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

[OneSheep]

From CAF apologist Fr. Vincent Serpa when answering a related question. Emphasis mine.

God the Father and God the Son love each other so much that whatever one wants, the other wants also. Jesus said in Jn. 10:18, “No one takes it (his life) from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.” From all eternity the Father and the Son wanted the Son to take on a human nature and redeem the human race on Good Friday. Since God has no beginning or end, the Father and the Son have always known that they wanted this. Why? We will have to ask them when we see them in heaven. I hope this helps.

Given what was written here, it seems that Jesus has always existed as the savior and that The Fall was indeed inevitable.

Good Morning Cornbread

I think that Fr. Vincent makes it quite clear (as does the Gospel) that man is in need of redemption, but the question is, redemption from what? As MT and Lily are discussing, it is tough to grasp how God would create a being destined to be punished by Him. Why would an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God create a being that He plans to punish very quickly, and in taking away Man’s “infused knowledge” and giving him “concupiscence” makes it more difficult to be in relationship with God and capable of doing really awful things to each other (along with more pain in childbirth, sheesh)? It doesn’t make any sense.

What does make a great deal of sense to me is this, to take the whole story of Adam and Eve as an allegory for acquisition of the conscience, an attempt to explain why we humans have this crazy trait that manifests in shame, which the rest of the critters do not suffer. The acquisition of “knowledge of good and evil” has done nothing but benefit us, correct? It is a gift from God.

Along that same line of thinking, this is what makes the “Fall” make more sense:

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

So, the fall does not involve any alteration coming from God at all. This paragraph designates the “consequence” as becoming fearful of God, whom they conceive in a distorted way. Now, there is still a bit of a contradiction in 399, in that the distortion is a result of disobedience. This implies that God Himself imposed the distortion, that God Himself takes away “holiness”, which contradicts the fact that God desires communion. We can say that when we disobey our own consciences, such disobedience indicates that we already are not seeing clearly. When we disobey, we do not know what we are doing.

Putting it all together, it makes the most sense to me that God created Man knowing that His creation would have the capacity to do very hurtful things to each other (due to our ignorance and capacity for blindness) and form a distorted concept of Him. (note: all of our capacities have a “net effect” of benefiting Man) However, creation is ongoing in terms of “forming concept”. Jesus Himself “grew in wisdom” when He became incarnate. For some unknown reason Man is not born omniscient, but we slowly move in the direction of wisdom as revelation unfolds. In that sense, creation itself is still happening.

Oof. Sorry to dump that theory on to you all at once. I get started, and then it seems I need to clarify. Keep in mind that I am not putting down current orthodoxy, I am only attempting to iron out some of the contradictions I am seeing.

Have a great day!

 

[OneSheep]

Oh I must share a little idea that popped into my head just now when my daughter asked what I was involved with on CAF.

The story of Adam and Eve, especially the Fall, may be a metaphor for human spiritual development.

Generally speaking, we look upon our infancy as a period of innocence. As we approach the age of seven or eight, we are generally very obedient to our parents, we idolize our parents, we see their value with clear eyes. This is all represented by the time before the fall.

However, with age comes additional drives and desires. Sexual desire kicks in, desire for autonomy (desire for freedom) becomes forefront, and our own territorial instincts become much more pronounced. All of these compulsions lead to a bit of blindness to the value we had earlier placed on parental wisdom, protection, and even their love. Due to this subsequent blindness to value triggered by all of the new “wants”, the human becomes occasionally disobedient and defiant. In the mean time, the normal parental reaction is one of anger and disappointment, and by nature (our own consciences) we parents are compelled to punish what we see as violating the rules. There is plenty of blame to go around, but ultimately the parents assert that “its all your fault”, which is exactly what our human conscience does, punish us with self-condemnation in the form of guilt. In the mean time, we all tend to equate the conscience with God, and it seems like God himself is punishing us and wants to drive us away. There is a “fear” formed, a distorted concept of the God (ccc399) who in reality unconditionally loves us, forgives us, and pours out His mercy.

All along, the conscience, the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is in formation, developing. Isn’t it amazing that it is a “tree”? Again, this points to the metaphor of growth and development. It would have been a lot different story if the knowledge of good and evil was contained in a treasure box or something like that.

I know, its not in the CCC. But this version is true to all of the “omnis”, right, especially omnibenevolence? Let me know if it doesn’t, I’m all ears!

 

[clem456]

God creates mankind to be united with him in love forever.
That is the destiny we are created with. Christ has always been, and he has always offered us that kingdom.

We refused it. The intended outcome was not for Christ to be rejected and abused, the intended outcome was for us to say “yes” and live in eternal peace and joy, right from the beginning.

We chose inferior goods.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

God creates mankind to be united with him in love forever.
That is the destiny we are created with. Christ has always been, and he has always offered us that kingdom.

We refused it. The intended outcome was not for Christ to be rejected and abused, the intended outcome was for us to say “yes” and live in eternal peace and joy, right from the beginning.

We chose inferior goods.

If that was the intended outcome, I think it would have been the actual outcome.

No argument that God wants us to love him, but I think he wants us to come to him freely.

 

[clem456]

These two statements seem contradictory to me.

If that was the intended outcome, I think it would have been the actual outcome.

Then God violates man’s free will by forcing the outcome of his intention.

No argument that God wants us to love him, but I think he wants us to come to him freely.

The two seem contradictory. He gave us the free will to reject his plan and design and we rejected him. The actual outcome was different than God’s intention for us.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Yes, sure do. But what then does that say about free will if Adam and Eve were destined to fall?

In view of an eternally-existing, omniscient savior, I’d say that A&E’s free will choice was an illusion. If God has always known they’d fall, how could they not fall?

God creates mankind to be united with him in love forever. That is the destiny we are created with. Christ has always been, and he has always offered us that kingdom.

We refused it. The intended outcome was not for Christ to be rejected and abused, the intended outcome was for us to say “yes” and live in eternal peace and joy, right from the beginning.

We chose inferior goods.

According to Fr. Serpa, Jesus has always been the savior – and long before A&E were created – I don’t know how Jesus could always be the savior unless there has also always been the intention that there would be someone to save.

 

[simpleas]

Oh I must share a little idea that popped into my head just now when my daughter asked what I was involved with on CAF.

The story of Adam and Eve, especially the Fall, may be a metaphor for human spiritual development.

Generally speaking, we look upon our infancy as a period of innocence. As we approach the age of seven or eight, we are generally very obedient to our parents, we idolize our parents, we see their value with clear eyes. This is all represented by the time before the fall.

However, with age comes additional drives and desires. Sexual desire kicks in, desire for autonomy (desire for freedom) becomes forefront, and our own territorial instincts become much more pronounced. All of these compulsions lead to a bit of blindness to the value we had earlier placed on parental wisdom, protection, and even their love. Due to this subsequent blindness to value triggered by all of the new “wants”, the human becomes occasionally disobedient and defiant. In the mean time, the normal parental reaction is one of anger and disappointment, and by nature (our own consciences) we parents are compelled to punish what we see as violating the rules. There is plenty of blame to go around, but ultimately the parents assert that “its all your fault”, which is exactly what our human conscience does, punish us with self-condemnation in the form of guilt. In the mean time, we all tend to equate the conscience with God, and it seems like God himself is punishing us and wants to drive us away. There is a “fear” formed, a distorted concept of the God (ccc399) who in reality unconditionally loves us, forgives us, and pours out His mercy.

All along, the conscience, the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is in formation, developing. Isn’t it amazing that it is a “tree”? Again, this points to the metaphor of growth and development. It would have been a lot different story if the knowledge of good and evil was contained in a treasure box or something like that.

I know, its not in the CCC. But this version is true to all of the “omnis”, right, especially omnibenevolence? Let me know if it doesn’t, I’m all ears!

Yes I think the tree thing is important to the story of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, a while back I was walking in a park that has many different trees, and I thought about the trees losing their leaves in autumn/winter and almost looking like they died, and then with spring/summer comes new leaves, the tree looks alive again, new life, reborn, over and over as it grows and lives many years.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

These two statements seem contradictory to me.

Then God violates man’s free will by forcing the outcome of his intention.

The two seem contradictory. He gave us the free will to reject his plan and design and we rejected him. The actual outcome was different than God’s intention for us.

If he created them to fall, then that, too, violates their free will. Both do.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

In view of an eternally-existing, omniscient savior, I’d say that A&E’s free will choice was an illusion. If God has always known they’d fall, how could they not fall?

According to Fr. Serpa, Jesus has always been the savior – and long before A&E were created – I don’t know how Jesus could always be the savior unless there has also always been the intention that there would be someone to save.

God is omniscient and lives in timelessness. Naturally, he would know there would be someone to save.

 

[clem456]

If he created them to fall, then that, too, violates their free will. Both do.

He didn’t “create man to fall”. That would be ill-will on God’s part. God cannot have ill-will.

The fall is solely the result of man’s free will.

 

[OneSheep]

In view of an eternally-existing, omniscient savior, I’d say that A&E’s free will choice was an illusion. If God has always known they’d fall, how could they not fall?

I’ve gone round and round with this one with people before. The way I look at it, God writes the characters but not the script concerning man. Once he writes the characters, the characters take a life of their own, and history happens. God has already read the book to the end, and though He created the characters He never once intervened on their “freedom” to choose. Note: I use scare-quotes there because man is very limited by his awareness. I think of the simple case that if I could travel 5 minutes back in time, I may know a person’s choice in that time, and he chooses it freely, but I already know what it is. My knowing doesn’t affect his choice.

According to Fr. Serpa, Jesus has always been the savior – and long before A&E were created – I don’t know how Jesus could always be the savior unless there has also always been the intention that there would be someone to save.

That makes sense, but I don’t think anyone has contested that point. The “fall” is the distortion of God’s image, such that we fear Him. I think the point of contention lies in whether Jesus came in order to change God’s mind about man, or to change man’s mind about God.

 

[clem456]

Time is the misunderstood thing here.
Man exists in the moment. We are subject to time. We do no live in the past or the future. For us there is before and after, logical progression, cause and effect.

God has no cause and effect, no before and after. Causation indicates the passing of time. “You were not, then you were.” That is who we are, not who God is.

God is outside time, or is not subject to it, however you want to say that. He sees and knows all things at once.
So if you believe there is a God, it is nonsensical to ask why God created man “when he already knew…” Or “how could God create us with free will when he knew …” A sentence with “when” and “already” cannot apply to God. There is no already, or before and after, in God. God simply is.
God does not realize something after discovering it. Its not like he created us, then discovered we were unfaithful.

Creation is an act of love, not one of utility. God did not create us because he knew we would perfectly worship him. Creation is not cautious either. In other words, God does not weigh the costs of creating us. He does not “balk” at creating us because he knows we will reject him. He loves with a recklessness we cannot understand. We would call it foolishness.

The ultimate foolishness is the Incarnation, whereby God who needs nothing and is not subject to time or anything else, enters human history in the flesh.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’ve gone round and round with this one with people before. The way I look at it, God writes the characters but not the script concerning man. Once he writes the characters, the characters take a life of their own, and history happens. God has already read the book to the end, and though He created the characters He never once intervened on their “freedom” to choose. Note: I use scare-quotes there because man is very limited by his awareness. I think of the simple case that if I could travel 5 minutes back in time, I may know a person’s choice in that time, and he chooses it freely, but I already know what it is. My knowing doesn’t affect his choice.

That makes sense, but I don’t think anyone has contested that point. The “fall” is the distortion of God’s image, such that we fear Him. I think the point of contention lies in whether Jesus came in order to change God’s mind about man, or to change man’s mind about God.

I think he came to show people how to live, how to love. God really doesn’t have a mind that needs or can be changed. God just is.

 

[OneSheep]

He didn’t “create man to fall”. That would be ill-will on God’s part. God cannot have ill-will.

The fall is solely the result of man’s free will.

Hi Clem,

You must admit, though, if God had not created man, there would not have been a fall.

And, God created man knowing that there would be what we describe as a fall. Did God plan to create man knowing that he would disobey, and knowing that He would then ban him from the garden, take away his infused knowledge, give him concupiscence, subject all of Adam’s offspring to death, and forever give the women more pain in childbirth to boot?

If a human did that, we could easily describe that as “ill will”, correct? It would (in blindness) be intent for something bad to happen with no visible means of such punishment used as a corrective measure for the individual. On the other hand, our conscience blames us for disobedience, which does not seem like a corrective measure when it is happening; it feels like ostracism. For this and other reasons, the story makes more sense to me as showing something about our conscience than showing us something about “the gods” and His plan.

Not to argue, Clem. I’m not “pushing” this. I am showing my own way of making sense of the story for those who find some real bonafide hang-ups with it.

Peace.

 

[clem456]

Hi Clem,

You must admit, though, if God had not created man, there would not have been a fall.

And, God created man knowing that there would be what we describe as a fall. Did God plan to create man knowing that he would…

Let’s chew on this right here.

You start with an if/then statement in regard to God. How do you apply an if/then to a being who is not subject to if/then. There is no before and after, there is no contingency, in God or in his actions.

Again, “did God…knowing he would”. “he would” extends into an unknown future.
Time is meaningless to God. What we understand as the future is all present for him.

Creation is an explosion of his love. He has no concern for risk or rejection. The Fall does not intimidate him or cause him to be timid or cautious in his creation.

Think about how human nature mirrors this:
As a parent, you know having children is difficult, possibly even tragic. Yet we don’t count the cost because we desire to create, to love, to have the joy etc… (we do this imperfectly, God does it to perfection)

 

[OneSheep]

I think he came to show people how to live, how to love. God really doesn’t have a mind that needs or can be changed. God just is.

I agree with you, but there is another way of looking at it that I treat respectfully. There is the view that God is wrathful and desires reparation, a debt to be paid by Jesus’ death. Once the debt is paid, God is satisfied and grace flows.

That is a theology based on equating God with conscience. Note: I am a “lumper” when it comes to the aspects of the mind that fall under conscience. It is not just knowing good and bad action, but it also includes the neurotransmissions that trigger either the downers of guilt or the uppers of righteousness. It includes coupling people with action, holding onto resentment, and compulsion to punish wrongdoing, among other more minor traits. I know that this is not an ordinary def’n of “conscience”.

I think theologians characterize the Anselmian view as one that involves “paying a debt”. I get the impression that Anselm’s theology is still quite popular among many Catholics. Is that true? I seems to be a “natural theology”, one that is predicable and a default given our nature.

Thanks for your response.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes I think the tree thing is important to the story of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, a while back I was walking in a park that has many different trees, and I thought about the trees losing their leaves in autumn/winter and almost looking like they died, and then with spring/summer comes new leaves, the tree looks alive again, new life, reborn, over and over as it grows and lives many years.

Such is another great analogy for our own spiritual growth. Growth involves the “death” of part of ourselves, and there is a rebirth afterwards.

 

[OneSheep]

Let’s chew on this right here.

You start with an if/then statement in regard to God. How do you apply an if/then to a being who is not subject to if/then. There is no before and after, there is no contingency, in God or in his actions.

Again, “did God…knowing he would”. “he would” extends into an unknown future.
Time is meaningless to God. What we understand as the future is all present for him.

Creation is an explosion of his love. He has no concern for risk or rejection. The Fall does not intimidate him or cause him to be timid or cautious in his creation.

Think about how human nature mirrors this:
As a parent, you know having children is difficult, possibly even tragic. Yet we don’t count the cost because we desire to create, to love, to have the joy etc… (we do this imperfectly, God does it to perfection)

This is a good point, but when God’s actions appear to the individual less than benevolent, it is worthwhile to come to an understanding that upholds His benevolence. The individual witnesses an unexplained violence or contradiction to Love, and assertions do not serve to resolve the problem. Jesus makes the Father accessible. We can see/understand the Father (at least to some degree) by seeing the actions and hearing the Gospel.

We are to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect” and it serves us to determine what that “perfection” looks like in terms of loving each other and the rest of creation. The “inevitability” question is a benevolence question. It is also an anthropological question.

Have a good one.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I agree with you, but there is another way of looking at it that I treat respectfully. There is the view that God is wrathful and desires reparation, a debt to be paid by Jesus’ death. Once the debt is paid, God is satisfied and grace flows.

That is a theology based on equating God with conscience. Note: I am a “lumper” when it comes to the aspects of the mind that fall under conscience. It is not just knowing good and bad action, but it also includes the neurotransmissions that trigger either the downers of guilt or the uppers of righteousness. It includes coupling people with action, holding onto resentment, and compulsion to punish wrongdoing, among other more minor traits. I know that this is not an ordinary def’n of “conscience”.

I think theologians characterize the Anselmian view as one that involves “paying a debt”. I get the impression that Anselm’s theology is still quite popular among many Catholics. Is that true? I seems to be a “natural theology”, one that is predicable and a default given our nature.

Thanks for your response.

I respect your views - and the respectful tone of this thread - however, I, myself agree with St. Augustine and can’t agree that God would demand his beloved Son pay a debt owed by sinning humans by dying one of the most horrible deaths possible. And, if the debt was paid, why is humanity still being punished?

Yes, most theologians characterize Anselm’s theory of redemption as penal substitution or at least bordering on that, and most reject it. The most developed theory of redemption is Bernard Lonergan’s “Law of the Cross,” which completely rejects penal substitution. It is very different from anything else out there.

This might be interesting:

catholiccourier.com/commentary/other-columnists/why-did-jesus-have-to-die-for-our-sins/

 

[OneSheep]

I respect your views - and the respectful tone of this thread - however, I, myself agree with St. Augustine and can’t agree that God would demand his beloved Son pay a debt owed by sinning humans by dying one of the most horrible deaths possible. And, if the debt was paid, why is humanity still being punished?

Wow, I am doing a great job showing my respect for the other view, so much that you are under the impression that I hold it. I don’t. However, I did, and when I did hold that view, it made sense in terms of justice. “Somebody had to pay the debt, and our benevolent Father paid it for us with His son.”

Yes, most theologians characterize Anselm’s theory of redemption as penal substitution or at least bordering on that, and most reject it. The most developed theory of redemption is Bernard Lonergan’s “Law of the Cross,” which completely rejects penal substitution. It is very different from anything else out there.

This might be interesting:

catholiccourier.com/commentary/other-columnists/why-did-jesus-have-to-die-for-our-sins/

Thanks for the link. I agree with Fr. Doyle, but I am looking at the future of the Church as one that allows for penal substitution alongside the non-penal view. Not only is this a pastoral strategy, but it is one that honors the natural formation of a theology that mirrors the activity of the conscience. After all, what does our conscience do? Elevate the good acts, and punish the evil ones. If the punishment cannot take place or seems inadequate, then there is a debt incurred. This approach is so natural that even chimpanzees exhibit the same compulsion to hold a grudge until the debt is paid. The whole drive for such justice, innate as it is, serves the tribal species. It is God-given, beautiful, and functional. It is very natural for humans to equate God and conscience, which we can see in the appeal of the “Star Wars” concept. It is our normal default.

What Jesus calls us to, invites us to, is a supernatural approach (God loves and forgives unconditionally), but even in the Gospel there is evidence of respect for the debt view:

Matthew 5:43-48New International Version (NIV)
Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven.

Do you see what I am saying? Jesus does not condemn the first principle, but He invites us to the second. The first principle is the one formed by the natural conscience. The second is one that comes from the depth of Love, that which transcends the natural, even transcends the natural conscience.

Another example: In Luke 17:3-4 Jesus asks us to forgive anyone who repents (conscience approach: the person must “pay” with repentance), but also removes the condition in Mark 11:25 and elsewhere.

I really, appreciate your response. Don’t let my reply scare you away, I do not hold my views with stubborn protection, I won’t bite, I promise. Please offer more enlightenment, critique, etc. I won’t see it as contentious, trust me. This is a friendly exchange of views, not a battle.

Thanks!