A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

Faith & Science Conversation
1527

I basically share the doctrine of St. Gregory Palamas, as stated in a previous post:

You state:

I state:

evolution points and testifies its creator.

It looks like we are stating the same.

My view is as follows:

  1. If Adam had not disobeyed but grew in grace and knowledge from God he would have remained “in the garden”, that is, in the state of original holiness and justice.

  2. Adam’s children, would have been born in “the garden”, that is, in the state of original holiness and justice.

  3. Adam’s children would NOT have been born confirmed in grace, that is, they could have fallen into sin.

Do you oppose any of these three tenets?

I find this interpretation very inspiring and endorse it. In my wording:

After their sin Adam and Eve remained (a) submitted to the animalistic (Darwinian) tendencies of the Sapiens creatures God made them from, and (b) deprived of the grace for mastering such tendencies.
In other words, in “their new nature” concupiscence was overriding.

1528

This is a very good question!

I would say: God is personal love, and therefore God is family life.

Because of his love, God wants us to be part of his family, and so created us.

Looking at us from OUR perspective, we could consider that “God does not need us”, “he could have done without us”, and so our life is purposeless.

However, looking at us from GOD’s perspective the conclusion is that “God wants us to be part of his family”, and therefore “he could not have done without us”: we are called to eternal life and bliss in God.

1529

I would be thankful to know why you find Dunbar’s reasoning odd.

1530

“I basically share the doctrine of St. Gregory Palamas”

I would be thankful to hear more of what specifically you share with respect to the doctrine of St. Gregory Palamas. You used one sentence to deal with “influences coming from outside the space-time”, whereas that’s not really what Palamas was dealing with, in response to Barlaam, right Antoine? The term “space-time” wasn’t in anyone’s thoughts yet, as you surely know.

I could tell you why I find Dunbar’s reasoning odd, from an anthropological perspective. But that would require philosophy and culture to be involved also, not only Dunbar’s “naturalistic anthropological science”. It would be much more helpful if GJDS and I could hear more from you about what you supposedly agree with us about regarding Palamas, but which somehow is not present, or barely visible in your quantum palaeotheological writings about “original or ancestral sin”.

GJDS says: “the creation points and testifies its creator.”

Antoine responds: “evolution points and testifies its creator. It looks like we are stating the same.”

No, it doesn’t look the same. Many of the letters are different. It’s a term with a very different semantic meaning.

GJDS’s statement is meaningful, while Antoine’s seems to display a kind of soft scientism. Antoine’s message is basically that “history points and testifies to its creator.” There are many natural scientific theories that involve history, however, which don’t try to exaggerate how “science testifies to God”. That’s exactly what Stephen Meyer at the DI is doing with the return of his “scientific God hypothesis” talk. Science concluding God, that’s the language they use with ID theory’s weaponized scientistic apologetics. Turning to Palamas offers a way out of that Seattle-based noise.

1 Like
1531

I quote from a preceding post:

1532

In baseball, Antoine, that would be called a “strike 1”. You swung, and missed.

You gave a one sentence question that you think St. Gregory Palamas was “attempting to solve”. This is not a sufficient answer, Antoine. Please, go read Palamas, then come back to the conversation, otherwise the conversation will be futile.

You may realize that what GJDS has been asking you for quite some time is actually a missing piece that would become a “pearl of great price” for you. That is, if your local Catholic priest would allow you to read Palamas. Instead, you’ve advocated Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a highly dubious and questionable figure, who was deemed a heretic for his writings (e.g. about original sin) by the Catholic Church and given a monitum. Otoh, Palamas’ teachings (beyond a one-liner, OK, Antoine?) have been accepted by the Church, in line with the teachings of the apostles through Christ.

You are choosing the heretic as your role model in communication, instead of the saint. Why, Antoine?

1533

I elaborate with pleasure:

The key to St. Gregory Palamas theology is “theosis”, the deification of man, which is achieved through the cooperation of the human being with God operations (so called “uncreated energies”).

The Eastern Orthodox teaching of Theosis goes back to St. Irenaeus (130-202 AD), who was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who in turn had been taught by St. John Apostle and Evangelist. Irenaeus elaborates the basic statement in the Prolog of St. John Gospel: “The Word became flesh” to conclude:

  • And then, again, this Word was manifested when the Word of God was made man, assimilating Himself to man, and man to Himself, so that by means of his resemblance to the Son, man might become precious to the Father. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, 16.2).

This means:

By making “humankind in the image of God”, God orders and calls humans to eternal life (“beatific vision”). This requires the deification of the human body as well. God “solves this problem” by Incarnation, as Irenaeus brilliantly states.

In summary, by creating the world God aims at once to bring about humankind and prepare the body for his Son to make it possible to divinize humankind.

My point is that for unfolding all what pertains to sustaining “earthly life” God acts by means of “created energies” (mainly invisible intellects or angels). The result of the operations by these invisible mighty computational intelligences is the highly complex ecological regulation we call today “evolution”.

By contrast to the sake of unfolding "eternal life” God acts by means of the operation of the Holy Spirit into human hearts, which corresponds to Palamas’ “uncreated energies”. Regarding Palamas’ spiritual method [hesychasm], John Paul II acknowledged its validity

  • to emphasize the concrete possibility that man is given to unite himself with the Triune God in the intimacy of his heart, in that deep union of grace which Eastern theology likes to describe with the particularly powerful term of “theosis”, “divinization”.

Nonetheless to the extent that “evolution” is wanted by God to the aim of the deification of humankind after all, one can say that evolution itself is somewhat driven and sustained by “uncreated energies”, in agreement with GJDS:

I think it is interesting to complete St. Gregory Palamas with a more ancient Eastern Father, St. Maximus the Confessor. Summarizing the teaching of Maximus Pope Benedict XVI states in the General audience of July 25, 2008:

  • God entrusted to man, created in his image and likeness, the mission of unifying the cosmos. And just as Christ unified the human being in himself, the Creator unified the cosmos in man. He showed us how to unify the cosmos in the communion of Christ and thus truly arrived at a redeemed world. Hans Urs von Balthasar, one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century, referred to this powerful saving vision when, “relaunching” Maximus - he defined his thought with the vivid expression Kosmische Liturgie, “cosmic liturgy”. Jesus, the one Saviour of the world, is always at the centre of this solemn “liturgy”. The efficacy of his saving action which definitively unified the cosmos is guaranteed by the fact that in spite of being God in all things, he is also integrally a man and has the “energy” and will of a man.

And it is also interesting to compare this text with what Benedict XVI stated one year later in a Homily on July 24, 2009:

  • The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.
1 Like
1534

Antoine, I appreciate your comments on theosis and the uncreated energies. The discussion on your blog has more to do with your notion that the paradigm of biology somehow reveals how and why God created the earth and humanity, and implications for the divine image, Adam and Eve and original sin.

My comments instead have been to point out that the energies/dynamics of God sustain and direct all things on earth and this also conforms to the transcendence and simplicity of God. Thus all that we can intelligently obtain from scientific studies, and matters that science may not comprehend, are encapsulated in the divine energies. This means, amongst other things, there is no separation between what may be regarded as “natural” and “supernatural”, nor is God required to “work through laws of science” (whatever that means), nor through evolution, etc.

I also point out that this does not lead to open theology or external input - God created all from nothing including time and space and He has determined things from alpha to omega. The debates should instead deal with salvation in Christ, and why we sin and are in need of redemption. So somehow, freedom is embedded in our being and all that flows from this, and we struggle to understand ourselves and continue to discuss theodicy.

1 Like
1535

Thanks for this. You have very well understood my purpose.

You address here different issues:

Regarding the “separation between what may be regarded as ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’”:
It seems very much a matter of how you define ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’. I think it is safe to state that animals are not called and ordered to the “beatific vision” of God in heaven, but only destined to unfold an “earthly life” . In this sense one can say that functions like breathing, eating, growing, sleeping, etc. are “natural”, while operations of the Holy Spirit like forgiveness of sins are “supernatural”.
Certainly, from the perspective of God you can consider that all is “encapsulated in the divine energies”.

Regarding “laws of science”:
Quantum paradoxes like “the Schrödinger cat” and “Wigner’s friend” clearly show that “there are no inexorable laws” in science. God shape the ordinary world in time and space, where we live and move in, by means of mathematics in order we can calculate, predict, develop technologies, and so unfold a happy earthly life. Nonetheless for different reasons (specially for the sake of salvation) God can bring about extraordinary phenomena, which deviate from the ordinary patterns we are used to, as it happens in miracles.

This is an important comment meeting what I think is the main aim of this thread. I will answer in a coming post.

1536

This is what I am looking for in this thread!
So, I would very much like discussing this issue in depth with you in the coming posts.

You state:

Here you seem to assume that after “having disobeyed” Adam and Eve were banished outside the garden and got “a new nature”.
By your interpretation of the “animal skins” you convey the idea that this “new nature” was a state where the original holiness was overwhelmed by animalistic tendencies.

I would like to start the debate you want to have by asking the following question:

The children of Adam and Eve outside the garden:

Were they born sharing the original state of holiness Adam and Eve had in the garden before disobedience, or the “new (animalistic) nature” they got outside the garden?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

1537

No. I mean their nature was now subject to sin and resulting consequences.

1538

Many thanks!

I dare to ask further:

Was the nature of the children of Adam and Eve at the moment of birth outside the garden already “subject to sin and resulting consequences” ?

1539

The nature of children is that of the parents; your comment may infer that sin is something biological. Instead we consider intent, attributes, choice etc., and the acts that result. We know that A&E and their children were outside the garden, outside a sacred place and instead were placed in an environment that was challenging. Sin is acting contrary to God’s law; this passage gives a clearer understanding:

The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”
The Revised Standard Version. 1971 .

1540

I fully agree with you in that sin is not “something biological”, but “acting contrary to God’s law”.

Nonetheless, the children of Adam and Eve did not act contrary to God’s law before reaching a certain age.

Now you state that “the nature of these children is that of their parents Adam and Eve” and like their parents they

As I understand, these statements amount to say that:

The nature of the children of Adam and Eve is that of their parents in the sense that they were in need of Redemption, even before they themselves personally acted contrary to God’s law.

I would be thankful to know whether or not you agree with this interpretation.

1541

No. What I have said is that all of us need to avoid sin and this is done by avoiding anger, jealousy, envy, murder, etc. Children are innocent until they display and act on these traits.

It is universally known that we as human beings have sinned and are in need of redemption.

1542

I fully agree with this.

Undoubtedly they are totally innocent of any own act contrary to God’s law.

But are you meaning that the children of Adam and Eve were not in need of Redemption, and in this sense their nature was NOT that of their parents A&E, until they acted contrary to God’s law?

1543

No. They were outside the garden and the tree of life. Your phrasing is odd, as the propensity to err and sin is present in human beings, including children. I cannot follow your reasoning, and my previous quote of Genesis shows “sin is at your door…”

1 Like
1544

I try to formulate my reasoning more precisely:

Consider the two Scenarios :

  1. Adam and Eve did not disobey and remained inside the garden.

  2. Adam and Eve disobeyed and, as a consequence, they were condemned to live outside the garden: animal skins were provided to them “figuratively of their new nature”.

Now you claim that:

So according to you, the nature of the children of Adam and Eve born inside the garden (Scenario 1) would NOT have been the same as the nature of the children of Adam and Eve born outside the garden (Scenario 2).

1545

Your scenarios are mistaken, and we are dealing with scripture and not maybees… but to indulge you, if A&E obeyed God they would have grown in God’s grace and care until they had matured and were granted the fruit from the tree of life. We do not know anything about offspring in such a case, and only know of events unfolding after disobedience.

1 Like
1546

Many thanks for “indulging”. I completely agree with your answer.

However, “dealing with scripture and not maybes” we read in Genesis 1:27-28 :

God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number;

So, we know something “about offspring in such a case”:
According to scripture God’s wanted Adam and Eve to have offspring before they had disobeyed.

Now, according to your principle (“the nature of children is that of the parents”) this offspring “would have grown in God’s grace and care” (i.e.: “inside the garden and the tree of life”).

By contrast, after Adam and Eve disobeyed their offspring was “outside the garden and the tree of life” and shared “the propensity to anger, jealousy, envy, murder, etc.”

So following your reasoning we are led to conclude that the “nature” of the offspring of Adam and Eve after these disobeyed clearly deviates from the “nature” the offspring of Adam and Eve would have had if their parents had NOT disobeyed.

Thanks in advance for your reply.