Origin of the First Desire to Sin

New Apologetics Our response is forthcoming.

January 28, 2013 at 11:25am · Like · 2

Ankit Dhawan For Adam to have choice, at least two options had to be created. Option-1: obey God and live eternal life of glory as a consequence; or Option-2: disobey God and earn death as a consequence. So, my question is who created these two options? If the answ…See More

January 29, 2013 at 6:40pm · Like

New Apologetics Ankit Dhawan

In this thread, we will respond to your questions concerning Satan as well as your question concerning Adam’s sin. They are related.

You wrote: God created Adam a perfect human being. Where does the first desire to disobey God come from? Alright, I have read that first it was the serpent and then it was Eve who influenced Adam. But my question is more fundamental… there was a desire that was introduced in God’s perfect system to disobey Him, what is the root of that desire? Adam was as perfect as Jesus, before he fell. So, how did he get the thought of disobeying God? 

We reply:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil. Where does evil come from? “I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution”, said St. Augustine, and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For “the mystery of lawlessness” is clarified only in the light of the “mystery of our religion”. The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace. We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.”

Now, that last sentence is of tremendous import. God is the *conquerer* of evil. He therefore does not cause evil, and does not approve of evil in any way. We also call attention to the first sentence: “God is infinitely good and all his works are good.” Catholic teaching therefore entails the following:

1) God is perfectly good.
2) God is not the cause of any evil.
3) God does not approve of evil in any way.
4) Everything God created is good.
5) All being is either God or is created by God.
6) All being is good. 

In Catholic thought, “goodness” is a transcendental property. By “transcendental”, we mean that it transcends categories of distinction among beings, and applies to *all* being. On correct metaphysics, “goodness” and “being” are convertible terms. It would be a serious mistake to say that evil is a kind of being in its own right or has power of its own. All that exists is good (when considered in itself). Therefore, evil has no positive reality, but is an absence. It is an absence of unity and right order which ought to obtain among what exists. 
Beings who *do* evil are good in their being. Their essence is good, but through an abuse of their power, they have turned from right order. 

When we say that God infinitely opposes evil, we are not saying that there is such a thing as metaphysical evil, but that there is only *good* *dislocated* or contorted. It is the violation of right order that God opposes, not the metaphysical substratum.

God is infinitely just, and cannot give any degree of approval to any violation of right order. As we discussed previously, through the redemption, God can transform wrong order into right order such that the two are co-extensive. In other words, from all eternity, all things are following a perfect new order of divine providence even though there are horrendous evils infinitely opposed by the goodness of God. We showed previously how these apparent contraries can be harmonized.

Now, it seems that you may have been under the misunderstanding that we were advocating some form of *dualism* in this discussion. We categorically deny that there is such a thing as a good/evil dualism with reference to existence. God is the creator and sustainer of only the good. In holding Lucifer in being, God has only willed to hold *good* in being. Lucifer has willed to abuse God’s self offering, and this is how disorder first comes into creation. 

In the next comment, we will look at the origin of sin given the metaphysics above. It will take multiple comments to articulate the explanation. If it is acceptable to you to wait until there is some semblance of a clear picture before critiquing the explanation, that would be our preference. Of course, please do interject if it appears needful.

You wrote:
Again, to make the discussion provocative I conjecture that desire to disobey God originates from God Himself, for Him to claim to be the source of everything. If it is not God, then there is some other being parallel to God who has the audacity to challenge God’s authority. I reject any notion of any power who can do anything without the sanction of God. Thoughts?

We reply:
We absolutely deny that there is any being that is evil in its essence such as to act as a competing power contrary to the goodness of God. God holds everything in existence, and every being is good in its essence. 

You wrote:
For Adam to have choice, at least two options had to be created. Option-1: obey God and live eternal life of glory as a consequence; or Option-2: disobey God and earn death as a consequence. So, my question is who created these two options? If the answer is God, then why did He make death a consequence of disobedience when He knew all along that He will have to take this suffering upon Himself? This dilemma is like a circular reference that you get in the spreadsheet! even before Adam disobeyed, God could have changed the causal relationship between sin and death and still achieved His goal of divine justice.

We reply:
Consider that only *beings* need to be created. Causal powers and their consequences follow directly from the *nature* of the created beings and the nature of their proper *relationship* to one another. When a being or the relationship among beings is violated, then the violation and the consequence are inextricable. Consider that if we humans were to pollute the world and destroy the environment on which we depend, then God does not need to say “How shall I punish these people?” Things are not *arranged* as they ought to be, though they are good in their existence.

The Church officially rejects the idea that punishment is imposed extrinsically by God. Rather, the disorder is its own punishment:

“These two punishments [eternal and temporal] must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1472)

The “consequences” of sin, therefore, are not “pre-loaded” traps in the order of things set by God as a punishment. Rather, the consequences *are* the violation of the order. They are one and the same thing. Death is not a consequence of sin that is added after sin by the will of God. It follows by necessity: If we are separated from right order, then we are subject to disorder. 

Continuing on to the origin of sin…

February 6, 2013 at 6:12pm · Like

New Apologetics Ankit Dhawan

We are going to provide some background from the Catechism first, and then follow it with further explanation:

“387 Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.”

“390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”

“391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy. Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.”

“392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels. This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like God.” The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.”

“393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. “There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.””

“394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning”, who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father. “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.”

February 6, 2013 at 6:24pm · Like

Ankit Dhawan Thanks for your response. I will restrain myself from asking questions until you give me the OK to do so. So far, I have found your explanation as lingual gymnastics similar to the popular saying “glass half full or glass half empty”. The accountabilit…See More

February 6, 2013 at 8:03pm · Like

New Apologetics Ankit Dhawan You wrote: So far, I have found your explanation as lingual gymnastics similar to the popular saying “glass half full or glass half empty”. The accountability of emptiness and fullness has to reside somewhere. 

We reply: That is exactly the conclusion you ought to have given the reasoning offered so far. We’ve only defined the basics of what we don’t believe and have not yet given a direct answer to your question.

February 6, 2013 at 9:02pm · Like · 1

Nick Hennessey Ankit dhawan I want to say I am really glad for your questions on this page. It is clear that you are an open and humble man and this is shown in your questions which search for truth. I assure you that your pursuit of truth is a great blessing to St. Augustine. Please know that your search is Holy and God will reveal himself to you in a special way.

February 7, 2013 at 9:55am · Unlike · 2

New Apologetics Ankit Dhawan We couldn’t agree more with what Nick says in the comment above.

February 7, 2013 at 9:57am · Like

Ankit Dhawan Thanks Nick! Let all the glory to be to the power behind our collective search. Praise to flesh only feeds pride, so lets keep God in the center, as we thank and encourage each other. I appreciate all the attention the kind administrator of this site is giving to my questions. I also hope that some of you will walk with me outside your comfort zones as I have challenged myself. I may not get to my destination, but the journey itself is unshackeling and worth every bit of my remaining mortal life.

February 7, 2013 at 11:17am · Like

New Apologetics Ankit Dhawan Nick’s praise of your openness and humility is not praise of your flesh, but is in honor of the work of God to make you like himself. Love of truth as you’ve demonstrated it is not possible without God’s grace. 

You’d better start getting used to receiving glory without deflection as you have an infinity of glory/honor coming to you from God and from all the saints.

February 7, 2013 at 11:28am · Like · 1

Ankit Dhawan Thanks for your kind words. Please complete your explanation so that we can put this issue to rest. In my study previously, one of the well known commentators candidly admitted that God has not revealed the source of desire to sin to us and it is one of the great unsolved mystery of Christian faith. Please prove him wrong! Without settling this question, the whole foundation of redemption is meaningless.

February 7, 2013 at 7:38pm · Like

New Apologetics Ankit Dhawan

Thank you for your your perseverance in waiting for our answer to this. The topic is incredibly complex, and presupposes many elements of Catholic philosophy (most notably the relationship of grace and created nature) before it can be clearly expressed. Part of the delay was the issue of how to reduce the answer to its essentials to avoid bogging down the discussion in terms of abstruse philosophy. The following is the basic answer (detail can be added as needed):

God who is infinite and incomprehensible has made created persons who are finite. These creatures are not created out of the divine substance, but are called into being out of nothing by the will of God (this is a difference from the Vedas). They are created good. Everything about their nature is good, and there is no element of evil in them. 

So, wherefore the first inclination to sin in the fallen angels?

Consider that, no matter how exalted, the creature is always finite, and a finite creature cannot, in itself, comprehend the infinite God. Therefore, every created person must make a decision to trust God beyond what that creature can know in itself. Created persons must go *beyond* themselves in order to be in proper relationship with God. When the angels were created, they had to make a *decision* to trust God. They could not perfectly understand him. They understood all that they could understand, and God was not hiding anything from them. This situation was neither a “test” set up by God, nor was it a designed failure, but it was the logically necessary result of the distinction between the infinite creator and the finite creature. 

A relationship of trust in the goodness of God despite his incomprehensibility is the necessary precondition of a relationship of love. There is no alternative since God infinitely exceeds one’s intellectual capacity. Now, it is the will of God to bestow (upon the person who chooses to receive it) a supernatural union of the divine nature and the nature of the creature such that the creature can share in the vision of God’s essence *directly*. In this vision, it is impossible for a creature to sin because all desire is fulfilled. However, this elevation to *supernatural* beatitude is a bridge that can only be crossed by the trust of the creature in a free act of self-offering in response to God’s grace. 

[Note: A little-known fact is that free will is *not* the ability to choose between good and evil. If it were, then God would not be free because (unable to sin) he can only choose good. Instead, free will is the ability to offer oneself to another in a self-initiated act of love. One may choose to abuse freedom and renounce this option of self-offering. In doing so, a person becomes radically less free, not more. If one makes a perfect decision to love, then one is perfectly free. If one makes a perfect decision to self-withhold, they kill freedom entirely.]

No matter what *evidence* God shows a finite creature, it cannot convince a person who will not make the decision to trust God who is beyond any finite capacity to understand. Lucifer, and many angels who followed his lead, decided to not give themselves to God. Rather than have their glory through a bestowed gift from another, they chose to have a self-made glory (in so far as it was possible). 

The difficulty faced by the fallen angels was not an inclination to evil as such, but that their beatitude was to be found only in something that transcended their natural powers. Had they accepted God’s grace, then they would be confirmed in goodness through seeing God as he is. In refusing it, they are confirmed in evil because their decision was made in perfect natural knowledge without any possibility of receiving new information.

They would not trust him, and no act of God could possibly be enough to convince them. Why? The infinite cannot be understood by the finite, and God had fully shown forth what could be comprehended apart from the free response to his love. There must be a “going beyond the self” in order to enter into a love relationship and make oneself available for the supernatural transformation which enables one to see God “as he is.”

The question arises as to why God did not simply create the angels “confirmed in goodness” by creating them in the direct supernatural apprehension of the divine essence through a union of God’s nature with the nature of the angels. Why not just give them in advance the gift that would come after this difficult act of going beyond oneself? The reason is that the relationship between God and created persons is intended to be one of love (self-gift). Love requires a respect for the person (and hence the nature) of the other, and if God had pre-fused the divine and angelic natures into this relationship, then the “love” of the angels would be forced, and therefore would not be self-gift. Instead, it would be a kind of rape perpetrated upon the angels by God forcing himself upon them. The notion of “self-gift” on the part of creatures would not have any meaning whatsoever, and their very personhood would be violated. 

It is because of the situation that necessarily follows from the infinite gulf between the infinite and the finite that the angels had the motive to sin. It was not in God’s design in any way.

February 15, 2013 at 6:05pm · Like

Ankit Dhawan Thanks very much for the response. I will study the response and ask my follow up question… Just to be clear, this response so far only address the origin of first desire to sin. I did not see the causality between the first desire to sin (or refuse God’s grace) and death. I take that will follow. Without appropriately studying your response, my immediate question is: Did Lucifer and other rebellious angels know the consequences of the two choices presented to them? For the purpose of our discussion, I am going to go back in history before Adam/Eve were created and assume the role of one of the angel and then contemplate the choices presented to me and how was I making that choice. 

I don’t know if I thank you enough for your kindness in answering my questions. I am indebted to you for your kindness.

February 15, 2013 at 7:21pm · Like

Ankit Dhawan NA response: ” These creatures are not created out of the divine substance, but are called into being out of nothing by the will of God (this is a difference from the Vedas). They are created good. Everything about their nature is good, and there is no…See More

February 15, 2013 at 8:31pm · Like

New Apologetics Ankit Dhawan You wrote: Just to be clear, this response so far only address the origin of first desire to sin. I did not see the causality between the first desire to sin (or refuse God’s grace) and death. 

We reply: The connection between sin and death is necessitated by the nature of sin. Consider the following:

1) Whatever comes from God is well-ordered. Each part of the system of things makes a harmony of interrelated connectivity for the sake of the good of all.
2) Sin is a violation of the order of things as intended by God.
3) For any well-ordered system where there is an integrated interconnection of one part with the functionality of every other part, the introduction of disorder will eventually compromise the whole system.

Death is the result of a small disorder in the material world rippling through a tightly interconnected system of order. The small disorder afflicts every rightly ordered thing that is connected to it. The reality is that everything in the natural world is connected to it. There is not one thing in the universe that is not causally affected by your every action. Now, we know that much from science alone without the benefit of revelation.

You wrote:
I take that will follow. Without appropriately studying your response, my immediate question is: Did Lucifer and other rebellious angels know the consequences of the two choices presented to them?

We reply:
They made their choice in a knowledge of the consequences that was so clear that there is no possibility of receiving new information such as to change their minds.

You wrote:
For the purpose of our discussion, I am going to go back in history before Adam/Eve were created and assume the role of one of the angel and then contemplate the choices presented to me and how was I making that choice. 

We reply:
Consider that the angels had to make a “leap of faith” just like you despite their exalted intellects. It doesn’t matter how smart we are. The difficulty is a matter of the infinite gulf between God and any finite creature. The finite creature must allow God to draw it beyond itself to receive a beatitude that cannot be conceived prior to receiving it. It isn’t easy, and it cannot be avoided by any favor that God does. There is still the infinite gap that can only be bridged by charity.

You wrote:
I don’t know if I thank you enough for your kindness in answering my questions. I am indebted to you for your kindness.

We reply:
Your patience is admirable. God may be using our habitual delays as a means of fine-tuning for your soul.

February 25, 2013 at 4:29am · Like

New Apologetics Ankit Dhawan

You wrote:…See More

February 25, 2013 at 5:30am · Like

Ankit Dhawan Followup on Causal relationship between death and sin: You keep repeating the notion of perfect order/ original justice of God… I can safely say that I get the original plan that God had for created beings. But, that is not my question. I will ask the question differently to encourage a direct response:

1. God is the original fountainhead of all creation. (True/False?)
2. God is Sovereign (True/False?)
3. God is the cause of all causes (True/ False?)
4. Obedience to God, leads to eternal life (True/ False?)
5. Causal relationship between obedience and eternal life is God’s design (True/ False?)
6. Disobedience to God, leads to sin; sin leads to suffering or death (True/ False?)
7. Causal relationship between disobedience and suffering is natural order (True/ False?)
8. As God is sovereign and the Original designer of this creation, that will include all natural causal relationships that exist (True/ False?)
9. If 8 is “True”, then God is the designer of the causal relationship between sin and death (True/ False?)

Further, may I request that you give a “Yes/ No” answer to my specific question: Did Lucifer and other rebellious angels know the consequences of the two choices presented to them?
After responding to this question as “Yes/ No”, may I ask you to rationalize their choice.

February 25, 2013 at 7:33pm · Like

Ankit Dhawan You write: “When considered in itself, the angelic nature was not inclined to evil …” 

If I am Lucifer the angel, and I have been given choice to select among a variety of *goods*, and I am not inclined to evil, and I know he consequences of my choice- then why in the world will I choose to rebel? Where does that desire come from? Can you please give me a “for dummies” version of response so that I can follow? Thanks!

February 25, 2013 at 7:49pm · Like

Ankit Dhawan Just so you know, I did not follow the whole St. Thomas’s thesis into the sins of angels…. may be I am not ready to follow such a deep and complex issue.

February 25, 2013 at 8:07pm · Like

Ankit Dhawan I urge you to continue with the dialog re: Lucifer’s rebellion… you have left this question hanging for quite some time. If there is no answer, then please say so and I will close the ticket on this thread.

February 28, 2013 at 8:39pm · Like

New Apologetics Ankit Dhawan We have not yet looked at your response. We will, and will respond at the first opportunity.

February 28, 2013 at 8:49pm · Like

New Apologetics Ankit Dhawan We are going to import the discussion here up into one of your newer posts (which has yet to be shown on the page). That way, the discussion will be more accessible to new readers.

March 19, 2013 at 2:31pm · Like · 1