The Paradox of Adam - A Catholic Theological Conundrum

[BlackFriar]

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. 250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

I don’t seen the word “immersed” in water for the forgiveness of sins.
Therefore 375 hardly demonstrates Adam was “baptised”.

The were constituted in the state of one that has been baptized.

Even appears only partially true…ie only wrt sanctifying grace.
The baptised are still in a state of concupiscence (the body is not in full subjection to the soul) which Adam was not.

 

[BlackFriar]

Adam’s sin is greater than all other sin because he let sin into this world.

I don’t believe this is logically inferred.
The consequences of Adam’s sin for the human race may be greater than anyone else’s.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the sin itself is the greatest.
It wasn’t as if he sterilised himself which would have been far worse.

 

[Vico]

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. 250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

True, it does not say immersed for forgiveness of sins. I am not claiming that, as explained in my post, with regard only to sanctifying grace:

Adam was not unbaptized for he was constituted in a state of original justice. The original justice requires what is supernatural.

There is baptism of water, baptism of blood, and baptism of desire. All of these have the common element of bringing sanctifying grace to one that does not have it. When Adam and Eve were constituted in original justice (that was before their fall) they received sanctifying grace. That is why it is a kind of baptism, like the baptism of water, or blood, or of desire.

 

[BlackFriar]

Lets get real, Adam was neither baptised nor “not unbaptised”.
But he was fully justified and in a state of grace before the fall.

“Baptism of desire” is “baptised” only by analogy, and a very poor one at that. To make a univocal identification is to empty the colloquial word of any real meaning.

 

[DeepDeepTrouble3]

You don’t believe that the reason that the race of mankind is subject to death, is greater than sterilization?

 

[fhansen]

Can it be defended that because Adam will be atoned for at the second coming, every lesser sin than protosin, will also be forgiven?

All sins are forgiven but if we don’t respond, if we don’t care, if we don’t have a change of heart leading to repentance, then the forgiveness has no effect; it finds no soil to take root in.

 

[BlackFriar]

Moral evil is infinitely worse than physical evil.

 

[Vico]

Lets get real, Adam was neither baptised nor “not unbaptised”.
But he was fully justified and in a state of grace before the fall.

“Baptism of desire” is “baptised” only by analogy, and a very poor one at that. To make a univocal identification is to empty the colloquial word of any real meaning.

Yes. My point was that sanctifying grace was present, so with regard to grace, they were as the baptized become. OP states of Adam: “He is the proto-sinner, unbaptized”.

 

[DanielJT]

Adam was not baptized. The state of Original Justice was abandoned by him and Eve when they ate of the fruit and found themselves naked.

The Church recognizes baptism by desire, meaning that those who were ignorant of the baptism of Christ but still sought to do God’s will in accordance with their understanding of it can still be saved (CCC paragraph 1260).

Adam’s sin allowed all sin to enter into humanity, so that all might sin. This is a big deal. But he still had time to repent of his sin and try to do God’s will to the best of his ability even after being thrown out of Eden. This is to say that, had he had the option of baptism with the remained of his life, he would have been baptized. This is baptism by desire and is sufficient.

 

[ChunkMonk]

David murdered a man to cover up his adultery, but he was called a man of God. Why? Because he showed perfect contrition for his sins. He could not be saved at his death, because Christ had not come yet to justify him, but he was not given over to Hell because his heart was full of love for God.

Like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, etc. He had to await Christ in “limbo”. Not tortured by the fires of Hell, but also deprived of the beatific vision.

 

[BlackFriar]

The problem was not the OP but this…

Adam was not unbaptized.

 

[Vico]

The problem was not the OP but this…

Adam was not unbaptized.

Yes, I explained what I mean, presence of sanctifying grace.

To amplify more, it is like baptism is not simply purification from sins but that it makes one a partaker of the divine nature, giving the grace of justification.

Catechism

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,” 69 member of Christ and co-heir with him, 70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit. 71

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification: …

 

[BlackFriar]

What sin was Adam purified from when originally constituted?
What liquid was the outward sign of his “not unbaptism”?
Can there be a baptism that does not clean in liquid?

Is he validly said to be “not unresurrected” also, because his soul was directly united with dust…which will also be the case at general resurrection?
Can there be a valid resurrection that does not require a previous bodily life?

Do we rightly predicate words to things simply on the basis of a partial matching of a single, secondary characteristic in common?

May as well say a dog is “not non-human” because it has a head!

 

[Vico]

…

You want to press. Go ahead. I have explained it sufficiently.

Q. What sin was Adam purified from when originally constituted?
A. None.

Q. What liquid was the outward sign of his “not unbaptism”?
A. None.

Q. Can there be a baptism that does not clean in liquid?
A. Yes.

Q. Can there be a valid resurrection that does not require a previous bodily life?
A. No.

Q. Is he validly said to be “not unresurrected” also, because his soul was directly united with dust…which will also be the case at general resurrection?
A. No.

Q. Do we rightly predicate words to things simply on the basis of a partial matching of a single, secondary characteristic in common?
A. Yes, with conditions.

Notice that St. John Chrysostom gives the gifts of baptism as remission of sins, and nine others.

St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6. (Ancient Christian Writers, p. 57)

“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”

Two more mentioned in 12:6:

“You are called faithful both because you believe in God and have as a trust from him justificaton, sanctity, purity of soul, filial adoption, and the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[DeepDeepTrouble3]

Adam’s Sin, is exactly equal in guilt to all the sin that has entered the world since him, plus the reason for death. Without Adam, no one would be in hell, because there would be no sin. It is because of Adam, that people burn in hell. And Adam is forgiven for that. Maybe this is the secret that Pope Saint John Paul II kept while he made those remarks about all being saved. If Adam is forgiven for all the guilt of all the sin that comes from him, then what about sin of people who follow Adam. Is this a reason to hope that all will be saved?

 

[fhansen]

It’s not that way. Adam’s sin was not the worst, even though it opened the door for all sins, small and large, that followed. And we don’t even know with any degree of certainty if Adam was even saved. He would’ve had to have repented.

 

[BlackFriar]

Q. Do we rightly predicate words to things simply on the basis of a partial matching of a single, secondary characteristic in common?

A. Yes, with conditions.

This is madness Vico, intelligent conversation is no longer possible with you on this one.

 

[Benadam]

The serpent was the most sublime of God’s creatures. Adam and Eve acted at the dawn of human life. Their sin is in our deepest recesses. That’s makes it most permeating and sublime and consequently powerful over our fallen soul.

 

[Vico]

…

Q. Do we rightly predicate words to things simply on the basis of a partial matching of a single, secondary characteristic in common?

A. Yes, with conditions.

For example original sin from the Catechism: 404 … And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.