Course on Grace: Grace considered Extensively, Grace to Adam [Catholic and Open]

Deiform Man. What graces were given to Adam in the state of original justice? The array of graces that made him supernatural man: the Indwelling Trinity – sanctifying grace – infused virtues – gifts of the Holy Spirit. What kind of man may we now call him? Sanctified, divinized, deified – but the term we like best, the one which many Fathers and St. Thomas have used, is deiform. Adam was God-like; two complementary “natures” were united, interwoven, into one deiform man. Adam was not God; he was not made ever into God. But he was made god-like, a deiform man, lifted up as it were into the realm of God. And it was sanctifying grace that gave him this deiform nature, infused virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit that gave him his deiform powers, the Indwelling Trinity that caused and conserved all these graces in him.

We find in him also certain preternatural gifts: integrity, impassibility, immortality, infused knowledge. We call these graces, too. But while the graces mentioned above (sanctifying grace, etc.) are absolutely supernatural, since they are not due to any created nature, the preternatural gifts are relatively supernatural (supernatural relatively to human nature) since they are undue to human nature, but are due to angelic nature.

Integrated Man. The gift of integrity effected a harmonious relation between flesh and spirit in Adam, by completely subordinating his animal passions to his reason. There was no precipitous pull of passion before or against reason. This gift that put harmony and order in Adam (and Eve) gave him another likeness to God, Who is perfect Order. With such perfect order and control it is hard to understand how Adam could sin. Yet we must remember that he was free, and freedom is a tremendous power – to say NO to God.

By these preternatural gifts in Adam, he became something that we are not, even when we are baptized. He became an integrated man. Human nature is not perfect in itself, and is certainly not the perfect thing that some would have us believe. If man had been created with natural endowments alone (pure nature), there would still have been the seeds of conflict within him. For in man, God has done the seemingly impossible: He has combined “incompatibles,” matter and spirit. The body goes quickly to the things of sense; the mind goes more slowly to things of the spirit. Thus, there are roots of disorder in man’s very nature. St. Paul spoke so eloquently of this battle, this conflict in man (Rom. 7). In Adam, God did not remove the disorderly tendencies, but by the gift of integrity He put in him a principle of control.

Adam likewise had, of course, natural endowments of body, mind, and a will which was free. His nature was like ours, but probably very much better.

Original Plan. What was God’s “original” plan with regard to men? All these gifts to Adam were intended for the human race. We, too, would have been born with the whole line of supernatural gifts, as well as with the preternatural gifts. (The gift of infused knowledge is disputed – perhaps it would have been given only to Adam, who was made “adult” and as King of Creation needed it – to know and name the animals, plants, etc., etc.). We would have been in sanctifying grace, but not confirmed in it; we would have been free to sin and might have sinned. But we, too, would have been: deiform and integrated human beings.

The Fall. What intervened to disrupt God’s plan? Sin, the sin of Adam. And was it a grave sin? Yes. The consequences for Adam were loss of the supernatural gifts (except faith and hope??) and of the preternatural gifts: he became subject to concupiscence, pain, suffering and death of the body. And hell – eternal “death” of the soul – would be his lot unless God would show special mercy. For us the consequences were the same.

Many struggled with this question of original sin. One of these was Pelagius, born either in England or Ireland. He later went to Rome. As spiritual director there, he heard people complaining in discouragement that they were unable to keep from sin, through lack of grace. From his own disturbance he emerged with an amazing answer: there is nothing wrong with human nature, no such weakness in it. Man is a moral superman, strong and independent, full master of his destiny: he can do anything, avoid every sin, do any good, even gain the Beatific Vision – without grace. Adam had no grace, lost none for us; in fact he never fell. There was no fall, there is no original sin and hence no need of grace or baptism to remit this sin.

St. Augustine of Hippo struck out fiercely against this, and wrote out boldly: Nature can do nothing without grace. The controversy was on – with some monks in Africa, who felt Augustine had gone too far. St. Augustine clarified his position: nature can do nothing salutary, nothing conducive to salvation, without grace. But can human nature do all things natural to it – can it keep the whole moral law – without grace? We answer with St. Thomas and the Church: for a short time, yes; but for a long time, no.

The Fall, then, was devastating. And its extent? Is there complete darkness of mind? Complete loss of freedom? Is man a slave to his passions? Is he depraved? Is his nature corrupted? Luther and Calvin said, Yes. But the Church says, No: man is only deprived – of superadded gifts. The Fall wrought great harm: man lost those supernatural and preternatural gifts, but not free will. Without grace man can still know God and other speculative and moral truths, and can do naturally good acts. But he cannot keep the whole natural law, without grace, for a long time. He is not corrupted or depraved; he is deprived of supernatural and preternatural gifts.

God has not made man too strong in himself. As if perhaps to say: “I made angels strong, and many of them did not need Me. I will make man to lean on Me.” So it is God’s part to give grace, and man’s to pray for it and use it. Prayer is man’s expression of his need, salutary prayer; grace is God’s answer to man’s need expressed in salutary prayer.

Orginal Sin. Man in the state of original sin lacks sanctifying grace, and this is not mere absence; it is a privation. Something is not there in the soul which should be there. Moreover, there is the habitual inordinate tendency of the sense appetite, the proneness to inordinate appetition that we call concupiscence.

If God had washed His hands of man, so to speak, and left him alone, what would have happened to him? All those dying as infants would have gone to Limbo, it seems. All adults would have gone to hell, since without grace they could not long keep the entire natural law, could not long keep out of mortal sin. So if they lived long enough they would sin, die in sin and go to hell. Would there be anything contrary to justice in this? No. God could have left man thus; but we say He would not, and He did not.

The Promise. God promised man a Redeemer. This was a serious, operative promise – that would be infallibly fulfilled. And something happened immediately. Grace flowed again into the world as soon as God made that Promise – in virtue of the foreseen merits of the Redeemer. “I will put enmity between thee and the Woman, between her seed and your seed:” these were not empty words. God acted. Instantly a whole new providence, so to speak, comes into play.

God’s providence is amazing, infallible, inscrutable, reaching from end to end mightily, ordering all things smoothly. Now grace was given to Adam in view of the merits of Christ. Adam is no longer King and Center, and Eve is no longer Queen. Christ is the King of the New Order; Our Lady replaces Eve as its Queen.

Is the “second providence” greater that the first? It seems so. The Church in her liturgy sings, “O felix culpa.” Man is now centered in someone else than Adam: in Christ, the God-Man, King of angels and men. All creation is turned to this new Center. Angels apparently had the first and greatest place. Yet it seems that God loved man more than the angels. When man sinned, God sent God in the form of man so that what man had undone, Man would restore. And Our Lady? She is Woman. Again and again the bond between the New Testament and the Old seems reiterated when Our Lord speaks to Our Lady as Mulier, “Woman”, with no further qualification. “Woman, what is that to Me and to thee?” “Woman, behold thy son.” We feel carried back to the promise in the Garden, “I will put enmity between thee and the Woman.” Who else was the Woman of the Garden – but Our Lady, the Second Eve?

Who received the first grace after the Fall? Adam, it seems to us, then Eve. This first grace might well have been an actual grace of repentance. Did this grace flow, so to speak, from precisely the same source as before? No; before Adam sinned he had the grace of God; after he sinned he had the grace of Christ, that is, grace dependent on the merits of Christ, the Redeemer, Who would surely come and redeem.

When Hardon denies that the Adamic story is the direct outcome of God's plan for human failure ("What intervened to disrupt God's plan?"), he makes God a surprised bystander (or a hand-wringing buffoon) who must scramble for a plan B. What about the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world? So, God didn't know what was going to happen? He really did not know where Adam was when He asked, "Adam, where are you?"? The whole Hardon trail points in the wrong direction right from the beginning.

I would submit that the whole piece is built somewhat narrowly... And it deals with 'fallen man' as a problem internal to man alone. The resulting curse from the original sin is not on man alone, but on the whole of creation - While there are no doubt 'things internal', a broader scope would need to be applied.

How does one define 'natural man', if the entirety of what we perceive to be 'natural' is not in it's original state?

And could it be that no 'graces' have been lost at all, but that the alterations in the natural environment and in physical man have left him in a condition wherein the comfortable choice... feeding his belly, as it were... is a powerful distraction which leads man inevitably to depravity, even as it leads him inevitably to plow the ground?

This seems a more reasoned (or at least as reasoned) approach, and is not so unnecessarily convoluted - And it also explains why the sins of Adam are conveyed upon his progeny throughout time - Something which would otherwise seem to be an unjust result.

Re: Faith is simply a belief in what someone says.

"Now faith is the [hypostasis] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

"Can you relate these two statements?

The first statement is a definition of faith and is a universal and objective definition of the word that that applies in any and all rational beings. ie. persons. It is belief based on the trust held for the particular person(s) presenting the thing to be believed. Trust is a decision the person makes based on the particulars of some set of evidence held by the believer, regarding the honesty and integrity of the claimant. Notice that the evidence does not apply to the claim to be believed, because that evidence is almost always not available. This definition applies universally, not only to all persons, but to any and all rational intelligent machines.

The second statement is Hebrews, as given in Douay Rheims, or King James 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not."

The statement refers to the beliefs themselves, which are the things hoped for and believed without evidence. Paul says that the beliefs themselves function as "evidence". In a rational system, that can been understood as beliefs being priors, or prior knowledge, but never factual evidence. Faith based beliefs can not be factual evidence, by their very nature. Knowledge is the entirety of a set of beliefs held in general, without regard to the nature of acquisition, or justifications for including an item in that set.

Hebrews 11:1 is not a precise definition of faith, which in order to be precise must include the characteristics of acquisition and the nature of the justifications for believing.

Thanks. Very nice. Only quibble would be that I don’t think a definition has to be a complete account, which I understood you to suggest.

I may be hanging around the ecclesiastical shoppe today and maybe I can churn out a kind of comment from Aquinas’s POV.

Isn’t ANYBODY going to ask about my signature tag? Hint: I said it tease a sister lay Dominican who is a charismatic.

And, while it is obvious that you have deep connections to the Organization (which I consider the errant perpetrator of an instituional and non-biblical theology), it seems you wander dangerously close to allowing the Book to tell the story and out where the Son of God, alone, is the Head of His body.

Shhhhhh! Don't say that too loudly!

They even let me teach some times!

And one of the things I teach (I admit it, I'm a clown) is... well I like to teach sitting down and I'm talking about the Fall and suddenly I bend over, look at the floor, and point as if looking down from heaven and say, "Wait! What? Hey Gabe! Mike! Get over here! You see that? I can't buhLEEVE they're DOING that!" Then I turn to the class and say,"It's not like that."

We think God is outside of time and sees the whole thing at once. He doesn't "FORE-see" anymore than he changes his mind. Yet first it's REALLY hard to talk or too think that way, and second we have language all over the Torah the presents God as "repenting of the evil" after he sees some change in behavior or hears Moses or something.

But we don't think that God kind of looked around and said, "Oh boy, what're we gonna do now?"

But then, I often offer as a proof of the Christian religion that it spread for centuries before the discovery of coffee.

I mean, just think: All these people standing around after Mass with donuts in their hands and thinking,"I don't know, but I just feel I should be holding something warm."

One of my best teachers said that the trouble with theology is that you need to say everything at once, because you always leave something out -- it's inherent in temporality and in the nature of language.

So yes, I think Hardon's intent is circumscribed and his discourse, which is virtually schematic in any case, suffers from that.

How does one define 'natural man', if the entirety of what we perceive to be 'natural' is not in it's original state?

I think we can extrapolate somewhat. I'd GUESS something like this: God don't make no junk. The things that are natural to man are, simply considered, good. It's the relationship that's messed up. (I think the main theme of the 'curse' is trashed relationships -- with God, with creation, with one another, and with ourselves.) So I think we can look at the goods and imagine what they would be like unhampered and in a proper relationship.

I'll have to cogitate on the passing down issue. Good thoughts. And could it be that no 'graces' have been lost at all, but that the alterations in the natural environment and in physical man have left him in a condition wherein the comfortable choice... feeding his belly, as it were... is a powerful distraction which leads man inevitably to depravity, even as it leads him inevitably to plow the ground?

"I mean, just think: All these people standing around after Mass with donuts in their hands and thinking,"I don't know, but I just feel I should be holding something warm.""

Cute. But, this implies the donut was invented by the Roman Catholic Church, too. I mean, sheesh, the pretzel, double entry bookkeeping, AND the donut? Well, I am pretty sure that us protesters invented the...lawnmower?

"We think God is outside of time and sees the whole thing at once. He doesn't "FORE-see" anymore than he changes his mind. Yet first it's REALLY hard to talk or too think that way,... On this matter, however, I have to take issue. CS Lewis was firmly aligned with your view, here. He argued, as you did, that God sees all things at once and that therefore there is no "yesterday" "today" or "tomorrow" for Him to see. It just all appears to Him. Sadly (for the free will advocates) this argument is eminently weak.

Read the claim carefully. Of course God sees everything at once. The problem of "foreknowledge" is just that. What God sees at all moments is "something" and that thing which He sess He is His plan designed after the counsel of His will. We are all moving exactly, and only, toward that thing He sees at all moments. There can be nothing else that could happen. (Must I cite the passages contending this?) There are not an infinite number of outcomes that He is seeing as He tries to become a better guesser of which one might actually transpire and adapting to get His "hopes" to come true, in spite of the eventual outcome. Surely, you don't teach this in your sit-down sessions. Lewis thought this raised the nobility of man and solved his need for "free will", but it actually proves divine determinism.

"...and second we have language all over the Torah the presents God as "repenting of the evil" after he sees some change in behavior or hears Moses or something."

Now this...this is an interesting matter. I would not agree that it is "all over the Torah", but there are remarks that God was sorry He created man and a couple other matters. (Gen. 8?). What though should I conclude from your statement?

If you like philosophy (and headaches) you should try Whitehead's “Process and Reality.” He argues that God does not “need” to be eternal (as I am using the term).

The standard, and glib, answer to the objection is, “Knowing isn't causing,” and therefore God can know what man “will” do without causing it.

But this is the point where my brain starts turning to mud and dribbling out my ears. I don't see what “responsibility” can mean if there isn't freedom, but I have trouble seeing how there is freedom. How can I NOT be like the brute beasts that perish if I cannot direct my choices according to reason? (Kant has the same problem, IIRC.)

(We only say we invented the donut because otherwise somebody would say we're eating it because it's a pagan symbol, being all round and everything. We could say it's just a gentile bagel, I suppose.

(The devil invented the lawnmower. Saints use goats.)

"(The devil invented the lawnmower. Saints use goats.)"

Thank you. I will inform my wife of this very truth.

Although I am not qualified to examine ear dribblings, it certainly does not seem that your brain is thus affected. Quite the opposite.

I tried some of Whitehead's work and found it right up there with Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" (or down there, I cannot recall which). Anyway, after I got down off the stool and put the noose away, I committed to never open the books again. I have no idea why I included this.

True, theoretically God may know without causing. But, the Scriptures claim He is causing everything. I don't want to post the 35 passages that display this (unless you require it), but suffice to say that they persuade me that He knows BECAUSE He causes.

Now, what does that do for responsibility? Well, in what context do you arrive at your view of "justice"? Do I go to the unregenerate world and ask, "Is this fair? Give those of us who cling to Christ, your definition of justice" Their answer is, "In order to be considered guilty, I must be free to decide to sin." Really? So, the original sin which left all progeny guilty is "unjust" according to this? No wonder most unbelievers think Christianity is bogus. It does not match their paradigm. In their world, it is unjust that God allowed evil, at all. Thus, by their judgment, God is unjust. Hmmm.

But, if I ask God, "What do you consider fair? Please inform me as to what you have established." I find the answer, "You are guilty, helplessly, hopelessly...unless I intervene." Is this justice? Apparently, it is. Paul found a great deal of objection to this situation everywhere he went. "You will say to me then,'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?" Not fair? Paul's answer. He is the Potter and we the clay. God can make anything the way He wants to...that is because He is God.

You are not among the brute beasts, NOT because you have freedom from God, but because God has said you are not like them. Is that enough?

You just articulated THE difference between us (I think). One could phrase it as, “What is reason, and what good is it?”

In related news: Is a thing good because God does it, or does He do it because it’s good (and He is), or what? (I think the answer is “what.”)

But now I have to lie down, since the flesh appears to be in rebellion. Maybe we can work some more tomorrow.

Enjoy the snooze time.

I could not resist, however, a quick response to the phrase, “What is reason, and what good is it?” As kind as you are, I take this to be a slight pat on the head accompanied by the crooked smile. Ouch.

If you believe I have no regard for “reason”, either I am unable to communicate well or you are unable to catch what I am getting at. I absolutely believe reason is important...subordinated to God’s disclosures. If something collides with His perspective...the something needs alteration. Otherwise, the unregenerate reasoner Stephen Hawking needs to be your pope. Just sayin...

depone (put down)
serpentem ([the] snake)
et ab venono(and from the poison)
gradiri (step)
Put down the snake and step away from the poison.

And you are right about it’s being venenum not venemum.

Aquinas offers that faith is assent of the intellect directed by will to something one does not know. (or something like that.) Article 1, Question 2, II-IIae “Whether to believe is to think with assent?” Short answer: Yes. But it’s to do so about something you don’t know.

I did not at all mean to say you don’t think reason is important. Srsly. I don’t mean anything that “Either/Or”. The whole question is nuanced. And, worse, I’m not really ready to give an account of reason from my POV.

But I seriously meant the question in its own terms, not as a backhand.

Hawking! Ptui! [makes sign against the evil eye.] THAT guy couldn’t reason his way through a book of cigarette papers!

If you want to see something unusual, try Feser’s “The Last Superstition.” The guy writes like the love child of Thomas Aquinas and Ann Coulter.

The book begins with a compelling anecdote: Antony Flew, the “great” English philosopher (and professor and all that) was a professed atheist most of his life.

Toward the end of his life he became a theist. But NO sort of Xtian. Just a philosophical theist. What changed his mind?

Well, after years of professing philosophy he decided to read Aristotle. Like most academic moderns (I dare say) he “knew” that Aristotle was fusty and old and “discredited.” So he just passed that along, but never troubled to look at the guy’s work.

When he did, at long last, he was persuaded!

So of course, all the other “philosophers” began to mock him, accuse him of senility or fear of death and so forth.

It is against this crowd — indeed he’s hardly “against” them at all — that a philosophical buffoon like Hawking goes to war. And so he gets invited onto NPR where he is fawned over by people whose metaphysics, ethics, and theology is governed more by the idea of unbridled sexual intercourse than by anything else. The idea that there might be an implicit dignity or weight of glory to which humans are divinely directed or that what one does with one’s genital organs might rival sorting one’s trash for moral import is unthinkable to them.

Hawking follows neither God NOR reason, IMHO.

"Aquinas offers that faith is assent of the intellect directed by will to something one does not know."

Directed by whose will? A determinist would claim it's the particular physical arrangement of the individual's rational machinery that provided the apparent function of will. The Calvinist would claim it was god's will. A person who believes in free will would claim that the will must be the individual's will. Will though is a rather imprecise, arbitrary and thus useless term, when describing how decisions and actions are caused.

"he goes into what will- is elsewhere — at length...

Will is still an imprecise term that is not useful for understanding rational decision making.

"he would say that faith in Christ is impossible w/o grace. Faith is a “theological virtue’ in his scheme, and they’re impossible w/o grace."

Nothing is needed beyond what was provided to complete the image as per Gen 1:26-27 in order to make any decision, other than information.

The only consistent and unique meaning for the word faith, in all instances of use is that: faith refers to a belief in what someone says, based predominantly on trust, not on an analysis based on evidence. That definiiton conforms to the use in Mark 5:34, "daughter your faith has healed you". and Mark 6:6, "He was amazed at their lack of faith." Jesus most certainly was not amazed, because he had given no grace to provide for "theological virtue". He was amazed, because they made those decisions on their own while in possesion of sufficient evidence to make the correct decision.

Ignorance is relative; he died in 1274.

I don't think he was aware of such things as the nucleus accumbens, the hippocampus, the amygdala, small world networks, selective inhibitory synchrony, Baysian updating, ect... All elements of the machinery of mind. There are no graces, or virtues that effect this machinery, other than what the person chooses, as values by rational decision making processes. Pleasure(an appetite) can be a part of that, but the person must choose that as a fundamental value in order for it to.

Gen 26-27(the Image is given), Ezekiel 18(the Image is never taken away, or defect) and the passages I posted above from Mark, that are God's view on the matter(the Image is sufficient — as modern Intellegence theory indicates) of grace, faith and virtue as gifts also contradict Aquinas's claims.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

INTRODUCTION
PART ONE: GRACE CONSIDERED EXTENSIVELY
	I.	Why Grace?
	II.	What Is Grace?
	III.	Grace to the Angels
	IV.	Grace to Adam
	V.	Grace in the Old Testament
	VI.	Grace to Christ
	VII.	Justification in the New Testament

Course on Grace

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

PART ONE: GRACE CONSIDERED EXTENSIVELY

Chapter IV.

Grace to Adam