts which are without understanding. And it shall not be held while iniquity enters in. For the Spirit of Wisdom is good. (Wisdom 1:4-5).* Just as within the hypostatic union of Christ, divine council and wisdom never subsumes the human free will.

Free will is actually about making choices and having a choice. Adam sinned not only because he was able, but because he chose to. Wisdom never limits choice. He always had his own agency. The same with Eve. He knew God’s will and council, but he rejected it anyways.

I intended to make clear that Adam and Eve only had a change of heart insofar that they regretted their decision. Still that did not stop them from committing another sin by trying to pass the blame.

Ok, so we know that Adam sinned. Possessing sanctifying grace, preternatural gifts, perfect wisdom, and close relationship with God in general, and keeping in mind that free will neither predisposes one to sin or keeps one from sinning, would you hazard a guess as to why Adam willed to sin? Do you think that Adam may have* learned* at some later point that his decision was wrong? Why did Adam sin?

 

[Rohzek]

Ok, so we know that Adam sinned. Possessing sanctifying grace, preternatural gifts, perfect wisdom, and close relationship with God in general, and keeping in mind that free will neither predisposes one to sin or keeps one from sinning, would you hazard a guess as to why Adam willed to sin? Do you think that Adam may have* learned* at some later point that his decision was wrong? Why did Adam sin?

Who knows? Perhaps his curiosity got the better of him about the fruit, or maybe he didn’t put much thought into it. I don’t think Adam ever learned what being wrong was. He knew the will of God, as it was made clear to him. I think Adam learned what it felt like to be wrong after eating the fruit. This is how Alcuin of York interpreted it, or so how I read him.

 

[fhansen]

Who knows? Perhaps his curiosity got the better of him about the fruit, or maybe he didn’t put much thought into it. I don’t think Adam ever learned what being wrong was. He knew the will of God, as it was made clear to him. I think Adam learned what it felt like to be wrong after eating the fruit. This is how Alcuin of York interpreted it, or so how I read him.

OK, but the obvious question then would be, why did a being with perfect wisdom need to learn?

 

[frangiuliano115]

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

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.**

**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.

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

Can’t follow along. It’s too fast and too complicated to think about.
Please send the above article; doubt I’ll read a book on this at this stage of the game.

Also, what you say in your next paragraph is my whole problem with evil and why I have stopped thinking about it.

**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. **

Do you believe that evil IS NOT an ontological existence? Do you believe it is an IDEA or that it is an actual being?

The church teaches that evil comes from satan - an actual being. Thus, my problem, as your last sentences conclude. The age-old problem of the good and omnipotent God creating evil; because I also define good as what God wills (and evil as what satan wills).

Also, I had let this go by because it didn’t seem important at the time, but maybe it is:

I asked in reply to a post of yours:

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.

And you answered:

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

Could you rethink this and see if it has any bearing on all your ideas?
concup. = proclivity to sin
not the other way around

Concup. didn’t exist before A & E sinned.
THEN they sinned and original sin entered into the world, also called the sin nature or concup.
NOW concup. is what makes us tainted with the tendency, or inclination, to sin (if not kept in check with God’s help).

There IS a difference, I just don’t know how important it is to your thought process.

Will be looking for the article on Theodore of Mopsuestia and will be rethinking Augustine - I THOUGHT I knew him but apparently not.

God bless

 

[Charlemagne_III]

OK, but the obvious question then would be, why did a being with perfect wisdom need to learn?

Good question!

I suppose you could argue wisdom is synonymous with the desire to learn.

Yet I don’t think wisdom is synonymous with virtue.

Knowledge of the right thing to do is no guarantee that we will do the right thing.

Somehow, no matter how hard we try to avoid it, there is a perverse aspect of our nature, a Jekyll and Hyde syndrome.

Adam and Eve and Cain certainly had it. I’ve never known anyone who didn’t have it.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents: If I may permit myself to express some of my views-in-progress:

Scripture represents a dialogue between God and man, in which the presence of the Word is revealed historically and personally within us.

In Genesis, we see the creation of the world by the Word of God.
This is a world centred on man’s relationship with God - the Garden.
We can avail ourselves of everything but what belongs, for very, very good reasons, to God.
At the centre of the Garden, our being in right relation with God, is Christ-in-the-world,
symbolically represented in the two trees, as the wood of the cross and the one true Vine:
Sin, death and sacrifice on the one hand, the resurrection into eternal life on the other.

Eve was deceived by the serpent, who tried to take from God what was to be, and is, His greatest creation.
The seduction of course was effective because Eve chose to put herself at the centre of what is our being-in-the-world.
She ate of the fruit that was to be God’s alone. It would destroy us, but not He who is eternal.
She chose to be like God without God, to not trust him and do as she pleased.
In this act of disobedience, we failed to return to God, the love which granted us everything that was good for us.

But we did not fall at that point.
What was Adam thinking?!
He simply bit into the same fruit as Eve had done.

In that primordial moment, they could have been of one mind, like fish in a school, each responding in the same way at the same time in accordance with their human nature.
But then, our Holy Mother, given the same graces, chose otherwise. So, no.

Adam could have been deceived as well, but it was his choice as the first person, that set the mould for what is human nature.

He may not have been deceived by the snake.
I tend to think this because the choice of a pretty, tastey fruit that gives a particular knowledge, is not that enticing to me.
It may be too much information, but a greater enticement imho lies in the risk of separation from Eve, which I believe he would have known would come to pass.

At any rate, Adam could have chosen not to follow Eve into sin, He could have trusted in God, and do as did Abraham when he escorted Isaac to his destiny.
Perhaps misguided by his self interest, he chose her over God. Sacrifice is necessary to prove one’s devotion to, faith and trust in God, who is Love.
As our Creator, the Father is deserving of all that we have.
As His love brings all this into being, in returning back to Him all that we are and all that we love, we enter into that holy union that is the Trinity.

Existence is all about relationship: with the physical world through the senses, that of spirit through our rational mind, and each other through our feelings.
The fundamental relationship is with God, who is our Creator and who through His infinite compassion knows everything about us; through the incarnation of the Son, God enters into our very human being as one of us.
Having damaged that relationship, which was love, we lost our way from Truth, Beauty, Goodness and Life eternal.
Disconnected from God we are disconnected from ourselves. A lie becomes as valid as the truth, so we blame the other for what we do, confuse ourselves when our conscience speaks, and chase after whatever temporary pleasure diverts us from our emptiness.

The solution of course is love, growing in the living Way that is Jesus.

 

[frangiuliano115]

:twocents: If I may permit myself to express some of my views-in-progress:

Scripture represents a dialogue between God and man, in which the presence of the Word is revealed historically and personally within us.

In Genesis, we see the creation of the world by the Word of God.
This is a world centred on man’s relationship with God - the Garden.
We can avail ourselves of everything but what belongs, for very, very good reasons, to God.
At the centre of the Garden, our being in right relation with God, is Christ-in-the-world,
symbolically represented in the two trees, as the wood of the cross and the one true Vine:
Sin, death and sacrifice on the one hand, the resurrection into eternal life on the other.

Eve was deceived by the serpent, who tried to take from God what was to be, and is, His greatest creation.
The seduction of course was effective because Eve chose to put herself at the centre of what is our being-in-the-world.
She ate of the fruit that was to be God’s alone. It would destroy us, but not He who is eternal.
She chose to be like God without God, to not trust him and do as she pleased.
In this act of disobedience, we failed to return to God, the love which granted us everything that was good for us.

But we did not fall at that point.
What was Adam thinking?!
He simply bit into the same fruit as Eve had done.

In that primordial moment, they could have been of one mind, like fish in a school, each responding in the same way at the same time in accordance with their human nature.
But then, our Holy Mother, given the same graces, chose otherwise. So, no.

Adam could have been deceived as well, but it was his choice as the first person, that set the mould for what is human nature.

He may not have been deceived by the snake.
I tend to think this because the choice of a pretty, tastey fruit that gives a particular knowledge, is not that enticing to me.
It may be too much information, but a greater enticement imho lies in the risk of separation from Eve, which I believe he would have known would come to pass.

At any rate, Adam could have chosen not to follow Eve into sin, He could have trusted in God, and do as did Abraham when he escorted Isaac to his destiny.
Perhaps misguided by his self interest, he chose her over God. Sacrifice is necessary to prove one’s devotion to, faith and trust in God, who is Love.
As our Creator, the Father is deserving of all that we have.
As His love brings all this into being, in returning back to Him all that we are and all that we love, we enter into that holy union that is the Trinity.

Existence is all about relationship: with the physical world through the senses, that of spirit through our rational mind, and each other through our feelings.
The fundamental relationship is with God, who is our Creator and who through His infinite compassion knows everything about us; through the incarnation of the Son, God enters into our very human being as one of us.
Having damaged that relationship, which was love, we lost our way from Truth, Beauty, Goodness and Life eternal.
Disconnected from God we are disconnected from ourselves. A lie becomes as valid as the truth, so we blame the other for what we do, confuse ourselves when our conscience speaks, and chase after whatever temporary pleasure diverts us from our emptiness.

The solution of course is love, growing in the living Way that is Jesus.

Wow. I’ve taught the story of A & E for years and this is the best put together, complete thought of it that I have ever read!

I’ve never heard anyone mention re the tree of life before = Jesus’ cross
Sin, death and sacrifice = tree of the knowledge of good and evil

The only thing I could think of to add is that Adam was indeed more responsible than Eve and should have resisted eating it. After all, God spoke to him and not to Eve. She could have fallen for satan’s lies but Adam could have been more resistant since he knew God personally.

And isn’t that how we should be today?

God bless you

 

[fhansen]

Good question!

I suppose you could argue wisdom is synonymous with the desire to learn.

Yet I don’t think wisdom is synonymous with virtue.

Knowledge of the right thing to do is no guarantee that we will do the right thing.

Somehow, no matter how hard we try to avoid it, there is a perverse aspect of our nature, a Jekyll and Hyde syndrome.

Adam and Eve and Cain certainly had it. I’ve never known anyone who didn’t have it.

And yet we’re* teachable.* Did Adam, perhaps, learn something? Could the Knowledge of Good and Evil, previously unknown by him, produce any positive effects in the long run, presumably to help teach him/us to shun evil and embrace the good, alone, ultimately? If so, then why did a being with “perfect wisdom” need to learn this lesson? Why wouldn’t he trust God, instead? Jesus came, for one thing, to reinstill this very trust BTW. Does the catechism’s teaching, that God created His universe “in statu viae”, in a state of journeying- to perfection-shed any light on this matter. Was there a perfection yet to be obtained by Adam?

 

[grannymh]

In the Catholic Church,
the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2: 17) symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust.
CCC 396

In the Catholic Church,
God created man in His image and established him in His friendship. (Genesis 1: 26-27) A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship** only in free submission to God**. CCC 396

However, it is understandable that it is more fun to play with organic fruit giving a tummy ache to someone with perfect wisdom.

 

[Rohzek]

OK, but the obvious question then would be, why did a being with perfect wisdom need to learn?

While Wisdom is essential to knowing the will of God, experience is something different entirely. Adam knew what it meant to go against God. However, he didn’t have the feeling or sensation of being wrong until he did it. Knowledge through personal experience is to the individual level, and that’s just something that is part of our very nature. By design, we cannot transcend the mind-body problem since the limitation is part of our nature to begin with. It has nothing to do with the lack or imperfection of Wisdom.

 

[Vico]

…

Eve was deceived by the serpent, who tried to take from God what was to be, and is, His greatest creation.
…
Adam could have been deceived as well, but it was his choice as the first person, that set the mould for what is human nature.

He may not have been deceived by the snake.
I tend to think this because the choice of a pretty, tastey fruit that gives a particular knowledge, is not that enticing to me.
It may be too much information, but a greater enticement imho lies in the risk of separation from Eve, which I believe he would have known would come to pass.

At any rate, Adam could have chosen not to follow Eve into sin, …

St. John Chrysostom writes that Eve mad bad use of her equality with Adam and therefore God made her subject to her husband:

If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? It shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:9 Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Your desire shall be to your husband?” Genesis 3:16 This had not been said to her before.

But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me.” But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, “she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as “not deceived.” For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he “saw the tree was good for food,” but of the woman, and that she “did eat, and gave it to her husband”: so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he says, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name.

newadvent.org/fathers/230609.htm

New American Bible (NABRE)
1 Timothy 2:11-14
11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.

Adam was commanded:

Gen 2:
[16] And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

Eve knew what was commanded:

Gen 3:

[2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4]

The judgment:

• [14] And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed …
• [16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions …
• [17] And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, …

 

[Rohzek]

Can’t follow along. It’s too fast and too complicated to think about.
Please send the above article; doubt I’ll read a book on this at this stage of the game.

A good article you can find on it is in the following book as a chapter. I recommend requesting the book or chapter at the library, because it is ridiculously expensive to buy:

Kavvadas, Nestor. “An Eastern View: Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Against the Defenders of Original Sin.” In Grace for Grace: The Debates after Augustine and Pelagius. Edited by Alexander Y. Hwang et al. Washington D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2014. 271-294.

frangiuliano115:

Also, what you say in your next paragraph is my whole problem with evil and why I have stopped thinking about it.

**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. **

Do you believe that evil IS NOT an ontological existence? Do you believe it is an IDEA or that it is an actual being?

I believe that it is just an idea. The Devil is merely the first of creation to rebel against God’s will.

The church teaches that evil comes from satan - an actual being. Thus, my problem, as your last sentences conclude. The age-old problem of the good and omnipotent God creating evil; because I also define good as what God wills (and evil as what satan wills).

Well, Satan is the originator because he was the first sinner. But he is not Evil itself.

Also, I had let this go by because it didn’t seem important at the time, but maybe it is:

I asked in reply to a post of yours:

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.

And you answered:

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

Could you rethink this and see if it has any bearing on all your ideas?
concup. = proclivity to sin
not the other way around

Concup. didn’t exist before A & E sinned.
THEN they sinned and original sin entered into the world, also called the sin nature or concup.
NOW concup. is what makes us tainted with the tendency, or inclination, to sin (if not kept in check with God’s help).

There IS a difference, I just don’t know how important it is to your thought process.

Will be looking for the article on Theodore of Mopsuestia and will be rethinking Augustine - I THOUGHT I knew him but apparently not.

God bless

Sorry, but I really don’t see the difference. Perhaps you could explain why it is problematic for you more, so that I might further understand what the you are trying to say. Right now, the problem doesn’t seem clear to me.

 

[fhansen]

While Wisdom is essential to knowing the will of God, experience is something different entirely. Adam knew what it meant to go against God. However, he didn’t have the feeling or sensation of being wrong until he did it. Knowledge through personal experience is to the individual level, and that’s just something that is part of our very nature. By design, we cannot transcend the mind-body problem since the limitation is part of our nature to begin with. It has nothing to do with the lack or imperfection of Wisdom.

So, if I understand, you’re saying that Adam may well have learned more than he had to began with- in order to have a change of heart-but he didn’t become wiser, he couldn’t grow in wisdom; he was already perfect in wisdom even though he made an obviously foolish choice. Would that sum it up? Even though he didn’t fear or trust God even enough to obey Him, at least, Adam was nonetheless perfectly wise. It seems apparent to me that any of Adam’s descendants, who’re all “as one man” in Adam anyway, and who’ve made the slightest move back to God have already demonstrated much greater wisdom than Adam showed.

In any case it seems we agree that there was some kind of limitation-imperfection?-that allowed for Adams fall, but, another question, should he be considered less culpable because of it?

 

[Rohzek]

So, if I understand, you’re saying that Adam may well have learned more than he had to began with- in order to have a change of heart-but he didn’t become wiser, he couldn’t grow in wisdom; he was already perfect in wisdom even though he made an obviously foolish choice. Would that sum it up? Even though he didn’t fear or trust God even enough to obey Him, at least, Adam was nonetheless perfectly wise. It seems apparent to me that any of Adam’s descendants, who’re all “as one man” in Adam anyway, and who’ve made the slightest move back to God have already demonstrated much greater wisdom than Adam showed.

Yes, that would sum it up nicely.

In any case it seems we agree that there was some kind of limitation-imperfection?-that allowed for Adams fall, but, another question, should he be considered less culpable because of it?

I don’t see why he should be less culpable. Coming back to God or staying away from God is all based upon the same Wisdom that Adam had before the Fall.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, that would sum it up nicely.

I don’t see why he should be less culpable. Coming back to God or staying away from God is all based upon the same Wisdom that Adam had before the Fall.

I’m not sure I understand that. How can *staying away from God be based on any kind of wisdom? If wisdom truly is the basis-and if Adam truly had *it-then he should never have turned away to begin with.

 

[Rohzek]

I’m not sure I understand that. How can *staying away from God be based on any kind of wisdom? If wisdom truly is the basis-and if Adam truly had *it-then he should never have turned away to begin with.

Adam’s rejection isn’t based on any kind of wisdom. It’s the very rejection of Wisdom. It’s the turning away from the waters of life. In short, Adam rejected Wisdom, although he had it initially.