A rejoiner to Andrew's post below.
Preface: Although, my appraisal of your response to my post, is rather critical in nature, I will later post something that will elaborate and defend some of your intuitions.
The word “perfect” may not directly be in Scripture much, (neither is the word “Trinity”) but the concept is definitely there. Perfection is implicit throughout Scripture and specifically when referring to human nature prior to the Fall. Human nature was “perfect” prior to the Fall in virtue of God’s perfection. That is, God would not intentionally create something “imperfect”. That God intentionally made man imperfect or as a “work in progress” would not gain theological countenance by most Christians. I will elaborate on this a bit later, but first, I will survey a couple of things that you may have overlooked.
First, the concept of perfection is context relative. That is, perfection plays out differently depending upon the relevant object or attribute. For example, a perfect sphere would have a different set of attributes than a perfect apple. When using the term, “perfect” when referring to a sphere, it applies to a specific subset of properties, such as, perfect roundness, perfect symmetry, etc. However, using the term, “perfect” when referring to an apple, it applies to a subset of attributes such as, taste, freshness, texture, or whatever. Human nature has specific attributes it must possess, which are different from a sphere or apple, namely, moral goodness, rationality, volition, etc. (though perfection just does not apply to some attributes, such as skin color or height). Similarly, divine nature has specific attributes that human nature essentially lacks. That is, like the difference between the sphere and apple, divine perfection plays out differently than human perfection, depending upon the attributes.
The upshot of this distinction is that the general definition of perfection, outlined in my previous post, applies to all relevant objects (and attributes), but does so in specifically different ways, depending upon the type of attribute or object. Thus, Adam had a perfect human nature in that he was sinless (still in obedience to God), and had perfect volition, and rationality, and whatever else is necessary to human nature. However, he could never be perfect in the relevant divine sense.
Second, it seems you are conflating the two concepts, perfection and infiniteness, when referring to (Gen 3). Perfection does not entail infiniteness, and infiniteness does not entail perfection. For example, you can have a perfect sphere that lacks infinity, and you can have an infinite Universe that lacks perfection. Infinity connotes unboundedness (no limits). In this sense, God is infinite (and perfect). He is infinite and perfect in power, goodness, knowledge, etc., (infinite with respect to great-making attributes). However, God created Adam as a finite being. That is, Adam (and human nature) is limited in every way. God also created Adam perfectly (perfection in the relevant context of human nature). He created Adam without error, and with the impossibility of improving upon him. Similarly, Christ, as a human, was “perfect” but still “finite”; as you may know, the New Testament often refers to Christ as the Second Adam. People often fuse these concepts together into one, but the concepts are essentially distinct. However, by applying the conceptual distinctions between infinity and perfection, and between the different contexts in which perfection is applied, it will help enlighten our understanding and provide motivation, for reassessing your reading of (Gen 3).
Adam’s nature is already perfect, albeit finite, in the Garden. In eating from the Tree, Adam would acquire more knowledge than he had before. However, this knowledge is knowledge on how to sin (disobey God). Adam then commits his act of rebellion, resulting in sin, and thus, imperfection. Since God’s knowledge is infinite, Adam can never attain God’s level, but he can become more “like one of us”, and get “closer” in degree to God’s knowledge. Therefore, it is Adam’s knowledge, NOT his nature that becomes more “like one of us”, as (Gen 3) states. That is, Adam’s knowledge was more extensive (like God’s) after eating from the Tree, but Adam is not any closer to “divine” perfection in virtue of his action and newfound knowledge. It is a categorical mistake to say that any human can attain “divine” perfection. It is impossible for any being ever to actualize God’s perfection. Although, Adam is “perfect” regarding his “human” nature prior to the Fall, he is nonetheless “finite”.
< Qualification: Adam’s knowledge on how to sin, results in his imperfection, whereas, God may know how to sin, but cannot sin since He is BOTH perfect AND infinite. Human perfection entails, at least, the logical possibility of becoming imperfect, via sin, but it is impossible for divine perfection ever to obtain imperfection. That is, God is necessarily perfect, while Adam in only contingently perfect. Also, God's infiniteness and perfection taken in conjunction are mutually reinforcing. >
Third, your analogy of the sculpture and reference to Christian traditions that view Adam’s perfection as being “made in God’s image”, is misplaced, if my view is correct. I interpret the phrase, “made in God’s image”, to mean, more precisely, that Adam had a “finite” subset of God’s attributes, not as a literal likeness of God. This may be another example of taking metaphors too seriously.
Therefore, with the distinctions between infinity and perfection, and the distinction between the different contexts of perfection, it follows the paradox still stands as originally outlined.
As far as your reference to the Catechism, I do not see, based on what you posted from St. Thomas, St. Leo, and others, how these quotes support the view that human nature can be perfected beyond what it was prior to the Fall. I read those quotes differently. Instead, they seem to imply, that humans cannot understand or appreciate God’s full goodness and grace without first being in a state of disrepute or deviation. However, that has nothing to do with man’s perfection, but rather with man’s finite knowledge. That is, man is not in an epistemological position to know grace without first knowing his sinful status.
No comments:
Post a Comment