What if Adam and Eve committed a venial sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter _L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

_L

Guest
This is a question that has been on my mind for quite some time now and I was hoping I could get an answer. We as Catholics acknowledge the difference between venial and mortal sins, the sin of Adam and Eve was clearly mortal because of their pride of desiring to be like God and directly disobeying Him. This begs the question…what would happen if they had committed a venial sin? What would have happened to them? would they still be opening up the door for death to enter the world? would their souls still be in a state of grace?
  • matt
 
This is a question that has been on my mind for quite some time now and I was hoping I could get an answer. We as Catholics acknowledge the difference between venial and mortal sins, the sin of Adam and Eve was clearly mortal because of their pride of desiring to be like God and directly disobeying Him. This begs the question…what would happen if they had committed a venial sin? What would have happened to them? would they still be opening up the door for death to enter the world? would their souls still be in a state of grace?
  • matt
Venial Sin does not separate us from God…hence they would still be in God’s Grace, nor than would we be deserving of death. So, yeah…you got the idea.
 
But would there be any negative consequence? Would not sinning venially open up their knowledge of good and evil and they would acknowledge their nakedness and all that jazz? would God have cursed creation and tossed them out of Eden?
 
But would there be any negative consequence? Would not sinning venially open up their knowledge of good and evil and they would acknowledge their nakedness and all that jazz? would God have cursed creation and tossed them out of Eden?
I don’t think that distinction you are making makes any difference. The Genesis account is what it is.

Solomon obtained a knowledge of good and evil, but without sinning.
 
I doubt there were such categories such as “venial” at the time. Disobedience was sinful.

That does bring up a chicken-or-egg problem with me, though.

If they didn’t know good and evil, then how was what they did a sin?

If they knew they were sinning – they knew they were disobeying but how did they know that was sinful – then what additional knowledge did they learn when they ate from the tree?

Alan

P.S. I think it’s interesting, but not critical. My kids were all taught in Catholic high school that Genesis is intended to be read figuratively.
 
If they knew they were sinning – they knew they were disobeying but how did they know that was sinful
Disobedience of God’s command is sin. They might never have used the particular word “sin”, but they knew God had given the command and He also told them what would happen if they disobeyed Him.
– then what additional knowledge did they learn when they ate from the tree?
“Knowledge” can mean intimate union - not just intellectual information. (Eg. physical union between a husband and wife can be referred to as “knowing”. Luke 1:34 “And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?”)

Adam and Eve now had allowed sin into themselves – into their will (by choosing to disobey); into their thinking (the thoughts that were contradictory to God’s words).

Regarding the “knowledge of good and evil”, here is one way I like to think of it. Prior to disobeying God, they “knew” only good. After sinning, they “knew” both good and evil.
 
P.S. I think it’s interesting, but not critical. My kids were all taught in Catholic high school that Genesis is intended to be read figuratively.
Don’t intend to go off topic. But that broad figurative statement about Genesis has led to difficulties when it comes to Divine Revelation contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55
 
Using sensus plenior, the difference between kinds of sin is based upon whether it is of the flesh or of the will. Understanding the type in a literalist or legalistic manner misses the point.

We share a nature with animals that lives by instinct placing oneself first. Our image of God allows… and requires that we respond to his Word, and place God and others first. Whenever we live instinctively, we are in venial sin, not just when we commit one or more actions on a list. We are unclean until the evening (death) so we renew our minds by the washing of the word.

When we are rebellious, we are in mortal sin. It is a sin of the soul and spirit. An act that may be initially a venial sin, such as David’s lust in the flesh for another man’s wife could have become a mortal sin, had he rebelled at the confrontation rather than repented. So the smallest venial sin, that God clearly confronts you with, and to which you stubbornly rebel, becomes a mortal sin. It is not the act, but the heart that God judges.

I am sure that if this differs from the official Catholic position, someone will correct me.

So Eve committed a venial sin, having desire for the fruit. But Adam had a mortal sin, eating the fruit and not being deceived. By one man, death came into the world. Not by a man and a woman.
 
This is a question that has been on my mind for quite some time now and I was hoping I could get an answer. We as Catholics acknowledge the difference between venial and mortal sins, the sin of Adam and Eve was clearly mortal because of their pride of desiring to be like God and directly disobeying Him. This begs the question…what would happen if they had committed a venial sin? What would have happened to them? would they still be opening up the door for death to enter the world? would their souls still be in a state of grace?
  • matt
with the first sin im not sure it would have mattered…
 
Using sensus plenior, the difference between kinds of sin is based upon whether it is of the flesh or of the will. Understanding the type in a literalist or legalistic manner misses the point.

We share a nature with animals that lives by instinct placing oneself first. Our image of God allows… and requires that we respond to his Word, and place God and others first. Whenever we live instinctively, we are in venial sin, not just when we commit one or more actions on a list. We are unclean until the evening (death) so we renew our minds by the washing of the word.

When we are rebellious, we are in mortal sin. It is a sin of the soul and spirit. An act that may be initially a venial sin, such as David’s lust in the flesh for another man’s wife could have become a mortal sin, had he rebelled at the confrontation rather than repented. So the smallest venial sin, that God clearly confronts you with, and to which you stubbornly rebel, becomes a mortal sin. It is not the act, but the heart that God judges.

I am sure that if this differs from the official Catholic position, someone will correct me.

So Eve committed a venial sin, having desire for the fruit. But Adam had a mortal sin, eating the fruit and not being deceived. By one man, death came into the world. Not by a man and a woman.
From my point of view, the difference between Catholicism and some of the other Christian religions is the basic understanding of the nature of a human person and how that nature operates. It goes back to understanding the nature of Adam.

My apology for not understanding sensus plenior, but in my humble opinion, common sense would say that sin first of all involves an action which is freely chosen.

Unfortunately, I do not understand how sensus plenior defines flesh and will so I am stuck.

I do know that human nature can be defined as an unique unification of corporeal/rational, matter/spirit, body/soul. But this can’t be what sensus plenior calls flesh and will because from the way it is used, it sounds more like Cartesian (extreme) dualism.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is unique in all the universe.
 
The flesh is simply instinctive unthinking living. The spirit responds intentionally to the word.

By instinct we place ourselves first. God says we are to love Him and others first.

If one lives his life instinctively, then he his not living his life according to every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. We should at least ask God what he would have us do before beginning our day.

We have clothes to remind us that we are not to occupy space instinctively. We have a sabbath to remind us not to pass time instinctively. Grace to remind us not to eat instinctively. Marriage to remind us not to procreate instinctively. The law to remind us to not let our minds wander instinctively.

We share matter and biology with animals and spirit with God. Matter is not evil when it is not preeminent over the Word of God. Placing it in preeminence is the essence of sin.

We are told to “eat a little honey when we find it, but not too much that we get sick”. We can enjoy the flesh nature when it is within the bounds of God’s word.

This is not an extreme dualism.
 
This is a question that has been on my mind for quite some time now and I was hoping I could get an answer. We as Catholics acknowledge the difference between venial and mortal sins, the sin of Adam and Eve was clearly mortal because of their pride of desiring to be like God and directly disobeying Him. This begs the question…what would happen if they had committed a venial sin? What would have happened to them? would they still be opening up the door for death to enter the world? would their souls still be in a state of grace?
  • matt
I am having difficulty understanding why you would want to apply either mortal or venial to Adam’s original sin. I have been going through the Catechism to see if God proposed any kind of a degree system regarding His stipulation for Adam’s free actions. I find references to the serious consequences of Adam’s original sin. But so far I have not found any leeway which venial, as a lesser sin, would indicate.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Adam and Original Sin **is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Entering topics is also very useful.
 
The flesh is simply instinctive unthinking living. The spirit responds intentionally to the word.

By instinct we place ourselves first. God says we are to love Him and others first.

If one lives his life instinctively, then he his not living his life according to every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. We should at least ask God what he would have us do before beginning our day.

We have clothes to remind us that we are not to occupy space instinctively. We have a sabbath to remind us not to pass time instinctively. Grace to remind us not to eat instinctively. Marriage to remind us not to procreate instinctively. The law to remind us to not let our minds wander instinctively.

We share matter and biology with animals and spirit with God. Matter is not evil when it is not preeminent over the Word of God. Placing it in preeminence is the essence of sin.

We are told to “eat a little honey when we find it, but not too much that we get sick”. We can enjoy the flesh nature when it is within the bounds of God’s word.

This is not an extreme dualism.
In response to the follwoing statement.
The flesh is simply instinctive unthinking living. The spirit responds intentionally to the word.
If this is not extreme dualism, could it be moderate dualism? The determining questions are – How are flesh and spirit united in the same person? If the spirit responds intentionally, is it made out of matter so that it can perform actions such as eating a little honey? If the flesh is simply instinctive unthinking living, how does that relate to the material human anatomy of real flesh and blood?

In my humble opinion, the real difficulty is that you and I are not on the same page regarding how vocabulary is used. We also have a different perspective on what kind of nature God created.

I am not sure how you want me to handle the differences in our vocabulary. If we are to have a meaningful conversation, I should really be on your turf…beginning with your understanding of Adam and Eve. If you consider them symbolic, there may be some difficulty since I consider Adam and Eve real people.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.
 
Adam and Eve are literal people who lived real lives. The story of Adam and Eve has four layers of meaning. The Catholic church calls is Quadriga. Raymond Brown calls it sensus plenior (in which I see four voices of God as King, Prophet, Judge, Priest), The Jews call it Pashat, Remez, Drash and Sod.

The literal guides and constrains the others.

The serpent was ‘more subtle’ than the other animals, which means that the other animals also must have been tempting Eve in a blatant fashion. Since the only command given was that they should not eat the fruit, the nature of the temptation was to eat the fruit. So it is likely that the other animals ate the fruit. They were allowed to, being animals of instinct rather than the word. The natural resistance to that temptation is to see that animals are different from us. “They are animals, we are more than animals.”

Eve gave into the instinctive nature. The fruit looked good and smelled good. Concerning the Word of God, she was deceived by the subtle shifting of the serpent. These are the evidences that it was not rebellion, but simple instinctive responses. Furthermore we are told that sin came into the world, and death thereby by one man. Not by a woman and man. This validates that Eve’s sin did not bring death into the world. Adam did because he sinned knowing exactly what he was doing.

Paul talks plainly about the flesh and it’s desires and about putting on the new man and putting off the old man. The dualism of which I speak is the same dualism of which Paul speaks. Our old nature seeks to preserve and exalt the self. Our new nature puts God and others first.

When God created, ALL things were good, including the flesh. He intended that we enjoy the physical world within the bounds of his word - Don’t eat the fruit. I am not sure why this is controversial at all.

Now look at the voice of the Judge, or the moral teaching. When we are born, we have the same instinctive nature as animals for self preservation. As we look around at animals, we are tempted to learn our dinner manners from the pig, our group dynamics from the goat and our modesty from the cat. Scientists claim homosexual behavior is natural from seagulls, and have humans on display in the London zoo to teach us that we are mere animals.

But we are more than animals born with the built in ability to communicate propositionally, and to choose selflessness. The law and all it’s accoutrements are designed to remind us that we are more than animals. The flesh did not become evil with the fall, it became preeminent in our nature. Baby Jesus was born without such a disability.

So more directly, the flesh is that biological entity with all the naturalistic and unconscious tendencies for self-preservation and self-satisfaction. The soul is that part of the unregenerate mind which has the ability but not the will to respond to propositional circumstances. It is the higher intellect of the unregenerate flesh. The spirit is that which is imparted by the living breath of God, by the person of the Holy Spirit. It is He that gives eternal life and the ability to overcome the nature of the flesh and soul.

— Now look at the voice of the prophet–

The riddle buried in Gen 2:20 says: And God caused Christ to die and he died, and he married a certain limping side and delivered mankind. You can dig it out with as double entendre using the Hebrew dictionary.

It causes us to correlate the bruised heel of the seed of the woman, and the withered thigh of Jacob. These represent the submission of Christ’s flesh to the Father’s will at Gethsemane. He had a flesh that did not wish to die… Remove this cup… but he did not make it preeminent as we do and instead prayed… nevertheless, not my will but thine.

Since we are to be ‘like him’. We too should be limping. Putting off the old man, the self-serving flesh, and putting on the new man.

common sense would say that sin first of all involves an action which is freely chosen.
Sometimes common sense can lead us astray, in the law there were offenses and penalties for acts committed unknowingly, and when you discovered you had committed them, the sacrifices applied.

Thanks for asking for a clarification.
 
This is a question that has been on my mind for quite some time now and I was hoping I could get an answer. We as Catholics acknowledge the difference between venial and mortal sins, the sin of Adam and Eve was clearly mortal because of their pride of desiring to be like God and directly disobeying Him. This begs the question…what would happen if they had committed a venial sin? What would have happened to them? would they still be opening up the door for death to enter the world? would their souls still be in a state of grace?
  • matt
Any sin that Adam or Eve committed, before the Fall, would have to be a mortal sin. First, as St. Aquinas taught, Adam and Eve could not be mistaken about anything that they knew to be true. So they could not have decreased culpability from lack of knowledge. Second, their minds and hearts were not clouded by original sin or personal sin (as yet). Third, original innocence, without any concupiscence, kept them from committing small sins. Fourth, any sin at all would be incompatible with original innocence, and therefore any sin would result in its loss, which is a grave matter. Therefore, any sin committed by Adam and Eve would be a mortal sin, not a venial sin, prior to the Fall.
 
I hate to argue with St. Aquinas since he is unable to defend himself. But reason cannot contradict scripture.
First, as St. Aquinas taught, Adam and Eve could not be mistaken about anything that they knew to be true.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

If Aquinas and the scripture are true, then Eve did not know the commandment was true since she did not receive it from God, but from Adam.

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Not by a woman nor by a woman and a man. It is plausible that if Adam had not sinned, he would have been given a way to redeem Eve, since he is a type of Christ.

Ro 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

It might even be argued that since Eve did not receive the law from God, she was not bound by it and hence there was no transgression. The Jews had the law. The gentiles were aware of the Jewish law but were not bound to it.
any sin committed by Adam and Eve would be a mortal sin, not a venial sin, prior to the Fall.
There was only one commandment and therefore only one possible sin. It was venial (of the flesh) by Eve and mortal by Adam (rebellion). Rom 5:12 makes it clear.
 
Rather than respond to all the misinterpretations of Original Sin, line by line, I am posting Catholic teaching below. I especially encourage Catholics to read the Catechism.

Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Adam and Original Sin **is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Entering topics is also very useful.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top