Chapter 13 – The Testing of Angels and Men

Posted on 10/30/2018 by Dick Landkamer

Chapter 13: The Testing of Angels and Men

  1. God’s Purpose for His Creatures
    • Material Beings Are a Means to an End
      • We cannot use anything intelligently until we know the purpose for which it was made, and the sure way of determining the purpose of something is to ask its maker (173-2). So we have to look to Revelation to determine the purpose of man.
      • We see in the creation account that all material things were placed under the dominion of man.
        • “God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth’” (Gen 1:28).
      • It follows that matter is made for man and is ordered to serve him. It is given to man so as to be used to assist him in his journey to God; thus, matter is a means to an end (174-2).
        • This does not give man the right to use matter any way he wants to. Matter can only be used licitly when used according to the moral law (174-3).
          • For example, one can drink alcoholic beverages without sinning, but not to the point of drunkenness.
      • Man’s dominion over animals, which is signified in the naming of the animals of Genesis 2:19, “is a fulfillment of God’s plan for animals and man” (174-3):
        • “So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name” (Gen 2:19).
    • Spiritual Beings Are an End in Themselves
      • Rational creatures, on the other hand, (Sheed says “spiritual”; he is referring to both angels and man) are an end in themselves. They “[are] created by God and for God”; they have God Himself as their supernatural end; hence, their purpose is to serve God (174-2, CCC 27).
      • In serving God, it is necessary that spiritual beings also serve one another as “children of one Father” (174-2).
        • Being an end in themselves, rational material beings cannot be seen as objects we can manipulate for our own purposes.
          • One can legitimately hire workers, but the workers cannot be enslaved.
  2. Spirit Meant for the Beatific Vision
    • The Supernatural Destiny of Spirit
      • The destiny of spirit does not lie in its natural powers (176-1).
      • Knowing that man is an end in himself, in the natural order, doesn’t get us to the purpose for which man was created.
        • Since man’s greatest natural powers (principle operations) are to know and to love, we could easily conclude that it must be the destiny of these powers to:
          • To have a concept of God (via the intellect) that grows ever richer through a constantly increasing knowledge of Him (175-3).
          • To have a love of God (via the will) that grows ever deeper as a result of our deepening knowledge of Him (175-3).
          • To come to the point of knowing and loving God to the very limit of the natural powers of the intellect and will (175-3).
        • “Such a natural destiny would be a thing of unbelievable splendor; yet that is not [the intellect and the will’s] destiny [i.e., terminal point]” (175-3).
    • Man: Destined for the Beatific Vision
      • However, the destiny of the intellect and will is not a concept of the reality of God, but the direct experience of the reality of God Himself (176-1).
        • This is analogous to the difference between standing in front of a life-size picture of a lion and standing in front of the lion itself.
      • The direct experience of the reality of God, the seeing of God “face to face,” is called the Beatific Vision. For the person experiencing the Beatific Vision, God Himself takes the place, in the intellect, of any concept we may have of God (176-1).
        • We cannot know of the Beatific Vision by human reason alone; we know of it only via Revelation:
          • “Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2).
      • The Beatific Vision is the end for which angels and man were created. However, for this end, the natural powers of intellect and will are totally inadequate (176-1).
      • Recall that life (i.e., natural life) is a principle of operations arising from the natural powers of the soul.
        • For man, those powers are the vegetative (nutrition, growth, reproduction), the animal (appetitive, knowing, locomotion), and the rational (acts of intellect and will).
        • A being’s natural powers (i.e., the powers of a being’s nature) determine the kind of being it is.
      • Because the Beatific Vision is something beyond the natural powers of man, a principle of supernatural life is necessary for us to have the Beatific Vision (176-3).
        • Without this principle, we cannot have the Beatific Vision. We lack the power (176-3).
        • Note that the principle of supernatural life is a prerequisite for the Beatific Vision, but it does not, of itself, bring about the Beatific Vision.
        • What this supernatural life is will be discussed later in the chapter.
  3. Testing of the Angels
    • Created with the Principle of Supernatural Life
      • Angels were created with the principle of supernatural life (176-4).
      • However, it was God’s design, from the beginning, that the Beatific Vision was not to be had without a previous testing (176-4).
      • We do not know what the actual testing consisted of but we know that some of the angels failed the test (177-1)
        • Their failure was some form of self-assertion against God (177-1)
          • “In his angels he found wickedness” (Job 4:18 DR)
    • The Rebellious Angels
      • We know from Scripture that one of the rebellious angels was the leader of the rest:
        • “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels” (Mt 25:41)
        • Revelation refers to “the dragon and his angels” (Rev 12:7)
      • The most common names for the leader of the fallen angels:
        • Satan (45) – a Hebrew word meaning adversary or accuser
        • Devil (35; 72 in DR, but not all refer to the Devil) – derived from “diabolos,” a Greek work having essentially the same meaning as Satan
          • Strictly speaking, there is only one Devil; the rest are demons (177-2):
            • “But the Pharisees said, ‘He casts out demons by the prince of demons’” (Mt 9:34).
        • Lucifer (1) (light bearer) before the fall, but he is not called by this name in Scripture. The name is used to refer to Babylon, which was a place of great evil.
          • “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer [i.e., shining one; star of the morning], who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?” (Isaiah 14:12, DR).
          • “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!” (Isaiah 14:12, RSV).
        • Asmodeus (1) (Tobit 3:8)
        • A single reference to these three names: “A king, the angel of the bottomless pit; whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon; in Latin Exterminans,” (Rev 9:11, DR)
        • Belial (2 Cor 6:15)
        • Beelzebul (Mt 10:25 and six other places)
          • In the Douay Rheims version, Beelzebub, which is a contemptuous adaptation of Beelzebul meaning “Lord of the Flies” (RSV-CE footnote for Mt 12:24).
      • Jesus’ description of the Devil:
        • “He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own [fallen] nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44).
      • “If Christians can be found to ignore the other angels, it seems an excess of rashness to ignore this one” (177-3)
        • “Angels . . . can tempt him, insects can bite him. The trouble is that we are more concerned about insects than about devils” (164-1)
  4. The nature of Sin
    • Opposition to the Will of God
      • “Sin is an effort to gain something against the will of God” (178-1).
        • Being held in existence by nothing but the will of God, it is patently absurd to think that we can advance our own cause by “hacking or biting or furtively nibbling” at our lifeline to existence [and our lifeline to salvation], God’s will (178-1).
          • “In his hand is the soul of every living thing, and the life breath of all mankind” (Job 12:10 NAB).
          • “Apart from me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5).
      • Sin is incredible folly that is “made to look credible by the ease and frequency with which we do it” (178-2).
        • That is, habit predisposes us to repeated sins, and inclines us to think that what is sinful is not really sinful.
      • Pride is at the root of sin. It is the direct assertion of self against God, apart from whom we are nothing (Jn 15:5). As such, it is the worst of sins. “Other sins are an effort to gain something against the will of God; pride is the claim to be something apart from the will of God” (178-1).
        • It is also an attempt to gain something against the will of God, but the gain that is desired is essentially that of a “higher office,” that is, a higher state in the eyes of others or in one’s own eyes, and, hence, to be something other than what God has willed.
    • The Mystery of Sin
      • The madness that is sin is a profound mystery (178-2).
        • “Sin is not merely a matter of the intellect; it is also, and most especially, a matter of “that far more mysterious thing, the will, at the very ultimate point of [the will’s] mysteriousness, its freedom of choice” (178-2).
          • It would be better, perhaps, to refer to “freedom from coercion” rather than “freedom of choice,” since freedom of choice implies that neither choice enslaves. That fact is that acts contrary to the moral law do enslave.
            • “Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin’” (Jn 8:34).
        • “The will, if it wants intensely enough, can ignore the intellect’s information and go for what it wants” (178-2). Even if:
          • The intellect knows that the thing will bring disaster.
          • The intellect knows that the thing cannot be had at all.
        • “Not even by the intellect is the will coerced” (178-2).
      • The Process of Moral Choice:
        • The intellect examines of an object and judges the object as being good or evil.
        • The intellect informs the will of its judgment.
        • The will chooses that which it desires without coercion from the intellect.
    • Conscience
      • Sheed does not specifically address the nature of conscience, so a few words about conscience are appropriate at this time.
      • The intellect’s judgment is an act of conscience. Conscience is not a separate faculty of the soul. Rather, it is the intellect’s faculty of judgment.
        • Conscience is a “law of the mind” (CCC 1778), a “judgment of reason” (CCC 1778) with respect to an act measured against the natural law, which has been written in our hearts; hence, it is an act of the intellect (CCC 1778, 2070).
        • Memory is a “habit of retention” (Summa Ia, q. 79, a. 7) rather than an act; hence, it is not a power of the soul (i.e., it is not a power that can act). Similarly, conscience does not act. Rather, conscience is the name given to the acts of the intellect whose purpose it is to determine the moral character of an object. Thus, it is not a faculty of the soul; rather, it is the intellect’s faculty of judgment:
          • “The Christian conscience for believing Christians is the human mind enlightened by the Christian faith. A conscience supernaturally enlightened by faith, which enables a person to know. It is a faculty of judgment, which enables the mind to see, or grasp, or perceive what is pleasing or displeasing to God. The enlightenment of the conscience by faith is crucial. Without the mind being enlightened by faith we cannot talk about conscience, not conscience, as Christianity has understood the term for 2000 years” (Fr. Hardon)
        • The intellect’s judgment is frequently made so rapidly, that it seems as though conscience is a faculty that stands by itself and constantly monitors the situations that we find ourselves in.
          • However, this is only the case when a moral object is seen clearly, for then we typically have experience to draw upon and we act in a reflexive manner.
          • When the moral object is less clear, we have to actively apply the intellect so as to see the morality of the object more clearly. Once we clearly see the object’s moral aspect, the judgment of the intellect is, essentially, instantaneous.
      • In his letter to the Romans, Paul refers to conscience in terms of the natural law:
        • “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened” (Rom 1:20-21).
    • Sin as Nothingness
      • Recall that created beings are nothingness acted upon by omnipotence; as such, they are capable of fixing their choices on one (nothingness) or the other (omnipotence) or anything in between (178-2).
      • “To choose anything at all as apart from God is quite literally to choose nothingness, for apart from God everything is nothing. . . . We cannot be either [of the two], but we can possess either [God or nothing]” (179-1).
        • “O blind humanity, to have so lost sight of your dignity! You who were so great have become so small! You who were in command have sold yourselves into servitude to the vilest power there is, for you have become the servants and slaves of sin. Yes, you have become a nothing [i.e., an absence of goodness], since you become like what you are [Ps 135:18], and sin is nothingness. It has taken life from you and given you death in its place” (Catherine of Siena, “Dialogue,” # 35).
  5. The Meaning of Freedom
    • The First Meaning of Freedom: Choice without Coercion
      • This brings us to the meaning of freedom; there are two meanings (perhaps three – Sheed doesn’t specify what the third meaning could be) (179-2).
      • When we say the will is free, we mean it makes its decisions without coercion (179-2).
        • We are not “free” to choose evil, for evil enslaves, and an act that enslaves a person, as an unintended but necessary consequence of the act, cannot be an act of freedom. Therefore, we do not have the freedom to act contrary to the moral law. We only have the ability to do so (see excursus, “Freedom Excludes Slavery” that follows below).
      • Being free of coercion does not mean that the will chooses randomly. It has a proper object. (179-2).
        • As the object of sight is color, so the object of the will is the good” (179-2).
      • Note four items related to the will’s decision making (179-2):
        • The will must see a thing as being good in “some” sense or it cannot choose that thing (179-2).
          • We never choose to do evil; rather, we choose evil under the appearance of good.
          • The will is pre-disposed to desire that which is good; this is the first principle of the moral law; this disposition is called synderesis (Summa Ia, q. 79, a. 13).
        • The will does not choose a thing merely because it is good. The choice may be withheld (179-2).
        • Between two mutually exclusively good things, the will can choose either (or neither) (179-2).
        • The will is not coerced by the objects it sees as being desirable (179-2).
    • Our Freedom versus the Omnipotence of God
      • How can we reconcile an authentic freedom of creatures with the omnipotence of God?
      • Does not something escape God’s power if we are truly free? Is He truly omnipotent if He is unable to force our will? (179-3).
      • There is a mystery here, but we can see a hint of where the reconciliation may lie (179-3).
      • Analogy: Our being is real but contingent, having been created from nothing. It is no limitation to the infinity of God’s being that we lie outside of His being (179-3).
      • “It may be, perhaps, that just as our [finite] being does not limit God’s infinite Being, so our freedom does not limit God’s infinite Power” (180-1).
      • As written in the book, this is a false analogy.
        • In the first case, we are comparing two types of a similar thing: finite being and infinite being. In the second, we are comparing two related but dissimilar things: human freedom and God’s power.
        • We need to change the wording to the following to save the analogy: It may be, perhaps, that just as our [finite] being dos not limit God’s infinite Being, so our freedom to act does not limit God’s freedom to act [i.e., to exercise His infinite Power].
      • Though we cannot reconcile the apparently contradictory elements of this mystery, we know that we are free to choose because God has told us of the fact in a hundred ways (180-1).
    • The Second Meaning of Freedom: Fullness of Being
      • The second meaning of the word “freedom” refers to fullness of being (180-2).
      • We are free to choose our response to the moral law but we are not free to choose the consequences resulting from our response (180-2; also mentioned in chapter twelve – see 171-2).
      • We live in an ordered universe; the consequences of our choices are governed by the laws of the universe (180-2).
      • If our choices are in harmony with what God is, what we are, and what everything else is, we attain fullness of being, for then we are “being all that by nature we are, and doing all that by nature we are meant to do” (180-2).
      • Note this awkward sentence: “At this second level of freedom, we shall find that choice without coercion [i.e., that “choice without coercion” . . .], which was part of our initial equipment, but now at a level of development which makes the rudimentary thing [choice without coercion], almost infinitesimal by comparison” (180-2).
        • In other words, choice without coercion, for one who is living at the second level of freedom (i.e., according to the moral law, which produces fullness of being), is greatly superior to choice without coercion for one who is not living at the second level of freedom (i.e., is not leading a moral life and, thus, does not experience fullness of being).
      • Two Scripture passages elucidating this point:
        • “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom 6:22-23).
          • There is little benefit to the habitual sinner in his choice without coercion; there is great benefit to the righteous man in his choice without coercion.
        • “If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.” (Gal 5:18).
          • “‘He is under the law, who refrains from evil deeds, through fear of punishment threatened by the law, and not from love of virtue.’ In this way [on the other hand] the spiritual man is not under the law, because he fulfills the law willingly, through charity which is poured into his heart by the Holy Ghost” (Summa I-II, q. 93, a. 6).
    • Summarizing the Two Meanings of Freedom
      • We have the ability to choose as we please in our response to God’s law, and to act accordingly within the limits of our nature, but we cannot choose the consequences of our choices, for the consequences have been fixed from the beginning of time (180-3).
      • Further, “we [cannot] prevent any action of ours . . . from being used by God to His glory” (180-3).
      • Even our acts of rebellion (i.e., sins) serve to glorify God, though we are defiled by them. With regard to every moral decision we make, “God’s glory is not in question: only ours” (383-2).
        • “Whosoever shall glorify me, him will I glorify: but they that despise me, shall be despised” (1 Sam 2:30).
    • Excursus: Freedom Excludes Slavery
      • Rather than saying that we are “free” to act contrary to the moral law, we should say that we have the “ability” to act contrary to the moral law, and this for two reasons:
        • First, we have not been given permission to sin:
          • “He has not commanded anyone to be ungodly, and he has not given any one permission to sin” (Sir 15:20).
        • Second, if we act contrary to the moral law we sin, and “everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin” (Jn 8:34).
          • An act that enslaves a person cannot be an act of freedom, for slavery stands in opposition to human nature’s desire to be free.
    • Freedom versus Ability
      • Therefore, we do not have the freedom to act contrary to the moral law. We only have the ability to do so.
      • “The power to sin is not included in the idea of freedom, but is rather the defectibility of our freedom, just as the possibility of error is the defectibility of our intellect. . . . Genuine freedom then does not include disobedience, but rather excludes it. Genuine freedom wills, not evil, but always good. It chooses between two or many objects, none of which is bad, but all good” (Garrigou-Lagrange, Reality, p. 226).
        • Note that “choice differs from will in this, that will of itself regards the end, while choice regards the means. And thus simple will is the same as the ‘will as nature’; but choice is the same as the ‘will as reason,’ and is the proper act of free-will” (Summa III, q. 18, a. 4).
  6. Excursus: Angelic Knowledge and the First Three Instants of Angels
    • Aeviternity and Angelic Knowledge
      • “The nature of [the angel’s] ideas, at once universal and concrete, make the angel’s knowledge intuitive, not in any way successive and discursive. He sees at a glance the particular in the universal, the conclusion in the principle, the means in the end” (LaGrange, “Reality,” c. 23, p. 167; also see Summa I, q. 58, a.3).
      • “The angel does not pass successively, as we do, from one angle of thought to another. He sees at once, simultaneously, all the advantages and disadvantages. Hence his judgment once made is irrevocable. There is nothing he has not already considered” (LaGrange, “Reality,” c. 25, p. 173).
      • “The angel’s intuitive vision is also infallible . . . in his natural knowledge” (LaGrange, “Reality,” c. 23, p. 167).
      • Regarding the angelic instant of aeviternity, “which is the measure of one angelic thought,” note that each such instance “may correspond to a more or less long period of our time, according to the more or less deep absorption of the angel in one thought” (LaGrange, “Reality,” c. 25, p. 173).
    • Probable opinions on the first three instants of angels
      • The first instant (prior to the first angelic act): creation in the state of sanctifying grace with instantaneous awareness of God and his creation.
        • “It seems more probable . . . that [angels] were created in sanctifying grace” (Summa I, q. 62, a. 3).
        • “At the very moment of creation, [the angels] have perfect intuition of their own nature, and in that nature as mirror they know God as author of that nature . . . and they have instantaneous use of their own infused ideas” (LaGrange, “Reality,” c. 25, p. 172).
      • The second instant and first act: an act of merit or demerit
        • “The angel was beatified instantly after the first act of charity, whereby he merited beatitude” (Summa I, q.62, a. 3).
        • “The more probable [opinion] . . . is that the devil sinned at once after the first instant of his creation” (Summa I, q. 69, a. 6)
        • Regarding the Devil: “He was a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44).
      • The third instant: confirmation in beatitude (having chosen God over self) or reprobation (having chosen self over God)
        • “And he said to them, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven’” (Lk 10:18).
        • The reason for the instantaneous confirmation of beatitude or reprobation is that “the angel’s intuitive vision is . . . infallible” “there is nothing he has not already considered.” For this reason, he could never come to another conclusion (LaGrange, “Reality,” c. 25, p. 173).
        • St. Augustine concurs with the opinion, noting that the fallen angels were not given an opportunity for repentance:
          • “Since we know that the Creator of all good sent no grace of atonement to the bad angels, how can we fail to conclude that their sin was judged all the more culpable because their nature was so sublime” (Commentaries on St. John, Migne, 35, 1924; quoted by Fr. Hardon and found at the link below):
  7. The Sin of Angels
    • Choice of Self over God
      • Some of the angels chose self over God; they had the ability to respond to God’s law in that way because their wills were not coerced by any object, nor by the knowledge presented by their intellects.
        • But they were not free to choose the consequences of their choice (180-3).
      • The angels who chose self over God collided with reality, which could only be tragedy for them (181-1).
      • “We know with certainty . . . that Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven [and] into hell:
        • “God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment” (2 Pet 2:4).
      • “Our Lord warns human sinners that their ultimate place may be ‘that eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels’ (Mt 25:41)” (181-1).
        • In Scripture we find a reference to a battle between the good and the bad angels (Rev 12:7). The reference seems to be to that ongoing battle between good and evil (181-1).
          • It does not seem as though the passage could refer to the initial rebellion of angels who chose self over God, for that action caused their immediate eviction from God’s presence.
    • The Sin of Satan and His Demons
      • The sin of the fallen angels was pride; it had a radical effect: “The Devil and the other demons were created good in nature by God, but by their own act they became evil” (Decree “Firmiter,” Fourth Council of Lateran; 181-2).
        • That is, of their own free will they chose self over God. This choice did not change their good nature to an evil nature, but it did cause their wills to be permanently fixed toward evil, because “[the angel] sees at a glance the particular in the universal, the conclusion in the principle, the means in the end” (LaGrange, “Reality,” c. 23, p. 167; also see Summa I, q. 58, a.3).
        • “Everything which exists, so far as it exists and has a particular nature, tends naturally towards some good; since it comes from a good principle; because the effect always reverts to its principle. . . . But if anything of its nature be inclined to good in general, then of its own nature it cannot be inclined to evil. Now it is manifest that every intellectual nature is inclined towards good in general, which it can apprehend and which is the object of the will. Hence, since the demons are intellectual substances, they can in no wise have a natural inclination towards any evil whatsoever; consequently they cannot be naturally evil” (Summa I, q. 63, a. 4).
      • “Of their own choice they had demanded [to be independent] of God. . . . Faced with a choice between God and self, they had opted for self” (181-2).
        • In order to be independent of God they would have to have the power of God, which means they desired to be like God.
          • The Devil could not have sought to be God, for in doing so he “would be desiring his own ‘not-being’ since no creature can exist except by holding its existence under God.” This is because “there exists in everything the natural desire of preserving its own nature which would not be preserved were it to be changed into another nature.” Therefore, the Devil’s sin lies not in a desire to be God, but to be like God. That is, “he sought to have final beatitude of his own power, whereas this is proper to God alone” (Summa I, q. 63, a. 4).
          • Because both the determination of what final beatitude is and the means by which it is obtained is necessarily determined by the Creator, and because the Creator determined final beatitude such that it is to be acquired by the service of charity, the theological virtue which has its means and end in God, the Devil’s desire to have final beatitude of his own power is a refusal to participate in the requisite service of charity and is, thus, tantamount to a refusal to serve God.
          • Consequently, we find the Devil’s sin expressed by the prophet Jeremiah’s expression of the rebellious House of Israel’s attitude: “I will not serve” (Jer 2:20). Because “pride is the beginning of all sin” (Sirach 10:15 DR), the Devil’s sin is necessarily a sin of pride, in addition to whatever other kind of sin it may entail.
        • Concomitant with their desire to be like God is the desire to be above all other creatures. In their original state they were above all other creatures but their fall from grace was a fall in their moral state. Hence, in their self-induced state of obstinacy, they found themselves in a moral state far below that of the original state of man. This realization was a source of envy for these infernal spirits; it provided the motivation for the tempting of Adam and Eve:
          • “Through the devil’s envy death entered the world” (Wis 2:24).
      • “Love of self grown monstrous turned them to hatred of God, and in this hatred of God their wills were now set [i.e., fixed] so that they would [could] not change” (181-2).
        • As stated above: “The angel . . . sees at once, simultaneously, all the advantages and disadvantages. Hence his judgment once made is irrevocable. There is nothing he has not already considered” (LaGrange, “Reality,” c. 25, p. 173).
  8. The Effects of the Sin of Angels
    • Perpetual Torment
      • If the rebellious angels were to remain in existence, they could not be left completely without God because their very existence is a participation in the existence of God. If they were to be completely without God, they would cease to exist (181-2).
      • There are three reasons why the fallen angels were not annihilated:
        • First, if God were to annihilate the fallen angels, He would be acting in a manner that would be contrary to the nature He gave them, for “there exists in everything the natural desire of preserving its own nature” (Summa I, q. 63, a. 3).
        • Second, if God were to annihilate the condemned, the mortal sins of the condemned would all be punished equally, though not all mortal sins are of equal gravity.
          • For example, murder is one of the four sins that “cry to heaven for vengeance.” Hence, it is a greater sin than stealing a large sum of money, though both are mortal sins.
          • Because equal punishment for all mortal sins would be contrary to divine justice, annihilation of the condemned would likewise be contrary to divine justice.
        • Third, if God were to annihilate the condemned, He would be constrained to undo the good work He has done in creating the angel, who is meant to live forever.
          • The condemned remain as good and marvelous works of God, despite their being confirmed in a state of obstinate evil.
            • “For you love all things that exist, and you loathe none of the things you have made” (Wis 11:24).
          • Thus annihilation is contrary to the Wisdom of God.
    • Condition of the Fallen Angels
      • In the fallen angels we find two attitudes that could only mean anguish for them because their basic needs could not be met (182-2):
        • First, in their choice of self over God they would have nothing of God, except for His natural presence which they could not help but have, as noted above (181-2).
        • Second, their choice of self over God confirmed them in obstinacy against God’s will, which means they were confirmed in hatred for God. Because of their hatred for God, “they would not accept anything . . . He might do for them” (182-1).
      • They were created with basic needs that only God could satisfy. Because they would not and could not turn to the One whom they hated, they were left to the perpetual torment of unsatisfied needs (182-2).
        • To get a feel for this torment, consider the discomfort we experience when our basic needs for food and/or water are not met.
      • “Hating God, they could only hate one another. . . . [Hence,] they could give no comfort to one another. In their new destitution, there was nothing for them to give [i.e., there was only a complete lack of charity] (182-2).
      • Perhaps we see a hint of this torment in the Gospel passage where Jesus cast demons out of the Gerasene demoniac and allows them to enter a herd of swine rather than return to hell (182-2).
        • “And they begged him not to command them to depart into the abyss. Now a large herd of swine was feeding there on the hillside; and they begged him to let them enter [the swine]. So he gave them leave. Then the demons came out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned” (Lk 8:31-33).
      • Their wills are totally dominated by hatred. They hate God, angels (good and bad) and man (182-2). Yet, they still have a free will.
        • The problem a fallen angel has is that “[he] chooses with perfect knowledge, after consideration of all that is involved in his choice; [therefore,] he can no longer see any reason for reversal of his choice. Hence arises the demon’s fixed obstinacy in evil” (LaGrange, “Reality,” c. 24, p. 170).
      • “In their continuing hatred of God, they were to continue their warfare against good; having lost their battle with the other angels, they were to continue to fight against the souls of men” (182-2).
        • As Sheed noted above, Revelation 12:7 does not appear to point to the fall of angels, so there is a question of whether there could be any battle against the good angels prior to the fall of man, since the good angels were confirmed in beatitude (see below).
    • Excursus: Should We Fear the Demons?
      • No. They cannot cause us to commit sin; they can only temp us. They can cause us no harm as long as we remain close to God.
      • Our twofold attitude towards them:
        • On the one hand (at the time of temptation): “Begone, unclean spirit; be ashamed, miserable wretch; thou are very filthy indeed to suggest such things as these to me” (IOC, III, Vii, 4) ; “The wretch is to be condemned and scorned” whenever he troubles us (IOC, IV, 10, 2).
        • On the other hand (at all times): “The Devil never sleeps, neither is the flesh yet dead: therefore thou must not cease to prepare thyself for battle, for on the right hand, and the left, are enemies that never rest” (IOC, II, IX, 8)
        • “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Mk 14:38) for “your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pt 5:8).
  9. The Good Angels
    • Confirmed in Beatitude
      • Having chosen God over self, the good angels were confirmed in beatitude in their third instant.
      • Their reward is the Beatific Vision. Jesus says of them:
        • “In heaven [they] always behold the face of my Father” (Mt 18:10).
      • Their wills are fixed, as are the wills of the demons, for two reasons:
        • First, as mentioned above, the angelic choice is irrevocable, because “[he] chooses with perfect knowledge, after consideration of all that is involved in his choice” (LaGrange, “Reality,” c. 24, p. 170). Consequently, the wills of the good angels are perpetually fixed by their initial choice of God over self.
        • Second, seeing God, “who is universal good and very goodness itself . . . [they] cannot turn their will from Him” (Aquinas, “Shorter Summa,” c. 166, p.187).
          • They still have a free will, but it is irrevocably fixed on the Infinite Good by their own choice. If they did not have free will, they could not love God.
            • The ability to know and love is an integral aspect of the nature of every rational being.
      • Because their wills are utterly united to the will of God in charity, sin is impossible for them (183-1).
      • They experience the totality of freedom: freedom from coercion of the will and freedom “[to be] fully themselves, every power in fullest operation . . . That is freedom [i.e., perfection; fullness of being]” (183-1).
    • A Difference in the Testing of Angels and Man
      • Angels were tested individually, whereas man was tested corporately (183-2).
      • “Being pure spirits, each [angel] has to be created separately as to his totality; there is no element in them that is not the direct creation of God” (183-2).
        • Like angels, our souls are the direct creation of God, but our bodies are indirectly created by God, having come to us by way of our parents.
        • As a direct creation of God, the angels are unique in that each angel possesses a distinct nature that is different from every other angel.
          • “There cannot be two angels of the same species, because the only principle by which a substantial form can be individualized is matter. . . . But angels have no matter” (LaGrange, “Reality,” c. 25, p. 173).
      • Hence, due to the difference in characteristics between angelic nature and human nature, there is no organic connection between one angel and another, whereas there is an organic connection among humans (183-2).
      • It follows that there is a human race, but there is no angelic race. There could be a representative man, but there could not be a representative angel (183-2).
  10. The Gifts with Which the First Man Was Endowed
    • The Original State of Adam
      • The origin of Adam’s body is uncertain. It may or may not have been a direct creation of God. However, we do know that the soul of every man is a direct creation by God (183-3).
      • The original state of Adam’s soul is expressed in various ways:
        • The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of original holiness and original justice:
          • “The first man was . . . established in friendship with his Creator. . . . This grace of original holiness was ‘to share in . . . divine life’” (CCC 374 – 375). This is a reference to sanctifying grace.
          • “The inner harmony [i.e., integrity] of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called ‘original justice’” (CCC 376, 418).
        • Sheed expresses it thus: “The body was ruled by the soul and accepted the soul’s rule without rebellion.” He refers to this as “total integrity” and then lists the “four preternatural freedoms” (from concupiscence, suffering, death, and ignorance – see below) as something in addition to integrity (183-3).
        • Ludwig Ott speaks of sanctifying grace (original holiness) and integrity, but considers integrity to consist of the four freedoms (Ott, “Fundamentals of Christian Doctrine,” p. 103).
        • These notes will express the subject as “integrity and its four attendant freedoms.”
    • Integrity and Its Four Attendant Freedoms
      • Integrity, as expressed above, consists of “the body [being] ruled by the soul and [the body accepting] the soul’s rule without rebellion.” In other words, there was perfect harmony between body and soul (183-3).
        • “Within the soul, reason ruled,” and the first law of reason is acceptance of the will of God (183-3).
      • Freedom from concupiscence (irregular or inordinate desire) (183-3):
        • “[The first man] was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason” (CCC 377).
          • “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world” (1 Jn 2:16).
      • Freedom from ignorance through the gift of infused knowledge: “He began with an initial equipment of knowledge,” that was given to him, so that he had all the knowledge he needed to live intelligently according to God’s plan (184-1).
        • This does not imply that he would not need to acquire additional knowledge through his own effort (184-1).
      • Freedom from suffering through the gift of impassibility: The universe could not harm him (184-2).
      • Freedom from death through the gift of immortality (184-3)
        • “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living” (Wis 1:13).
        • As long as man remained unfallen, the animating power of the soul could make up for any wear and tear the body experienced in a universe that could not harm him (184-3).
        • In one sense, death seems natural because the body is made of parts and is, thus, capable of falling apart. On the other hand, death seems unnatural because man’s ultimate destiny is immortality (184-3).
    • The Principle of Supernatural Life
      • Man was made for the Beatific Vision, which is a direct and conscious contact with God himself, as was mentioned earlier in the chapter (185-2, 176-1).
      • By nature, we can only know a thing by way of an idea; the thing known is never in our mind. However, our destiny is to know God directly, without an intervening idea; that is, by direct and conscious contact with God (185-2, 176-1).
        • “We know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2).
      • Because it is impossible in the natural order to know a thing directly, we need a principle of supernatural life in order to know something directly in the supernatural order (i.e., in order to have the Beatific Vision) (176-3, 185-2).
      • This principle of supernatural life is not a development of our natural powers. We could not have this principle apart from it being a direct gift from God (185-3).
        • Note that the gap between non-living and living beings is not so great as the gap between natural life and supernatural life (185-3).
      • Though the gift is intended to enable us to see God directly when we are in heaven, we are given the gift in this life (185-3).
      • “What man does with [this principle of supernatural life] is the primary story of his life. Everything else is incidental, on the fringe, of no permanent importance” (186-1).
      • When we die, the only question that matters is whether or not we have the principle of supernatural life.
        • If we have it, we will certainly go to heaven (perhaps via purgatory).
        • If we do not have it, “then we cannot possibly go to heaven, for we could not live there when we got there” any more than we could live on the moon without a space suit (186-1).
      • “Grasp clearly that the [principle of] supernatural life, which we call also sanctifying grace, is not simply a passport to heaven: it is the power to live in heaven” (186-1).
        • This situation is similar to our inability to live under water without an external (supernatural) source of oxygen, food, and drink
        • Similarly, the “brightness” of the Beatific Vision would be painful to the soul that is unprepared for it, like the brightness of the sun is painful to eyes that have just come out of a dark room.
    • A Summary of the Effects of Sanctifying Grace
      • We can receive Sanctifying Grace in this life, but we will not experience its full effects in this life. In this life it serves as a means of preparation for the next life (186-2, CCC 1812, 1813).
      • Nevertheless, “it has vast effects in the soul all the same, enabling the soul to do things that by nature it could not do” (186-2).
      • Sanctifying Grace, infused into our souls when we are baptized (CCC 1266), imparts to us the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, the supernatural moral virtues of prudence justice, temperance, and fortitude, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord (CCC 1266, 1813).
        • The theological virtues are so called because their object [action] and end [goal, purpose] is God: we believe in God, we hope in God, and we love God (186-2).
          • The object of the virtue of faith is an act of belief in God and all He has revealed [i.e., an action].
            • The end [goal, purpose] of this act is a deeper knowledge of God.
          • The object of the virtue of hope is an act of trust in God.
            • The end of this act is absolute confidence that God will fulfill His promises by giving us the means to obtain eternal happiness, in this life, and the possession of eternal happiness in the next life.
          • The object of the virtue of charity is an act of love of God above all things for His own sake.
            • The end of this act is union with God.
        • The supernatural moral virtues have the universe as their object and, as with the theological virtues, they have God as their end.
          • The object of the virtue of prudence concerns acts of judgment in which one has to determine a course of moral action.
            • The end of this act is the salvation of one’s soul so as to “possess” God via the Beatific Vision.
        • “The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are permanent dispositions which make man docile in following the promptings of the Holy Spirit” (CCC 1830).
      • Sanctifying Grace raises us from the state of being only creatures of God to the state of being children of God as well (186-3).
        • We are made in the likeness of God because our souls are spirits, “but this natural likeness is as nothing [compared] to the supernatural likeness whereby . . . we are raised to such a likeness of His nature as joins children to their father” (187-1) .
          • “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness . . . that through these you may . . . become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4).
  11. Adam and Eve in Paradise
    • The Perfect Supernatural Man and Woman
      • Adam never existed as merely the perfect natural man. He was created, as were the angels, with Sanctifying Grace. Thus, from the moment of his creation he had two lives in him, the natural life and the supernatural life (187-2).
        • “Although there are conflicting opinions on this point . . . it seems more probable, and more in keeping with the saying of holy men, that [the angels] were created in sanctifying grace” (Summa I, q. 62, a. 3).
        • “Man and angel are both ordained to grace. But the angels were created in grace [as Augustine says]. . . . Therefore man also was created in grace. . . . [For] if the loss of grace dissolved the obedience of the flesh to the soul, we may gather that the inferior powers were subjected to the soul through grace existing therein” (Summa for q. 95, a. 1).
      • “He dominated the world: he was subject only to God. And in him the whole human race was tested” (187-2).
        • “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth’” (Gen 1:26).
      • “The first member of the human race to come from him was Eve . . . she too had the same gifts” that were given to Adam (187-2).
      • Hence, Adam was the perfect supernatural man and Eve was the perfect supernatural woman.
    • Their Principal Duty: Prayer
      • Their principle duty and supreme pleasure, in that unfallen state, was prayer. They were to converse with God, both speaking and listening to Him (187-3).
        • “That anyone, knowing that God both is and is everywhere, should not talk to Him is a kind of ridiculousness. There is no one else in whose company we so intimately and continuously are” (187-3).
      • Sheed asks: “If it is natural for us, as for Adam, to talk to God, what kind of thing would one say?” (187-4).
        • This could be mistakenly understood to imply that prayer is primarily concerned with speaking to God.
        • The reality is that prayer is primarily concerned with listening to God by pondering His revelation either in the form of creation, which is an expression of God in created reality, or in the form of Divine Revelation, in which He has expressed Himself by way of His son, the Word.
          • “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son” (Heb 1:1).
          • St. John of the Cross says of this: “In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word – and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son” (Ascent of Mount Carmel, 2, 22, 3-5).
          • The Virgin Mary, the exemplar of prayer: “But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Lk 2:19).
      • The prayer of Adam and Eve would have consisted of adoration (acknowledging the glory of God), thanksgiving (for all God had given them, of which they would have been keenly aware), supplication (as humans, they had needs, even in their unfallen state) (187-4)
        • Note the “missing” element: contrition, for which there was no need.
      • Adam’s prayer would have included the complete offering of himself, both body and soul, to God (188-2).
      • They would have offered sacrifice to God so as to “return” to Him some part of what He had given them in acknowledgement that all things come from God (188-2).
      • They would have offered the social element of their nature to God by prayer and sacrifice in common in addition to their private prayers (188-2).
        • The man who thinks worship in common with others is unnecessary doesn’t realize that he is leaving the social element of his nature unoffered to God (188-2).
        • Clearly, we cannot love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength if we withhold that social element of our nature.
          • “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself” (Lk 10:27).
      • Whatever else we might say about their life in paradise would be speculation. “What matters is that they began with all that was needed to reach their goal, and they threw it away” (188-3).
  12. The Testing of Man
    • Mankind Tested in One Man
      • The first period of human life was one of probation, a time of testing, as it was for the angels (189-1).
      • The testing was different from that of the angels in that it was done in one man who was the representative of the human race, rather than in each individual human being (189-1).
        • That the human race could have a “representative man” is indicative of the “solidarity of the human race,” which, on the natural level, is a single biological and social entity.
          • The subject of the “solidarity of the human race” is briefly addressed in 203-2, is further addressed in 275-2, and dealt with at some length beginning on 289.
        • There are many examples in Scripture where God speaks of a group of people as though it were one man. This especially true of the descendants of Abraham:
          • “He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and ordinances to Israel” (Ps 147:19).
          • “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos 11:1).
          • “And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son’” (Ex 4:22).
          • “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men” (Rom 5:18)
    • Adam’s Conditional Dominion
      • God had given Adam dominion over material creation (Gen 1:28), thus making him lord of the world; but there was a condition attached (189-2):
      • The condition is found in the Lord’s command expressed metaphorically in terms of a tree that bears fruit that, if eaten, produces “profound intellectual and spiritual consequences” (189-3).
      • The object of the condition was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
        • “And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:9).
          • Note that Adam received the command not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil from God (Gen 2:16-17) before Eve was brought forth from the side of Adam (Gen 2:22).
          • Hence, it appears as though Adam received the command from God, whereas Eve received the command from Adam.
      • The condition was that Adam’s lordship would be lost if he ate the fruit of that tree:
        • “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die’” (Gen 2:16-17).
          • Whatever this “fruit” was, there is no reason to believe it was an apple. It happens that the Latin word “malum” is a noun meaning both “apple” and “evil.” Hence, the first evil act of man has an accidental literary association with “apple.”
      • We don’t know if the command in Genesis 2:17 should be understood literally or figuratively, but we don’t need to know that. We only need to recognize that a command was given (189-3).
      • The command itself “is profoundly mysterious: therefore the condition God set for Adam’s continuation in happiness must also be mysterious” to us (189-3).
  13. The Sin of Man
    • The Temptation and the Sin
      • We can only speculate at how long Adam and Eve remained in Paradise. At some point, Satan tempted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, promising the following (190-1):
        • They would not die (190-1).
        • Their eyes would be opened (190-1).
        • They should be as gods, knowing good and evil (190-1).
          • “The serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’” (Gen 3:4-5).
      • “She took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate” (Gen 3:6).
      • Both Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, thus sinning against God. Like the sin of the angels, their sin was a form of self-assertion against God (190-1).
        • It is clear from the account in Genesis 3 that Eve was the first human person to sin. Why, then, does Paul state that “Sin came into the world through one man” (Rom 5:12)?
        • In Romans 5, Paul is speaking of the universality of sin in the human race. When Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, sin was in her alone, and it did not pass from Eve to Adam. It did not affect the entire human race; hence, it did not have a universal impact.
          • Consequently, sin did come into the world through Eve, but not in the universal sense of which Paul is speaking in regard to Adam in Romans chapter 5.
        • When Adam also partook of the forbidden fruit, condemnation did come upon the human race, for the offspring of the first procreative act of Adam and Eve would necessarily be tainted by their own fallen nature. Note two things:
          • First, “[God] made from one [man] every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).
            • Thus, every human being is a descendant of Adam; the nature he possessed is the nature passed on to every human being.
          • Second, it is a law of nature that the greater does not come from the lesser. Consequently, Adam and Eve could not pass on to their descendants a nature superior to their own.
          • The fallen nature they possessed is all that could be passed on to their descendants.
        • Hence, St. Paul writes: “One man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men” (Rom 5:18).
          • “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22).
        • The sin of Adam became a universal sin, for his sin does affect the entire human race.
        • Consequently, we can say that sin entered the world through Eve; condemnation entered the world through Adam.
          • This is an import point because there is a parallel to it in the plan for our redemption.
    • The Devil’s Promise versus Reality
      • Recall Jesus’ description of the Devil:
        • “He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own [fallen] nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44).
      • The Devil said they would not die. This was a “half-truth.” They retained their natural life, but they immediately experienced the loss of sanctifying grace, which is the spiritual death of the soul.
      • The Devil said their eyes would be opened.
        • This is true, but not in the way they understood it. Scripture says:
          • “The eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths” (Gen 3:7).
      • The Devil said, they should be as gods, knowing good and evil.
        • This was another “half-truth.” Rather than becoming like gods, they hide from the true God:
          • “The man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden” (Gen 3:8).
        • However, they did come to “know” good from evil. That is, what they had already known of good and evil they now came to know in a new way from their experience of sin.
    • The Consequences
      • “Like the rebellious angels, they had been free to choose [i.e., they chose their response to God’s command without coercion], but had not been free to choose the consequences of their choice” (190-1).
      • The consequences were calamitous, and “the consequences will not cease in the next life” (190-1).
        • This is especially true for those who refuse to repent of their sin and will cast themselves into hell, but it is also true for those who “work out their salvation” (Phil 2:12) in a lackadaisical manner.
          • “Because you are lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit you out of my mouth” (Rev 3:16 DR).
        • The ability of the minimalist Christian to participate in the glory of God will be diminished from what it was intended to be.
      • How long would the testing of Adam have lasted, if he had not sinned?
        • “As soon as Adam had attained to that happy state of seeing God in His Essence [i.e., the Beatific Vision], he would have become spiritual in soul and body; and his animal life would have ceased” (Summa I, q. 100, a. 2).
  14. The Sin of Man
    • The Temptation and the Sin
      • We can only speculate at how long Adam and Eve remained in Paradise. At some point, Satan tempted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, promising the following (190-1):
        • They would not die (190-1).
        • Their eyes would be opened (190-1).
        • They should be as gods, knowing good and evil (190-1).
          • “The serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’” (Gen 3:4-5).
      • “She took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate” (Gen 3:6).
      • Both Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, thus sinning against God. Like the sin of the angels, their sin was a form of self-assertion against God (190-1).
        • It is clear from the account in Genesis 3 that Eve was the first human person to sin. Why, then, does Paul state that “Sin came into the world through one man” (Rom 5:12)?
        • In Romans 5, Paul is speaking of the universality of sin in the human race. When Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, sin was in her alone, and it did not pass from Eve to Adam. It did not affect the entire human race; hence, it did not have a universal impact.
          • Consequently, sin did come into the world through Eve, but not in the universal sense of which Paul is speaking in regard to Adam in Romans chapter 5.
        • When Adam also partook of the forbidden fruit, condemnation did come upon the human race, for the offspring of the first procreative act of Adam and Eve would necessarily be tainted by their own fallen nature. Note two things:
          • First, “[God] made from one [man] every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).
            • Thus, every human being is a descendant of Adam; the nature he possessed is the nature passed on to every human being.
          • Second, it is a law of nature that the greater does not come from the lesser. Consequently, Adam and Eve could not pass on to their descendants a nature superior to their own.
          • The fallen nature they possessed is all that could be passed on to their descendants.
        • Hence, St. Paul writes: “One man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men” (Rom 5:18).
          • “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22).
        • The sin of Adam became a universal sin, for his sin does affect the entire human race.
        • Consequently, we can say that sin entered the world through Eve; condemnation entered the world through Adam.
          • This is an import point because there is a parallel to it in the plan for our redemption.
Unknown's avatar

About Dick Landkamer

In my day job, I'm an IT Analyst (BSEE, University of Nebraska) for Catholic Charities of Wichita. Outside of my regular job, I have a passion for theology (MA Theology, Newman University), sacred music, traditional church architecture, logic, philosophy, mathematics, physics, astronomy, and a host of other related things.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a comment