Why was the Devil allowed to lie to Eve?

[Dorothy]

God created Adam with the gift of free will allowing them to potentially to reject God’s will for his own or remain faithful. Free will does not make Adam imperfect. Adam’s abuse of his free will made him and us partially corrupted and now imperfect absent original holiness.

CCC#374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

Adam’s situation, like Mary’s situation was one of sufficient knowledge that God is good and is to be trusted. Adam said “No”; Mary said “Yes.”

Amen!!! May all come to understand this extraordinary truth. May the Lord be praised forever!

 

[Lost_Sheep]

“Why was the Devil allowed to lie to Eve?”

Who, exactly, would be the one who would allow or not allow him to lie to Eve?

 

[BobCatholic]

God created Adam with the gift of free will allowing them to potentially to reject God’s will for his own or remain faithful. Free will does not make Adam imperfect. Adam’s abuse of his free will made him and us partially corrupted and now imperfect absent original holiness.

Free will is one thing. Having imperfections that negatively impact the free will is another.

An alocholic who makes stupid decisions is not using his free will properly because he’s drunk.

If Adam & Eve had the imperfection of stupidity, they WILL make stupid decisions.

If Adam & Eve had the imperfection of pride , they WILL make prideful decisions.

If Adam & Eve had the imperfection of naivete , they WILL make naive decisions.

Just how much free will did they actually have?

Adam’s situation, like Mary’s situation was one of sufficient knowledge that God is good and is to be trusted.

Then clearly they had the imperfection of stupidity. They made a stupid decision.

How much free will did they really have?

 

[o_mlly]

Free will is one thing. Having imperfections that negatively impact the free will is another.

An alocholic who makes stupid decisions is not using his free will properly because he’s drunk.

If Adam & Eve had the imperfection of stupidity, they WILL make stupid decisions.

If Adam & Eve had the imperfection of pride , they WILL make prideful decisions.

If Adam & Eve had the imperfection of naivete , they WILL make naive decisions.

Just how much free will did they actually have?

Then clearly they had the imperfection of stupidity. They made a stupid decision.

How much free will did they really have?

The point is I think that only those with free will can make decisions. That the free will decisions may be self-centered, that is disordered to God’s will, is not necessary but only possible.

Sin is not a defect in being; it is a defect in the will which, if one is free, must have the potential to sin but never the determined obligation to sin.

 

[BobCatholic]

The point is I think that only those with free will can make decisions.

No, people who have free will can make decisions that are morally punishable in full.

If one’s free will is limited or not at all, it is unjust to punish them as if they had full free will.

Someone who has [insert mental condition] that causes them to hear voices, and are compelled to murder a room full of innocent people. Are they morally culpable? Of course not, their free will was reduced to zero.

If someone had reduced free will, a full punishment is unjust. Even scripture talks about reducing the number of lashes for one who didn’t know fully their master’s will.

Even animals make decisions. Fight or flight. Eat this. Don’t eat that. That doesn’t mean they have free will.

Anyone or anything can make decisions.

 

[o_mlly]

Free will is one thing. Having imperfections that negatively impact the free will is another.
An alocholic who makes stupid decisions is not using his free will properly because he’s drunk.
If Adam & Eve had the imperfection of stupidity, they WILL make stupid decisions.
If Adam & Eve had the imperfection of pride , they WILL make prideful decisions.
If Adam & Eve had the imperfection of naivete , they WILL make naive decisions.
Just how much free will did they actually have?
Then clearly they had the imperfection of stupidity. They made a stupid decision.
How much free will did they really have?

The point is I think that only those with free will can make decisions. That the free will decisions may be self-centered, that is disordered to God’s will, is not necessary but only possible.

Sin is not a defect in being; it is a defect in the will which, if one is free, must have the potential to sin but never the determined obligation to sin.

No, people who have free will can make decisions that are morally punishable in full.

If one’s free will is limited or not at all, it is unjust to punish them as if they had full free will.

Someone who has [insert mental condition] that causes them to hear voices, and are compelled to murder a room full of innocent people. Are they morally culpable? Of course not, their free will was reduced to zero.

If someone had reduced free will, a full punishment is unjust. Even scripture talks about reducing the number of lashes for one who didn’t know fully their master’s will.

Even animals make decisions. Fight or flight. Eat this. Don’t eat that. That doesn’t mean they have free will.

Anyone or anything can make decisions.

The discussion, as the topic indicates and your examples above show, involves moral decisions. Animals are incapable of moral acts.

Eve was knowledgeable and quite capable to resist the advances of a “talking” snake.

Of course an impaired free will diminishes or even eliminates culpability.

 

[Giovonni]

So God didn’t give us free will according to your criteria, and I do emphasis the fact that it is your criteria not God’s. Free will has nothing to do with what we know or don’t know. It’s inherent, not earned or gained.

I’m going to have to disagree here. Knowledge is vital. Without knowledge our decisions are no different than sensory reaction to stimuli. The more knowledgeable someone is about the consequence of their action, the more culpable he or she becomes.

Free will is the ability to do otherwise when presented with alternatives. How do you think choices get made if not through desire, reason and knowledge?? According to Aquinas, “Human actions are products of our own free judgement, the exercise of which is a function of both intellect and will.” “For it is through one’s ability to deliberate and judge in this way that one exercises mastery over one’s actions.” (ST IaIIae 1.1)

It still fails because it isn’t true that God created us to fail. God ever hopes that we will love him and do his will–he can do no other. It was a “happy fault” as the saints have said that we fell into sin since it gained for us our Redeemer, but God didn’t intend for us to fall into sin–for God never wills that we sin. I don’t know where you got the idea that we had to sin in order for God’s will to be accomplished but it’s simply not true.

Correct God didn’t create us to fail. He created us as part of his plan. If God is Omniscient and Omnipotent then there can be no other way. God placed us in the garden with our desires and no knowledge of evil, with the understanding of exactly what would follow. To say God didn’t intend something is to deny one of those two characteristics unless you subscribe to Open Theism.

 

[Della]

I’m going to have to disagree here. Knowledge is vital. Without knowledge our decisions are no different than sensory reaction to stimuli. The more knowledgeable someone is about the consequence of their action, the more culpable he or she becomes.

Free will is the ability to do otherwise when presented with alternatives. How do you think choices get made if not through desire, reason and knowledge?? According to Aquinas, “Human actions are products of our own free judgement, the exercise of which is a function of both intellect and will.” “For it is through one’s ability to deliberate and judge in this way that one exercises mastery over one’s actions.” (ST IaIIae 1.1)

And how did we acquire free will? Through knowledge of the world? No. We were born with it as a God-given gift. It’s just that simple.

Correct God didn’t create us to fail. He created us as part of his plan. If God is Omniscient and Omnipotent then there can be no other way. God placed us in the garden with our desires and no knowledge of evil, with the understanding of exactly what would follow. To say God didn’t intend something is to deny one of those two characteristics unless you subscribe to Open Theism.

No, I’m afraid not. Merely because God knows what will happen doesn’t mean he wills it to happen. What you are expounding is Calvinistic predestination. Adam and Eve didn’t have to fall, and Mary didn’t have to answer “Be it unto me according to your word,” either. God left those decisions up to human beings. If he hadn’t we’d not be exercising free will–we’d merely be puppets of God’s will. It would mean that no one could be held accountable for his sins–not even Judas.

 

[Giovonni]

And how did we acquire free will? Through knowledge of the world? No. We were born with it as a God-given gift. It’s just that simple.

So by your logic a child is born with free will and could be sent to hell based on their choices. No, I don’t accept that and I don’t think anyone else does either.

No, I’m afraid not. Merely because God knows what will happen doesn’t mean he wills it to happen. What you are expounding is Calvinistic predestination. Adam and Eve didn’t have to fall, and Mary didn’t have to answer “Be it unto me according to your word,” either. God left those decisions up to human beings. If he hadn’t we’d not be exercising free will–we’d merely be puppets of God’s will. It would mean that no one could be held accountable for his sins–not even Judas.

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will. - Ephesians 1:4-5

 

[Della]

So by your logic a child is born with free will and should be sent to hell based on their choices. No, I don’t accept that and I don’t think anyone else does either.

Why does a child have to go to hell for having free will? That’s not Church teaching. We go to hell if we are culpable of mortal sin–which children under the age of reason are incapable of, not because we have free will.

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will. - Ephesians 1:4-5

St. Paul wasn’t talking about the salvation of each individual in that passage. He was merely pointing out that God had always intended our redemption to be in Christ. Once again, you are expounding Calvinism–his principle of double predestination, which, once again, is not Catholic teaching. Don’t yank phrases/verses out of context. You can make the Bible support anything by doing that.

You may want to have a good talk with your priest since you seem to have some very un-Catholic ideas brewing in your head.

 

[BobCatholic]

Eve was knowledgeable and quite capable to resist the advances of a “talking” snake.

If that were true, she’d either be stupid, prideful, arrogant, or have another imperfection.

Of course an impaired free will diminishes or even eliminates culpability.

My point exactly.

 

[Giovonni]

Why does a child have to go to hell for having free will? That’s not Church teaching. We go to hell if we are culpable of mortal sin–which children under the age of reason are incapable of, not because we have free will.

I said a child *could *go to hell under your logic. Of course they should not. Now you’ve just stated that someone must have sufficient use of reason to be culpable of mortal sin.

St. Paul wasn’t talking about the salvation of each individual in that passage. He was merely pointing out that God had always intended our redemption to be in Christ. Once again, you are expounding Calvinism–his principle of double predestination, which, once again, is not Catholic teaching. Don’t yank phrases/verses out of context. You can make the Bible support anything by doing that.

You may want to have a good talk with your priest since you seem to have some very un-Catholic ideas brewing in your head.

Again, I agree with you that God always intended our redemption to be in Christ. If you subscribe to Molinism, God has knowledge of how Adam and Eve would freely respond in various circumstances. Using middle knowledge God could place Adam and Eve in the garden with the serpent, knowing it would lead to the fall. God knows all possible worlds but he actualized this one, thus bringing about his predestined plan for salvation. Last I checked Molinism is a perfectly valid for Catholics to subscribe too.

 

[Della]

I said a child *could *go to hell under your logic. Of course they should not. Now you’ve just stated that someone must have sufficient use of reason to be culpable of mortal sin.

I never stated that a child could go to hell merely because he has free will. That was YOUR idea, not mine. So, why try to make my clarification sound like a back-peddle when it’s nothing of the sort.

Again, I agree with you that God always intended our redemption to be in Christ. If you subscribe to Molinism, God has knowledge of how Adam and Eve would freely respond in various circumstances. Using middle knowledge God could place Adam and Eve in the garden with the serpent, knowing it would lead to the fall. God knows all possible worlds but he actualized this one, thus bringing about his predestined plan for salvation. Last I checked Molinism is a perfectly valid for Catholics to subscribe too.

No, God didn’t “actualize” the fall of man–just another way of saying he made it happen. He allowed it, but he didn’t make it happen no matter how you state it. He left the decision to obey him or not entirely up to Adam and Eve–for they were in his grace and ought to have made their decision to obey him through his grace. He didn’t make them do anything, but he would have enabled them to be obedient if they had willed to be obedient. If he had made them fall he couldn’t possibly have punished them for it because it would not have been their decision–their fault, but his.

I don’t subscribe to Molinism–free will which acts without the grace of God, as if it didn’t depend on God’s grace to act as he intended it should. Adam and Eve had God’s grace and communed with him in it. Where they failed was in defying God’s grace–defying why God had given them free will in the first place–so that their love and trust in him would be genuine, not forced upon them–as Our Blessed Lady cooperated fully with the grace God had given her of her own free will. But they chose to use the great gift of free will to spite God’s grace rather than cooperate with it, thus they spoiled it and used it improperly, falling from grace in the process.

 

[Giovonni]

I never stated that a child could go to hell merely because he has free will. That was YOUR idea, not mine. So, why try to make my clarification sound like a back-peddle when it’s nothing of the sort.

On one hand you say Adam had free will, therefore he is culpable for the fall and his lack of knowledge is irrelevant. When I show you that children have free will (since you say we are all born with it), then you say they aren’t culpable because they lack reason (knowledge). That is a contradiction. At least we can agree that children aren’t culpable.

No, God didn’t “actualize” the fall of man–just another way of saying he made it happen. He allowed it, but he didn’t make it happen no matter how you state it. He left the decision to obey him or not entirely up to Adam and Eve–for they were in his grace and ought to have made their decision to obey him through his grace. He didn’t make them do anything, but he would have enabled them to be obedient if they had willed to be obedient. If he had made them fall he couldn’t possibly have punished them for it because it would not have been their decision–their fault, but his.

I don’t subscribe to Molinism–free will which acts without the grace of God, as if it didn’t depend on God’s grace to act as he intended it should. Adam and Eve had God’s grace and communed with him in it. Where they failed was in defying God’s grace–defying why God had given them free will in the first place–so that their love and trust in him would be genuine, not forced upon them–as Our Blessed Lady cooperated fully with the grace God had given her of her own free will. But they chose to use the great gift of free will to spite God’s grace rather than cooperate with it, thus they spoiled it and used it improperly, falling from grace in the process.

You may not agree with Molinism, but as a Catholic I am able to subscribe to it as a theologically acceptable position.

 

[Della]

On one hand you say Adam had free will, therefore he is culpable for the fall and his lack of knowledge is irrelevant. When I show you that children have free will (since you say we are all born with it), then you say they aren’t culpable because they lack reason (knowledge). That is a contradiction. At least we can agree that children aren’t culpable.

It’s not a contradiction since Adam was an adult and therefore fully culpable for his actions and decisions. His free will, as is ours, was innate, not something he acquired through knowledge and has nothing to do with culpability unless culpability applies, such as age of reason, etc. I am not wrong about it and tha’s all there is to it.

You may not agree with Molinism, but as a Catholic I am able to subscribe to it as a theologically acceptable position.

I didn’t write that I “do not agree with” Molinism, I wrote that I do not subscribe to it–as the model which explains free will, since it doesn’t take God’s grace into account. You, OTOH, don’t. subscribe to Molinism at all. Molina would not agree that you do. Everything you’ve written is pure Calvinism–which Molina very much disagreed with.

Please don’t bother replying. I’m done with this thread. We’ve veered away from the OP’s question as it is and I’ve written all I care to. I won’t go around in circles when I’ve made my position clear and know that it is right–and would satisfy any true Molinist, which you are not.

 

[Giovonni]

It’s not a contradiction since Adam was an adult and therefore fully culpable for his actions and decisions. His free will, as is ours, was innate, not something he acquired through knowledge and has nothing to do with culpability unless culpability applies, such as age of reason, etc. I am not wrong about it and tha’s all there is to it.

I didn’t write that I “do not agree with” Molinism, I wrote that I do not subscribe to it–as the model which explains free will, since it doesn’t take God’s grace into account. You, OTOH, don’t. subscribe to Molinism at all. Molina would not agree that you do. Everything you’ve written is pure Calvinism–which Molina very much disagreed with.

Please don’t bother replying. I’m done with this thread. We’ve veered away from the OP’s question as it is and I’ve written all I care to. I won’t go around in circles when I’ve made my position clear and know that it is right–and would satisfy any true Molinist, which you are not.

Sorry, but if you address me I am going to respond. You have the choice not to respond. Your logic is simply flawed. Free will, knowledge and culpability are intertwined and related to why the serpent was allowed into the garden in the first place and why Adam fell. Secondly, Cambridge defines not subscribing to something as, “to not agree with”. Your writing is full of contradictions. As for what I subscribe too, you don’t know what I do or don’t so please stop with the ad hominem attacks. I never mentioned double predestination or God as the author of sin. God’s plan was eternal and he knew from before his creation how Adam would respond to the serpent. That is textbook Molinism.