The Fall of mankind: inevitable part of God’s plan or unexplainable mystery of faith?

[adrift]

Thank you. I used that book in almost all my scripture classes at school. As a student, I mean. As both an undergraduate and graduate student.

From what I understand it is a good book. Scott Hahn recommendeds it. I haven’t read it so I don’t have personal experience.

 

[Abu]

**Errors exposed **

Even in 1974 the *International Theological Commission *issued *Apostolic Succession: A Clarification *(Origins, September 19, 1974, p 193-200).

Brown’s errors on the priesthood and the episcopacy (Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections, 1970) were exposed as follows.
The main points:

1. Whether from the authority of the twelve or Paul or others, the first priests and bishops share in the authority of the apostles who were instituted by Christ.
2. The ministry of teaching and governing is an institution derived from Christ through the apostles.
3. The New Testament communities on accepting apostolic government obey that authority as coming from Christ Himself.
4. From St Ignatius of Antioch, a single bishop appears as head of a community and this institution is established “unto the ends of the earth.”
5. The Catholic Church understands apostolic succession as the permanent ground of Her own nature.
6. The continuation if Christ’s work and that of the Holy Spirit makes the Magisterium distinct from both the teaching of scholars and authoritarian power.
7. In the hands of professors, faith would depend on the views of individuals and thus “the spirit of the age.”
8. No preacher of the gospel has the right to proclaim it according to his personal theories. He can only proclaim the faith of the Church and not his own personality or his own religious experience.
   [From *The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, 1983, p 80-81].

 

[Lily_Bernans]

From what I understand it is a good book. Scott Hahn recommendeds it. I haven’t read it so I don’t have personal experience.

I found it very helpful in my scripture classes, adrift, and still refer to it. It’s helped me a lot.

 

[adrift]

Raymond Brown??? a previous thread. Some interesting points are made.

 

[grannymh]

According to the Catechism, the reason for the first sin is that (CCC 398) “man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God…. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God” but “without God, before God and not in accordance with God”.

My question is, why would pre-fallen man prefer himself to God? It seems Adam, while created very good, was easily susceptible to emotions of fear, mistrust of God’s promise, and possibly pride. God could have left out these traits and desires during his creation and still preserved Adam’s free will. So why didn’t God create a man of strong character who would have resisted temptation (while still preserving his ability to choose)? It seems to me there are two responses:

1. It was God’s divine plan for Adam to fall. Or…
2. It is beyond our ability to understand why Adam was created this way.

The first answer is problematic because it is contrary to the faith.** Yet saying we can’t know is challenging, since our understanding of the fall is critical to everything that follows, from free will to salvation**.

I put in bold the essential thought about Original Sin and the Divinity of Jesus Christ which was necessary for our salvation. CCC 389 affirms Original Sin’s connection to Christ.
CCC 389. Last sentence.
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

Yes, our understanding of the Fall is certainly critical. May I respectfully ask what points in the first three chapters of Genesis do you see as critical for understanding the Fall? The basic original relationship between humanity and Divinity begins in Genesis 1: 26-27.

Personally, I am not too sure that this question is the right question – “So why didn’t God create a man of strong character who would have resisted temptation (while still preserving his ability to choose)?” Predestination in reference to the actual event of sinning would not be considered appropriate

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Raymond Brown??? a previous thread. Some interesting points are made.

Thank you!

 

[Giovonni]

CCC 389 affirms Original Sin’s connection to Christ.
CCC 389. Last sentence.
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

Yes, our understanding of the Fall is certainly critical. May I respectfully ask what points in the first three chapters of Genesis do you see as critical for understanding the Fall? The basic original relationship between humanity and Divinity begins in Genesis 1: 26-27.

For the purposes of this topic, here are some points that seem critical for understanding:

• God created mankind
• Disobedience of mankind would result in death
• Adam & Eve’s desires to be like God lead to disobedience
• Adam & Eve were banished and death entered the world

These points set the stage for our redemption through Christ.

Personally, I am not too sure that this question is the right question – “So why didn’t God create a man of strong character who would have resisted temptation (while still preserving his ability to choose)?” Predestination in reference to the actual event of sinning would not be considered appropriate

Predestination in reference to the actual event of sinning would inappropriate only if it violated free will. It seems clear that it is God’s will for man to fall as part of his plan of salvation.

CCC 280 Creation is the foundation of “all God’s saving plans,” the “beginning of the history of salvation” that culminates in Christ. Conversely, the mystery of Christ casts conclusive light on the mystery of creation and reveals the end for which “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”: from the beginning, God envisaged the glory of the new creation in Christ."

CCC 600 When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace…For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness

How Adam’s free will interacts with God’s will is an unknowable mystery, and I think I will have to leave it at that, because the alternative would be outside the Church’s teaching.

 

[grannymh]

For the purposes of this topic, here are some points that seem critical for understanding:

• God created mankind
• Disobedience of mankind would result in death
• Adam & Eve’s desires to be like God lead to disobedience
• Adam & Eve were banished and death entered the world

These points set the stage for our redemption through Christ.

Yes, they do set the stage. Thank you.

In my humble opinion, these points should be expanded before one can say that it is God’s will for man to fall as part of His plan of salvation.

For example. Point 1. I would like to discuss the goal of mankind. There has to be some goal because of Genesis 1: 27. CCC 356 says that man alone “is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life.”

Could “knowledge and love” refer to the soul’s intellect and free will?

While not on this topic, CCC 1260 begins with "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, … " To me, this means that Adam, like all humans, is destined for heaven.

Predestination in reference to the actual event of sinning would inappropriate only if it violated free will. It seems clear that it is God’s will for man to fall as part of his plan of salvation.

The way the first three chapters of Genesis are written, there is no indication that Adam would not have the same road to the destiny designated for other humans. Therefore, I have trouble with the idea that it was God’s will for Adam to commit the Original Sin. I may be mixed up about this. I could be confused about destiny and a goal.

It seems to me that God knew that Adam would fall. If Adam, being the first human with freedom of choice, did not fall – what then?

My computer is in a war with me. I just lost the rest of your post. I was going to ask you if you are using a hard copy of the CCC so you can check the footnotes. This link has both the footnotes and the cross-references in the margin. It seems that one has to scroll down forever to get to the footnotes for a section. Hopefully tomorrow or the next day will be better.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

 

[grannymh]

Predestination in reference to the actual event of sinning would inappropriate only if it violated free will. It seems clear that it is God’s will for man to fall as part of his plan of salvation.
CCC 280 Creation is the foundation of “all God’s saving plans,” the “beginning of the history of salvation” that culminates in Christ. Conversely, the mystery of Christ casts conclusive light on the mystery of creation and reveals the end for which “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”: from the beginning, God envisaged the glory of the new creation in Christ."
CCC 600 When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace…For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness
How Adam’s free will interacts with God’s will is an unknowable mystery, and I think I will have to leave it at that, because the alternative would be outside the Church’s teaching.

I am back on track with the rest of post 165. …

Before looking at CCC 600, I would like to discuss the thoughts/questions I presented in post 166. At this point, I would consider that essentially Adam’s free will is naturally different from God’s will. That way, it is possible to understand at least some part of God’s eternal plan of “predestination” which includes “each person’s free response to His grace.” I did notice two interesting things. 1. the mention of an eternal plan and 2. predestination is in quotes which usually is a signal that there could be a meaning slightly different from the ordinary meaning.

I agree that how Adam’s free will interacts with God’s will is an unknowable mystery. On the other hand, it is possible to understand Adam’s human nature. Not necessarily why Adam chose to sin; but rather why it is possible for Adam to actually sin, that is, to actually commit a deeply serious act.

This is why I believe that more information needs to be added to “God created mankind.” in post 165.

 

[Giovonni]

For example. Point 1. I would like to discuss the goal of mankind. There has to be some goal because of Genesis 1: 27. CCC 356 says that man alone “is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life.”

Could “knowledge and love” refer to the soul’s intellect and free will?

While not on this topic, CCC 1260 begins with "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, … " To me, this means that Adam, like all humans, is destined for heaven.

I agree on both points that “knowledge and love” would seem to refer to the souls intellect and free will. Perhaps that knowledge also includes the knowledge of good and evil. And perhaps it is the act of overcoming sin that we transform into something greater.

I also agree that Adam & Eve were destined for heaven.

The way the first three chapters of Genesis are written, there is no indication that Adam would not have the same road to the destiny designated for other humans. Therefore, I have trouble with the idea that it was God’s will for Adam to commit the Original Sin. I may be mixed up about this. I could be confused about destiny and a goal.

It seems to me that God knew that Adam would fall. If Adam, being the first human with freedom of choice, did not fall – what then?

This is where I struggled as well, with the idea that God would will for Adam to commit original sin. However, the Church and Bible are clear, that God’s will is always done, and we also have free will. It implies that God works with our free will to achieve his outcome.

Philosophers from Aristotle to Aquinas to Molina have struggled to reconcile these two facts, and underlying each philosophers’ argument is an element of mystery. And I think this is where I have come to be. That it is a mystery that cannot be solved by our minds.

To answer your question, if Adam did not fall, perhaps we would be sitting on the beach right now enjoying a fresh pineapple discussing the beauty of everything instead of the whether or not we have free will.

 

[Giovonni]

I am back on track with the rest of post 165. …

Before looking at CCC 600, I would like to discuss the thoughts/questions I presented in post 166. At this point, I would consider that essentially Adam’s free will is naturally different from God’s will. That way, it is possible to understand at least some part of God’s eternal plan of “predestination” which includes “each person’s free response to His grace.” I did notice two interesting things. 1. the mention of an eternal plan and 2. predestination is in quotes which usually is a signal that there could be a meaning slightly different from the ordinary meaning.

I agree that how Adam’s free will interacts with God’s will is an unknowable mystery. On the other hand, it is possible to understand Adam’s human nature. Not necessarily why Adam chose to sin; but rather why it is possible for Adam to actually sin, that is, to actually commit a deeply serious act.

This is why I believe that more information needs to be added to “God created mankind.” in post 165.

When I provided the Catechism commentary, the quotes around predestination and eternal plan were already included from the source I used, which was online. I would like to hear why you think it is possible for Adam to sin in such a deeply serious act. I once read an analogy I liked regarding free will. It went something like this:
“Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will”.

Adam was dealt a hand where he desired to be like God (good motive), but he had limited knowledge on the best way to do that since he was naïve (bad trait). He knew that dying was to be avoided (good motive) but he didn’t have a high level of trust in God (bad trait).

Ultimately Adam freely played the hand he was dealt, as do we all.

 

[grannymh]

When I provided the Catechism commentary, the quotes around predestination and eternal plan were already included from the source I used, which was online. I would like to hear why you think it is possible for Adam to sin in such a deeply serious act. I once read an analogy I liked regarding free will. It went something like this:
“Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will”.
Adam was dealt a hand where he desired to be like God (good motive), but he had limited knowledge on the best way to do that since he was naïve (bad trait). He knew that dying was to be avoided (good motive) but he didn’t have a high level of trust in God (bad trait).

Ultimately Adam freely played the hand he was dealt, as do we all.

First, I would change the analogy –
“Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will”.

to –
“Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is human nature; the way you play it is free will”.

Perhaps part of the problem is a misunderstanding of Adam’s human nature. CCC 1730-1732 talks about how God designed human nature according to Genesis 1: 26-27.

Personally, I do not believe that God designed Adam’s human nature in a way that Adam had to sin. Could the real problem be this question? Does God’s knowledge of the future mean that He physically (wills) Adam into sinning? Perhaps, the real problem is the meanings of God’s will. What are your thoughts about CCC 51 followed by 1730-1732?

Regarding what would happen if Adam freely chose not to disobey God and therefore shatter humanity’s relationship with Divinity. Check out the middle of CCC 404.
While there are not real answers, I think, especially in the middle of a snow storm, that this would be a good answer. :tanning:

 

[OneSheep]

When I provided the Catechism commentary, the quotes around predestination and eternal plan were already included from the source I used, which was online. I would like to hear why you think it is possible for Adam to sin in such a deeply serious act. I once read an analogy I liked regarding free will. It went something like this:
“Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will”.

Hi Giovanni!

The analogy makes sense, and I like Granny’s modification too.

Adam was dealt a hand where he desired to be like God (good motive), but he had limited knowledge on the best way to do that since he was naïve (bad trait). He knew that dying was to be avoided (good motive) but he didn’t have a high level of trust in God (bad trait).

Ultimately Adam freely played the hand he was dealt, as do we all.

Is naivete a “bad” trait? I give it kind of a “neutral”. Human ignorance just is. Why are we born with so little knowledge? Its a big mystery.

Hmmm. Did Adam not trust God? I think that there is a difference between trusting someone and believing everything the person says. What I do know is that trust, belief, empathy, and just about everything else goes right out the window when we want something very much. With want, we become blinded. It takes a very aware person to realize when such blindness has occurred.

Thanks for coming back to your thread! It has been interesting.

 

[Giovonni]

First, I would change the analogy –
“Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will”.

to –
“Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is human nature; the way you play it is free will”.

I like your version on the analogy. I was quoting verbatim, but your version seems more appropriate for the discussion.
grannymh;13636400:

Perhaps part of the problem is a misunderstanding of Adam’s human nature. CCC 1730-1732

talks about how God designed human nature according to Genesis 1: 26-27.

Personally, I do not believe that God designed Adam’s human nature in a way that Adam had to sin. Could the real problem be this question? Does God’s knowledge of the future mean that He physically (wills) Adam into sinning? Perhaps, the real problem is the meanings of God’s will. What are your thoughts about CCC 51 followed by 1730-1732?

I would agree that Adam did not have to sin, however I also think it is true that God knew he *would *sin based on his God given nature. This is an important distinction. God could have made Adam’s nature slightly different, and in doing so, changed the course of Adam’s choice. Perhaps if Adam had a mind which understood the extent to which God loved him he would have obeyed. Or perhaps had he less of a desire to “be like God but without God” as is described in the catechism.

God however, in his infinite wisdom, created Adam & Eve’s in such a way so as to fulfill His will.

The second sentence of CCC 51 states
“His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature.”

This seems to tie in with what I say above. In order for men to have access through Christ, first man must fall.

Regarding CCC 1731-1732, freedom is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach. It also says that freedom requires the possibility of choosing good or evil.

You’ll find no disagreement from me on those points. I will add however that our freedom is limited by our composition. If our spirit is one of trust, love, obedience then that is how we will respond. If our spirit is one of pride, envy, naivete, than that will guide our response. Adam clearly had some part of his spirit that displayed Pride and the desire to be independent. Would you disagree? And yet he was created by the hands of the Almighty.

When you and I reach Heaven (God willing), there will not be an opportunity to fall again. Our very nature will change. Will we lose our free will? No, I don’t think so. Instead we will desire to be with God in such a way that we would never choose to be apart. That was not how Adam was created. And because of that it seems to make sense that Adam was created to fall.

 

[Giovonni]

Hi Giovanni!

The analogy makes sense, and I like Granny’s modification too.

Is naivete a “bad” trait? I give it kind of a “neutral”. Human ignorance just is. Why are we born with so little knowledge? Its a big mystery.

Hmmm. Did Adam not trust God? I think that there is a difference between trusting someone and believing everything the person says. What I do know is that trust, belief, empathy, and just about everything else goes right out the window when we want something very much. With want, we become blinded. It takes a very aware person to realize when such blindness has occurred.

Thanks for coming back to your thread! It has been interesting.

Naivete isn’t bad per say. If a modern human were to meet the pre-fallen Adam, would they even be able to relate to each other? Perhaps Adam was the child, naive and full of wonder, while mankind is in the process of becoming an adult. Exposed to loss and pain, but able to truly appreciate and reciprocate love.

Yes, I think we are all blinded by our desires. It’s very difficult to get outside ourselves. I suppose that’s why we ask Christ to enter us and lift us up.

 

[grannymh]

I like your version on the analogy. I was quoting verbatim, but your version seems more appropriate for the discussion.

I would agree that Adam did not have to sin, however I also think it is true that God knew he *would *sin based on his God given nature.

That is true since freedom of choice was part of Adam’s nature. It is hard for me to imagine someone knowing that Adam’s Original Sin would necessitate the Divine obedience on a cross and still keep loving Adam and subsequently all his descendants. God continued to love us. John 3:16.

This is an important distinction. God could have made Adam’s nature slightly different, and in doing so, changed the course of Adam’s choice.

My concern would be the question – would that slight difference hurt Adam’s capability to freely love his Creator.

Perhaps if Adam had a mind which understood the extent to which God loved him he would have obeyed.

When I read Adam’s encounters with God, I am sure, without a doubt, that Adam knew the extent of God’s love.

Or perhaps had he less of a desire to “be like God but without God” as is described in the catechism.

That is a good point. Adam had a fully developed rational intelligent mind. A poster on another thread pointed out that the temptation came from the outside. The tempter Satan is external to Adam. Adam faces a new powerful creature which offers equality with God the Creator. Genesis 3: 3-4.

CCC 396 suggests that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. It isn’t often that one sees that approach. Still, that approach deserves more thought.

God however, in his infinite wisdom, created Adam & Eve’s in such a way so as to fulfill His will.

The second sentence of CCC 51 states
“His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature.”

This seems to tie in with what I say above. In order for men to have access through Christ, first man must fall.

Not necessarily. There is this interesting information in CCC 404. I need help sorting it out.
From CCC 404.
"Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.

Adam’s original state of holiness is the same as our State of Sanctifying Grace. Currently, the Sacrament of Baptism erases the State of Original Sin by giving us the State of Sanctifying Grace. If Adam did not fall, then we would be born in the State of Sanctifying Grace. If Adam did not fall, the original relationship between humanity and Divinity would remain intact.

Naturally, because of free will, humans could still sin and reject the Creator. Christ would be needed to give us His Church with all the Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation.

What I am thinking is that if Adam could choose not to sin. He did have a choice. Then the role of Christ would be different. So, I really cannot say that Adam had to sin. My head hurts when I try to figure it out. Thank heavens, I do not have to figure it out.

Regarding CCC 1731-1732, freedom is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach. It also says that freedom requires the possibility of choosing good or evil.

You’ll find no disagreement from me on those points. I will add however that our freedom is limited by our composition. If our spirit is one of trust, love, obedience then that is how we will respond. If our spirit is one of pride, envy, naivete, than that will guide our response. Adam clearly had some part of his spirit that displayed Pride and the desire to be independent. Would you disagree? And yet he was created by the hands of the Almighty.

I am sure that part of Adam’s “spirit” displayed Pride and the desire to be independent. I can picture Adam looking at the “hands of the Almighty” and saying – “I want some of those.”

When you and I reach Heaven (God willing), there will not be an opportunity to fall again. Our very nature will change. Will we lose our free will? No, I don’t think so. Instead we will desire to be with God in such a way that we would never choose to be apart. That was not how Adam was created. And because of that it seems to make sense that Adam was created to fall.

Before I reach Heaven, I will have to make a pit stop in Purgatory.

Adam was not created in the presence of the Beatific Vision. He was given a choice. God was ready to accept his chosen choice. We do not know how Adam would get into heaven if he had not sinned. However, I am sure God knew how to bring a sinless Adam into heaven. I liked your description of heaven as a place where we would never choose to be apart from God. Adam, being fully human with intellect and will, was capable of joining God or rejecting God. God as Creator respected Adam’s free choice which contained two possibilities. There are times when I think about meeting Adam and slapping him upside the head.

 

[Giovonni]

That is true since freedom of choice was part of Adam’s nature. It is hard for me to imagine someone knowing that Adam’s Original Sin would necessitate the Divine obedience on a cross and still keep loving Adam and subsequently all his descendants. God continued to love us. John 3:16.
My concern would be the question – would that slight difference hurt Adam’s capability to freely love his Creator.

You mentioned obedience on a cross, but you also have to include the joy of the good news and all of the praise that followed, knowing God loves us so much to give that level of sacrifice. I would argue that the love and joy that resulted from God’s creation far outweigh the pain.

Refer to CCC 412: But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’”

Would a slight difference in character hurt his capacity to freely love? I don’t think it would. As we defined earlier, freedom is the ability to choose good or evil. Each one of us has unique desires, dreams, hopes, fears, and intellect. Despite these differences we each have freedom to choose.

That is a good point. Adam had a fully developed rational intelligent mind. A poster on another thread pointed out that the temptation came from the outside. The tempter Satan is external to Adam. Adam faces a new powerful creature which offers equality with God the Creator. Genesis 3: 3-4.

I’m not certain that Adam did have a fully rational intelligent mind. I don’t think he knew the full consequence of his disobedience. He clearly didn’t realize the serpent was tempting him for his own purposes. There is disconnect here in that a fully rational and in-tune with God Adam would have known better. But that is not what he did. Instead pride and lack of knowledge guided his decision.

What I am thinking is that if Adam could choose not to sin. He did have a choice. Then the role of Christ would be different. So, I really cannot say that Adam had to sin. My head hurts when I try to figure it out. Thank heavens, I do not have to figure it out.

I agree that the role of Christ would be different. And again, I’m not saying that Adam had to sin in a sense he had no free will, but that God knew what free choice he would make if he were tempted by the serpent.

What would it take for Adam to have chosen to obey? He would’ve either thought “this serpent is deceiving me” or he would’ve had to be placed in an environment where the serpent didn’t tempt him. Both of these things were out of his control. He had no knowledge of evil, so no reason to doubt.

QUOTE=grannymh;13641793] Adam was not created in the presence of the Beatific Vision. He was given a choice. God was ready to accept his chosen choice. We do not know how Adam would get into heaven if he had not sinned. However, I am sure God knew how to bring a sinless Adam into heaven. I liked your description of heaven as a place where we would never choose to be apart from God. Adam, being fully human with intellect and will, was capable of joining God or rejecting God. God as Creator respected Adam’s free choice which contained two possibilities. There are times when I think about meeting Adam and slapping him upside the head.

I’m not sure that I can be upset with Adam, given the points I’ve made above. I think of a child who takes crayons and scribbles on a wall. Yes the child would be punished because they defaced property, but I wouldn’t really be angry at them in the sense they should’ve known better. They thought they were doing something good. Instead it would be a teaching moment. I would say something along the lines that I loved them but this is not something they should do in the future because it causes damage. Learn from this experience and grow. Much like God would want us to grow and learn.

 

[Giovonni]

That is true since freedom of choice was part of Adam’s nature. It is hard for me to imagine someone knowing that Adam’s Original Sin would necessitate the Divine obedience on a cross and still keep loving Adam and subsequently all his descendants. God continued to love us. John 3:16.
My concern would be the question – would that slight difference hurt Adam’s capability to freely love his Creator.

You mentioned obedience on a cross, but you also have to include the joy of the good news and all of the praise that followed, knowing God loves us so much to give that level of sacrifice. I would argue that the love and joy that resulted from God’s creation far outweigh the pain.

Refer to CCC 412: But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, “Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away.”

And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’”

Would a slight difference in character hurt his capacity to freely love? Perhaps. And perhaps the only way we could freely love was to fall, experience pain, and return to God. I think of the parable of the Prodigal Son. When he returned the father was overfilled with Joy because his son learned what it meant to love and humbled himself.

That is a good point. Adam had a fully developed rational intelligent mind. A poster on another thread pointed out that the temptation came from the outside. The tempter Satan is external to Adam. Adam faces a new powerful creature which offers equality with God the Creator. Genesis 3: 3-4.

I’m not certain that Adam did have a fully rational intelligent mind. I don’t think he knew the full consequence of his disobedience. He clearly didn’t realize the serpent was tempting him for his own purposes. There is disconnect here in that a fully rational and in-tune with God Adam would have known better. But that is not what he did. Instead pride and lack of knowledge guided his decision.

What I am thinking is that if Adam could choose not to sin. He did have a choice. Then the role of Christ would be different. So, I really cannot say that Adam had to sin. My head hurts when I try to figure it out. Thank heavens, I do not have to figure it out.

I agree that the role of Christ would be different. And again, I’m not saying that Adam had to sin in a sense he had no free will, but that God knew what free choice he would make if he were tempted by the serpent.

What would it take for Adam to have chosen to obey? He would’ve either thought “this serpent is deceiving me” or he would’ve had to be placed in an environment where the serpent didn’t tempt him. Both of these things were out of his control. He had no knowledge of evil, so no reason to doubt.

Adam was not created in the presence of the Beatific Vision. He was given a choice. God was ready to accept his chosen choice. We do not know how Adam would get into heaven if he had not sinned. However, I am sure God knew how to bring a sinless Adam into heaven. I liked your description of heaven as a place where we would never choose to be apart from God. Adam, being fully human with intellect and will, was capable of joining God or rejecting God. God as Creator respected Adam’s free choice which contained two possibilities. There are times when I think about meeting Adam and slapping him upside the head.

I’m not sure that I can be upset with Adam, given the points I’ve made above. I think of a child who takes crayons and scribbles on a wall. Yes the child would be punished because they defaced property, but I wouldn’t really be angry at them in the sense they should’ve known better. They thought they were doing something good. Instead it would be a teaching moment. I would say something along the lines that I loved them but this is not something they should do in the future because it causes damage. Learn from this experience and grow. Much like God would want us to grow and learn.

 

[grannymh]

You mentioned obedience on a cross, but you also have to include the joy of the good news and all of the praise that followed, knowing God loves us so much to give that level of sacrifice. I would argue that the love and joy that resulted from God’s creation far outweigh the pain.

I’m not certain that Adam did have a fully rational intelligent mind. I don’t think he knew the full consequence of his disobedience. He clearly didn’t realize the serpent was tempting him for his own purposes. There is disconnect here in that a fully rational and in-tune with God Adam would have known better. But that is not what he did. Instead pride and lack of knowledge guided his decision.

I skipped to the above because the actual first three chapters of Genesis does not
support that theory.

Research off CAF points to the attacks on Original Sin (some made by popular Catholics) which, in some cases, becomes a stealth attack on the full divinity of Jesus Christ (modern Arianism). I know this is confusing. That is probably due to the fact that Catholics currently do not consider Original Sin in terms of its attackers and what will be ultimately gained by an inadequate Adam.

On CAF there are hundreds of posts which picture Adam as not knowing the full consequences for his disobedience. My favorite claim is that Adam had to eat organic fruit in order to get his brain/mind working. I know – that is an exaggeration, but I consider it a good demonstration of what some, not all, people are thinking about Adam’s innocence.

Another favorite claim is that there is no reason on earth why Adam would shatter humanity’s original relationship with Divinity when he certainly knew better. At this point, people need to remember that Original Sin is based on a freely chosen act. This action is very different from knowledge itself. Knowledge only contributes to choice.

At this point, I believe that it is important to take time to search the first three chapters of Genesis for evidence about Adam himself. My suggestion is to start with the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27

One way to do this is to use the CCC “Index of Citations” beginning on page 689. Looking down the first page under Genesis, there is 1:26 followed by paragraph numbers which use this verse. Paragraph 343 is a must. See its footnote 211.

I am not sure how quick the both of us can find information about Adam as a real person. I know there is evidence of Adam’s intelligence. Being responsible for a garden which is the source of nourishment is a good start. …

Consequently, both of us need time to evaluate what we find.

 

[Giovonni]

I skipped to the above because the actual first three chapters of Genesis does not support that theory.
Research off CAF points to the attacks on Original Sin (some made by popular Catholics) which, in some cases, becomes a stealth attack on the full divinity of Jesus Christ (modern Arianism). I know this is confusing. That is probably due to the fact that Catholics currently do not consider Original Sin in terms of its attackers and what will be ultimately gained by an inadequate Adam.

I haven’t made any “stealth” attacks on the divinity of Jesus so I can’t answer for those who have. And I wouldn’t say that because Adam was inclined to disobey that he was inadequate. I think an Adam who sins can fit into God’s plan for us all to be raised up greater than before.

I have read a number of the forums about similar topics. I found this one to have quite a good discussion: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=975835&highlight=concupiscence&page=10

You even commented in it. Ultimately it seems the conclusion as to why Adam/Eve had Pride or were susceptible to disobedience is a mystery. That is where I seem to reside as well.

As for the first three chapters of Genesis, I don’t see where it says Adam and Eve had full rational ability. They were created in the image and likeness of God. But what does that mean? I think it means they had the potential to gain knowledge like their creator. They chose to obtain knowledge on their own using flawed reasoning.

On the Catholic.com website this very topic is addressed: catholic.com/magazine/articles/before-sin

Towards the middle, the author says “Eve had a perfectly ordered and rational human soul which found evil totally repugnant and unappealing. The temptation was to seek an objective good for disordered reasons, which is what happened.”

Adam and Eve had disordered (not functioning normal) reasoning.

On CAF there are hundreds of posts which picture Adam as not knowing the full consequences for his disobedience. My favorite claim is that Adam had to eat organic fruit in order to get his brain/mind working. I know – that is an exaggeration, but I consider it a good demonstration of what some, not all, people are thinking about Adam’s innocence.

Again, I can’t really speak to hundreds of other people’s claims, except to say some have a genuine desire to understand and others have less noble reasons. It is important to distinguish what the motive is when talking to people.

Another favorite claim is that there is no reason on earth why Adam would shatter humanity’s original relationship with Divinity when he certainly knew better. At this point, people need to remember that Original Sin is based on a freely chosen act. This action is very different from knowledge itself. Knowledge only contributes to choice.

Free will is the ability to choose otherwise. And that ability is driven by our character, our desires, and our knowledge. I will continue to contemplate Adam’s nature, but I am also learning to be comfortable in the mystery, which will never be fully understood.