F
fhansen
Guest
Angels were free to sin-and some did. Mary was free to sin-and she did not. We are free to sin even though just as “perfect”, or grace-filled, at our Baptism as Mary was at birth.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
The angels were able to see God, ordinary people don’t.Angels were free to sin-and some did.
She was filled with grace and had a singular specific grace put on her that we don’t have.Mary was free to sin-and she did not.
It is ridiculously easy to sin but horrificly difficult to be holy.We are free to sin even though just as “perfect”, or grace-filled, at our Baptism as Mary was at birth.
Sin is as easy as 2+2. Being holy is a 4th derivative calculus equation with 200,000 variables.
This is why imperfections are a bad thing.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
Here are some excerpts from Chapter One of Francis J. Remler’s book How to Resist Temptation which may help:
"*Before all else, it is essential that we get as clear a notion as possible of the meaning of the word temptation.
Temptation is derived from the Latin tentare, which means “to try” or “to test.” Accordingly, a temptation may be said to be a trying or a testing of the soul for the purpose of ascertaining its attitude toward God and its fidelity in the service it owes to Him.*"
"*Temptations, therefore, are meant to reveal whether the love that a soul claims to have for God is genuine and true, and not mere hollow sham and vain pretense. They are the acid test of the spiritual life. It is well known that there are certain substances that look so much like gold that they are often mistaken for that precious metal by ignorant and inexperienced persons. Many a man has been deceived by the worthless substance commonly known as “fool’s gold.” To discover whether minerals that look like gold are the genuine metal, an assayer employs special tests. One of these consists in subjecting the substance to the action of strong nitric acid. If the substance is gold, the acid will have no effect on it; if it is not, it will break up and dissolve — an easy way of proving that what was thought to be gold was nothing more than worthless dross.
This has its parallel in the spiritual world. There are many souls parading before men what appears to be solid and genuine virtue. An acid test is needed to reveal the true character of these souls. This is supplied by temptations. The soul that truly loves God will not allow itself to be overcome by them, but will remain firm and immovable in the keeping of His holy law; whereas that which is only a pretender will offer but little resistance, or perhaps none at all.*"
“In the Sacred Scriptures we find two sets of passages relating to temptations that at first sight seem to contradict each other. One set appears to make God the author of temptations, while the other plainly denies this. Thus we read that “God tempted Abraham,” while we are assured by St. James that “God tempts no man.” To reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements, we must keep in mind that there are two distinct varieties of temptations: those which are known as temptations of probation and those which go by the name of temptations of solicitation.”
“By temptations of probation we understand all those special trials to which God at times subjects persons, to prove their virtue, to prepare them for some particular work, or to elevate them to a very high degree of holiness, as was the case with Abraham, the Egyptian Joseph, Job, and Tobias in the Old Law; and with St. John the Baptist, St. Joseph, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and countless other saints in the New. Such temptations are not incitements to sin, but simply what the first meaning of the word implies: a proving or testing of a person’s virtue, as of faith, hope, patience, etc. In this sense, it is quite correct to say that God tempts man. Hence all such evils as sickness, loss of fortune, poverty, enmities, false accusations, persecutions, wars, and other calamities with which people, both the good and the bad, are often visited, can be designated as temptations sent by God, or temptations of probation.”
"*But the case is entirely different when there is question of temptations of solicitation. These are really incitements or allurements to violations of the law of God that come, directly or indirectly, from the Devil. They come from him directly by reason of the superior spiritual powers he possesses and by which he can, to a great extent, work on our imagination and senses and suggest evil to our mind. They come from him indirectly by what Sacred Scripture designates as “the flesh” and “the world,” or by what St. John more particularly calls “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” Of these means the enemy of our souls makes constant use for the purpose of enticing us to commit sin.
Temptations of this kind must never be attributed to God as their author. They are permitted by Him for the testing of our virtue and the promotion of our greater glory in Heaven; but whenever He allows Satan to tempt us, He always sets a limit to his activities. God will never allow a soul to be tempted beyond its strength and power of resistance; at the same time, He infallibly grants all the graces necessary for victory, provided the soul asks for them with humble and fervent prayer and does all in its power to refuse consent to the evil suggested*."
God did foresee the sins of Adam and Eve and knew in advance all the wiles of the Evil One. Nothing escapes His Omniscience. He gives man sufficient knowledge to exercise his free will in perfect freedom in this probationary antechamber which we call the ‘world’. Too much knowledge or too little knowledge would constrain man’s freedom. God gave Adam and Eve precisely the right amount of information about their duties towards Him. God allowed the snake to test them. And no test is worth a row of beans if the answers are supplied up front.
Hope this helps.
"*Before all else, it is essential that we get as clear a notion as possible of the meaning of the word temptation.
Temptation is derived from the Latin tentare, which means “to try” or “to test.” Accordingly, a temptation may be said to be a trying or a testing of the soul for the purpose of ascertaining its attitude toward God and its fidelity in the service it owes to Him.*"
"*Temptations, therefore, are meant to reveal whether the love that a soul claims to have for God is genuine and true, and not mere hollow sham and vain pretense. They are the acid test of the spiritual life. It is well known that there are certain substances that look so much like gold that they are often mistaken for that precious metal by ignorant and inexperienced persons. Many a man has been deceived by the worthless substance commonly known as “fool’s gold.” To discover whether minerals that look like gold are the genuine metal, an assayer employs special tests. One of these consists in subjecting the substance to the action of strong nitric acid. If the substance is gold, the acid will have no effect on it; if it is not, it will break up and dissolve — an easy way of proving that what was thought to be gold was nothing more than worthless dross.
This has its parallel in the spiritual world. There are many souls parading before men what appears to be solid and genuine virtue. An acid test is needed to reveal the true character of these souls. This is supplied by temptations. The soul that truly loves God will not allow itself to be overcome by them, but will remain firm and immovable in the keeping of His holy law; whereas that which is only a pretender will offer but little resistance, or perhaps none at all.*"
“In the Sacred Scriptures we find two sets of passages relating to temptations that at first sight seem to contradict each other. One set appears to make God the author of temptations, while the other plainly denies this. Thus we read that “God tempted Abraham,” while we are assured by St. James that “God tempts no man.” To reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements, we must keep in mind that there are two distinct varieties of temptations: those which are known as temptations of probation and those which go by the name of temptations of solicitation.”
“By temptations of probation we understand all those special trials to which God at times subjects persons, to prove their virtue, to prepare them for some particular work, or to elevate them to a very high degree of holiness, as was the case with Abraham, the Egyptian Joseph, Job, and Tobias in the Old Law; and with St. John the Baptist, St. Joseph, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and countless other saints in the New. Such temptations are not incitements to sin, but simply what the first meaning of the word implies: a proving or testing of a person’s virtue, as of faith, hope, patience, etc. In this sense, it is quite correct to say that God tempts man. Hence all such evils as sickness, loss of fortune, poverty, enmities, false accusations, persecutions, wars, and other calamities with which people, both the good and the bad, are often visited, can be designated as temptations sent by God, or temptations of probation.”
"*But the case is entirely different when there is question of temptations of solicitation. These are really incitements or allurements to violations of the law of God that come, directly or indirectly, from the Devil. They come from him directly by reason of the superior spiritual powers he possesses and by which he can, to a great extent, work on our imagination and senses and suggest evil to our mind. They come from him indirectly by what Sacred Scripture designates as “the flesh” and “the world,” or by what St. John more particularly calls “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” Of these means the enemy of our souls makes constant use for the purpose of enticing us to commit sin.
Temptations of this kind must never be attributed to God as their author. They are permitted by Him for the testing of our virtue and the promotion of our greater glory in Heaven; but whenever He allows Satan to tempt us, He always sets a limit to his activities. God will never allow a soul to be tempted beyond its strength and power of resistance; at the same time, He infallibly grants all the graces necessary for victory, provided the soul asks for them with humble and fervent prayer and does all in its power to refuse consent to the evil suggested*."
God did foresee the sins of Adam and Eve and knew in advance all the wiles of the Evil One. Nothing escapes His Omniscience. He gives man sufficient knowledge to exercise his free will in perfect freedom in this probationary antechamber which we call the ‘world’. Too much knowledge or too little knowledge would constrain man’s freedom. God gave Adam and Eve precisely the right amount of information about their duties towards Him. God allowed the snake to test them. And no test is worth a row of beans if the answers are supplied up front.
Hope this helps.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Not true.He gives man sufficient knowledge to exercise his free will in perfect freedom in this probationary antechamber which we call the ‘world’.
Too little would constrain man’s freedom.Too much knowledge or too little knowledge would constrain man’s freedom.
Too much - depends on how you define that. Information overload leads to paralysis analysis. But withholding critical information constrains man’s freedom.
Seriously. Do you think Adam and Eve knew that the snake was evil and not to be trusted?
If yes, they had the imperfection of stupidity.
If not, they had the imperfection of naivete.
So someone takes a course. On the first day, before the professor went over anything nor even gave out the syllabus, he does a test.And no test is worth a row of beans if the answers are supplied up front.
Everyone fails.
The test results are invalid. The professor never did the teaching first.
In the same way, Adam and Eve were not taught. Then they were punished for failing the test.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
“And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.” - Genesis 2:16-17The test results are invalid. The professor never did the teaching first.
In the same way, Adam and Eve were not taught. Then they were punished for failing the test.
Sounds like they were taught to me.
F
fhansen
Guest
We don’t know that the angels could see God immediately as per the Beatific Vision. This vision, alone, should’ve precluded any desire to turn from Him.The angels were able to see God, ordinary people don’t.
I don’t know about that. She simply lacked the loss of sanctifying grace/ original justice/holiness. She was as free to sin as Adam was at any time throughout her life. Any additional grace she may’ve received for the purpose of accomplishing her particular mission was both a hardship and a blessing-and definitively a blessing for the rest of us!She was filled with grace and had a singular specific grace put on her that we don’t have.
The catechism teaches that God made His world in a “state of journeying to perfection”. Man’s perfection is reached to the extent that he freely chooses to be completely bound to God. IOW, that he loves God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. We’re working on that now, with His help. And love, as we know, is the antidote for sin, as it ‘fulfills the law’ by its nature, making the whole equation much simpler than it would be-and was-under the Old Covenant for example.It is ridiculously easy to sin but horrificly difficult to be holy.
Sin is as easy as 2+2. Being holy is a 4th derivative calculus equation with 200,000 variables.
This is why imperfections are a bad thing.
G
grannymh
Guest
In addition to Genesis 2: 15-17 being a teachable moment, Genesis 2: 15-17 also explains that Original Sin is actually the free action of Adam’s disobedience. Because Adam’s nature includes a rational spiritual soul, Genesis 1: 27, he had the basic capability to determine right from wrong. Genesis 2: 15-17 emphasizes the right way (obedience) to remain in a creature friendship relationship with the Divine Creator.“And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.” - Genesis 2:16-17
Sounds like they were taught to me.
It is because Adam is a rational being, that is, he could figure out the difference between choosing to remain in God’s friendship and rejecting God’s friendship, Genesis 2: 17, that God could give him intellective free choice regarding the opportunity to sin.
Clarification. The reason I include Genesis 2:15 is because it establishes the original relationship between Adam and his Creator.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Show me where God taught them not to listen to the serpent, that the serpent is not trustworthy. That verse is not there.“And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.” - Genesis 2:16-17
Sounds like they were taught to me.
Now, why would Adam listen to the serpent if the serpent is telling him something contrary to what God said?
They were either
stupid - they believed the serpent’s stupid belief
naive - they believe anything anyone tells them even if it contradicts what was said moments before
prideful - they know better than God.
So, which imperfection are you going to admit they had? They were not created perfect.
Buggy software crashes, then punish the computer by throwing it out.
Imperfect people created, they fail, so punish them and their descendants by throwing them out of the Garden.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
It wasn’t necessary, God supplied them with the sufficient information.Show me where God taught them not to listen to the serpent, that the serpent is not trustworthy. That verse is not there.
But let me get this straight, God forbidding Adam from eating of the tree and warning him of the consequence was invalid, because He didn’t tell him not to listen to anyone else?
So if your father forbid you from eating poison, even after warning you of the consequence, but someone else urges you to eat the poison, you would believe your father’s warning was invalid because he didn’t tell you not to listen to anyone else?
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Then either I’m naive, stupid or prideful, or some combination of one or more. I have one or more imperfections, using your example.So if your father forbid you from eating poison, even after warning you of the consequence, but someone else urges you to eat the poison, you would believe your father’s warning was invalid because he didn’t tell you not to listen to anyone else?
In the same way, Adam & Eve had similar imperfections.
Which one will you admit Adam & Eve had?
W
Wesrock
Guest
They had none. Being capable of pride or naivete are not imperfections. They were built with capabilities and the ability to exercise these in either ordered or disordered ways. You seem to think things like pride, lust, and gluttony are separate from our good qualities. That’s not true. Sexual desire and sexual pleasure are good. It’s when we use those qualities in disordered ways, substituting them for God, that we have lust. Likewise for traits of gluttony and pride and other sins. These stem from good capabilities that we have the freedom to exercise in good or disordered ways. That’s not an imperfection or design flaw.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
Christ was perfect man and perfect God, He also said the following:Then either I’m naive, stupid or prideful, or some combination of one or more. I have one or more imperfections, using your example.
In the same way, Adam & Eve had similar imperfections.
Which one will you admit Adam & Eve had?
“Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.” - Matthew 5:48
The obvious implication being that man (in the state of grace) can be perfect.
Did you read the excerpts Francis J. Remler’s book I posted BTW?
S
SalamKhan
Guest
This too.They had none. Being capable of pride or naivete are not imperfections. They were built with capabilities and the ability to exercise these in either ordered or disordered ways. You seem to think things like pride, lust, and gluttony are separate from our good qualities. That’s not true. Sexual desire and sexual pleasure are good. It’s when we use those qualities in disordered ways, substituting them for God, that we have lust. Likewise for traits of gluttony and pride and other sins. These stem from good capabilities that we have the freedom to exercise in good or disordered ways. That’s not an imperfection or design flaw.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
“Capable” is not the same as actually having.They had none. Being capable of pride or naivete are not imperfections.
Potential and actual are not the same thing.
Either they had the imperfection of pride or not. Either they had the imperfection of naivete or not.
No. I think imperfections are bugs in our software.You seem to think things like pride, lust, and gluttony are separate from our good qualities.
God wrote buggy software, the system crashed so the solution is throw the computer out.
God created imperfect human beings, they failed, so time to kick them out of the garden.
Interesting how God placed an angel with a sword in front of the Garden AFTER Adam and Eve failed. He didn’t do that before the serpent got in, and the serpent hacked the system.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
Christ was perfect man, and yet He displayed anger, He wasn’t merely capable of it (but it was righteous anger). Does that mean Christ had the imperfection of anger?Potential and actual are not the same thing.
Either they had the imperfection of pride or not. Either they had the imperfection of naivete or not.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Humans are not reducible to software. You are right. Potential and actual are not the same thing. Adam had the potential to exercise his capabilities in a disordered way. He made that actual. There was no hack. There was no buggy software. We were intended to pursue the good and to determine ourselves how we would do so. That we did so in a disordered sense does not mean we were programmed wrong. As bad as your software analogy is, you’re also ignoring any end we were made for and insisting that the free exercise of the will was an error. You can continue to exercise Adam’s error and claim to know better than God, but that doesn’t make your analogy or view right.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Righteous anger is not an imperfection. That was the only anger he had.Christ was perfect man, and yet He displayed anger, He wasn’t merely capable of it (but it was righteous anger). Does that mean Christ had the imperfection of anger?
Now if he went around beating innocent people to a pulp in anger, that’s unrighteous anger. And an imperfection.
Big difference.
Christ is perfect. Can’t compare ordinary people to him.
S
SalamKhan
Guest
Righteous anger and unrighteous anger are both still anger; you are proving our point. Christ still actually displayed anger, which proves that anger is not intrinsically sinful.Righteous anger is not an imperfection.
Now if he went around beating innocent people to a pulp in anger, that’s unrighteous anger.
Big difference.
Similarly, the Blessed Virgin Mary also actually displayed doubt (out of her humility), which proves that not even doubt is intrinsically sinful.
To bring home the point of human traits not being instrinsically sinful, Pope St. John Paul II said:
“Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn’t misuse it.”
S
SalamKhan
Guest
Continued…
Also, you must have missed one of my previous replies, citing Matthew 5:48.
But subjecting the narrative of God punishing Adam to your blasphemous analogy is completely fine?Christ is perfect. Can’t compare ordinary people to him.
Also, you must have missed one of my previous replies, citing Matthew 5:48.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I didn’t talk about sinful, I talked about imperfection. Big difference.Righteous anger and unrighteous anger are both still anger; you are proving our point. Christ still actually displayed anger, which proves that anger is not intrinsically sinful.
Similarly, the Blessed Virgin Mary also actually displayed doubt (out of her humility), which proves that not even doubt is intrinsically sinful.
To bring home the point of human traits not being instrinsically sinful, Pope St. John Paul II said:
A life of horrific suffering is also a gift from God, I don’t want that!“Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn’t misuse it.”
My point is that if someone is created imperfect, and due to that imperfection, one commits sins, how is that different from a programmer writing buggy code, the program crashes and the programmer throws out the computer.
God wrote buggy code. It crashed, then he punishes the people for crashing?
Explain.But subjecting the narrative of God punishing Adam to your blasphemous analogy is completely fine?
Because I am an imperfect, useless piece of dust, and completely unable to understand God and how he works, I can’t understand creating people imperfectly then punishing them when those imperfections inevitably lead to someone falling, the question is not if, but when.
I can’t be perfect. Only God and the angels and saints are perfect.Also, you must have missed one of my previous replies, citing Matthew 5:48.
If me becoming perfect is not in God’s will, I’ll never be perfect, period, end of sentence. God is limited only by his will.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.