Theistic Evolution - Death before the Fall?

[Nita]

Barbarian suggests:
You can answer the question by telling me what happens to
unbaptized infants who die…

No way does that response answer the question I asked. You implied that you had told me - so I went back rereading all the posts presuming I must have missed it somehow!! Foolish me.
The question was, and still is,
**Do you consider that at the time of birth you (your soul) were spiritually dead? **
A simple “yes”, “no”, or “I don’t know” answer is all I’m after.

And having told you what I believe, I would like to hear your answer now.

I presumed you knew what I believed as a Catholic. Sorry. But, here is the answer (Question being what happens to unbaptized infants who die):
“I don’t know”.

Since it’s impossible to know what takes place inside another person (adult or baby), and/or what may be taking place on God’s part, it’s impossible for a human to know whether baptism of desire has taken place or not. Judgement of a person’s soul belongs to God alone.

Objectively, I can say that if an infant (or anyone else) does not have the life of grace in his soul (thru baptism of desire or some other means God might choose to exercise), he will not be in heaven.

Nita

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

What I have said is that death is present in the person - dying (death of cells) is taking place even tho the “person” is still alive. And those cells are dead because they have become separated from the soul.

Adam was to be the recipient of the “death” promised if the fruit was touched, not “his cells”.

Adam, body and soul, the PERSON Adam, was incapable of “dying” (bodily moving toward the death state) until God allowed death to exist (obviously).

What point in OUR present “state” of the universe is that condition possible? I contend that there was NO time (in our post-fall universe) where that state was or will be permissable.

Only BEFORE the fall, and after the “new heavens and new earth”, was/will that condition be possible.

The pre-fall universe is not our present universe. Just as the new earth will be the end and utter destruction of the old earth, the present post-fall universe was the end and utter destruction of the pre-fall universe.

That which was allowed to “pass” from the pre-fall universe to the post-fall universe possessed the same “accidental” while it’s “substance” was changed utterly, just as the bread an wine are changed utterly in all respects other than their accidental appearance to bread and wine.

The “phase change” of the entire universe at the fall is replayed, in reverse, during the eucharist.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian
That is what the Catholic Church says it is.

When this separation of body and soul occurs, death occurs.
nbccongress.org/black-cat…irituality.asp

Given these considerations, Catholics who desire to be organ donors upon their deaths should have no fear in performing such a charitable and heroic act. Edward Furton, the editor of the National Catholic Bioethics Center publication Ethics and Medics, offers the following conclusion: "Although no definitive judgment has been rendered, one may safely conclude that Catholic physicians may, in good conscience, employ brain death criteria in their determination of death. Similarly, Catholic patients may agree to give or accept organ transplants on the basis of these same criteria. If the Vatican should ever express reservations to the use of these criteria, it will likely be preceded by a widespread rejection of brain death by members of the medical community. There are voices calling for a rejection of these criteria today, but they would appear to be in the minority. (Furton, “Reflections,” 4.)
Catholic teaching on organ donation
By Rev. Larry Hostetter

That is the moment when death is complete in the person’s body - no life at all present. And, I agree that when we say someone has died, we are referring to that moment after the soul has departed. When we say someone is dying, we are speaking of those moments prior to the soul departing.

This is how we know that the death God spoke of, was not physical. He said Adam would die that day. But Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter.

Barbarian observes:
It would be ludicrous to say that because some skin cells died, therefore a person died. As you see, your view is not the Catholic view.

Honestly Barbarian, I don’t know if you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand or twist my words, or if you truly aren’t comprehending them.

You won’t find in any of my posts that I said the “person” died because some of his cells died. What I have said is that death is present in the person - dying (death of cells) is taking place even tho the “person” is still alive. And those cells are dead because they have become separated from the soul.

You offered this as a rebuttal to the point that Adam did not die physically the day he ate from the tree. If that was not your point, what was your point?

Barbarian observes:
No, it’s the point at which Adam physically died. That was many years after God told him he would die the day he ate from the tree. This is why we know that death was spiritual, not physical.

Either it was spiritual, or God did not tell the truth.

God did not say “the day you eat…you will spiritually die”. Let’s not put words in God’s mouth.

I didn’t. You wrote that, not me. I pointed out that God says Adam will day the day he eats from the tree, and yet Adam lives on physically for many years. From this, and from the fact that God does not lie, we know that the death was not a physical one.

If it turns out God meant physical and spiritual death, His words are true; if He meant physical death, His words are true; if He was referring to spiritual death only, His words are true.

No. If he meant physical at all, Adam would have died that day physically, as God said.

It will just turn out that some of us humans failed to interpret correctly “death” and “day”.

Why not just take it without all the convoluted “maybes?”

 

[Nita]

Barbarian observes:
It would be ludicrous to say that because some skin cells died, therefore a person died. As you see, your view is not the Catholic view.

(Nita replies) Honestly Barbarian, I don’t know if you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand or twist my words, or if you truly aren’t comprehending them.

You won’t find in any of my posts that I said the “person” died because some of his cells died. What I have said is that death is present in the person - dying (death of cells) is taking place even tho the “person” is still alive. And those cells are dead because they have become separated from the soul.

Barbarian responds:
**You offered this as a rebuttal to the point that Adam did not die physically **the day he ate from the tree. If that was not your point, what was your point?

What??? It’s a rebuttal to your statement -
*It would be ludicrous to say that because some skin cells died, therefore a person died. As you see, your view is not the Catholic view. *
which even you show as the statement of yours that I was responding to!!!

I’m really sorry, but it’s obvious we aren’t communicating. I’ll leave it up to others from here on out. Never mind answering the question you don’t seem to want to answer. My guess is that you can foresee the answer might cause problems for some of the assertions you’ve made.

God bless,
Nita

 

[Nita]

Adam was to be the recipient of the “death” promised if the fruit was touched, not “his cells”.

.

Just a couple notes:

1. “Death” was promised if he ate the fruit, not if he touched it.
2. Adam’s body (cells) is a constituent part of his being.

Nita

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Adam was to be the recipient of the “death” promised if the fruit was touched, not “his cells”.

Just a couple notes:

1. “Death” was promised if he ate the fruit, not if he touched it.
2. Adam’s body (cells) is a constituent part of his being.

Re: “Touching the fruit”:

Gen-3:1-3,
1 Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?”

2 The woman answered the serpent: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;

3 it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’"

Apparently, Eve had a different opinion as to what God said, but who’s counting!

Re: Cells as constituent part of Adam’s body:

I don’t know what Adam’s cells were doing, but they weren’t “dying” because “dying” didn’t exist yet. Perhaps they simply “shifted” into doing or being something else without “dying”, as they couldn’t “die” per se.

There was no evolution during the pre-fall universe period, as we understand (partially) evolution, because there was no need for it.

Evolution is a means (mechanism) by which creatures become more “adequately” adapted to their CHANGED environment.

If the universe is in a PERFECT state, then there is no need for a creature to CHANGE to fit into an emergent change in the environment because there is no environmental change possible.

 

[Nita]

Re: “Touching the fruit”:

Gen-3:1-3,
1 Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?”

2 The woman answered the serpent: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;

3 it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’"

Apparently, Eve had a different opinion as to what God said, but who’s counting!

Eve’s reply is a little puzzling. Scripture only records God saying: “…of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, …” (Gen 2:17)
I don’t have much commentary on Eve’s reply (Gen 3:3), but here’s what I do have.

Geo Haydock Bible: She exaggerates, through dislike of restraint (St. Ambrose). Or through reverence, she thought it unlawful to touch what she must not eat, lest perhaps, as if there could be any doubt.

Jerome Biblical Commentary: The serpent’s question, a distortion of the divine command, insinuates the possibility of an unwarranted restriction by God and provokes the reply necessary if the conversation is to be maintained. The woman corrects the serpent’s distortion, but she adds her own ("…neither shall you touch it"). Sin begins with some distortion of the truth.

Interesting.

Re: Cells as constituent part of Adam’s body:

I don’t know what Adam’s cells were doing, but they weren’t “dying” because “dying” didn’t exist yet. Perhaps they simply “shifted” into doing or being something else without “dying”, as they couldn’t “die” per se.

I must not have been clear in my posting. I was talking about after the fall - that physical “dying” was a result of Adam’s sin and was included (along with spiritual death) in what God meant when He told them they would die if they ate of the forbidden tree.

Nita

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Re: Cells as constituent part of Adam’s body:

I don’t know what Adam’s cells were doing, but they weren’t “dying” because “dying” didn’t exist yet. Perhaps they simply “shifted” into doing or being something else without “dying”, as they couldn’t “die” per se.

I must not have been clear in my posting. I was talking about after the fall - that physical “dying” was a result of Adam’s sin and was included (along with spiritual death) in what God meant when He told them they would die if they ate of the forbidden tree.

Yes, dying didn’t exist until after the fall. Agreed.

“Spiritual death” is finally NOT choosing God and going to hell. There is a “lesser spiritual death”, as it were, whenever we sin between our birth and our death, of course, but this “death” is overcome during life by reconciliation.

This “final spiritual death” was NOT “manditorialy included” in the “eat and die” stipulation given by God, as the FINAL choice of heaven or hell is not MANDATED by “eating the fruit”, but by free choice at the end of one’s natural life.

Anyway, do you agree that there were two distinct “phases” of the universe (eventually to be three), such that the basic underlying “laws” of physics (!?) differed such that life without death was possible in one but not the other?

 

[Nita]

Anyway, do you agree that there were two distinct “phases” of the universe (eventually to be three), such that the basic underlying “laws” of physics (!?) differed such that life without death was possible in one but not the other?

I think I understand your question - and my answer would be “yes”.

1. Originally: I believe that death was not present in man originally. Whether that condition applied to animals also, I don’t know and it really isn’t that important to me.
2. After the fall: I do believe there were changes in the earth.

*eg. Gen 3:17-18 "cursed is the ground because of you; …thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you

Romans 8:20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; 8:21 because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; )*

Nita

 

[dbacks5439]

I’m not sure where this is in the OT, but I recall the Prophet Nathan going to King David to sort out David’s sin of sleeping with Beth-sheba (sp?). Nathan told David, after David was repentent, that he shall not die. I use this example to show that God can use a man to bring forgiveness (Sacrament of Reconciliation) and the possibility of mortal sins. In relation to Genesis, death is spiritual, not physical. If it was physical, then David would still be alive or assumed into Heaven in the same manner as Elijah. I would not be surprised if the Hebrew for death is the same in Genesis and in my example.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

Anyone who is familiar with St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation would recognize that the Early Church Fathers limited the entering of ‘Death’ to ‘men’ after the Fall due to his participation in the Divine Nature before the Fall. This was not a possession inherent in the human nature but a grace extended to us by our participation but such immortality doesn’t appear to be suggested to be shared with the rest of creation…

Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI does have a book discussing this matter: ‘In the Beginning…’ - A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall which might be helpful for you.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I’m not sure where this is in the OT, but I recall the Prophet Nathan going to King David to sort out David’s sin of sleeping with Beth-sheba (sp?).

Nathan told David, after David was repentent, that he shall not die.

David, since he was repentent, was given a little “clue” that it was possible that at some point man would experience that as yet unrevealed “immortality” which was not “forever in sheol”.

It was also a “hint” that his “line” would never be destroyed.

I use this example to show that God can use a man to bring forgiveness (Sacrament of Reconciliation) and the possibility of mortal sins.

In relation to Genesis, death is spiritual, not physical. If it was physical, then David would still be alive or assumed into Heaven in the same manner as Elijah.

David is still alive outside of sheol, which was NOT the case before Jesus Christ, as are all men. Even he was “dead” until that point in time.

Due to Christ we now have eternal life, either in the wonderful place, the justifiably annoying prep-room of the wonderful place, or the really nasty place.

Genesis’ “death” **was **physical death, **and **the death that leads to sheol, **and **the death that leads to heaven or hell. The idea that one could be allowed “heaven or hell” before Christ was unthinkable but hinted at in the Old Testament.

I would not be surprised if the Hebrew for death is the same in Genesis and in my example.

 

[rtconstant]

I thought I would add what the Catechism has to say about death.

1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered.

1009 Death is transformed by Christ. Jesus, the Son of God, also himself suffered the death that is part of the human condition. Yet, despite his anguish as he faced death, he accepted it in an act of complete and free submission to his Father’s will. The obedience of Jesus has transformed the curse of death into a blessing.

It would seem that The Church considers physical death a consequence of sin. I really hadn’t thought of things in these terms but the OP brings up an interesting topic.