Problems with dogmas regarding Adam and Eve

[zekidan]

You seem to come with premises that are not conventional in Christianity, but never mind.

Jesus came into humanity and therefore experienced all that human experience except for sin. The word is, except for sin, otherwise he is just like you and me in human term.

Death was Jesus’ mission. It is impossible for God not to be to able to achieve what he has set to do. So that assumption is moot, I suppose.

I do not understand that part of your question about sanctifying grace and Adam.

Actually i think i have seen these premises before… but im not gonna search them now.

Now think of it this way, Who would say adam was not a true man. Of course he was yet he was without sin before the fall, and one might also consider therefor without death as well before the fall. And who would say if he never sinned he would still die. Of course no one makes that claim.

So to Jesus who is also fully man being without sin should also be without death, thats my point. Therefor how did Jesus die?

Unless you take my point that adam was not created with immortality rather he had the chance to receive immortality. That fixes the problem, however it contradicts the dogma i have already sourced.

About sanctifying grace im just alluding to a future post, so its ok that you don’t understand.

 

[zekidan]

Dead, buried, entombed etc, waiting judgement day. As is Eve, and will be all of us.
Now their souls are a different story.

Pre sin, who knows. God does!

Of course, as with all of us, Adam and Eve had Sanctifying Grace.

Im talking about their pre fallen state, not their state after the fall.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Im talking about their pre fallen state, not their state after the fall.

Pre sin = pre fall.

Why not ask your Priest?

 

[zekidan]

Pre sin = pre fall.

Why not ask your Priest?

Sorry I over looked that line.

Maybe the priest didnt know and told me to ask the forums.

 

[zekidan]

There is no mention of eating from the tree of life, it’s only noted that it is among all the other trees as is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It seems to suggest that Adam would have lived forever in the state God had created him if he had not eaten from the tree of knowledge…So at that point he could have been immortal

Why not just say adam would die naturally untill he ate from the tree of life.

This puts adam in a position where he has two choices from two kinds of fruit, eternal life with god in the garden if he chooses to eat from the tree of life. The other is knowledge and death.

If he made no choice he would naturally die eventually. But if he did eat from the tree of life he would then live forever.

To give you a hint where im going with this. if sanctifying grace is given to bring us back to life. if adam had an immortal body it seems he would also have sanctifying grace, but if he didn’t then he also lacked sanctifying grace for that which has sanctifying grace also has life.

Therefor if jesus is the fruit of the tree of life and by eating him we receive sanctifying grace and then will be raised to eaternal life. It must also be said while adam was in a state of innocence he still needed to eat of the fruit of life to receive sanctifying grace.

 

[simpleas]

Why not just say adam would die naturally untill he ate from the tree of life.

This puts adam in a position where he has two choices from two kinds of fruit, eternal life with god in the garden if he chooses to eat from the tree of life. The other is knowledge and death.

If he made no choice he would naturally die eventually. But if he did eat from the tree of life he would then live forever.

To give you a hint where im going with this. if sanctifying grace is given to bring us back to life. if adam had an immortal body it seems he would also have sanctifying grace, but if he didn’t then he also lacked sanctifying grace for that which has sanctifying grace also has life.

Therefor if jesus is the fruit of the tree of life and by eating him we receive sanctifying grace and then will be raised to eaternal life. It must also be said while adam was in a state of innocence he still needed to eat of the fruit of life to receive sanctifying grace.

What makes you think he wasn’t eating from the tree of life?
Like I said it is mentioned as being in the middle with the tree of knowledge, among all the other trees that were good for their fruit, but there is no explanation from God on the tree of life, just on the tree of knowledge, which wasn’t to be eaten of.
So Adam could have been eating from the tree of life, but knew not to eat from the one tree.
Therefore he would be immortal before eating the forbidden fruit.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Sorry I over looked that line.

Maybe the priest didnt know and told me to ask the forums.

Right, so a priest has no idea, no answer, and says best thing you can do is ask a bunch of strangers on the internet?

Come in spinner!

 

[Vico]

As far as Im aware the faithful are required to believe Adam and Eve had imortal bodies before the fall. However i find that the biblical narrative does not support this, so here are my reasons. …

This also has me wonder about weather or not Man had sanctifying grace, i would not contend that adam did not have free will but did he have sanctifying grace im not sure. That can be another post however.

• Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
• They were also endowed with the donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
• In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatis. Denzinger 788 et seq.)

(Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma)
**Council of Trent, Session V: **
788 I. If anyone does not confess that the first man Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost his holiness and the justice in which he had been established, and that he incurred through the offense of that prevarication the wrath and indignation of God and hence the death with which God had previously threatened him, and with death captivity under his power, who thenceforth “had the empire of death” [Heb. 2:14], that is of the devil, and that through that offense of prevarication the entire Adam was transformed in body and soul for the worse [see n. 174], let him be anathema.

789 2. If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam has harmed him alone and not his posterity, and that the sanctity and justice, received from God, which he lost, he has lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he having been defiled by the sin of disobedience has transfused only death “and the punishments of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul,” let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned” [Rom. 5:12; see n. 175].
…
6. This holy Synod declares nevertheless that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope SIXTUS IV of happy memory are to be observed, under the penalties contained in these constitutions, which it renews [see n. 734 ff:].

Council of Orange II
174 * Can. 1. If anyone says that by the offense of Adam’s transgression not the whole man, that is according to body and soul, was changed for the worse [St. Augustine], * but believes that while the liberty of the soul endures without harm, the body only is exposed to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and resists the Scripture which says: “The soul, that has sinned, shall die” Ezech. 18:20]; and: “Do you not know that to whom you show yourselves servants to obey, you are the servants of him whom you obey?” [Rom. 6:16]; and: Anyone is adjudged the slave of him by whom he is overcome [2 Pet.2:19].*

 

[PNEUMA]

…To me it seems that eating from the tree of life grants immortality to man…

Yes, but you must keep on eating. It’s not once saved, always saved.

 

[zekidan]

What makes you think he wasn’t eating from the tree of life?
Like I said it is mentioned as being in the middle with the tree of knowledge, among all the other trees that were good for their fruit, but there is no explanation from God on the tree of life, just on the tree of knowledge, which wasn’t to be eaten of.
So Adam could have been eating from the tree of life, but knew not to eat from the one tree.
Therefore he would be immortal before eating the forbidden fruit.

I gave the answer to this in the post

1. gen 3:22 seems to suggest 4 things, that the tree of life gives eternal life; that Adam lost the chance to obtain immortality; that Adam had not yet eaten from the tree of life; he would only need to eat from it once to obtain eternal life.
2. Also considering that Adam only need to eat from the tree of knowledge once to obtain knowledge permanently, then only eating from the tree of life once grants life permanently.
3. The text never mentions Adam eating from the tree of life before the fall.

If adam had already ate from the tree of life before he ate from the tree of knowledge, how then would that make him loose eternal life.

Does this mean if he ate from the tree of life after he ate from the tree of knowledge he would therefore loose knowledge and have life. Then why does God claim he will then have both?
No if he eats from both trees he has both attributes, the order of eating would not matter.

Perhaps God does will him to have life first at least, maybe so it would give him the Spirit and so he could handle knowledge and it would not corrupt him towards evil.

 

[zekidan]

Yes, but you must keep on eating. It’s not once saved, always saved.

If you read gen 3:22
God says man will live forever if he eats from the tree of life. This seems to be regardless if he sins afterwards thats why its so important to keep man from the tree of life less he live forever in sin. So it seem the contrary is true, man only need to eat once to live forever.

 

[grannymh]

Ok you need to understand what sanctifying Grace is. Let me see what document the Holy See has on it.

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

And

2023 Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.

2024 Sanctifying grace makes us “pleasing to God.” Charisms, special graces of the Holy Spirit, are oriented to sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. God also acts through many actual graces, to be distinguished from habitual grace which is permanent in us.

From

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

Now I cant explain it because I am still understanding it. But we all get Sanctifying Grace.

There might be a member of the clergy or theologian that can explain Sanctifying Grace

I am not a member of the clergy or theologian. I am a member of the dead generation who learned the “logic of building doctrines.” What is it about Sanctifying Grace which you would like to understand? If it is in a particular Catechism paragraph, please give me the number. So far, I have been able to translate Church-Speak.

Here is part of the definition of Sanctifying Grace.
“The grace which heals our human nature wounded by sin by giving us a share in the divine life of the Trinity.”

Sanctifying Grace is not necessarily something that we get automatically. Baptism, in one of its forms, including CCC 1260, is necessary.

In order to get a clearer picture of 2000-2004, it is a good idea to start with the term “state of”. “state of” is also useful in CCC 2023. When I explain Adam and Eve, I do not go into all these paragraphs which you chose. Thus, I have some homework to do.

It can take a couple of hours, including editing time, to do a serious post. Thus, I notice that there are new posts on this thread. CAF can be a challenge. Still, considering my post count, I have a few ideas as to how to put together your puzzle.

 

[zekidan]

I am not a member of the clergy or theologian. I am a member of the dead generation who learned the “logic of building doctrines.” What is it about Sanctifying Grace which you would like to understand? If it is in a particular Catechism paragraph, please give me the number. So far, I have been able to translate Church-Speak.

Here is part of the definition of Sanctifying Grace.
“The grace which heals our human nature wounded by sin by giving us a share in the divine life of the Trinity.”

Sanctifying Grace is not necessarily something that we get automatically. Baptism, in one of its forms, including CCC 1260, is necessary.

In order to get a clearer picture of 2000-2004, it is a good idea to start with the term “state of”. “state of” is also useful in CCC 2023. When I explain Adam and Eve, I do not go into all these paragraphs which you chose. Thus, I have some homework to do.

It can take a couple of hours, including editing time, to do a serious post. Thus, I notice that there are new posts on this thread. CAF can be a challenge. Still, considering my post count, I have a few ideas as to how to put together your puzzle.

I would love to hear your answers to the puzzle cause now im realy starting to wonder if the church is right on this and if not does that not call into question the churches infallibility. Im a catholic i wanna believe as the church teaches.

 

[grannymh]

So to Jesus who is also fully man being without sin should also be without death, thats my point. Therefor how did Jesus die?

Jesus is One Person with two different natures, divine and the assumed human nature. It is the assumed human nature, not the divine nature, which died.

Adam has a human nature. The Divine Creator established a friendship relationship with the person who has a human nature. Following Original Sin which destroyed the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity, Adam, because he is not divine, could not repair the damage he caused.

Therefore, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, assumed human nature, so that being both human and Divine in nature, the original relationship could be repaired.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I am not a member of the clergy or theologian. I am a member of the dead generation who learned the “logic of building doctrines.” What is it about Sanctifying Grace which you would like to understand? If it is in a particular Catechism paragraph, please give me the number. So far, I have been able to translate Church-Speak.

Here is part of the definition of Sanctifying Grace.
“The grace which heals our human nature wounded by sin by giving us a share in the divine life of the Trinity.”

Sanctifying Grace is not necessarily something that we get automatically. Baptism, in one of its forms, including CCC 1260, is necessary.

In order to get a clearer picture of 2000-2004, it is a good idea to start with the term “state of”. “state of” is also useful in CCC 2023. When I explain Adam and Eve, I do not go into all these paragraphs which you chose. Thus, I have some homework to do.

It can take a couple of hours, including editing time, to do a serious post. Thus, I notice that there are new posts on this thread. CAF can be a challenge. Still, considering my post count, I have a few ideas as to how to put together your puzzle.

You are hardly dead! Now I believe the op really needs an answer about the pre sin state of Adam and Eve, their mortality status, and how it all relates to both Sanctifying and Habitual Grace, from someone educated in this , rather then people like us who attempt to interpret it. This is really quite a complex question.

I don’t believe a Priest would suggest he or she gets an answer from the forums.m

I have posted a link to the Catechism.

I ask my ’ go to’ Priests any questions I have if attempting to understand things.
These forums have taught me that a lot of things are misinterpreted, or just wrong. Or people cut n paste tomes that don’t really help if they cannot be discussed.

It’s quite a minefield of information and misinformation. But that’s human nature.

The forums can be great to start people on a mission to discover or contemplate a concept.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I would love to hear your answers to the puzzle cause now im realy starting to wonder if the church is right on this and if not does that not call into question the churches infallibility. Im a catholic i wanna believe as the church teaches.

This is now where you are in danger of being led down a rabbit hole. These issues are really for your Shepherd, your clergy

 

[Gorgias]

Now think of it this way, Who would say adam was not a true man. Of course he was yet he was without sin before the fall, and one might also consider therefor without death as well before the fall. And who would say if he never sinned he would still die. Of course no one makes that claim.

Our first human ancestors were given both human nature and preternatural gifts. Physical death is part of human nature. (In fact, it’s part of the nature of all created things.)

However, they were also given preternatural gifts (physical immortality being one of them). In choosing to disobey God, however, they turned their backs on these gifts.

So to Jesus who is also fully man being without sin should also be without death, thats my point. Therefor how did Jesus die?

Aah, but Jesus didn’t die. He gave up his life, willingly. There’s a subtle difference there!

Having the gift of physical immortality, I would reason, doesn’t make a person Superman (and thus, to have bullets bounce off him and be impervious to all harm). When Aquinas talks about it, he gets into a discussion about ‘corruption’ in order to understand the ‘gift of immortality.’ His solution is as follows: “man’s body was indissoluble not by reason of any intrinsic vigor of immortality, but by reason of a supernatural force given by God to the soul, whereby it was enabled to preserve the body from all corruption so long as it remained itself subject to God.”

Therein we find our solution to your problem: Just as God gave Adam the gift of immortality, but that gift was rejected, Jesus would have had the gift of immortality – not as ‘human nature’, but as ‘gift of God’ – but Jesus gave up that gift in order that we might be able to attain to eternal life.

Unless you take my point that adam was not created with immortality rather he had the chance to receive immortality. That fixes the problem, however it contradicts the dogma i have already sourced.

It doesn’t contradict the doctrine; however, it’s necessary to understand the subtleties and implications of the doctrine.

 

[zekidan]

Jesus is One Person with two different natures, divine and the assumed human nature. It is the assumed human nature, not the divine nature, which died.

Adam has a human nature. The Divine Creator established a friendship relationship with the person who has a human nature. Following Original Sin which destroyed the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity, Adam, because he is not divine, could not repair the damage he caused.

Therefore, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, assumed human nature, so that being both human and Divine in nature, the original relationship could be repaired.

Thank you for the answer, however i think u didn’t adress my points.

The Divine Creator established a friendship relationship with the person who has a human nature. What was the benifit of that relationship? Man was kept from death right.

Following Original Sin which destroyed the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity. And so man became subject to death.

Therefore, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, assumed human nature, so that being both human and Divine in nature, the original relationship could be repaired.
That means the relationship is repaired in the person of Christ already, so at least Christ himself should not be subject to death.
Christ is born in a state of a loving relationship with his father therefor should he not receive the same gifts as adam did in his human nature. That is being immortal.

 

[Vico]

Thank you for the answer, however i think u didn’t adress my points.

The Divine Creator established a friendship relationship with the person who has a human nature. What was the benifit of that relationship? Man was kept from death right.

Following Original Sin which destroyed the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity. And so man became subject to death.

Therefore, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, assumed human nature, so that being both human and Divine in nature, the original relationship could be repaired.
That means the relationship is repaired in the person of Christ already, so at least Christ himself should not be subject to death.
Christ is born in a state of a loving relationship with his father therefor should he not receive the same gifts as adam did in his human nature. That is being immortal.

Hebrews 2

14 Now since the children share in blood and flesh, he likewise shared in them, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and free those who through fear of death had been subject to slavery all their life. 16 Surely he did not help angels but rather the descendants of Abraham; 17 therefore, he had to become like his brothers in every way, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest before God to expiate the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself was tested through what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.

 

[zekidan]

Our first human ancestors were given both human nature and preternatural gifts. Physical death is part of human nature. (In fact, it’s part of the nature of all created things.)

However, they were also given preternatural gifts (physical immortality being one of them). In choosing to disobey God, however, they turned their backs on these gifts.

Aah, but Jesus didn’t die. He gave up his life, willingly. There’s a subtle difference there!

Having the gift of physical immortality, I would reason, doesn’t make a person Superman (and thus, to have bullets bounce off him and be impervious to all harm). When Aquinas talks about it, he gets into a discussion about ‘corruption’ in order to understand the ‘gift of immortality.’ His solution is as follows: “man’s body was indissoluble not by reason of any intrinsic vigor of immortality, but by reason of a supernatural force given by God to the soul, whereby it was enabled to preserve the body from all corruption so long as it remained itself subject to God.”

Therein we find our solution to your problem: Just as God gave Adam the gift of immortality, but that gift was rejected, Jesus would have had the gift of immortality – not as ‘human nature’, but as ‘gift of God’ – but Jesus gave up that gift in order that we might be able to attain to eternal life.

It doesn’t contradict the doctrine; however, it’s necessary to understand the subtleties and implications of the doctrine.

Ok that is a better answer then i have gotten so far.
Some other thoughts does that mean Jesus would have never died if he was never crucified?? Like could live on earth for the last 2000 years if he wished. Could he lived until today and then been killed today??

However this i guess would be the Christ chose to die solution which i can say it’s possible.

But my main point is about adam having an immortal body, the narrative itself just based on the text seems to indicate adam only received immortality upon eating from the tree of life. He was not created with immortality.

I should point out i do not deny adam had a relationship with god, nor that he was without favor, nor without freewill, nor do i say he was not innocent, nor do i think death ruled over him, he has the chance to obtain eternal life.

Death only becomes certain after he sins.
“On the day that you eat it you will surely die”
Before he sins he has a good chance of not dying cause he could eat from the tree of life at anytime.