Both were to blame, not just Adam. You are incorrect to say that HE got all of thet blame...
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Tim 2:13-14
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2 Cor 11:3
The only reason why Paul mentions Adam in Romans 5 as being responsible for sin is that he is representative of mankind, being the prototype. In the first creation, we take on the attributes of this first man - esp. his propensity to sin. When made a new creation through the second man, Jesus, we take on HIS nature, the propensity towards holiness - as now, we have within us a new Spirit. Paul, in 1 Cor 15 and Rom 5 makes this comparison - not to exclude Eve from her part in the first sin, but because Paul is making an comparison and drawing out the effect that being in Christ means. Just as we are like Adam, we will be like Christ
The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 1 Cor 15:47-49
There is no need to mention Eve for Paul to make his point. What IS interesting is that less than 100 years later, people ARE making connections between Mary and Eve.
Generally speaking, we act according to our nature. IIRC, you do not believe in the sin nature of man, but the Catholics and the rest of us do.
Catholics don't believe that man has a "sinful" nature. We have a PROPENSITY to sin as a result of concupiscience. IF our nature was evil, then Jesus Christ did NOT take up our nature during the incarnation. The POTENTIAL exists for man to be sinless, in Christ (as Mary has shown). It is NOT our nature to sin - God created us GOOD. As a result of the Fall, we were wounded without the ability to reclaim that lost sanctifying grace on our own. That much we agree. But we disagree on anthropology.
Our intellect, as opposed to our nature, to choose to sin comes into play after salvation, for sin happens, even though we have a regenerated heart, and God is not the author of evil
Our intellect and will come into play in choosing evil, regardless of whether we are regenerated or not. Paul makes his case in Romans 7 - that even AFTER this regeneration, he continues to sin, he continues to battle the FLESH - which does NOT stop tempting us. We do not lose concupiscience AFTER Baptism. This is why sanctification is a necessary part of the salvation formula. Baptism is merely one step in the process of our divinization.
Does God knock on everyone's heart equally, since God loves everyone? If so, then whose intellect would choose hell over heaven? It doesn't make sense.
God does NOT knock on everyone's heart "equally", although He knocks on everyone's heart "sufficiently". I have already explained why someone would choose "hell" over "heaven". The afterlife requires faith. It is something not seen yet. Thus, someone CAN make the choice to turn from God, and do one's own will - without consideration of afterlife consequences (because that person does not believe in the afterlife). No one is choosing "hell". They either don't take it seriously or don't believe in its existence.
Doesn't God bless some more than others with intellect? Is this God's love for all?
Intellect is not required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Directing one's will to God's Will is required. The intellect guides the will, the desire to do the good. But one does not have to be "intelligent" to know and interpret that Law written on their hearts. People, even the incredibly simple, know about justice, mercy, compassion, love, and contrition, even if they cannot define them.
God does not cause us to do evil, although He remains in control of all things.
I don't see the distinction you make. It would be better to say "God allows evil for HIS own purposes. God does not cause evil". Thus, MAN is the operating agent and cause of evil. Would this be agreeable to your point of view? Classic Calvinism would say that God inevitably ALSO causes evil and actively reprobates men to hell. It is at this point where we would part company.
Regards
"God does NOT knock on everyone's heart "equally", although He knocks on everyone's heart "sufficiently""
Really? Is this an example of an instance where the Latin Church's insistence on the existence of "created grace" demonstrats a difference between Latin, or Scholastic, and Patristic theology?
"Thus, MAN is the operating agent and cause of evil."
The Evil One will be happy to hear this! Where does this come from?
Both were to blame, not just Adam. You are incorrect to say that HE got all of thet blame ...
Well, as you clarify in your post, you believe that the Fall caused us to be born lost (without God's help). Did Eve contribute to the Fall or not? If 'No', then Adam gets all the blame. If 'Yes', and Eve contributed to our being lost, then that would mean that Mary contributed to our salvation, right?
Catholics don't believe that man has a "sinful" nature. We have a PROPENSITY to sin as a result of concupiscience.
Oh, then my mistake on the sinful nature issue, sorry.
IF our nature was evil, then Jesus Christ did NOT take up our nature during the incarnation. The POTENTIAL exists for man to be sinless, in Christ (as Mary has shown).
I would say 'Yes' to the first sentence. The human nature that Jesus took on did not include our sin nature. It never applied to Him. He never sinned because it was never in His nature to sin. Christ could not have inherited Adam's sin because Adam's sin was AGAINST Christ.
So, Mary was the only human ever to live up to her potential and never sin? She bested not only all the Church Fathers and every Pope who has ever lived, but ALL OF THE APOSTLES as well. It would seem to me that if she was so incredibly superior to all of the Apostles, that she would have gotten her own book in the Bible, or at least been treated as a major figure. She got neither.
FK: "God does not cause us to do evil, although He remains in control of all things."
I don't see the distinction you make. It would be better to say "God allows evil for HIS own purposes. God does not cause evil".
I agree with both statements. I also believe that God is in control of good things.
Thus, MAN is the operating agent and cause of evil. Would this be agreeable to your point of view? Classic Calvinism would say that God inevitably ALSO causes evil and actively reprobates men to hell. It is at this point where we would part company.
In the way I think you are using the first sentence, I can agree with you. I think we would also agree that satan is a source of "evil".
Maybe, then, I am not familiar enough with Classic Calvinism. I can't think of anyone on my side who has ever argued here that God causes evil, and I don't think I have heard from anyone that God actively sends people to hell. :) The way I understand it is that God simply passes over some people and does not give them the grace they would need to be saved. He leaves them to their own natures and justice is done. There is no "duty" on God to save everyone. This is different from Him "sending" anyone to hell. Perhaps someone more experienced in Calvinism could explain this better. :)